Originally posted by Darth Thor
Scot free
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Scot free
Originally posted by Darth Thor
In U.K. if I showed up to a Tommy Robinson Islamaphobic protest with a Knife, and stabbed 3 of the protestors in self defence, who all end up bleeding to death, you can be damn well sure im not getting off Scot freeBecause For starters it would be illegal for me to carry a knife, and for second, no one in their right mind would believe I wasnt there to start trouble.
So yeah Im thankful to be in the U.K. Obviously im not invincible here and can still be killed. But I see literally no benefit to carrying firearms. The only by product of that I see is DEATH.
I guess I wouldnt mind having a gun in my house to protect against intruders, but only if I was the only one. But if it meant intruders were also much more likely to carry a gun, or that we get gun violence and killing all over the place, then SCREW THAT.
Didn't the UK rule a home owner was responsible for the injuries of a break and enter because of a shoddy roof that fell in? Or something?
The UK and US have some different philosophies on culpability, I think.
But the example is bad to begin with because you cite a knife that is illegal to have, while the judge ruled Rittenhouse had every right to carry the AR-15, for better or worse.
Really, it depends on wherher you think the three men who were killed had agency or not. To argue Rittenhouse instigated the entire incident, is to claim he had absolute power to control the actions of all parties involved.
The three should have never gone after him. Even if one thinks he never should have been there and never should have brought a gun, the moment they decided not to allow him to flee, that is when his right to self defensed became invoked.
And really nothing else matters that lead up to that. They chose to engage, Rittenhouse responsed to defend himself.
Originally posted by cdtmyour straw men are noted and dismissed.
Didn't the UK rule a home owner was responsible for the injuries of a break and enter because of a shoddy roof that fell in? Or something?The UK and US have some different philosophies on culpability, I think.
But the example is bad to begin with because you cite a knife that is illegal to have, while the judge ruled Rittenhouse had every right to carry the AR-15, for better or worse.
Really, it depends on wherher you think the three men who were killed had agency or not. To argue Rittenhouse instigated the entire incident, is to claim he had absolute power to control the actions of all parties involved.
The three should have never gone after him. Even if one thinks he never should have been there and never should have brought a gun, the moment they decided not to allow him to flee, that is when his right to self defense became invoked.
And really nothing else matters that lead up to that. They chose to engage, Rittenhouse response to defend himself.
Originally posted by cdtm
Didn't the UK rule a home owner was responsible for the injuries of a break and enter because of a shoddy roof that fell in? Or something?
Not sure. We are allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder. Can't just stab one to death though. That'd be murder.
Originally posted by cdtm
The UK and US have some different philosophies on culpability, I think.
Yes, which is why we think what's happened with Rittenhouse is INSANE.
Originally posted by cdtm
But the example is bad to begin with because you cite a knife that is illegal to have, while the judge ruled Rittenhouse had every right to carry the AR-15, for better or worse.
I get that. And I'm not claiming the Jury or Judge got it wrong. They are judging by their laws. I'm saying the whole thing is INSANE and wouldn't happen in the UK.
To legally carry firearms to a Protest is shitty laws just begging to go to court after inevitable killings.
Originally posted by cdtm
Really, it depends on wherher you think the three men who were killed had agency or not. To argue Rittenhouse instigated the entire incident, is to claim he had absolute power to control the actions of all parties involved.
His wrong actions here are apparent. He went to a protest (one on the opposite side of the political spectrum to him) fully armed. Like you are looking for trouble there, and there's just no way around that.
Be a man and grapple someone you want to stop, or better yet, leave it to the police.
Originally posted by cdtm
The three should have never gone after him. Even if one thinks he never should have been there and never should have brought a gun, the moment they decided not to allow him to flee, that is when his right to self defensed became invoked.
Of course they shouldn't have gone after a Republican with a gun, showing his gun at a left wing protest. I can't think of a more dangerous person to go after.
His "rights" here are BS as far as I'm concerned. And is indicative of why you have so many deaths by firearms.
He was there to intimidate protestors he didn't like with his gun. Simple as. Might be his right in the U.S., but that doesn't make it right.
Originally posted by cdtm
And really nothing else matters that lead up to that. They chose to engage, Rittenhouse responsed to defend himself.
Doesn't matter what lead up to it according to the laws of the state. Does matter what lead up to it to me from a moral perspective.
A very interesting article and poll.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not sure. We are allowed to use reasonable force against an intruder. Can't just stab one to death though. That'd be murder.Yes, which is why we think what's happened with Rittenhouse is INSANE.
I get that. And I'm not claiming the Jury or Judge got it wrong. They are judging by their laws. I'm saying the whole thing is INSANE and wouldn't happen in the UK.
To legally carry firearms to a Protest is shitty laws just begging to go to court after inevitable killings.
His wrong actions here are apparent. He went to a protest (one on the opposite side of the political spectrum to him) fully armed. Like you are looking for trouble there, and there's just no way around that.
Be a man and grapple someone you want to stop, or better yet, leave it to the police.
Of course they shouldn't have gone after a Republican with a gun, showing his gun at a left wing protest. I can't think of a more dangerous person to go after.
His "rights" here are BS as far as I'm concerned. And is indicative of why you have so many deaths by firearms.
He was there to intimidate protestors he didn't like with his gun. Simple as. Might be his right in the U.S., but that doesn't make it right.
Doesn't matter what lead up to it according to the laws of the state. Does matter what lead up to it to me from a moral perspective.
I hear you.
I'll be honest, I agree with you. The self defense laws are the way they are in part as a recognition that we have too many crazies.
The logic in self defense, I think, is trying to balance when it's reasonable to use lethal force in a city where people will literally shoot you where you stand for looking at them cross eyed. This is why so many officers get off after shooting someone who reached for a cell phone, they patrol communities where killing is nothing for elements of that community.
And that isn't an exaggeration, I wish it were. There's been reports of a woman in California shooting a gun because of TRAFFIC.
Other countries see us and probably think "Why not just get rid of the guns"?
Mainly because:
1. They're already everywhere. Ban guns, and back ally sales will continue, as the gangs use those now.
2. Second amendment. Repealing or amending is theoretically possible, but in practice not so much.
On the positive side, this isn't a problem in the entire country. It's very much a regional problem. Portland or Chicago, for example, are like third world countries within a first world nation. Live in, say, Springfield Vermont, and you'll find yourself in a state with very low gun homicide rates despite gun nuts who collect 40 hunting rifles and stuff them in their closet, while sleeping with one gun under the pillow (Also not much of an exaggeration, I know people like this! 😂 )
Trailing him on Sunday were several supporters toting guns in anticipation of retaliation from pro-Rittenhouse activists. Rolling Stone counted at least six people escorting the march with firearms ranging from semiautomatic rifles to handguns — all permissible per Wisconsin’s open carry laws.
It is good to see them exercising their right to carry arms in defense of them and theirs.
As they protest someone else doing the same. 😂
Originally posted by Klawmmm seems unlikely, tell me more.
CNN desperately wants a Race War.
Originally posted by Klaw
And I can't wait.The media was lying for a year about how things went down and now we know a lot more.
Edit: here's Glenn Greenwald talking about the media narrative.
Looks like you were 100% right.
Proof the system works.
Warms my heart to see Rittenhouse had this kind of support.
The media can brand it as a "feud", all I see is big hearted altruists sorting out the bill after a good deed to help an innocent man.
Here's his interview with Tucker Carlson.
https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/140JAmisHR/didnt-see-a-valid-link-to-kyles-/c/
Really hope this kid can live a normal life; he's been through too much at his age.