By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
IvorEvilen said:

I'm gonna have a bit more sympathy for someone out there protecting their own property, particularly their home. Otherwise, I'm gonna trust that they have insurance and can weather the unfortunate turn of events.  If you seriously think it is worth risking your life in defense of things, well, that's your prerogative.  But we as a society still reserve the right to judge your actions.

The reality was that the vast majority of people and property were at minimal to no risk of damage over the course of the summer of 2020.  I'm sorry if you were negatively impacted by the riots in any shape or form, but I suspect most people are outraged by the hypothetical, not the actual scenario.  There are legal remedies to damages that were sustained.  But we unfortunately cannot bring the dead back to life.  While I am disappointed in the results of the Rittenhouse trial, I would rather see legislative reform rather than outrage leading people down a path to anarchy.  If both sides do not think the law can protect them, whether physical, property, or otherwise, we go down a dangerous path.

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.

IvorEvilen said:

I cannot really comment on Binger, because myself, like many Americans, do not really care to educate myself on gun operation.  I do not need to know how to operate a firearm to know how dangerous they are.  I can see the data.  I have talked to a number of Americans who think that me not knowing something about gun operation is a "gotcha" moment.  I do not give two-shits about how to operate a gun.  It's a deadly weapon.  I have no need for such an instrument.


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.

IvorEvilen said:

For your last point, to deny the race element in this entire discussion is kind of "missing the point"... and also assuming all of this happened in a vacuum.  This was a racially charged issue from its inception.  As another commenter pointed out above, this particular night of rioting was occurring during demonstrations following the Jacob Blake shooting.  Rittenhouse was there with a gun to assist police officers in policing demonstrations that were intended to protest excessive use of force by police and over-militarization of police, particularly against minorities and people of color (this was the political speech I was referencing in my initial post).  The fact that police did not see Rittenhouse as a threat, in contrast to the widely publicized incidents of police being too quick to shoot now and ask questions later when dealing with people of color... just seemed to provide even more evidence for people that police are crooked.

Not to mention Rittenhouse getting all buddy-buddy with white nationalists... Yikes.

I cannot convince you that media is not biased.  But there is a distinction between news reporting, editorializing, and entertainment.  None of the media I consumed was "preaching things that never happened", but there was investigative reporting, interviews, analyses of the trial, etc.  All of this was evidence-based or clarified that "details were not verified".  The more outlandish things I saw were always on social media (left and right) about completely fabricated details that I could not fathom where they were coming from.

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!

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 22 November 2021

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
Ryuu96 said:

Uhh, I'm sorry, so we're clear, are you seriously suggesting it would be okay for a cop to fire into a crowd of rioters if they're perceived as being violent? We're talking real bullets, too.

Anything can be deadly, sure, so does that mean we just shoot at any level of danger? Ignoring the fact that while yes, anything can be deadly, some things are much more likely to be deadlier than other things if used, someone is much more likely to kill you with a bullet versus a punch, someone running towards a cop with a skateboard versus running towards them with a knife should absolutely not result in the same defensive measure for both.

There is such thing as "reasonable force" in these scenarios, with this logic, police in America would be killing basically everyone who is violent, the purpose of the police force isn't only to be a death squad, at least, not in UK.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

@bolded. Do you recognize that there are many more people hit physically each year than getting shot? We don't base the risk to life of an action on how many people in total get killed from it each year. If that was the case driving a car is less risky than deep sea diving or tightrope walking. I mean so many more people die of driving I guess they're basically the same. 



...

thismeintiel said:
Ryuu96 said:

Uhh, I'm sorry, so we're clear, are you seriously suggesting it would be okay for a cop to fire into a crowd of rioters if they're perceived as being violent? We're talking real bullets, too.

Anything can be deadly, sure, so does that mean we just shoot at any level of danger? Ignoring the fact that while yes, anything can be deadly, some things are much more likely to be deadlier than other things if used, someone is much more likely to kill you with a bullet versus a punch, someone running towards a cop with a skateboard versus running towards them with a knife should absolutely not result in the same defensive measure for both.

There is such thing as "reasonable force" in these scenarios, with this logic, police in America would be killing basically everyone who is violent, the purpose of the police force isn't only to be a death squad, at least, not in UK.

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

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.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 22 November 2021

Ryuu96 said:
thismeintiel said:

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

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!"

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.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-leth- Oh. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Kyle was running away. As rough as it sounds, Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it. Hope you come to accept it as time goes by.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 22 November 2021

iron_megalith said:
Ryuu96 said:

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!"

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.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-lethal. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Yes, I'm well aware that anything can be deadly, that doesn't mean everything has the same odds of being deadly and doesn't mean every single bit of violent display is on the same threat level and requires a bullet, if a cop can't determine that then he doesn't deserve to be a cop.

Also, I thought you was done with this thread. 🤔

Also I don't think you've read the conversation cause this isn't about Kyle, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 22 November 2021

Around the Network
iron_megalith said:
Ryuu96 said:

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!"

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.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-lethal. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it.

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 



...

Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-lethal. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it.

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 

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.



iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

Is your argument therefore that any weapon that could be deadly should be met with the same use of force as any other weapon that could be deadly regardless of their likelihood to end in death? 

A skateboard can hurt, but I would gladly face someone with a skateboard over someone with a knife, and gladly face a knife over an AR-15, and gladly face an AR-15 over a tank. The idea that all of those attacks should be met with the same level of force makes absolutely no sense to me. If someone starts throwing punches outside a bar should police shoot them just in case? 

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 died for it. 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 chaotic incident. It's pure failure of common sense on his behest.

so it's not just as deadly.....we're at least clear on that?



...

Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

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 died for it. 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 chaotic incident. It's pure failure of common sense on his behest.

so it's not just as deadly.....we're at least clear on that?

Doesn't matter. That's not my argument.



iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

so it's not just as deadly.....we're at least clear on that?

Doesn't matter. That's not my argument.

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. 



...