Yeah, on both sides, which is the statement IP thought his post refuted. One of these days, a politician is going to figure out that people hate that shit and would much prefer it if politicians just owned their mistakes and moved forward. I'd vote for that person.
Don’t hold your breath. That person isn’t coming from one of the major parties any time soon, and thus can’t win an election of consequence.
I was referring to him standing by the jury's decision. You have ignored that frame of reference to make a "both sides" claim. You do you.
No one asked him if he stands by the jury's decision. Again, you are setting the bar incredibly low. Owning it when you are wrong or make a mistake is leadership 101.
I’ve typed out some long-winded way of saying this several times now, but bottom line “both sides” is lazy and a cop-out. And, well this is gonna sound weird, but that applies to people who say it from both sides And I know, I’ve been one of those people far more times than I am comfortable with It doesn’t advance the discourse in the least.
We need to have a serious discussion of what the true definition of self defense is… is it really “self-defense” if you knowingly put yourself in a situation that you feel the need to carry an AR-15? I’m as pro-2A a guy as you’ll find but my best “self-defense” technique is to stay clear of areas where I know a problem could very likely occur. Areas of civil unrest/riots are just about at the top of that list. Yes, the prosecution was horrible. Yes, Rittenhouse may very well have met the legal parameters of what constitutes self defense. And…. Yes, if he’d have minded his own business and stayed home that day he’d have saved a lot of misery for everyone involved…
I'm not using "both sides" to say it's okay that one side does it because the other side also does it. I'm saying both sides do it (poor leadership/making outlandish claims about a case before having all the evidence), and both sides need to [uck fay]ing stop. But I get what you're saying.
I think you either have no idea what leadership is, or you are letting a politician off easily because you align with him politically.
This is not self defense. Yelling at someone and grabbing at them, even their gun, is not self defense. Gun shots fired, even by someone else, even if at you, doesn't mean you can direct deadly force toward someone else. Self defense isn't a personal mentality. It is based only on each specific threat. I do not believe he used self defense in the first instance. And as such, do not believe the second or third shooting are, either. He got off. Good for him. That's not self defense and I'm glad there was a trial to make him sweat it.
It used to include escalation of force, but now we've got stand your ground and just... shoot whomever whenever you feel like. Odds are they'll have a rap sheet, so, if you've been clean for all your life, and your life is super short, you'll be fine.
People say "dead people can't testify" and "make sure if you shoot, they're dead," which seems to make it clear to me it is not about defense about killing and getting away with it.
