Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Just be sure and blame everyone but the violent aggressors responsible for attacking a boy who had every right in the world to be there.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

Oh look who finally showed up

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Burt, i get your views. You have been vocal about it. Its your plea, and if you want to live in this world, ey its on you.

For me, its super sad. A boy with a gun on a riot. Killing people. If the other guy had a gun, also super sad. And i dont believe in killing people as a form of vengeance or justice.

But anway, i know i wont change your views so its fine. Im just posting here.

This wasn't a case of vengeance. Justice is an amorphous term. I'm not talking about that. You misunderstand me.

Do you agree with durden that killing someone in self defense is morally wrong?

Again I amended this.

I also don't think that self defense applies here.

Criminal defense twitter seems fairly bullish on a succesful self defense claim.

Oh well if Twitter says so.

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh look who finally showed up

Did I miss an outlook invite?

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh look who finally showed up

Did I miss an outlook invite?

This all started because I accidentally bought almond ice cream instead of the real thing today and my entire day is ruined.

durdencommatyler wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Burt, i get your views. You have been vocal about it. Its your plea, and if you want to live in this world, ey its on you.

For me, its super sad. A boy with a gun on a riot. Killing people. If the other guy had a gun, also super sad. And i dont believe in killing people as a form of vengeance or justice.

But anway, i know i wont change your views so its fine. Im just posting here.

This wasn't a case of vengeance. Justice is an amorphous term. I'm not talking about that. You misunderstand me.

Do you agree with durden that killing someone in self defense is morally wrong?

Again I amended this.

I also don't think that self defense applies here.

Criminal defense twitter seems fairly bullish on a succesful self defense claim.

Oh well if Twitter says so.

I'll be sure and let you know when Slate has the definitive description of the facts (which they probably got from Twitter) available for you.

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

There’s a lot of going around in circles happening here, and I feel like your posts cut through that in a way that exposed what a lot of that circling is designed to avoid. If it’s just me, then it’s just me. But I’m not being disingenuous.

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

There’s a lot of going around in circles happening here, and I feel like your posts cut through that in a way that exposed what a lot of that circling is designed to avoid. If it’s just me, then it’s just me. But I’m not being disingenuous.

What am I trying to avoid? What am I circling around?

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

There’s a lot of going around in circles happening here, and I feel like your posts cut through that in a way that exposed what a lot of that circling is designed to avoid. If it’s just me, then it’s just me. But I’m not being disingenuous.

What am I trying to avoid? What am I circling around?

Its more important that the kid be condemned for being armed at a protest than anything else.

simple schoolboy wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

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

Really just an incredible set of posts

There’s a lot of going around in circles happening here, and I feel like your posts cut through that in a way that exposed what a lot of that circling is designed to avoid. If it’s just me, then it’s just me. But I’m not being disingenuous.

What am I trying to avoid? What am I circling around?

Its more important that the kid be condemned for being armed at a protest than anything else.

He didn't play by the rules they made up.

There’s a lot I didn’t read over the last few pages. It really just seems like this kid brought a gun for the sole purpose of instigation just so he can “defend” himself, much like someone going sans mask into a Costco. That person wants someone to confront them. This kid drove to the protest in the hope someone would confront him so he could unload some metal ejaculation.

yay, liberty.

dad wrote:There’s a lot I didn’t read over the last few pages. It really just seems like this kid brought a gun for the sole purpose of instigation just so he can “defend” himself, much like someone going sans mask into a Costco. That person wants someone to confront them. This kid drove to the protest in the hope someone would confront him so he could unload some metal

His interaction with the protesters starts at about 8:40. Real big instigator.

*Edit* Maybe the protesters he tried to aid can bring a civil suit against him for falsely identifying himself as an EMT. I know we can jam him up on something!

dad wrote:There’s a lot I didn’t read over the last few pages. It really just seems like this kid brought a gun for the sole purpose of instigation just so he can “defend” himself, much like someone going sans mask into a Costco. That person wants someone to confront them. This kid drove to the protest in the hope someone would confront him so he could unload some metal ejaculation.

yay, liberty.

How does it seem like that? Do you have anything to go on other than the fact that he went from point A to point B with a gun. Because I've shown videos that show very strongly that the "victims" were in fact instigating, and I can show videos that show that the kid appeared to be perfectly sane and not there to murder random strangers.

Maybe I missed something. I'm being totally serious. Please, show me something that backs up your belief. Anything. I want to see it.

Because right now, it appears your opinion is based solely on preconceived notions that aren't even thought out.

BurtReynolds wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:Burt, i get your views. You have been vocal about it. Its your plea, and if you want to live in this world, ey its on you.

For me, its super sad. A boy with a gun on a riot. Killing people. If the other guy had a gun, also super sad. And i dont believe in killing people as a form of vengeance or justice.

But anway, i know i wont change your views so its fine. Im just posting here.

This wasn't a case of vengeance. Justice is an amorphous term. I'm not talking about that. You misunderstand me.

Do you agree with durden that killing someone in self defense is morally wrong?

Again I amended this.

I also don't think that self defense applies here.

Criminal defense twitter seems fairly bullish on a succesful self defense claim.

Oh well if Twitter says so.

I'll be sure and let you know when Slate has the definitive description of the facts (which they probably got from Twitter) available for you.

It was a joke. Please call down.

One could argue that a white dude walking around these protests with a gun for all to see is in and of itself the instigation. But then one would be chastised for not respecting his rights

BurtReynolds wrote:

dad wrote:There’s a lot I didn’t read over the last few pages. It really just seems like this kid brought a gun for the sole purpose of instigation just so he can “defend” himself, much like someone going sans mask into a Costco. That person wants someone to confront them. This kid drove to the protest in the hope someone would confront him so he could unload some metal ejaculation.

yay, liberty.

How does it seem like that? Do you have anything to go on other than the fact that he went from point A to point B with a gun. Because I've shown videos that show very strongly that the "victims" were in fact instigating, and I can show videos that show that the kid appeared to be perfectly sane and not there to murder random strangers.

Maybe I missed something. I'm being totally serious. Please, show me something that backs up your belief. Anything. I want to see it.

Because right now, it appears your opinion is based solely on preconceived notions that aren't even thought out.

I mean, am I talking crazy here? Did I just miss some very obvious info that has caused all of you to make up your minds so emphatically about this person? Where is the information that has caused so many of you to make up your mind about this guy? What, in the videos and the document posted earlier, shows something that doesn't show what I'm saying.

Anyone? Anyone at all. Please. i want to be proven wrong here.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:One could argue that a white dude walking around these protests with a gun for all to see is in and of itself the instigation. But then one would be chastised for not respecting his rights

correctly. and no, that's not instigation. The instigation is coming from the people doing the actual threatening and literally taking violent actions.

Like, ACTUAL violent actions, not hypothetical ones.

Burt, would you do what he did? Go to a protest that may be volatile, with a gun, and walk around with it? If so, what would be your motivation? Genuinely curious. And if not, why not?