Kyle Rittenhouse

Taichiliberal said:
translation: another alt-right wonk who can't handle simple logic. Okay genius, once more for the intellectually impotent:
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for anyone else. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. It is YOU denying logic here. A fallacy is an error in logic. You keep making them.
Taichiliberal said:
You show up from another state,
Click to expand...
It is legal to show up in another State.
Taichiliberal said:
get an assault weapon that you are not legally allowed to have in that state,
Click to expand...
It is legal to carry a gun. Define 'assault weapon'. Buzzword fallacy.
Taichiliberal said:
dress up in pseudo-paramilitary garb,
Click to expand...
He can dress however he wants.
Taichiliberal said:
strap on a first aid kit,
Click to expand...
What's wrong with a first aid kit???!?
Taichiliberal said:
then enter an area of civil unrest,
Click to expand...
He is allowed to go where he wants.
Taichiliberal said:
professing to volunteer assistance with defense of business and home owners.
Click to expand...
And he was.
Taichiliberal said:
You belong to no local organization
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to.
Taichiliberal said:
nor do you align yourself with one,
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to.
Taichiliberal said:
and you're not approved by local law enforcement to take such a position.
Click to expand...
Law enforcement praised him for his actions. They also helped to further defend Kyle at the scene by driving back thugs.
Taichiliberal said:
Then you get into an altercation that results in you killing two people and wounding another.
Click to expand...
Self defense is legal.
Taichiliberal said:
....a situation that WOULD NOT have happened if junior had kept his Turner Diaries fantasy at home in his own state, fuming and fussing at the TV.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Kyle broke no law.
Taichiliberal said:
No one asked junior to show up as he did
Click to expand...
He doesn't need to be invited.
Taichiliberal said:
... he became a self appointed doer of justice.
Click to expand...
ALL citizens are self appointed doers of justice. Stopping criminal behavior is part of that responsibility.
Taichiliberal said:
As I always say, you are entitled to free speech, and in this case free action....but you are not immune from the consequences of said speech or action.
Click to expand...
Rioting, burning, looting, and pillaging is NOT free speech.
 
Into the Night said:
Kyle has the right to travel where he wishes. The Kenosha PD was stationed at positions to try to contain the violence somewhat. They didn't have enough manpower to stop the violence.

I❤BBC
Click to expand...
Only a fucking moron thinks he has a right to endanger the lives of innocent people.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. There's enough reasonable doubt on the "self-defense" defense to drive a truck through.

OTOH, Kyle appears to clearly be guilty of all the lesser charges, the worst of which is endangering innocent people. He could easily end up with a 10-15 year sentence on those charges alone.
Click to expand...
Self defense is legal.
Dutch Uncle said:
FWIW, I'm happy with Kyle getting off on "self-defense". Grosskreutz's mistake was hesitating to shoot Kyle with lawful use of deadly force. All Americans take heed of the mistake and do not hesitate next time in shooting down an active shooting terrorist/white supremacist militia member.
Click to expand...
Self defense is not terrorism or racism. Redefinition fallacies.
Dutch Uncle said:
When it comes to terrorists, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Kill all TERRORISTS.
Click to expand...
Self defense is not terrorism or racism. Redefinition fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
Self defense is legal. That includes defense of property, defense against bodily harm, defense of family, and defense of the community.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you are breaking into my house at night I have a right to blow you away with my 12 ga pump. What I don't have a right to do is endanger anyone standing behind you or waving my gun around at innocent people.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. If you are breaking into my house at night I have a right to blow you away with my 12 ga pump.
Click to expand...
You are now locked in paradox. Which is it, dude? Do you have the right to defend property with deadly force or not??
Dutch Uncle said:
What I don't have a right to do is endanger anyone standing behind you or waving my gun around at innocent people.
Click to expand...
Kyle was not brandishing. Rioters, looters, and arsonists are NOT innocent people. Redefinition fallacy. Kyle was an excellent shot. He dispatched the threat without aiming at anyone behind the threat.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. There's enough reasonable doubt on the "self-defense" defense to drive a truck through.
Click to expand...
What I've been saying all along. The trial reinforced that.
Dutch Uncle said:
OTOH, Kyle appears to clearly be guilty of all the lesser charges, the worst of which is endangering innocent people.
Click to expand...
First you say " There's enough reasonable doubt on the self-defense" , then, " Kyle appears to clearly be guilty of all the lesser charges, the worst of which is endangering innocent people" That's a contradiction. He couldn't have defended himself without endangering others.

Dutch Uncle said:
FWIW, I'm happy with Kyle getting off on "self-defense". Grosskreutz's mistake was hesitating to shoot Kyle with lawful use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Much bigger mistake was pointing a pistol at Kyle's head. Kyle never shot anyone that he didn't perceive as a threat.
 
anonymoose said:
What I've been saying all along. The trial reinforced that.
First you say " There's enough reasonable doubt on the self-defense" , then, " Kyle appears to clearly be guilty of all the lesser charges, the worst of which is endangering innocent people" That's a contradiction. He couldn't have defended himself without endangering others.

Much bigger mistake was pointing a pistol at Kyle's head. Kyle never shot anyone that he didn't perceive as a threat.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If you are firing at from a crowd, does that give me the right to return fire risking hitting innocent people?

If I did, would those innocent people be justified in using self-defense to shoot me?

How do you tell what someone with an AR is thinking after you just saw them shoot down two unarmed people (no guns seen except the shooter's)?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I disagree. If you are firing at from a crowd,
Click to expand...
Are you firing at a crowd or are you firing from a crowd? I just don' see how it's possible to fire "at from" a crowd.
Dutch Uncle said:
does that give me the right to return fire risking hitting innocent people?
Click to expand...
If you have no choice I'd certainly think so.

Dutch Uncle said:
If I did, would those innocent people be justified in using self-defense to shoot me?
Click to expand...
You're presenting hypothetical situations that never happened in this case so it's a moot point.
Dutch Uncle said:
How do you tell what someone with an AR is thinking after you just saw them shoot down two unarmed people (no guns seen except the shooter's)?
Click to expand...
You don't. But you sure as heck don't put yourself in harm's way. There was no way for those idiots to know that Kyle had to make a split second decision to defend his life.
 
anonymoose said:
What I've been saying all along. The trial reinforced that.
First you say " There's enough reasonable doubt on the self-defense" , then, " Kyle appears to clearly be guilty of all the lesser charges, the worst of which is endangering innocent people" That's a contradiction. He couldn't have defended himself without endangering others.

Much bigger mistake was pointing a pistol at Kyle's head. Kyle never shot anyone that he didn't perceive as a threat.
Click to expand...

Uncle is locked in a variety of paradoxes. He still tries to argue both sides of each one. It's irrational.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top