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

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. 



...

Around the Network
Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

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. 

I mean it's futile to even bring such a thing up. Why would I even bother arguing against something like that? You're not a computer or superhuman to be able to calculate what your actual fucking odds are. It doesn't work like that. All you got are your instincts which a lot of people do not have at all. When you get into a physical conflict, whatever happens, you signed up for it. Now what comes out legally, is an entirely different situation.

When something happens that wasn't intended, there's no "Oh it was an accident" or "I didn't mean to do that". Kyle shot back as a means of self preservation. That's about it. He was running away from the Child Molester who tried to grab his gun while another stupid idiot behind the Child Molester thought it was a good idea to shoot his pistol in the air. He was running away from the crowd till something knocks him down on the ground Huber did something stupid. He shot Huber while his back was on the ground. So I don't know what the hell are you trying to twist this situation into but it is hilarious!

Last edited by iron_megalith - 6 days ago

thismeintiel said:
Machiavellian said:

So are you saying that anyone walking around in your neighborhood with their gun in their hand does not present a clear and present danger.  As a gun owner, I would never just walk around with my gun in my hand unless I mean to use it.  Gun on your back, Gun holstered means you are just carrying.  Gun in your hand with no one knowing your intent says, I am looking for action.  Kyle did not have to start anything, he needed to have his gun not in his hands walking around like he is in some video game.  What you do not understand, is that Kyle was lucky, he ran up on the right people because you can believe there would be people who would not hesitate to pull that trigger.  He also got lucky when he ran up on the right police because also with gun in hand, they could easily have recognize him as a threat and dropped him.  Anyone of the rioters could have claim self defense if he pointed his gun at anyone, anytime during this incident.

If Kyle was smart he would have left when he saw any rioting and alerted the cops.  It just so happen this time he was the killer, he might not be so lucky the next time. 

You talking about you have the right but this does not prove anything beyond that everyone will have the same right.  Whoever shoots first gets to go home.  I can assure you if something jumps again and Kyle believing he is in call of duty walks around with his gun in his hands looking for action, he might be the one getting his head shot off when up against someone who will not hesitate to pull the trigger.

Yea, I can see you didn't watch the trial. Kyle did have it on his back for most of the day. It wasn't until shit started going down that he took it off his back. He also never did point his gun til threatened. 

And go to the cops? You mean the ones who weren't doing shit and letting the community burn. Probably told to stand down or do the minimal. Of course, if the cops shot a bunch of violent rioters, you'd be bitching, too.

Hilarious that you're on a video game board pushing that supposed Right-wing puritan belief that video games cause people to be violent. If anything, Kyle was incredibly disciplined with that gun. 100% of the people who didn't attack Kyle are still alive. Hell, a lot of the people who got in some cheap shots are alive, too.

Again, sorry, not sorry, it didn't go your way and we actually have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our community.

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.



thismeintiel said:
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.

---

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.

---

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, and society can also judge the actions of those trying to destroy that property.  And sane people do not have much sympathy for people destroying property of people that have nothing to do with whatever BS thing you are rioting over and will instead sympathize with those who are trying to defend that property.  It's also pretty elitist to just assume everyone can afford and has insurance on their houses and businesses, just so you can justify that destruction in your head.  It's not just things to them, it's the destruction of their way of life.  Of course, people who like to say its just things have no empathy for those people, pr people in general, but sure as HELL wouldn't be saying the same when the riots come to their house.  That's why those bastard mayors and governors who tell the cops and National Guard to stand down have a quick change of heart once the rioters get a little too close to their families' homes.

Sadly too many people are guided by the biased media and don't look at the actual facts of the cases, or the number of cases, involved to realize that rioting, or even protesting, has no basis in reality.  There was no coverage of the black school shooter in Texas who was out on a bail of $75K less than 24 hrs of him shooting inside a school.  Shouldn't he have been shot on sight if the narrative was true.  A case in Georgia that may actually have to do with racists killing a black man hasn't gotten nearly the same coverage as the Rittenhouse case, which involved no one of color.  Why?  Because stripping law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves is more important to them than actual racism.  They also know that if the facts of the case definitely point to them being racists, the vast majority of people will agree and come together on it.  Can't have that.  Not good for ratings.

And you guys keep that White Nationalists/Supremacists narrative alive.  It's just going to make it easier for Rittenhouse to sue the ass off of these media companies, just like Nick Sandman.  The kid you guys were saying was a racist White Nationalist/Supremacist who harassed a Native American.

And if you can't see that the media is biased, then that is most likely because you yourself are biased. Too many people think that black people were shot.  That Kyle had the gun illegally.  That he crossed state lines with it, not that I think that is even illegal.  That he was marching up and down the streets all day pointing the gun at people.  That his mom drove him, which I have no idea what that has to do with anything.  Hell, people actually think Jacob Blake, the piece of garbage that the riots were even started over, is dead.  Even after the trial, some people, including people who should know better like politicians and celebrities who supposedly were following the case, were saying these things.  Why?  Because many media outlets were reporting them as pretty much fact.  They only slowly started walking it back when it was proven wrong in court and they know they have a chance of being sued over it.  These are ALL things that could have been debunked with just the smallest amount of research.  But, that wouldn't fit their agenda, so they just ran with whatever they wanted to be true, just like the Nick Sandman incident.  Again, if you can't see how biased that is, that's all you.

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.



iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

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. 

I mean it's futile to even bring such a thing up. Why would I even bother arguing against something like that? You're not a computer or superhuman to be able to calculate what your actual fucking odds are. It doesn't work like that. All you got are your instincts which a lot of people do not have at all. When you get into a physical conflict, whatever happens, you signed up for it. Now what comes out legally, is an entirely different situation.

When something happens that wasn't intended, there's no "Oh it was an accident" or "I didn't mean to do that". Kyle shot back as a means of self preservation. That's about it. He was running away from the Child Molester who tried to grab his gun while another stupid idiot behind the Child Molester though it was a good idea to shoot in the air. He was running away from the crowd till something knocks him down on the ground Huber did something stupid. He shot Huber while his back was on the ground. So I don't know what the hell are you trying to twist this situation into but it is hilarious!

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. 



...

Around the Network
Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

I mean it's futile to even bring such a thing up. Why would I even bother arguing against something like that? You're not a computer or superhuman to be able to calculate what your actual fucking odds are. It doesn't work like that. All you got are your instincts which a lot of people do not have at all. When you get into a physical conflict, whatever happens, you signed up for it. Now what comes out legally, is an entirely different situation.

When something happens that wasn't intended, there's no "Oh it was an accident" or "I didn't mean to do that". Kyle shot back as a means of self preservation. That's about it. He was running away from the Child Molester who tried to grab his gun while another stupid idiot behind the Child Molester though it was a good idea to shoot in the air. He was running away from the crowd till something knocks him down on the ground Huber did something stupid. He shot Huber while his back was on the ground. So I don't know what the hell are you trying to twist this situation into but it is hilarious!

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. 

You can try to bring up apples and oranges but it's not gonna work. You're just looking silly.

If you're trying to say that what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident is not a reality, then I question what reality you have.



iron_megalith said:
Torillian said:

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. 

You can try to bring up apples and oranges but it's not gonna work. You're just looking silly.

If you're trying to say that what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident is not a reality, then I question what reality you have.

Stop trying to read between the lines before you read the actual lines themselves. I am arguing against someone that said "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"

Now do you agree with the quote (in which case there's a debate to be had about how math and stats work and how they should be interpreted) or not (in which case I have no real debate with you on that topic)



...

My conversation was specific to cops as Thismeintiel tried to get another user on a "bet you'd be bitching if the cops shot a bunch of violent rioters" whilst lacking all sorts of context so I wanted clarification on this attempted gotcha but now I'm just shaking my head in disbelief, it wasn't about Kyle or regular civilians.

Though now I'm curious on all sorts of scenarios, if all things share the same threat levels, can a cop shoot someone who uses a pencil as a weapon since it could kill someone if stabbed in the right spot too? If there's two people doing fisticuffs in the streets, can the cop then shoot one of them as they perceive them to be a threat, without knowing who the instigator even is?

Giving cops free reign to shoot at any perceived threat is an absolutely awful idea I can't even begin to imagine how terrible that would go, American police are already trigger happy as it is, I don't see why you want to make that even worse, and that's without getting into the fact that the cop doesn't know who instigated it if we're talking about civilians fighting each other.

Cops absolutely should be able to asses situations if the threat is directed towards them too and use the appropriate response, they have more at their disposal than just a pistol, Lol.

But I think I've said all I have to say on this, I know how I want cops to behave, I sure as shit am glad they don't behave like a deer in headlights, Lol.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - 6 days ago

Ryuu96 said:

My conversation was specific to cops as Thismeintiel tried to get another user on a "bet you'd be bitching if the cops shot a bunch of violent rioters" whilst lacking all sorts of context so I wanted clarification on this attempted gotcha but now I'm just shaking my head in disbelief, it wasn't about Kyle or regular civilians.

Though now I'm curious on all sorts of scenarios, if all things share the same threat levels, can a cop shoot someone who uses a pencil as a weapon since it could kill someone if stabbed in the right spot too? If there's two people doing fisticuffs in the streets, can the cop then shoot one of them as they perceive them to be a threat, without knowing who the instigator even is?

Giving cops free reign to shoot at any perceived threat is an absolutely awful idea I can't even begin to imagine how terrible that would go, American police are already trigger happy as it is, I don't see why you want to make that even worse, and that's without getting into the fact that the cop doesn't know who instigated it if we're talking about civilians fighting each other.

Cops absolutely should be able to asses situations if the threat is directed towards them too and use the appropriate response, they have more at their disposal than just a pistol, Lol.

But I think I've said all I have to say on this, I know how I want cops to behave, I sure as shit am glad they don't behave like a deer in headlights, Lol.

Don't bother, Ryuu....hypotheticals seem to be ineffective in this particular conversation. 



...

Torillian said:
iron_megalith said:

You can try to bring up apples and oranges but it's not gonna work. You're just looking silly.

If you're trying to say that what happened in the Kyle Rittenhouse incident is not a reality, then I question what reality you have.

Stop trying to read between the lines before you read the actual lines themselves. I am arguing against someone that said "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"

Now do you agree with the quote (in which case there's a debate to be had about how math and stats work and how they should be interpreted) or not (in which case I have no real debate with you on that topic)

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. :)