Current Events > Kyle Rittenhouse celebrates 20th bday and thanks the 2nd amendment

(+) Yeah! (+)

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Why do y'all even bother arguing with these people? Nobody has ever been convinced of anything on the internet through debate alone.

The first few posts, sure. But when we're 20 pages deep and they're still saying the same shit, it kinda feels like we're going in circles and it's clear these guys have nothing terribly important or insightful to say.

You should change your page view to 50 posts a page. Its a more satisfying experience.

moar liek Kyle ROTTENhouse

Bass_X0 posted...

You should change your page view to 50 posts a page. Its a more satisfying experience.

Eh too much continuous scrolling for me

RustyAxe posted...

You're just a guy on the internet your opinion doesn't matter at all its okay to be happy the guy who raped 4 kids is dead why can't you be happy about that instead of sad he was a bad person.

I don't want to be happy that someone was killed via an unjust system, no matter who they were. You can't force me to be happy about that.

If you want to be happy people you don't like are being killed, go off, but remember you're also just a guy on the Internet.

Whatever you think that means.

Sphyx posted...

You think it's more beneficial for him to be killed than for them not to have been raped in the first place?

Wow, that's just disgusting.

What????? What's wrong with you???? You're a disgusting human being for saying that you are awful just go away what the hell???

CyricZ posted...

I don't want to be happy that someone was killed via an unjust system, no matter who they were. You can't force me to be happy about that.

If you want to be happy people you don't like are being killed, go off, but remember you're also just a guy on the Internet.

Whatever you think that means.

It's not people I don't like it's pedophiles. I am happy when pedophiles aren't able to rape children anymore. Who said just people I don't like?

No, I'm not reaching. It is absolutely the wrong phrase to use in this situation.

That is NOT a net positive, unless he considers the "positive" of the shooting to outweigh the negatives of the rapes.

The most likely scenario here is that he didn't actually mean "net positive" and has gotten so emotionally driven trying to play up the "virtue" of shooting a guy without even knowing they were a paedophile.

lol

Sphyx posted...

No, I'm not reaching. It is absolutely the wrong phrase to use in this situation.

That is NOT a net positive, unless he considers the "positive" of the shooting to outweigh the negatives of the rapes.

The most likely scenario here is that he didn't actually mean "net positive" and has gotten so emotionally driven trying to play up the "virtue" of shooting a guy without even knowing they were a paedophile.

Why are you so much an awful person that you'd say something like that to me?? It's really messed up and cruel this is an internet argument stop getting so angry and offended its disgusting .

RustyAxe posted...

It's not people I don't like it's pedophiles. I am happy when pedophiles aren't able to rape children anymore. Who said just people I don't like?

Right. You don't like people who are pedophiles and think they deserve to die.

Oh, you poor victim...

Why oh why couldn't I just fall in line when you used your magic word?

this topic is wild lol

CyricZ posted...

Right. You don't like people who are pedophiles and think they deserve to die.

I don't like people that are pedophiles why is that a bad thing? You could have just said the last bit to make your weird troll point but you bring up that I don't like them like it's a bad thing?

RustyAxe posted...

I don't like people that are pedophiles why is that a bad thing? You could have just said the last bit to make your weird troll point but you bring up that I don't like them like it's a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing that you don't like pedophiles.

I just think it's a bad thing that you think they deserve to die.

CyricZ posted...

It's not a bad thing that you don't like pedophiles.

I just think it's a bad thing that you think they deserve to die.

I do not get sad or something when they die do you get sad when they die?

RustyAxe posted...

I do not get sad or something when they die do you get sad when they die?

My sadness is for death via an unjust system, no matter who they are.

CyricZ posted...

My sadness is for death via an unjust system, no matter who they are.

You're sad when a pedo dies uhh ok.

RustyAxe posted...

You're sad when a pedo dies uhh ok.

Guess that's the end of it isn't it?

We got people in here that are happy that pedos gets the easy solution, a quick death?
Thats disgusting.

RustyAxe posted...

You're just a guy on the internet your opinion doesn't matter at all its okay to be happy the guy who raped 4 kids is dead why can't you be happy about that instead of sad he was a bad person.

The sex offender dying directly led to non sex offenders dying. It's still weird to be happy he died. His battle drew in innocent people who didn't know he was a sex offender and they got shot too. So no, I'm not happy that sex offender died because if Kyle had never fought with anyone, nobody would have died.

The survivors said they thought in that moment, they were fighting off a mass shooter. They didn't know what happened to spark the fighting and they didn't know the man fighting Kyle was a sex offender. They rushed in to fight off Kyle and got shot. I remember a woman claiming Kyle was about to kill her but her boyfriend took the bullet and died

Also, that sex offender paid for his crimes. It is not up to random people to finish him off . He served time in prison.

Most people who support the death penalty are Christians. This is ironic because Christianity teaches

1. Don't kill

2. Redemption is the entire main issue of the religion and the idea that anyone can make up for anything they have done and be made holy again

But then you have Christians demanding death and no 2nd chance

CyricZ posted...

Yeah sorry about the "ignoring you" part but some of us sleep.

Humans are still humans, no matter what they've done.

If you believe that Rittenhouse was putting down an inhuman animal that day, you should say so and make that clear. Say out loud and clearly that you believe certain criminals are no longer human and deserve to die. Sex criminals, pedophiles, whatever your threshold is.

Stop cowarding out by asking leading questions and just say what you believe.

Watch I'll do it first *ahem*:

I believe that despite the crimes they committed, those two people did not deserve to die. Neither by Kyle Rittenhouse extrajudicially or by any other means.

They didn't get shot for crimes they committed in the past. They got shot for crime they were currently committing.

Zikten posted...

Also, that sex offender paid for his crimes. It is not up to random people to finish him off . He served time in prison.

Most people who support the death penalty are Christians. This is ironic because Christianity teaches

1. Don't kill

2. Redemption is the entire main issue of the religion and the idea that anyone can make up for anything they have done and be made holy again

But then you have Christians demanding death and no 2nd chance

Don't murder*

Nobody has the right to kill another human, except in self defense. That's why I oppose the death penalty

Zikten posted...

Nobody has the right to kill another human, except in self defense. That's why I oppose the death penalty

Then why do all your posts say otherwise?

Revelation34 posted...

Then why do all your posts say otherwise?

I believe Kyle started the fight

But even if the sex offender started it, Kyle went on to kill others.

Zikten posted...

I believe Kyle started the fight

But even if the sex offender started it, Kyle went on to kill others.

Which was also self defense.

Revelation34 posted...

Which was also self defense.

The victims died thinking they were in the right . The survivors all stated they thought Kyle was beginning a mass shooting attack. Kyle could have stopped all this by staying in his house

Revelation34 posted...

They didn't get shot for crimes they committed in the past. They got shot for crime they were currently committing.

They weren't tried nor convicted of those "crimes they were currently committing", so calling them "crimes" is inaccurate. I know that seems pedantic but I think in the context of this particular incident where someone was tried and acquitted, it's worth mentioning.

But hey that's not the point.

The point is that the person I was arguing with was the one arguing that the crimes they committed in the past were relevant, so please direct your grievance to them for bringing that up in the first place.

Well, this topic certainly got weird since I last posted.

Zikten posted...

The victims died thinking they were in the right . The survivors all stated they thought Kyle was beginning a mass shooting attack. Kyle could have stopped all this by staying in his house

Couldn't the people kyle killed in self defense have stayed alive if they just stayed at their house?

Zikten posted...

The victims died thinking they were in the right . The survivors all stated they thought Kyle was beginning a mass shooting attack. Kyle could have stopped all this by staying in his house

That's not how self defense works.

CyricZ posted...

They weren't tried nor convicted of those "crimes they were currently committing", so calling them "crimes" is inaccurate. I know that seems pedantic but I think in the context of this particular incident where someone was tried and acquitted, it's worth mentioning.

But hey that's not the point.

The point is that the person I was arguing with was the one arguing that the crimes they committed in the past were relevant, so please direct your grievance to them for bringing that up in the first place.

How do you charge a corpse with a crime?

k1zzl3_82 posted...

Couldn't the people kyle killed in self defense have stayed alive if they just stayed at their house?

Stick to "they shouldn't have approached him".

"A shooting victim should just have not existed in an area with a shooter" is not the correct take.

Revelation34 posted...

How do you charge a corpse with a crime?

Exactly. That's why calling what they were doing "crimes" is inaccurate.

CyricZ posted...

Exactly. That's why calling what they were doing "crimes" is inaccurate.

crime
noun
krm
1
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

Not will be.

k1zzl3_82 posted...

Couldn't the people kyle killed in self defense have stayed alive if they just stayed at their house?

They had a reason to be there. They were trying to hold cops accountable for murdering black people

Kyle was just there to clean graffiti off buildings. Even if one wanted to do that, it's wise to wait til the next day and wipe it off when the protestors are gone. You don't clean it off 2 minutes after it went on, while the protestors ate staring at you

And you don't strap an illegal gun on your back to spread panic and intimidation

And yes it was illegal because 17 year olds are not allowed to own a gun like that

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I acknowledged the pedantics of it, but if we're going to spend yet another topic discussing Kyle Rittenhouse and whether he's a criminal for what he did, it might be a bad show of faith to call those he killed criminals for what they did without a trial, don't you think?

Zikten posted...

They had a reason to be there. They were trying to hold cops accountable for murdering black people

Kyle was just there to clean graffiti off buildings. Even if one wanted to do that, it's wise to wait til the next day and wipe it off when the protestors are gone. You don't clean it off 2 minutes after it went on, while the protestors ate staring at you

And you don't strap an illegal gun on your back to spread panic and intimidation

And yes it was illegal because 17 year olds are not allowed to own a gun like that

That sounds like something you made up.

Revelation34 posted...

That sounds like something you made up.

He had a gun with him. He didn't cast a spell to summon it from another dimension when he killed those people

Using a magical spell to summon a gun is like a Green Lantern using their ring to shoot lasers.

Zikten posted...

They had a reason to be there. They were trying to hold cops accountable for murdering black people

Kyle was just there to clean graffiti off buildings. Even if one wanted to do that, it's wise to wait til the next day and wipe it off when the protestors are gone. You don't clean it off 2 minutes after it went on, while the protestors ate staring at you

And you don't strap an illegal gun on your back to spread panic and intimidation

And yes it was illegal because 17 year olds are not allowed to own a gun like that

The Gun was not illegal, here's an article why the weapons charge was dropped. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/explainer-why-did-the-judge-drop-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge

Additionally he had just as much of a legal right to be there as protestors. Is he an asshole? Yeah. Was this an avoidable situation? Yeah. Was he legally in the wrong? No.

GranolaPanic posted...

Legally and ethically speaking, he was in the wrong for lying to authorities about his medical credentials. He was there under false pretenses and had ulterior motives.

Gee, I wonder if those ulterior motives included murder of leftist protesters.

Zikten posted...

He had a gun with him. He didn't cast a spell to summon it from another dimension when he killed those people

Oh so you're ignoring everything else you said because you know you pulled it out of your ass.

Revelation34 posted...

Oh so you're ignoring everything else you said because you know you pulled it out of your ass.

What are you talking about? Did he throw bullets at his victims from his hands?
You don't think he had a gun?

Zikten posted...

What are you talking about? Did he throw bullets at his victims from his hands?
You don't think he had a gun?

Maybe you should start reading your own posts before posting them.

Revelation34 posted...

Maybe you should start reading your own posts before posting them.

Or maybe I just not worry about your posts

GranolaPanic posted...

Legally and ethically speaking, he was in the wrong for lying to authorities about his medical credentials.

I'm going to make a bold statement here and say it is not unethical to lie to police as police are an inherently manipulative and coercive organization, and whether he was allowed to stay there or not shouldn't be down to whether he had medical credentials or not. If protestors were there under protection of the 1st Amendment Right of Assembly, then counter-protestors should be allowed too. If protestors were there in violation of exceptions to the Right to Assembly, then the counter-protestors should not be allowed either. Selective enforcement of the 1st Amendment, however, is intolerable.

Also, there is no legal penalty for lying about having a medical license to police unless it was to convince them of a clear and immediate fraud (Let me operate on that person who is bleeding), or under legal oath. Since having a medical certification is immaterial to whether someone can be at a protest or not, it is not fraud.

Guys. We can hate Rittenhouse without lying about him breaking any laws.

As a comparison, Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis have been kidnapping-but-not-legally-kidnapping migrants and we can find that detestable without claiming they broke laws (in their case it actually makes it worse that they purposely exploited loopholes in the law to make people suffer for political stunts rather than just lucking out like Rittenhouse did).