Viewing a thread - So if you would bring a gun to a riot for protection

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 11:07

Ron (Cen. IL.) - 11/23/2021 09:55

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 09:33

Ron (Cen. IL.) - 11/23/2021 09:27

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 09:22

Ron (Cen. IL.) - 11/23/2021 09:12

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 08:58

Ron (Cen. IL.) - 11/23/2021 08:00

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 07:44

Ron (Cen. IL.) - 11/23/2021 07:34

happycatcher - 11/23/2021 07:01

OntarioCanuck - 11/21/2021 16:42

And i don't get any explanation
Perhaps that is why I do not understand.

Because the explanation is simple and one many people don't want to admit or come to terms with: that little snot was there to hunt people. He crossed state lines, lied about being an EMT, and started a bunch of crap with people who were not rioting buildings. What did he think would happen? That they would just ignore him? And at no point did he attempt to provide medical care with his little medical kit. He went there with a weapon and used that weapon to kill two people and paralyze another. He was there hunting for lives. He had no business being there. He went there looking for trouble and now two people are dead for no reason. He should have left the police do what their jobs were and stayed out of it. The punishment for rioting is not death. And the people he killed were not rioting.

If he was there to "hunt" people, why was he running away from them?

He didn't shoot until he had no other choice ( I don't consider being beaten an acceptable choice.

Who did he paralyze?

Your post contains a lot of inaccuracies.

Grosskreutz lost 90 percent of his right arm. That might not be full body paralysis, but it is still paralysis. And had he not been there with a weapon, he'd have had nothing to run from and no one to shoot. He had absolutely zero reason to be there and now two people are dead and one injured permanently.

His grandparents owned a filling station in the area.

The people that were shot had no reason to be there.

Chasing someone with a gun down the street isn't a good idea.

I've had this argument with my sister, I finally asked if she had seen the video. "I've seen what they show on TV."

And by the way, if MY child was shot

getting a pack of skittles

Walking to their car

Going for a jog

Playing at the park

Reaching for their driver's license

And with their dying breath called out my name

I'd be in the streets too.

I understand that, but did any of the people Rittenhouse shot have a child that was shot?

What reason did they have for being in the street?

Bottom line, they were looking for trouble.

They could've walked away, that's what Rittenhouse was trying to do and they wouldn't let him.

Ideally, they were there peacefully protesting. Unfortunately lately these things have been turning into rioting, which isn't new and can happen any time a crowd of people gets together. One starts knocking out windows which emboldens another one to, then another. Then before you know it you've got a crowd of people destroying things and that is unfortunate and when our leaders need to send in proper reinforcements to protect property and ensure the safety of citizens. A 17 year old boy should not randomly show up with a gun and antagonize the people there. It was trouble waiting to happen. What did this white child think would happen if he showed up to an already angry group of mostly black people with a very visibly, very large weapon? The right frontal lobe of the human brain is not fully developed until 24 or so, and unless this child is some sort of psychopath, will most likely grow up and see the error of his ways. Unfortunately two people are now dead and no amount of growing up on that child's part will ever bring them back.

Yeah, if I set fire to a dumpster and was pushing it toward some parked cars or a filling station (I've heard both), and some 17 year old kid put it out, it would certainly "antagonize" me.

Edit: but if he was carrying a gun, I don't think I'd be chasing him down the street.

This whole thing reminds me very much of the Trayyvon Martin situation. What's his face had no business following that poor child around yet claimed self defense when he was confronted. Had that man left Trayyvon alone, none of that would have happened. Just like if Kyle had not been there, this wouldn't have happened. People, especially the far right will continue praising and excusing what Kyle did and calling it self defense while many and probably the majority of people do not see it that way.

I don't see how it could be called anything other than self defence.

The first person that was shot had soot (powder burns) on him, he was trying to grab the gun when he was shot. He had just been released from a mental institution that day and was shown on other videos to be "aggressive" and "combative" with other people that were carrying guns. What do you think he was going to do with the gun if he got it away from Rittenhouse? A witness testified that he said "I'm going to (blanking) kill you" to Rittenhouse before he was shot.

The second man was hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard when he was shot.

The third man (you know, the "paralyzed" one) testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he started to point his pistol at Rittenhouse.

If you chase a dog down the street, corner him and start beating him, don't complain if you get bit.

Yes, and because of all these scenarios, this is why he was found not guilty due to self defense. The issue I and many (maybe not here) are making that if Kyle had not gone there with a very large and visible weapon, none of this would have happened. If a black man showed up with a large gun to a huge crowd of white protesters, this could have easily been the other way around. And I'm sure if it was a black man who showed up to a large group of white protesters with a huge weapon and this situation was reversed, most of you would be singing a very different tune.

So if you would bring a gun to a riot for protection	View previous thread :: View next thread
Forums List -> AgTalk Cafe	Message format