I would not agree into something so futile as it is devoid of any reality when it comes down to the actual situation. You can try to use the argument of a kid lunging at you with a fork but you know you are making a tongue and cheek point just to see if I would fall for it. If that's an honest argument, you really lost the plot.

But yeah let's leave it at that. I've had enough amusement with you. :)

Lmao. You really think a lot of insurance companies will pay for everything? How naive. They will fight tooth and nail to only pay the bare minimum of what you should be getting.

It's not a gotcha moment. It's a prime example of people not knowing what the fuck they're talking about and trying to make a point. Nobody told him to get hold of the gun and point it at the jury in that manner. It's his ignorance seeping out. If you don't give two-shits about it when he's trying to make a closing argument, then that's just hilarious. If you feel that you don't need guns, then you be you. But let people who are decent to have them if they feel that they need it. If we live in an alternate reality and succeed in taking away guns, another thing will just emerge from it. Or the bad ones will have it. Case in point. Nazi Germany.

Yes. You cannot convince me as this post of yours reeks so much bias. I'm merely killing time here and having some fun trying to see how a lot of you folks twist this thing to make it seem like there was no justice here. It's like a small version of Twitter in here. Nothing but an Echo chamber to validate your beliefs.

By the way, you forgot to mention that Kyle was also there helping the community before the shooting happened. Also if I remember correctly, his friends and family live in Kenosha. But who cares. He shouldn't have drove 20+ miles to go to a community and try to help. It's not as if violence wasn't being rampant throughout that time to which the media would say, it has been a "fiery but peaceful protests" while a whole fucking building burns at the background.

One last thing. If you're trying to disparage his character for being a white supremacist because he maybe friends with one. Be careful who you make friends with. If you are friends with closet Neo-Nazi, by that logic, I will label you a Neo-Nazi as well. Birds of the same feather right? What a great argument!

First of all, I will say that this statement of mine has nothing to do with legality of this incident. So just in case someone wants to twist my words again. This post is just talking about the reality of nature.

First rule of nature, you respect whoever has the advantage. You don't go crying when you try to fight someone with fists and up losing because he had a gun or is more experienced than you. Huber was a fucking idiot. He wanted to play "hero" because he was convinced he was. He chased Kyle, tried smack him, got shot and died. I mean who knew someone's self preservation will kick in when you try to smack someone in the head with the skateboard during a really incident where a mob is involved. It's a pure failure of common sense on his behalf.

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.

---

The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.

I'm very glad we actually live in countries which aren't this bloodthirsty, if you want that, there's a certain few countries that are backward enough where they shoot into crowds of protesters, at least you aren't saying they should be shot for destroying property so I suppose that's progress. I also want cops to be able to think under pressure, accurately assess a situation and the danger levels, their first response should not be to whip out the pistol and start blasting, especially not towards a damn fist fight, Lol, might as well just let the army police America with that logic.

Of course more people die from being physically hit than being shot because way more people get physically hit than shot, Lol. That's not what we're talking about though, we're comparing them on an individual basis from a cops view, it is much easier to kill someone with a gun (or knife) than a punch. Cops DO take into account threat levels and "reasonable force" response is a legit thing in law (at least, here it is). What weapon someone is using absolutely does and should change the response, not everything requires a bullet, Lol. I think a lot of your post forgets that we're talking about this from a cops perspective too, not a regular citizen.

"HE'S GOT A SKATEBOARD, FIRE AT WILL LADS!" - See how ridiculous that sounds?

I'm picturing the cops in the London riots who had stuff thrown at them being like "that's it lads, they got violent, start blasting!" Insanity. It seems like you think the only role of a cop is to point gun and shoot bad guy, also this is without getting into how stupid shooting a live bullet into a crowd actually is.

Alright then, I'm only arguing with the person that thinks more deaths from non-guns means bats are as deadly as AR-15's. If your quote wasn't you agreeing with that portion of his argument than my mistake. 

Previous replies not withstanding. I will say it sucks that people want to dump on the 2nd and 3rd people shot. Their understanding was that they were responding to an active shooter in a crowd. Sucks that they died but I appreciate their desire to stop the situation. If Kyle's intentions mean that the shootings were self defense than the intentions of the others should be taken into account as well. 

Here is a scenario for you.  Lets say you are out and about like Kyle and you see someone break a window of a store.  You with your trusty gun point it at that person and they turn around and shot you.  Would the person who shot you be able to claim self defense.

The point is that you are not a police officer so your ability to point your gun at anyone unless they are directly attacking you goes out the window.  Once you point your gun, then the terms of engagement changes and its whoever shoots first wins the day.

Nothing make me smile more than when someone just totally do not understand context. I have no clue what the heck you are talking about that I am pushing that games make people violent.  Since it probably escaped you since you are very much so keen to not see the slight humor of walking around with your gun in your hand like Call of Duty which mind you is a game where you walk around with your gun always in your hand.

Also you have no clue on "My Way" because if I was Rittenhouse, I would have shot everyone as well because at that point he is getting attacked.  My point is that his decisions as well as the attackers lead to this situation and if he came up against the wrong people he would have been dead.

Even your reply says you would do the same stupid thing believing you are in the right because as you say, the Police was not doing anything but the police is the authority.  You going out to protect some property that isn't even yours and wind up dead, maimed or paralyzed for life, you would be thinking to yourself if not 6 feet under, why did I not just say home.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  Nothing I have written has defended or justified the actions taken by the rioters or looters regarding the destruction of private property.  In fact, I have said the exact opposite.  That being said, the tales of widespread rioting and destruction through out the US was LARGELY exaggerated.  My point was that to those who did experience losses, there were financial windfalls through insurance, government aid, and/or civil lawsuits.  "Destruction of their way of life" is just hyperbole.  I would much rather rely on the legal system to sort this out, rather than vigilante justice.  I value lives more than property.

---

There's a pretty obvious explanation for why the Rittenhouse trial has garnered so much attention.  It is controversial.  There are two sides, not everyone agrees, and everyone felt there was a lot at stake in the trial.  I hear about Ahmaud Arbery in the news every day, so I do not know what you are talking about there, but I would agree the Kyle Rittenhouse trial was perceived as much higher stakes.  But I also notice much less controversy in the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial... most people seem to agree it was murder.  Also, just in case it needs to be stated, no one is saying that every black police suspect or black criminal is killed by police... it's about the statistics.

---

I hope you are not saying white supremacists are not real?

---

The Nick Sandmann case is interesting, but it did not highlight media bias.  Like many other cultural flashpoints in America these days, the story originated from a video that was widely spreading on social media.  Obviously the media had to report on it as well, but they were reporting on a video that did not contain all the context.  As the days went on and journalists were able to do more digging, they discovered more information and revised their narratives.  There was no cover-up.  A lot of people were duped, and it did not help that the key witness, Nathan Phillips, either lied about what went down or was equally oblivious.  The biggest criticism I have is against media personalities who jumped on the story without waiting a day or two (but that's not how media works).

You say this can all could be resolved with the even the smallest amount of research, but hindsight is 20/20.  Even the March for Life rally (the reason Nick Sandmann and his classmates were in Washington DC) released a statement that criticized the students for their behavior, before walking it back a few days later.  Every lawsuit filed by Sandmann was either dismissed or eventually settled.  That does not imply guilt, but it is often cheaper to settle than to pay for lawyer and court fees.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to media companies to not just run stories on random internet videos with political agendas, without stopping to ask if there is more to the story.

I'm just trying to bring us back to reality here. If my child rushes me with a fork I shouldn't shoot him in response even if some people die from accidental fork stabbings. Kyle can be reasonable in his actions at the time without equating every single weapon even vaguely capable of killing someone. We aren't supercomputers but we should be able to differentiate use of force in different scenarios. 

Your mind reading skills need work. 

There are literally pictures of Kyle making white supremacist hand signs.

---

The very fact that there is so much disagreement and discussion in this forum is evidence enough that this is not an echo chamber.  An echo chamber is a place where everyone agrees so they feel better about themselves.  If people disagree with you, that certainly does not mean they all agree with each other.  Stop trying to deflect and with the old "if I can't convince them, they are all biased against me".

If you do not want to have a discussion, then I guess there is no sense in continuing.

Indeed, I could assume what you meant based on your warped views, but still... I wanted to leave you with the option to save face. The history of Austria is that there's a precedent for a mandated jab that lasted for over three decades. The result was that the illness in question was eradicated, so a mandated jab is not harmful, but the exact opposite. The reason why the anti-COVID-19 jab is planned to be mandated from February 2022 onwards is because Austria slipped into this situation due to the government banking on the population to do the right thing voluntarily. This, however, was very ill-advised considering the strong presence of the far-right in this country. Not only did the traditional far-right political party rally hard against common sense since the start of the pandemic, but another two new parties who are all about the single issue of anti-vax gained traction, one of which got into the regional parliament of Upper Austria. It's no surprise that Upper Austria with its highest concentration of stupid people is now due for the strictest measures to regain control of a situation that has spun out of control. Austrian's population at large isn't opposed to the government taking action, rather it's the opposite because the seemingly oblivious bunch of government politicians is finally starting to do their job after ignoring the analyses of experts for months.

The prerequisite to be against vaccination is the belief that vaccination is more harmful than the illness it works against, a belief that is neither based on science nor facts.

What exactly do you mean in the context of Austria when you say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

I don't go around and call anyone I disagree with far-right. I say that you are far-right based on your irrational behavior and argumentation that is basically the textbook definition of a far-right mindset. I don't expect to change your mind either, because a defining trait of the far-right is that they are so far gone that they can't be reasoned with anymore. This really shows in the discussion about Austria where you seriously believe that a mandated jab is something negative when it's realistically the only way to put a country with far too many stupid people in it back on the right track. Without the mandated jab, Austria would be bound to lock down again in 2022 because the voluntary vaccination rate is far below the necessary threshold.

As for the USA portion of the discussion, you live in a country where you personally would rather trust teenagers with assault rifles than the police to protect its citizens.