Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Patooka]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

I think the 15 (mostly Jewish) dead at Bondi Beach etc would probably differ too.

Then you'd be wrong. I'm acquainted with quite a few Eastern Suburbs Jews and they all view Kirk as a racist groyper enabler. In fact the only Australians I know who have anything favourable to say about Charlie Kirk are Avi Yemeni and Sydney Watson and well...their history speaks for itself.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't get how a clear case of being murdered has led to discussions about aggressive "self-defense" shootings. Kirk wasn't armed, wasn't a threat to anyone's life.

I suppose the linking point would be that the shooters in all three cases thought they were special.

Not directly, of course. But I do believe he helped create a more dangerous world for any who are not white, straight, ‘Christian’ and male.

I think Charlie Kirk would beg to differ with you. If he could.

I think the 15 (mostly Jewish) dead at Bondi Beach etc would probably differ too.

Then you'd be wrong. I'm acquainted with quite a few Eastern Suburbs Jews and they all view Kirk as a racist groyper enabler. In fact the only Australians I know who have anything favourable to say about Charlie Kirk are Avi Yemeni and Sydney Watson and well...their history speaks for itself.

There are also Holocaust survivors who are speaking out against the treatment of illegal immigrants as well as against what Israel is doing to Palestinians. The right never has anything to say about them though.

 

[Toni]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.
Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Freedom always comes at a cost.

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

Drunk driving is illegal, and punishable by law.

There are many kinds of addiction that cause much destruction and death, including of innocent bystanders. Alcohol is only one

We do a lot more to control access to alcohol and drugs than we do firearms and ammunition.

 

[TSwizzle]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

But why are we again talking about this? I guess the Ilk knows it lost on the issue of Ritt's self defense, so they are dredging up another old case to muddy the waters. Pretty soon, y'all will be bringing up Emmett Till.

I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have.

First of all, the firearm charge was dismissed by the judge because of a loophole in the law. So it wasn't even illegal for him to have that rifle.
Second, even if it was illegal, it does not abrogate his right to self-defense. When Bernie Goetz shot five yoots who were trying to rob him, he was only convicted of possessing an illegal gun, but not of the shootings themselves.
And just because two cases have people of the same age does not mean they are alike in any way. Rittenhouse self-defense case was already very different than the premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk. The Trayvon Martin case is unlike either of the two. It's just another derail.

White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course.

No, by you. Because you see skin color über alles. In your mind, the only difference between these cases is race. That's an almost pathological obsession with race.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it.

There is zero evidence Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. All the evidence points to Rosenberg being the one looking for trouble all that night. And boy, did he find it!

Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries.

Z suspected Trayvon of casing houses. Given that he was, back home, caught with burglary tools and jewelry whose provenance he could not explain, I do not think that suspicion should be dismissed as prejudice.

They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Because they both were acting in self-defense.

Interesting that you are all u on my case because I brought up an unrelated case when you do this all of the time. I guess I was encroaching on your style? Didn’t notice a trademark…

lol, pot calling the kettle black.

 

[TSwizzle]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

 

[Patooka]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

True, but a white heterosexual male Christian did murder your lord and saviour St Charlie. It's also the safe way to bet whenever one of these crimes occur.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

They were white, heterosexual males, and no one there, shooters or victims was Christian, so that doesn't apply, but they were all religious.

 

[Toni]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

They were white, heterosexual males, and no one there, shooters or victims was Christian, so that doesn't apply, but they were all religious.

To some, neither Muslims nor Jews qualify as white.

 

[TSwizzle]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

They were white, heterosexual males, and no one there, shooters or victims was Christian, so that doesn't apply, but they were all religious.

Which is weird because, according to Toni white, male heterosexual Christians are the most dangerous people on the planet and we should fear them the most!!!111!!!

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

They were white, heterosexual males, and no one there, shooters or victims was Christian, so that doesn't apply, but they were all religious.

Which is weird because, according to Toni white, male heterosexual Christians are the most dangerous people on the planet and we should fear them the most!!!111!!!

You are obviously (and maliciously?) misrepresenting what Toni said. She was obviously referring to the USA, which is dominated by Christianity. If talking about the whole world, then would have to substitute the word 'religious' for 'Christian'.
Do you agree that the shooters at Bondi were dangerous? Or do you think they were harmless pranksters?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

But why are we again talking about this? I guess the Ilk knows it lost on the issue of Ritt's self defense, so they are dredging up another old case to muddy the waters. Pretty soon, y'all will be bringing up Emmett Till.

I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have.

First of all, the firearm charge was dismissed by the judge because of a loophole in the law. So it wasn't even illegal for him to have that rifle.
Second, even if it was illegal, it does not abrogate his right to self-defense. When Bernie Goetz shot five yoots who were trying to rob him, he was only convicted of possessing an illegal gun, but not of the shootings themselves.
And just because two cases have people of the same age does not mean they are alike in any way. Rittenhouse self-defense case was already very different than the premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk. The Trayvon Martin case is unlike either of the two. It's just another derail.

White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course.

No, by you. Because you see skin color über alles. In your mind, the only difference between these cases is race. That's an almost pathological obsession with race.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it.

There is zero evidence Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. All the evidence points to Rosenberg being the one looking for trouble all that night. And boy, did he find it!

Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries.

Z suspected Trayvon of casing houses. Given that he was, back home, caught with burglary tools and jewelry whose provenance he could not explain, I do not think that suspicion should be dismissed as prejudice.

They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Because they both were acting in self-defense.

Interesting that you are all u on my case because I brought up an unrelated case when you do this all of the time. I guess I was encroaching on your style? Didn’t notice a trademark…

lol, pot calling the kettle black.

Well, at least you are being pragmatic.

 

[Toni]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

But why are we again talking about this? I guess the Ilk knows it lost on the issue of Ritt's self defense, so they are dredging up another old case to muddy the waters. Pretty soon, y'all will be bringing up Emmett Till.

I mentioned Martin because he was the same age as Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse killed two people and injured another person with a firearm it was not legal for him to have.

First of all, the firearm charge was dismissed by the judge because of a loophole in the law. So it wasn't even illegal for him to have that rifle.
Second, even if it was illegal, it does not abrogate his right to self-defense. When Bernie Goetz shot five yoots who were trying to rob him, he was only convicted of possessing an illegal gun, but not of the shootings themselves.
And just because two cases have people of the same age does not mean they are alike in any way. Rittenhouse self-defense case was already very different than the premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk. The Trayvon Martin case is unlike either of the two. It's just another derail.

White boy was the shooter= AOK. Black boy was dead = AOK. By you, of course.

No, by you. Because you see skin color über alles. In your mind, the only difference between these cases is race. That's an almost pathological obsession with race.

Rittenhouse went looking for trouble and brought a weapon to ensure he found it.

There is zero evidence Rittenhouse was looking for trouble. All the evidence points to Rosenberg being the one looking for trouble all that night. And boy, did he find it!

Martin was walking home from a convenience store when he was killed by an armed adult. Both shooters had delusions of being essential police auxiliaries.

Z suspected Trayvon of casing houses. Given that he was, back home, caught with burglary tools and jewelry whose provenance he could not explain, I do not think that suspicion should be dismissed as prejudice.

They each got away with killing unarmed people.

Because they both were acting in self-defense.

Interesting that you are all u on my case because I brought up an unrelated case when you do this all of the time. I guess I was encroaching on your style? Didn’t notice a trademark…

lol, pot calling the kettle black.

Well, at least you are being pragmatic.

I’ve never heard that word used that way before….

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.
Or that some drunk driving and alcohol addiction is worth the cost of having legal alcohol.

Freedom always comes at a cost.

The vast overwhelming number of traffic deaths are unintentional. Unlike the vast overwhelming number of gun deaths. For starters.

They literally cannot spot the most obvious differences in (most, if not all) situations. It's amazing. I don't even know how they're capable of functioning.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

It wasn’t white, heterosexual male christians that shot up Bondi beach.

They were white, heterosexual males, and no one there, shooters or victims was Christian, so that doesn't apply, but they were all religious.

Which is weird because, according to Toni white, male heterosexual Christians are the most dangerous people on the planet and we should fear them the most!!!111!!!

You are obviously (and maliciously?) misrepresenting what Toni said.

Yeah right wingers will misrepresent arguments all the time.

 

[ZiprHead]

So you attack someone. The person you attacked starts getting the better of you, so it's okay to kill the person you attacked "in self defense". What a totally fucked up viewpoint this is.

There is no evidence that Z attacked Trayvon.

You keep saying that and I keep telling you it's not true. Martin's girlfriend testified in court hat she was on the phone with him when he was attacked. So why do you keep saying that?

And being followed by somebody is not a justification to open a can of "whoop ass" on him. Even if you think that he is a "creepy-ass cracker".

Sure, Jan.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

There is nothing about those injuries that explains who attacked who. You are using self serving court defense arguments.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

There is zero reason to suspect that Travon Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Of course there is. For example, injuries on Z's head and corresponding injuries to Trayvon Martin's knuckles. Are you suggesting Z attacked Trayvon by headbutting his fists?

There is nothing about those injuries that explains who attacked who. You are using self serving court defense arguments.

How the hell does someone determine knuckle injuries correspond to head injuries? Sounds like bullshit. And an actual examiner would say those injuries are consistent with a particular situation. Not that they correspond, because they don't know all of the details of the situation usually. We definitely don't in this case.

 

[thebeave]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

This might help clarify things, regarding the inevitable guns deaths resulting from the 2nd Amendment. Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

No, It Wasn't Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well that'd be ridiculously dumb witted to compare a massively regulated thing and a much lesser regulated thing. A substantial amount of money and regulations go into car safety, both inside and outside the car. And like it or not, cars are a massive part of American infrastructure that powers our national economy.

With cars there comes recognized hazards. We have speed limits, limit the age of people that operate them, have rules regarding what is allowed while driving. Our streets are littered with control devices, even have 20 mph limits near schools. The number of car related deaths has plummeted due to Government intervention. I'm wondering if there is an activity in America that is regulated remotely in the same hemisphere as automobiles.

It sure the heck isn't guns.

Its not really an issue of comparing a "regulated thing" versus a "much less regulated thing":

Except it is because he's quoted as doing just that.

 

[Elixir]

Possibly. He also argued some inevitable gun deaths were worth the cost of having gun rights.

How is that different than an argument that some traffic deaths are worth the cost of having cars.

Well… cars offer the benefit of allowing BILLIONS of people to travel beyond the range of their feet and those of their animals. Motor vehicles also allow the distribution of food, energy, clothing and shelter materials. They are instrumental in the extension of global life expectancies as well as the quality of lives.
Guns offer the benefit of the ability harm and kill people and animals without getting your hands dirty.
See the difference?
No?
Then it’s no wonder you get treated as you do here.