Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Jarhyn]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

My husband and I are dealing with an unhinged stalker youth right now ourselves. It's gotten to the point where he is threatening in obscure online places to break into our homes and parents' homes and vandalize everything before going to commit messy suicide in our friends' shop space.

Some months ago he threatened arson at our warehouse.

At this point I'm really quite unhappy that my husband donated my IOTV (my kevlar armor).

 

[Derec]

WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of treating Kyle Rittenhouse as public enemy number one for taking a rifle to a protest, while not seeing anything wrong with left wing and black militias from Black Panther Party to Not Fucking Around Coalition protesting while heavily armed.

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Guns can definitely be defensive, but I do not think people in general should be armed at protests, regardless of their politics.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

We do not agree on everything regarding guns, but we agree here.

 

[Derec]

I'm late to the party to this derail, but anyone who tries to defend a 17 year old armed with a military spec rifle being unsupervised at a protest is as dumb as dogshit.

It was stupid of Ritt to go to the protest/riot, especially armed. That does not mean that he did not have the right to self defense.
But the whole protest/riot was stupid in general. Nobody should have been out there that night.

And Rittenhouse is a lying cunt. He wasn't there to "protect his community" or some other bullshit like that. He wanted to be the hero of his own story like literally every other 17 year old boy. And I do mean all of them. That he got his wish and is canonised by MAGA cunts is pretty repulsive.

I do not think he is lying when he says that he wanted to protect the community, specifically the business with whose owner they had some sort of an agreement.

 

[Derec]

They do love their whataboutisms. It's all they've got.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of leftists who condemn Ritt for being armed, but do not think the same of, say, Garrett Foster, is not "whataboutism". Or, for that matter, those who think that the armed takeovers of city blocks in e.g. Seattle and Atlanta were "summer of love". Those are actual words uttered by the useless former mayor of Seattle Jenny Durkan, btw.

If they had logic they wouldn't be right wingers (they also completely ignore when you point out that you'd be threatened by anyone carrying guns and continue making whataboutisms anyway).

First of all, I am not a right winger. And I do think bilby is consistent on this issue, and my comment was not directed at him specifically. Only on those who support armed protest when it's from the left.

 

[Derec]

They brought guns to a protest about gun rights. That isn't bringing guns to a random protest nor while stalking after people whom you fervently political disagree. Those are three different things.

Not really. If guns at a protest are generally threatening, then it's irrelevant if they are protesting about gun rights, black lives matter (like the NBPP and NFAC did) or just want to protect businesses from rioters (like Kyle Rittenhouse or, say, Rooftop Koreans). In fact, I think the latter have a more legitimate use case for being armed than just intimidating people or occupying city blocks and declaring an "autonomous zone". The former are reacting to a dangerous situation created by others (Kenosha and LA rioters, respectively).

Wow, we're discussing the person you just named and somehow you didn't know we were discussing him.

You said "a completely different person". So excuse me if I was expecting you to write about a "completely different person" and maybe tell us who you mean.

 

[Derec]

I’m sure you feel that way. But, your feelings are irrational by definition, and, in this case, driven by illogical reasoning.

But enough of you talking to yourself ...

Rittenhouse went into a riot, looking for trouble.

No. He went there to protect a business. Had Rosenbaum not decided to attack him, he would not have been a threat to anybody.

Those black militants were not in a combat zone of any type. They were posing. I agree they looked threatening - that was the point. Interestingly, no one thought to shoot them.

And that means that they are right to carry weapons? Or what is your point?

So, I’ll stand by my observation’s validity.

You standing by it does not make it so. Not by a long shot.

 

[laughing dog]

I’m sure you feel that way. But, your feelings are irrational by definition, and, in this case, driven by illogical reasoning.

But enough of you talking to yourself ...

You’re “No u r” would be more effective if you had a logical rationale.

Rittenhouse went into a riot, looking for trouble.

No. He went there to protect a business. Had Rosenbaum not decided to attack him, he would not have been a threat to anybody.

You cannot possibly know that. There are plenty of ways to protect without carrying a firearm. Or by breaking the law, as Arctish pointed out that he was too young to have that weapon

Those black militants were not in a combat zone of any type. They were posing. I agree they looked threatening - that was the point. Interestingly, no one thought to shoot them.

And that means that they are right to carry weapons? Or what is your point?

Exactly what I wrote: they were not shot. No civilian is right to openly carry firearms outside of hunting or in a target range.

So, I’ll stand by my observation’s validity.

You standing by it does not make it so. Not by a long shot.

No, it’s validity does.

 

[Derec]

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married

Ritt was not having sex that night, so I do not know the relevance of this. Law in most of the developed world sets the age of consent at less than the age of majority, and that applies to many US states as well. Aoc of 18 is far from universal, and you should not be using universal language like "the laws says". Note, nowhere in the developed world is age of consent as low as 9-11, which is the age of the boys Joseph Rosenbaum abused.

and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Indeed, but that is truly a topic for another thread that I am still trying to get around to.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

We can agree on that. He was immature. He should not have been there. But the others should not have been there either, regardless of age.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

Yes, it was adults who attacked him, and he defended himself.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?
Second, no it does not necessarily. And would you apply it to armed protesters with whose political cause you agree?

Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

Would you rather he had shot his attacker sooner? He tried to extricate himself from the situation without using lethal force. That shows more maturity than the nominal adult who ran after him, cornered him and lunged at him. At that point, any of us would have fired.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense. The whole case was a farce only pursued for political reasons. 2020 was a truly crazy year.
That said, I think that minor teenagers who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted "as an adult". That phrase is just colloquial term for being tried in criminal court, rather than juvenile/family court. These courts are wholly inadequate for dealing with serious crimes, and the penalties they may impose are not in any way appropriate for crimes like murder, felony assaults or armed robberies. That does not mean that the defendant's age should not be taken into account, just that a few years in juvi is not adequate for say premeditated murder. That's why the fauxgressives like former DA Gascon were so wrongheaded.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Less than 4 years is insane for a double murder, don't you think, especially when the murderer is 17, i.e. not a child.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

I am more appalled by those who defend the Kenosha riots (or pretend that it was "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests) or the actions by any of those who attacked Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse was not the only one attacked during these riots.
'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store
That illustrates the need for armed protection when the angry mob is trying to destroy what others have built.

 

[bilby]

Guns can definitely be defensive

No, they can't.

What defense does a gun offer to you? The only thing you can do with it is attack your assailant with lethal force.

That's not a defence.

Body armour is defensive. Even a sword can be defensive, as you can use it to parry or block. But a gun cannot be used defensively - to protect its owner from an attack.

If two people face off with guns, the winner is the one who attacks first.

 

[Toni]

Derec, there is zero requirement t, logistically or morally, to object to every other f

WTF is wrong with you?

Nothing is wrong with me. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of treating Kyle Rittenhouse as public enemy number one for taking a rifle to a protest, while not seeing anything wrong with left wing and black militias from Black Panther Party to Not Fucking Around Coalition protesting while heavily armed.

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Guns can definitely be defensive, but I do not think people in general should be armed at protests, regardless of their politics.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

We do not agree on everything regarding guns, but we agree here.

Derec, there is no logical or moral imperative to list objections to every objectionable action by every organization or individual.

For example, I have not posted about what I perceive as hypocrisy and blatant racism re: Kyle Rittenhouse’s behavior vs Travon Martin who was unarmed and walking home from a convenience store when he was murdered by a gun toting wannabe cop ( similar to Rittenhouse, actually, except without the excuse of youth and bad influences).

Well I guess I just did. So, Derec, what’s up with that? It is ok for white boy Rittenhouse to cosplay with a loaded AK 15 but a black teen the same age can’t go to the convenience store after dark in his own neighborhood?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

Guns are often a liability to self-defense.

A gun implies a sense of strength, but only works if the bluff is not called, in which case, the trigger needs to be pulled. Pulling the trigger of a gun and killing someone is a big freaking deal (something Rittenhouse has shown zero remorse for doing). As a defensive weapon, it requires the shooter to be still and not able to flee and also limits close quarter scuffling as dropping the gun is a very bad idea leaving a person incapable of using their dominant hand for self-defense, which really limits the value of the weapon as a defensive instrument.

Women often carry mace or learn defensive maneuvers intended to incapacitate an attacker, not kill the attacker. Men don't carry mace, because... well...

Mace is a terrible replacement for a gun. If the wind is blowing the wrong way it's a great assist for the attacker.

 

[Toni]

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married

Ritt was not having sex that night, so I do not know the relevance of this. Law in most of the developed world sets the age of consent at less than the age of majority, and that applies to many US states as well. Aoc of 18 is far from universal, and you should not be using universal language like "the laws says". Note, nowhere in the developed world is age of consent as low as 9-11, which is the age of the boys Joseph Rosenbaum abused.

and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Indeed, but that is truly a topic for another thread that I am still trying to get around to.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

We can agree on that. He was immature. He should not have been there. But the others should not have been there either, regardless of age.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

Yes, it was adults who attacked him, and he defended himself.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?
Second, no it does not necessarily. And would you apply it to armed protesters with whose political cause you agree?

Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

Would you rather he had shot his attacker sooner? He tried to extricate himself from the situation without using lethal force. That shows more maturity than the nominal adult who ran after him, cornered him and lunged at him. At that point, any of us would have fired.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense. The whole case was a farce only pursued for political reasons. 2020 was a truly crazy year.
That said, I think that minor teenagers who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted "as an adult". That phrase is just colloquial term for being tried in criminal court, rather than juvenile/family court. These courts are wholly inadequate for dealing with serious crimes, and the penalties they may impose are not in any way appropriate for crimes like murder, felony assaults or armed robberies. That does not mean that the defendant's age should not be taken into account, just that a few years in juvi is not adequate for say premeditated murder. That's why the fauxgressives like former DA Gascon were so wrongheaded.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Less than 4 years is insane for a double murder, don't you think, especially when the murderer is 17, i.e. not a child.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

I am more appalled by those who defend the Kenosha riots (or pretend that it was "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests) or the actions by any of those who attacked Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse was not the only one attacked during these riots.
'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store
That illustrates the need for armed protection when the angry mob is trying to destroy what others have

No one should take a firearm, loaded or unloaded to a protest. Doing so indicates you are looking for trouble.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Guns can definitely be defensive

No, they can't.

What defense does a gun offer to you? The only thing you can do with it is attack your assailant with lethal force.

That's not a defence.

Body armour is defensive. Even a sword can be defensive, as you can use it to parry or block. But a gun cannot be used defensively - to protect its owner from an attack.

If two people face off with guns, the winner is the one who attacks first.

It's reasonable to believe that until you're faced with the situation. I happen to be well practiced with firearms, but most aren't. I once had a client who carried a .45 Glock. She'd never fired it and had no training in it. She said she had to "carry with me." She definitely wasn't the brightest bulb in the box.

 

[scombrid]

And I see the Trumpers are still keeping the attention away from Heritage.org and their TPUSA pageant grift in the wake of Charlie being killed. Tough work running blocker for Project 2025.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

My husband and I are dealing with an unhinged stalker youth right now ourselves. It's gotten to the point where he is threatening in obscure online places to break into our homes and parents' homes and vandalize everything before going to commit messy suicide in our friends' shop space.

Some months ago he threatened arson at our warehouse.

At this point I'm really quite unhappy that my husband donated my IOTV (my kevlar armor).

Get a civil harassment restraining order. If he comes within 100 yards of you or your spouse anywhere, you can call the cops. If he's still hanging around or know his address, they can arrest him and slap him with an emergency protective order (EPO), which is a criminal offense. If there's a CHO in place, then conviction is much more likely.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They brought guns to a protest about gun rights. That isn't bringing guns to a random protest nor while stalking after people whom you fervently political disagree. Those are three different things.

Not really. If guns at a protest are generally threatening,

You and other people are free to believe that. Not everyone will agree either with that or against it. Most people would probably agree that there is a spectrum. After all threat and risk convolve probability with severity. It's a spectrum. So IF some randos at a protest with guns are a threat to YOU, then surely a rando following people around they disagree with a gun after having said he'd like to shoot people is WAY MORE of a threat. Such that people who generally do not think every single person at a protest with a gun is a threat could view some other such person in this different context is a threat. Therefore, everything I wrote is relevant and you are just refusing to accept it.

 

[Toni]

Well, the law says that minors ( both male and female) cannot legally consent to sex with an adult under most circumstances, depending on the age differential and whether or not they are married

Ritt was not having sex that night, so I do not know the relevance of this. Law in most of the developed world sets the age of consent at less than the age of majority, and that applies to many US states as well. Aoc of 18 is far from universal, and you should not be using universal language like "the laws says". Note, nowhere in the developed world is age of consent as low as 9-11, which is the age of the boys Joseph Rosenbaum abused.

and whether or not it is a commercial transaction.

Indeed, but that is truly a topic for another thread that I am still trying to get around to.

Rittenhouse was definitely a minor when he killed two people. His lack of maturity and the ease at which he was manipulated/convinced his presence and his gun was necessary is a testimony to that immaturity.

We can agree on that. He was immature. He should not have been there. But the others should not have been there either, regardless of age.

Adults around Rittenhouse played an enormous role in his actions that day in Kenosha. The crowd that night responded to the first shooting as many would: by pursuing the shooter, which resulted in two more shootings.

Yes, it was adults who attacked him, and he defended himself.

I don’t agree with the self defense argument because imo, attending a protest with an AK 15 demonstrates one’s intention to use the weapon to kill people.

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?
Second, no it does not necessarily. And would you apply it to armed protesters with whose political cause you agree?

Again, his immaturity played an enormous role. He was afraid and ran like the kid he was.

Would you rather he had shot his attacker sooner? He tried to extricate himself from the situation without using lethal force. That shows more maturity than the nominal adult who ran after him, cornered him and lunged at him. At that point, any of us would have fired.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted as an adult.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense. The whole case was a farce only pursued for political reasons. 2020 was a truly crazy year.
That said, I think that minor teenagers who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted "as an adult". That phrase is just colloquial term for being tried in criminal court, rather than juvenile/family court. These courts are wholly inadequate for dealing with serious crimes, and the penalties they may impose are not in any way appropriate for crimes like murder, felony assaults or armed robberies. That does not mean that the defendant's age should not be taken into account, just that a few years in juvi is not adequate for say premeditated murder. That's why the fauxgressives like former DA Gascon were so wrongheaded.
17-year-old previously tried as a minor for double murder now linked to another killing after release
Less than 4 years is insane for a double murder, don't you think, especially when the murderer is 17, i.e. not a child.

I am appalled but not surprised at the adults who have used his actions that night to paint him as a hero and reinforced the narrative that citizens, including minors, should be pressed into service to protect businesses in other states—or their own. He was cosplaying cowboy/soldier/hero with a deadly weapon and zero judgement or training nor ability to comprehend the potential or actual consequences of his actions.

I am more appalled by those who defend the Kenosha riots (or pretend that it was "fiery, but mostly peaceful" protests) or the actions by any of those who attacked Rittenhouse. Note that Rittenhouse was not the only one attacked during these riots.
'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store
That illustrates the need for armed protection when the angry mob is trying to destroy what others have built.

The adults who chased Rittenhouse were trying to catch someone who had just shot another person. As for Rittenhouse being ‘attacked,’ someone grabbed the barrel of his gun. Because Kyle was pointing it at him.

 

[Jarhyn]

So you are opposed to left-wing militias marching while armed?

WTF is wrong with you?

NOBODY should go anywhere armed, unless they plan to kill someone. Guns are NOT defensive, they are offensive - in every sense of the word - and should be carried only by soldiers or properly trained cops; By a 'well ordered millitia', if you will.

Carrying a gun is a lethal threat. I don't care if you are left-wing, right-wing or any other kind of wing, if you take a gun to a protest, you are doing it all wrong.

You take a gun to a battle, not a protest.

A little pedantic but I carried a gun for most of my career as an attorney. People really hate you when they feel like you're really fucking with their lives on a personal level. I was threatened by several and stalked by one. One time one of the members of the California marijuana cartels sent some scary--and I mean truly scary, not fucking around one bit guy to my office on a Saturday morning when it was still dark outside. I had a .357 GP-100 in my desk drawer that I pulled on the guy and he didn't even flinch. If I wouldn't have been armed, I'm pretty sure he would've killed me.

OTOH, most of these concealed carry assholes are just dipshits who think they're going to be some hero in a shootout at the grocery store or donut shop. Those dumbasses would probably shit down their leg and be the first to flee in such a situation.

I'm so sorry that happened to you.

My husband and I are dealing with an unhinged stalker youth right now ourselves. It's gotten to the point where he is threatening in obscure online places to break into our homes and parents' homes and vandalize everything before going to commit messy suicide in our friends' shop space.

Some months ago he threatened arson at our warehouse.

At this point I'm really quite unhappy that my husband donated my IOTV (my kevlar armor).

Get a civil harassment restraining order. If he comes within 100 yards of you or your spouse anywhere, you can call the cops. If he's still hanging around or know his address, they can arrest him and slap him with an emergency protective order (EPO), which is a criminal offense. If there's a CHO in place, then conviction is much more likely.

We already have an HRO, In fact; that's what part of this is about.

Apparently the guy had set his hopes on a career in law enforcement, and the deputy who served him is the deputy who was conducting his interview.

Needless to say he didn't get the position he was looking for, and this drove him to escalate his behavior.

My bigger issue is that with him threatening things like that, I don't really put any stock in the response times of the police.

In our jurisdiction the protective orders of HRO-adjacent filings is reserved for domestic abuse situations, however.

I want to say that the pictures we have of his threats are not strong enough evidence, though, because they were delivered in an application which allows users to delete group messages, and the messages got deleted when he was banned over the threatening behavior; only a brief picture of a computer screen remains of the threat.

And to top it off, the whole situation is somehow more ridiculously stupid than the Charlie Kirk bullshit story, but at least this story has articulable details among the ridiculousness of it.

But to me this just emphasizes how fucked our society is with such weapons around and about all willy-nilly.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

First of all, what's an "AK 15"?

You are being precious here. You know that is a typo for AR-15.

I do not think he should have been prosecuted at all, given that it was a clear case of self-defense.

If it was such a clear case why is it so contentious? Because it should have gone to trial, and this is true even if he was genuinely innocent.
However his innocence is not at all clear, which is why there is all this debating. The fact is he was probably guilty and he got lucky with the verdict. Personally I think he was definitely guilty and the self-defense argument does not hold up, as it extends the concept of self-defense too far.

 

[Patooka]

t was stupid of Ritt to go to the protest/riot, especially armed. That does not mean that he did not have the right to self defense.

wait for it

But

And that's the point I'm calling out. I can't call you a fuckwit because of forum rules but you are still defending a 17 year old boy with a rifle. I am asking you Derec, WHAT DO YOU THINK A WHITE (AND LET'S PRETEND YOU DON'T CARE BLACK) 17 YEAR OLD BOY WITH A SEMI AOUTO IS GOING TO ACT LIKE?

Second question - why the fuck are you fine with that?