President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[swampfrog]

That’s rich. The state wasn’t refusing to do anything. Swampfrog, why do you strain to act there is a moral component for right-wing militias to cross state lines and kill people? You really think sanctioning armed political groups killing people for property damage is justifiable and constitutional?

What is morality? Some kind of fixed measurement system that everyone has access to? It's way more complicated than that. The state has absolutely decided to not protect property. Businesses have been looted, burned, and otherwise been targeted or impacted by anarchy. Business owners in Seattle are suing the city.

I used the word understandable--not justifiable nor constitutional. In the same address that King makes the statement that rioting is the language of the unheard he condemns it as not useful. It's understandable, but likely will just make things worse. Armed citizens fit in the same category, they are understandably upset that property is not being protected, the choice they are making will just make things worse.

[frank ryan]

What is morality? Some kind of fixed measurement system that everyone has access to? It's way more complicated than that. The state has absolutely decided to not protect property. Businesses have been looted, burned, and otherwise been targeted or impacted by anarchy. Business owners in Seattle are suing the city.

I used the word understandable--not justifiable nor constitutional. In the same address that King makes the statement that rioting is the language of the unheard he condemns it as not useful. It's understandable, but likely will just make things worse. Armed citizens fit in the same category, they are understandably upset that property is not being protected, the choice they are making will just make things worse.

The kid came across state lines I believe? You’re being generous if you think it was because he was so troubled that businesses were damaged. You should read more Dr. King

[tooblue]

Now speaking in general terms - and NOT of this specific incident, you and tooblue seem to be saying that anyone having a gun at any time and shooting another person as part of an altercation makes them a vigilante murderer. Yeah - I don't see things that way. Would I personally go to a riot zone with a gun to defend property? Hell no. But I'm not going to say someone who does and then ends up shooting someone is a murderer. That will be up to the prosecutors to decide. But I tend to lean to a belief that people do have the right to defend themselves when attacked. The prosecutor, judge, jury, etc., will have to decide the facts of this case and whether or not this was self-defense. I have no idea. I will say it wasn't smart on his part..

You are making a red herring argument because the entire premise of your expressed views is wrong. Leaving his home state to confront protesters while armed, and neither deputized, a police officer or soldier determines that he is a vigilante who committed a premeditated act.

[tooblue]

You are making a red herring argument because the entire premise of your expressed views is wrong. Leaving his home state to confront protesters while armed, and neither deputized, a police officer or soldier determines that he is a vigilante who committed a premeditated act.

I won't argue further, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my bluntness. I am simply exhausted by it all, and I am dismayed by what is happening.

[beefytee]

Yeah, I am guessing about same the number of the two party's ballots will end up in the trash and never counted as well...

[ATTACH]10460[/ATTACH]

Pretty much impossible for them to throw away ballots at polling stations, amirite?

[swampfrog]

The kid came across state lines I believe? You’re being generous if you think it was because he was so troubled that businesses were damaged. You should read more Dr. King

The state line is irrelevant, it's less than 30 minutes from his home. I live in Washington, but what happens in Portland is vitally important to my community.

From Dr. King's speech:

Now I wanted to say something about the fact that we have lived over these last two or three summers with agony and we have seen our cities going up in flames. And I would be the first to say that I am still committed to militant, powerful, massive, non*-violence as the most potent weapon in grappling with the problem from a direct action point of view. I'm absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. And I feel that we must always work with an effective, powerful weapon and method that brings about tangible results. But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

What did I miss? He understands the rioting and still condemns them for exactly the response we are seeing and that I stated, "...a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community..."

A riot by definition is a deliberate act of transgressing the rights of some people for attention. There are communities of people for which those rights are sacred, as sacred as all of the other moral matrices that exist.

I'll provide a reading suggestion also, try Jonathan Haidt.

[myboynoah]

The state line is irrelevant, it's less than 30 minutes from his home. I live in Washington, but what happens in Portland is vitally important to my community.

Not fully irrelevent. He is being held in Illinois and must be extradicted to Wisconsin where he took the lives of two people.

[swampfrog]

Not fully irrelevent. He is being held in Illinois and must be extradicted to Wisconsin where he took the lives of two people.

Sure, legally relevant, but not likely relevant to his motivations or feeling of his community's rights being abridged. The "state line" argument is often inserted to infer that he went to great lengths and traveled some distance to insert himself.

[myboynoah]

Sure, legally relevant, but not likely relevant to his motivations or feeling of his community's rights being abridged. The "state line" argument is often inserted to infer that he went to great lengths and traveled some distance to insert himself.

His community's rights? lol

[swampfrog]

His community's rights? lol

This guy agrees with me.

Embedded Tweet

[USUC]

Everything associated with that story just seems crazy.

Who was this kid "protecting the business" with? Anyone he knew? Or did he just show up on his own? If my kid says he needs to take a gun to go help a bunch of guys "protect a business", either I'm going with him or he isn't going. But I can't imagine a parent letting a kid take a gun to a riot zone to help "protect a business" without knowing who he'll be there with and what the plan is.

He demonstrates everything that can go wrong with the tough-guy "protect my property" crowd. Are you really prepared to shoot someone? I suspect this kid thought he could just show up and look tough with the rest of his group and the rioters would leave them alone.

In the videos I've seen - at some point, some how, he gets separated from the rest of the "militia"-types. He's getting chased by the first victim, who is throwing stuff at him, making threats, and earlier is on video taunting and challenging the militia-types with stuff like "shoot me, n***a!" There was a confrontation brewing, for sure.

So he's a 17 year-old kid getting chased by a 37 yr old man who has been antagonizing him and his group all night, and now he's on his own and probably terrified. There are gun shots going off while he's being chased, as is pointed out in one video, and he looks back. Some have speculated that maybe he thought he was being shot at. I supposed it's just as likely he could've thought one of his buddies was coming to the rescue. Either way - if he doesn't have a gun, who knows what happens. Is he still a target of this guy chasing him? Or does he get ignored? Does he get beat up, or just chased off? We'll never know, because he has a gun and shoots the guy.

He goes up to the guy, makes a phone call to someone and watches while others initially administer first aid. Then you see others coming running into the scene, and he hangs up and runs away. Apparently someone is shouting "there's the shooter, get him."

Running down the street, a group is chasing him. He gets hit in the back of the head. Trips and falls and takes a flying kick to the head, then the guy with the skateboard hits him, tries to grab his gun, and gets shot in the chest. The other guy who was shot in the arm comes up to him, pauses as they seem to size each other up, then charges in and gets shot in the arm that he's holding the pistol.

Everyone scatters at that point, and the kid walks down to the police, who apparently don't seem to interested in him.

Obviously these people would not have been shot had he not had a gun. That's on him. I'm sure some people think he was there to shoot people. I think it's just as likely that he was there to be a tough guy, but never anticipated pulling his trigger.

I don't know what to make of the "self-defense" claims. He was obviously attacked. But he was also in a riot zone - he had to expect that was a possibility. I'll admit that I'd be happy to see someone kick the asses of anyone attacking people and getting violent as part of the protests - but the shooting crosses some boundaries for me.

I have a hard time answering for myself to what extreme would I go to protect property. My family? Yeah...I have no problem shooting you. But breaking windows and burning things downtown away from my home? I like to think I'd just walk away from that.

This whole Rittenhouse thing is absolutely tragic, and some of the commentary here has reduced this to a cut and dry/black and white case. Apparently, we have some clairvoyants who know the intentions of nerdy 17 year old and the victims. Everyone in this situation made horrible decisions that led to the end results.

This 17 year old should not have been there, that much is clear. He was with adults the whole night, did not any of them know who he was or his age? I kind of get the impression that he just met up with the group who didn't know him previously. Based off of his social media, he was a cop worshipper and Trump supporter. Some people are taking this as evidence enough he was a white supremacist. I don't know. But an armed 17 year old in this situation was not going to end well. If this whole mess is avoided he is probably more emboldened to do it again.I don't know what his home situation is, but there is some explaining to do on how this kid was allowed to go to the powder keg armed. My guess is his parents didn't even know. But there is nothing to praise about this kid for being in this situation. I think I would have known better than to put myself in that situation. And I know my dad wouldn't have let me. But this kid was there, past curfew, in a situation he probably knew would be extremely volatile.

Also, I see many on the left calling the people who were shot as heroes. The right says they were just thugs because each had a history of violent crime. This is too simplistic. But they were there after curfew with people smashing windows and being confrontational. One was armed with a hand gun, another was on camera being extremely confrontational using threatening language. It's possible the final two shooting victims were acting to subdue who they thought was someone intent on shooting more people. But they didn't have to be a part of a riot just like the dumb 17 year old didn't have to be there confronting a riot.

If I was going to put myself into the kids shoes, I would guess that he just wanted to walk around with a gun and feel like a bad ass. If my intention was to go up there to shoot some commies, i probably wouldn't turn tail and run around when someone charges me before shooting him. But who knows, maybe he is nothing but an uncomplicated sociopath at 17.

But what I don't understand is why on earth would you antagonize and chase down someone with a gun? Did they just see him as the kid that he is and just assumed they were going to beat him and teach him a lesson? It boggles my mind. Just entirely stupid. Even the last two shooting victims. He was running away from the crowd and towards police. He isn't turning around and shooting back at you. Why chase down a dude with a gun who just shot someone else and engage him? It was a fatal decision.

The kid shouldn't have been there. He didn't have the maturity to handle himself like the others in the armed group. If the kid wasn't there these 3 people probably wouldn't have been shot. But the charge of 1st degree murder is going to be a tough bar to hurdle.

[myboynoah]

This guy agrees with me.

Embedded Tweet

In what way? I worked in and lived outside of Memphis. Representative Deberry and his community would have NEVER EVER welcomed armed white vigilante "militia" from Fayette County, Collierville, Millington, Arlington or the white suburbs of Northern Mississippi onto their streets, even during civil unrest.

And Representative Deberry never even suggested such a thing in his eloquent remarks.

Young Kyle armed himself and traveled some distance and inserted himself into a situation in a way that he had no business doing so. He even stated his lethal intent.

Young Kyle has a very punchable face.

[frank ryan]

This whole Rittenhouse thing is absolutely tragic, and some of the commentary here has reduced this to a cut and dry/black and white case. Apparently, we have some clairvoyants who know the intentions of nerdy 17 year old and the victims. Everyone in this situation made horrible decisions that led to the end results.

This 17 year old should not have been there, that much is clear. He was with adults the whole night, did not any of them know who he was or his age? I kind of get the impression that he just met up with the group who didn't know him previously. Based off of his social media, he was a cop worshipper and Trump supporter. Some people are taking this as evidence enough he was a white supremacist. I don't know. But an armed 17 year old in this situation was not going to end well. If this whole mess is avoided he is probably more emboldened to do it again.I don't know what his home situation is, but there is some explaining to do on how this kid was allowed to go to the powder keg armed. My guess is his parents didn't even know. But there is nothing to praise about this kid for being in this situation. I think I would have known better than to put myself in that situation. And I know my dad wouldn't have let me. But this kid was there, past curfew, in a situation he probably knew would be extremely volatile.

Also, I see many on the left calling the people who were shot as heroes. The right says they were just thugs because each had a history of violent crime. This is too simplistic. But they were there after curfew with people smashing windows and being confrontational. One was armed with a hand gun, another was on camera being extremely confrontational using threatening language. It's possible the final two shooting victims were acting to subdue who they thought was someone intent on shooting more people. But they didn't have to be a part of a riot just like the dumb 17 year old didn't have to be there confronting a riot.

If I was going to put myself into the kids shoes, I would guess that he just wanted to walk around with a gun and feel like a bad ass. If my intention was to go up there to shoot some commies, i probably wouldn't turn tail and run around when someone charges me before shooting him. But who knows, maybe he is nothing but an uncomplicated sociopath at 17.

But what I don't understand is why on earth would you antagonize and chase down someone with a gun? Did they just see him as the kid that he is and just assumed they were going to beat him and teach him a lesson? It boggles my mind. Just entirely stupid. Even the last two shooting victims. He was running away from the crowd and towards police. He isn't turning around and shooting back at you. Why chase down a dude with a gun who just shot someone else and engage him? It was a fatal decision.

The kid shouldn't have been there. He didn't have the maturity to handle himself like the others in the armed group. If the kid wasn't there these 3 people probably wouldn't have been shot. But the charge of 1st degree murder is going to be a tough bar to hurdle.

This is pretty interesting. A lot of people go out of their way to humanize this kid but have no problem celebrating the death of the victims. Look no further than some of Ted's posts. Everyone deserves to be humanized but it seems to be reserved for white suburban nerdy kids. People have gone to jail for longer and for a lot less. I've worked with some people who made stupid choices, but had better excuses than this guy, and they were not treated kindly by the system. I think it's easier to want to explain it away when the offender reminds us more of ourself or someone in our life than other criminals.

[wapiti]

This whole Rittenhouse thing is absolutely tragic, and some of the commentary here has reduced this to a cut and dry/black and white case. Apparently, we have some clairvoyants who know the intentions of nerdy 17 year old and the victims. Everyone in this situation made horrible decisions that led to the end results.

This 17 year old should not have been there, that much is clear. He was with adults the whole night, did not any of them know who he was or his age? I kind of get the impression that he just met up with the group who didn't know him previously. Based off of his social media, he was a cop worshipper and Trump supporter. Some people are taking this as evidence enough he was a white supremacist. I don't know. But an armed 17 year old in this situation was not going to end well. If this whole mess is avoided he is probably more emboldened to do it again.I don't know what his home situation is, but there is some explaining to do on how this kid was allowed to go to the powder keg armed. My guess is his parents didn't even know. But there is nothing to praise about this kid for being in this situation. I think I would have known better than to put myself in that situation. And I know my dad wouldn't have let me. But this kid was there, past curfew, in a situation he probably knew would be extremely volatile.

Also, I see many on the left calling the people who were shot as heroes. The right says they were just thugs because each had a history of violent crime. This is too simplistic. But they were there after curfew with people smashing windows and being confrontational. One was armed with a hand gun, another was on camera being extremely confrontational using threatening language. It's possible the final two shooting victims were acting to subdue who they thought was someone intent on shooting more people. But they didn't have to be a part of a riot just like the dumb 17 year old didn't have to be there confronting a riot.

If I was going to put myself into the kids shoes, I would guess that he just wanted to walk around with a gun and feel like a bad ass. If my intention was to go up there to shoot some commies, i probably wouldn't turn tail and run around when someone charges me before shooting him. But who knows, maybe he is nothing but an uncomplicated sociopath at 17.

But what I don't understand is why on earth would you antagonize and chase down someone with a gun? Did they just see him as the kid that he is and just assumed they were going to beat him and teach him a lesson? It boggles my mind. Just entirely stupid. Even the last two shooting victims. He was running away from the crowd and towards police. He isn't turning around and shooting back at you. Why chase down a dude with a gun who just shot someone else and engage him? It was a fatal decision.

The kid shouldn't have been there. He didn't have the maturity to handle himself like the others in the armed group. If the kid wasn't there these 3 people probably wouldn't have been shot. But the charge of 1st degree murder is going to be a tough bar to hurdle.

I agree with this assessment.

[frank ryan]

The state line is irrelevant, it's less than 30 minutes from his home. I live in Washington, but what happens in Portland is vitally important to my community.

From Dr. King's speech:



What did I miss? He understands the rioting and still condemns them for exactly the response we are seeing and that I stated, "...a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community..."

A riot by definition is a deliberate act of transgressing the rights of some people for attention. There are communities of people for which those rights are sacred, as sacred as all of the other moral matrices that exist.

I'll provide a reading suggestion also, try Jonathan Haidt.

I imagine you a huge fan of the Black Panthers who defended their property with arms.
Good grief swampfrog. You're assuming that everyone there was rioting and destroying property. You go to olympic levels of effort to afford nuance to those you can identify with.
That fact that your spending time trying to rationalize and justify what this kid is sad.

You're every bit the believer in victimization that SJWs are, it's just a different group of aggrieved people. Bringing an AR to riots (soon it will be peaceful protests if we tolerate this) and shooting people is not ok. Anyone who'd sign off on a minor doing that should have their parenting called in to question.