Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm asking you in general, not about this case specifically. You seem to think that killing someone in self-defense is somehow wrong, which is rather extreme.

I would argue that it is wrong but sometimes necessary. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, he put himself in the situation. He wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he hadn't been in the situation with a rifle in the first place.

 

[John53]

I'm not sure what your question is. I certainly don't know your position... I assume you aren't for defunding the police...

Apology accepted

 

[ChristineM]

Sometimes you have to.

Do you? I don't.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would argue that it is wrong but sometimes necessary. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, he put himself in the situation. He wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he hadn't been in the situation with a rifle in the first place.

If it was legal for him to carry a gun, I don't see a problem with that. Maybe idiots shouldn't attack people with rifles and they would still be alive. Talk about a Darwin award.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you? I don't.

Well, I've been shot at, threatened and a shotgun has been pulled (SWAT blocked off my block over that lunatic). So I guess I have been in such situations. I didn't have the means to rightfully blow them away, unfortunately.

 

[John53]

If it was legal for him to carry a gun, I don't see a problem with that. Maybe idiots shouldn't attack people with rifles and they would still be alive. Talk about a Darwin award.

2 people getting killed is not a problem?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

2 people getting killed is not a problem?

Not if it's self-defense. Why should I care that they were stupid and got themselves killed?

 

[Revoltingest]

What i find interesting here is that of those "focussed" on it's no biggie that 2 people were killed just happen to be pro life. I wonder at what age the hypocrisy becomes ok?

"Pro life" typically refers to anti-abortion beliefs.
Killing in self defense is different.

 

[John53]

Not if it's self-defense. Why should I care that they were stupid and got themselves killed?

Sympathy for their families? Kindness? Common sense?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What i find interesting here is that of those "focussed" on it's no biggie that 2 people were killed just happen to be pro life. I wonder at what age the hypocrisy becomes ok?

I'm pro-innocent life.

 

[Estro Felino]

I would argue that it is wrong but sometimes necessary. In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, he put himself in the situation. He wouldn't have needed to defend himself if he hadn't been in the situation with a rifle in the first place.

Surely.
But this does not justify those who chased him and attacked him.

I would not feel threatened by a 17 year old boy who looks younger.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sympathy for their families? Kindness? Common sense?

Again, why should I care that they were stupid and got themselves killed? It's their own fault.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If it was legal for him to carry a gun, I don't see a problem with that. Maybe idiots shouldn't attack people with rifles and they would still be alive. Talk about a Darwin award.

If I remember correctly, it wasn't legal for him to do so.

But even if it were, that legality comes with a personal responsibility that a 17 year old is not ready for. It's an example of how some gun owners' irresponsible behavior impacts the rights of responsible gun owners.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sympathy for their families? Kindness? Common sense?

Not everyone who dies really deserves it.
When tempers flare, some people who are otherwise
good....good enuf...will do bad things. In such cases,
the "bad" can be shared with the circumstances.

 

[John53]

Again, why should I care that they were stupid and got themselves killed? It's their own fault.

How about the cost of a trial then? Surely there's at least 1 problem.

 

[John53]

Not everyone who dies really deserves it.
When tempers flare, some people who are otherwise
good....good enuf...will do bad things. In such cases,
the "bad" can be shared with the circumstances.

I think I agree but I don't really understand.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If I remember correctly, it wasn't legal for him to do so.

But even if it were, that legality comes with a personal responsibility that a 17 year old is not ready for. It's an example of how some gun owners' irresponsible behavior impacts the rights of responsible gun owners.

There is that. But at that same time, I still wouldn't attack someone with a rifle. Well, unless I had one, too.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Surely.
But this does not justify those who chased him and attacked him.

I would not feel threatened by a 17 year old boy who looks younger.

Nope. It's a tragic incident where multiple problems occurred. But Kyle, and the adults who encouraged him, need to share in this responsibility.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

There is that. But at that same time, I still wouldn't attack someone with a rifle. Well, unless I had one, too.

So you see someone with a rifle and you would attack them if armed? Isn't that the opposite of self-defense?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think I agree but I don't really understand.

Some people go out intending mayhem.
Others have mayhem thrust upon them.