No, you've defined the problem. At any point, people can now feel threatened and kill, and claim self defense, boxing match or not.
People arguing only imagine themselves as the shooter, never the shot. They don't realize their own life has been rendered expendable.
They don't see the possibility of two righteous people coming together in mirrored and escalating anger. Because they think all of these things are good vs evil.
At any point people have always had the right to defend themselves. If you are running away from multiple people, go ahead Float and feel free to throw some semantics at them as you get your head stomped on the concrete.
If you find me chasing someone with a mob of people around and I get shot, don't feel bad for me. I don't see you chasing anybody and trying to hit them with lab equipment. If you do and something happens, don't be surprised.
And you can't seem to understand that some earlier actions probably led to the running, because you're incapable of understanding escalation. If I punch a guy in a crowd, and then run, and the crowd chases me... it was because I punched a guy in a crowd, not because the crowd was going to chase me regardless.
I've said all along all parties involved were making bad decisions. He was found not guilty by a jury so it's time to move on. Start carrying a gun and if you feel threatened use it. Like you said that is OK now so do it.
Is it a “them too” response? If so, I’ll gladly accept and we can move all of these people into the same category as Trumpers. Republican Party is a bit broad.
Big water law win for Tennessee over Mississippi. Mississippi sued TN and Memphis, claiming they had exclusive right to an aquifer underlying 8 states. SCOTUS said nah.
LOL https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...ases/2021/11/19/statement-by-president-biden/ Nothing says "I stand by what the jury decided" like saying he's "angry and concerned" about the verdict. So much leadership. Oh, and to top it off: Is this leadership too? What a joke.
@IP and @VolDad Can you point to examples of people losing their jobs/livelihoods over disagreeing with the Trumpers about the election being rigged? Like, real world examples of people saying "I don't think the election was rigged," and then, boom, they're fired the next day? Any at all? I'm not going to claim that sort of thing isn't potentially dangerous, as I truly believe it is. But it's also very much a fringe issue, not a widely accepted narrative. I don't even think the majority of Conservatives believe that the election was rigged. Meanwhile, this guy wants his [uck fay]ing job back: https://news.yahoo.com/former-virginia-officer-fired-donating-213205613.html The mainstream media/Left's choice to continue pushing lies is a bigger issue, imo, because it leads to shit like this. It has people saying stuff like this: https://therecount.com/watch/naacp-president-derrick-johnson-on/2645875686 That's the director of the NAACP, for crying out loud. Has he lost his mind? Worse than Emmett Till's trial? You can't be an informed, rational, truth-seeking human being and say stuff like this. My fiance, a registered democrat, has had to correct multiple friends/colleagues who have brought up the case to her. One thought he carried the gun across state lines. She had no idea that Kenosha was essentially his community. Didn't know he had family there, worked there, etc. She was angry because she had been led to believe the kid grabbed a gun and traveled to a BLM protest in a far a way place just to stir shit up. Another didn't know that the three men he killed were white. And then you've got multiple people talking on TV about Jacob Blake as "another example" of white police officers unjustly killing unarmed black men, even though Blake was armed and is still alive. This stuff is dangerous. These lies are dangerous. They lead to unwarranted anger and resentment. People SHOULD be angry if they think Rittenhouse carried a gun across state lines to a foreign area just to mess with protesters and then shot/killed 3 people, including people of color. That SHOULD make anyone angry. But it's not what [uck fay]ing happened. So a lot of this anger is misplaced and rooted in fallacy, yet it drives decisions and eventually policy. It's a serious issue.
The jury has spoken. We don't have to agree with it. Not sure why you are having a hard time with this concept. This is not the first ruling people have found disagreeable. And I think I have been clear that my issue isn't so much that I think defense wasn't at least an aspect of the events, but that where does it lead us going forward regarding violence.
Based on what is here, I don't think he should be fired. That being said, I think you continue to misunderstand what Voldad was saying completely. Which actually fits with you not understanding why I said Biden's words displayed leadership. What voldad was alluding to, I believe, is that false narratives are widespread right now and not limited to this case or a specific viewpoint. The issue many in this thread have been getting at is that this situation does nothing to prevent a "two good guys with a gun" situation or to address it. On the contrary, it seems to suggest two people who both sincerely believe themselves to be threatened may legally have a gun fight in the street regardless of how they found themselves in such a situation.
Truth hurts. In the same city, Indy: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/us/chrystul-kizer-free-bond.html
