E.H. Ruddock wrote:Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
That is completely insane. No, taking a gun somewhere you think your life might be in danger does not "probably mean he had intent to use it."
And again. Sources. show me something that implies he had intent to use it beyond the fact that he had a gun. Obviously, we can't know what's going on in anyone's head, but we can at least show behavior.
Would you like for me to repost the videos showing the behavior of his initial attacker?
If he thought his life might be in danger then why did he go to begin with?
C'mon burt, you dont actually believe the shit that comes out of your fingers do you? You just like getting a rise out of liberals, yea?
Strat wrote:You dont have to answer that. I used to have regular dreams about killer clowns from outer space.
What do you think happened here? Please give sources for that where you can.
I have no idea. ANd im not really here to have a serious conversation about it because its pointless.
All i know is angry little white boy wanted to go play army and he made some bad choices and now he is gonna have to pay for it and live with it the rest of his life.
you have no idea? None? Have you watched any of the videos? I don't know why you just default to this ad hominem every single time. As far as I can tell you've never made a real argument in any thread here. You just make angry white boy posts against Trump and clap like a seal when other people actually make good arguments against him. You contribute nothing but snide personal attacks and blind anger.
I find it completely pointless to have discussions with you. I learned that a long fucking time ago. I like reading other peoples opinions. You offer nothing of merit to me. Sorry.
I think the kid is a fucking moron and an asshole for showing up with a gun. Fuck him. Okay? Is that okay of an opinion?
Lol NO! That's not an okay opinion. That's a completely emotional reaction made out of pure tribalism. It's not okay at all, unless you have actual sources to show that he was a bad person.
It is an okay opinion even though you dont agree with it. He's a shitty kid for going there and looking for trouble. And he found it. Weird, huh.
Ok, you have shown absolutely no reason to believe that beyond tribalism, but ok. What do you think about the other people that went there looking for trouble, burning down buildings, apparently attacking a 17 year old boy, etc? Any opinion on them?
E.H. Ruddock wrote:I'm not even arguing against the self defense. I'm saying it was wrong to even go there. Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
He (incorrectly) thought carrying a rifle would make him safer, because who is stupid enough to attack someone carrying a long gun? He over estimated the intelligence and self control of his fellow protest attendees.
I agree it was stupid for anyone to show up, armed or otherwise. Doubly so for a 17 year old. Its a shame that the authorities left such a large vacuum that some felt compelled to post up on local businesses.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
That is completely insane. No, taking a gun somewhere you think your life might be in danger does not "probably mean he had intent to use it."
And again. Sources. show me something that implies he had intent to use it beyond the fact that he had a gun. Obviously, we can't know what's going on in anyone's head, but we can at least show behavior.
Would you like for me to repost the videos showing the behavior of his initial attacker?
If he thought his life might be in danger then why did he go to begin with?
C'mon burt, you dont actually believe the shit that comes out of your fingers do you? You just like getting a rise out of liberals, yea?
Because he thought that protecting the town against looters and rioters was important enough to risk his own safety? Maybe? No, it could ONLY be because he wanted to trick the mob into chasing him around so he could shoot them.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Fri August 28, 2020 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:I'm not even arguing against the self defense. I'm saying it was wrong to even go there. Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
He (incorrectly) thought carrying a rifle would make him safer, because who is stupid enough to attack someone carrying a long gun? He over estimated the intelligence and self control of his fellow protest attendees.
I agree it was stupid for anyone to show up, armed or otherwise. Doubly so for a 17 year old. Its a shame that the authorities left such a large vacuum that some felt compelled to post up on local businesses.
If people think it's stupid, fine. but, for the hundredth time, Is it IMMORAL?
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
That is completely insane. No, taking a gun somewhere you think your life might be in danger does not "probably mean he had intent to use it."
And again. Sources. show me something that implies he had intent to use it beyond the fact that he had a gun. Obviously, we can't know what's going on in anyone's head, but we can at least show behavior.
Would you like for me to repost the videos showing the behavior of his initial attacker?
If he thought his life might be in danger then why did he go to begin with?
C'mon burt, you dont actually believe the shit that comes out of your fingers do you? You just like getting a rise out of liberals, yea?
Because he thought that protecting the town against looters and rioters was important enough to risk his own safety? Maybe? No, it could ONLY be because he wanted to trick the mob into chasing him around.
HEY MOM I LOVE KENOSHA WISOCNSIN SO MUCH WILL YOU PLEASE DRIVE ME SO I CAN GO HELP PROTECT IT FROM THOSE AWFUL RIOTERS!!
Strat wrote:You dont have to answer that. I used to have regular dreams about killer clowns from outer space.
What do you think happened here? Please give sources for that where you can.
I have no idea. ANd im not really here to have a serious conversation about it because its pointless.
All i know is angry little white boy wanted to go play army and he made some bad choices and now he is gonna have to pay for it and live with it the rest of his life.
you have no idea? None? Have you watched any of the videos? I don't know why you just default to this ad hominem every single time. As far as I can tell you've never made a real argument in any thread here. You just make angry white boy posts against Trump and clap like a seal when other people actually make good arguments against him. You contribute nothing but snide personal attacks and blind anger.
I find it completely pointless to have discussions with you. I learned that a long fucking time ago. I like reading other peoples opinions. You offer nothing of merit to me. Sorry.
I think the kid is a fucking moron and an asshole for showing up with a gun. Fuck him. Okay? Is that okay of an opinion?
Lol NO! That's not an okay opinion. That's a completely emotional reaction made out of pure tribalism. It's not okay at all, unless you have actual sources to show that he was a bad person.
It is an okay opinion even though you dont agree with it. He's a shitty kid for going there and looking for trouble. And he found it. Weird, huh.
Ok, you have shown absolutely no reason to believe that beyond tribalism, but ok. What do you think about the other people that went there looking for trouble, burning down buildings, apparently attacking a 17 year old boy, etc? Any opinion on them?
I already told you looting is fucking stupid and i dont agree with it. I think people who decide to direct their anger towards burning buildings down are probably shitty people too.
Burt. I don't give a fuck about his attacker. Why would you, him, or anyone else with half a brain go to another state and into a completely volatile situation? Don't give me that "iTs HiS rIgHt" bullshit. Just because you have the right doesn't mean it's a good thing to do so
BurtReynolds wrote:The witness guy said he was handling his firearm poorly, earlier, but he handled himself correctly in the vids. He even called the cops right away after a shooting, which is what you are supposed to do.
The last shot (bicep dude) was the perfect example and fulfilled every possible requirement for self defense. He pulled the trigger the exact instant bicep dude was pointing his handgun at him. A cop would have fired much earlier. That said, he's probably more lucky than competent.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Burt. I don't give a fuck about his attacker. Why would you, him, or anyone else with half a brain go to another state and into a completely volatile situation? Don't give me that "iTs HiS rIgHt" bullshit. Just because you have the right doesn't mean it's a good thing to do so
So you're just going to ignore all my questions and lash out at me because you don't have an argument.
Oh you don't give a fuck. Ok. I do. Why would I defend him? Because, from the videos and documents I've seen he was attacked by violent thugs and is being made to be the bad guy by the culture warriors. Is that ok with you?
Yes, it is his right. I don't give a fuck if you have a problem with that.
Last edited by BurtReynolds on Fri August 28, 2020 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:I'm not even arguing against the self defense. I'm saying it was wrong to even go there. Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
He (incorrectly) thought carrying a rifle would make him safer, because who is stupid enough to attack someone carrying a long gun? He over estimated the intelligence and self control of his fellow protest attendees.
I agree it was stupid for anyone to show up, armed or otherwise. Doubly so for a 17 year old. Its a shame that the authorities left such a large vacuum that some felt compelled to post up on local businesses.
If people think it's stupid, fine. but, for the hundredth time, Is it IMMORAL?
E.H. Ruddock wrote:I'm not even arguing against the self defense. I'm saying it was wrong to even go there. Taking a gun probably means he had intent to use it
He (incorrectly) thought carrying a rifle would make him safer, because who is stupid enough to attack someone carrying a long gun? He over estimated the intelligence and self control of his fellow protest attendees.
I agree it was stupid for anyone to show up, armed or otherwise. Doubly so for a 17 year old. Its a shame that the authorities left such a large vacuum that some felt compelled to post up on local businesses.
If people think it's stupid, fine. but, for the hundredth time, Is it IMMORAL?
Perfectly moral. Kid is civic minded.
And at no point in this thread has ANYONE posted any actual material to dispute this. It's just pure blind anger.
what an ironic twist. When I was in the service we were put in situations where we weren't given a choice and were forced to have to shoot and kill people. Now here I am arguing that going into that type of situation voluntarily is dumb to a bunch of internet keyboard warriors. Again, in not saying his reaction was wrong, I'm saying his initial action was. You have no idea how much this angers and saddens me to hear this type of opinion from some of you. But I'm jaded here, apparently, with my morals.
I have not been following this very closely and there's a hole in my understanding of events that hopefully you guys can help me with
1. Kid brings a rifle to a protest in order to protect businesses and stuff.
2. At some point, he interacts with the police and they express support for what he and the group are doing.
3. ((((SOMETHING HAPPENS)))) -- this is the part I'm fuzzy on. Looks like there's a gunshot at some point. I've heard some say the kid shot at somebody, and others say it was someone else. Doesn't seem like there's footage of this? I've found it hard to find clarity on this bit.
4. Anyway, after whatever that was, video footage shows the kid running in the opposite direction of the crowd and some of the protestors say "that's the shooter!" as he is running away.
5. Looks like at this point, the crowd is convinced this kid is shooting people, and so they rush him to try to take his rifle from him. This is where he falls over and he shoots (two?) people.
6. Kid then surrenders to cops
Could someone provide clarity on point 3 in the timeline?
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:Cool. You're right, I don't have evidence to back up my claim that it was dumb. Carry on. You win.
Great. That's one.
I absolutely agree it was dumb, in the sense that I think there's about a thousand other more enjoyable, less dangerous things a 17 year-old dude could be doing rather than wandering the streets at night with a gun and seeing what happens.
I think the other guys involved seem (on face value) even dumber and arguably malevolent to boot, and here we are.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:what an ironic twist. When I was in the service we were put in situations where we weren't given a choice and were forced to have to shoot and kill people. Now here I am arguing that going into that type of situation voluntarily is dumb to a bunch of internet keyboard warriors. Again, in not saying his reaction was wrong, I'm saying his initial action was. You have no idea how much this angers and saddens me to hear this type of opinion from some of you. But I'm jaded here, apparently, with my morals.
Regardless of your experience with being forced to go into dangerous situations, that doesnt make voluntarily going into a dangerous situation any more immoral.
Jorge wrote:I have not been following this very closely and there's a hole in my understanding of events that hopefully you guys can help me with
1. Kid brings a rifle to a protest in order to protect businesses and stuff.
2. At some point, he interacts with the police and they express support for what he and the group are doing.
3. ((((SOMETHING HAPPENS)))) -- this is the part I'm fuzzy on. Looks like there's a gunshot at some point. I've heard some say the kid shot at somebody, and others say it was someone else. Doesn't seem like there's footage of this? I've found it hard to find clarity on this bit.
4. Anyway, after whatever that was, video footage shows the kid running in the opposite direction of the crowd and some of the protestors say "that's the shooter!" as he is running away.
5. Looks like at this point, the crowd is convinced this kid is shooting people, and so they rush him to try to take his rifle from him. This is where he falls over and he shoots (two?) people.
6. Kid then surrenders to cops
Could someone provide clarity on point 3 in the timeline?
Point 3:
Someone in the parking lot roughly behind the pursuer fires a handgun into the air.
Video is not definitive, but plausible. Its consistent with witness statements.
As the shot is coming from the same direction as his pursuer it could go to state of mind for his self defense claim. Its possible he thought his pursuer just pulled a gun and was shooting at him.
Point 6: He approaches the police armored cars with hands raised. They do not detain him and he continues on, eventually making it home to Indiana. He surrenders to local authorities the next day.
Last edited by simple schoolboy on Fri August 28, 2020 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
E.H. Ruddock wrote:what an ironic twist. When I was in the service we were put in situations where we weren't given a choice and were forced to have to shoot and kill people. Now here I am arguing that going into that type of situation voluntarily is dumb to a bunch of internet keyboard warriors. Again, in not saying his reaction was wrong, I'm saying his initial action was. You have no idea how much this angers and saddens me to hear this type of opinion from some of you. But I'm jaded here, apparently, with my morals.
Regardless of your experience with being forced to go into dangerous situations, that doesnt make voluntarily going into a dangerous situation any more immoral.
You're right. The people that allow a naive 17 year old with no crowd control training to have a gun and walk around with it in that situation are the immoral ones
