The murder of Charlie Kirk

Good. So if someone comes to your house and tries to burn down your home, so long as no one is inside the home then it’s ok to burn it down right? Which by the people have been happy in this thread to talk about him being 17 as a factor for why he was intrinsically irresponsible. Well the people, including Rosenbaum, who were setting people on fire are intrinsically murderous. They have no ****ing clue if someone is inside the buildings they try to burn down.

So in principle it’s not a bunch of bricks. It’s a building that is owned by someone and who deserves to be able to defend their property from people with either reckless intent or outright homicidal intent. There’s no protection of liability when you’re committing arson ffs.

By the way I think you are absolutely right that open carry and concealed carry for civilians is scary. I don’t trust other people not to fly off the handle (though it is very rare for legal gun owners, it happens). But then the police have to actually protect people’s property and lives instead of letting the city be burned down to let the rioters tire themselves out. You’re a capitalist, so you should get that. People’s livelihoods are being burned down and a livelihood is not fungible even when the law treats it as such.

Wow, I haven't even heard him called a civil rights leader by his fanboys. Which civil rights did he even defend or promote?

hmm, very interesting

some exceptions apply

Wrong. His stated objective which is literally caught on video in an unprompted utterance and which was corroborated by witnesses that night was two things:

1) administer aid and be a field medic, which he was doing
2) protect the community from arson, especially the car lot that he was posted up at

1 is corroborated by witnesses and a livestream video

2 is corroborated by the inciting incident. He was at the car lot extinguishing a fire when he was approached by two men, one of them armed itself.

I think he was more radicalized by seeing his city being burned down, which radicalized a lot of people, which people who preach nonviolence understand is what happens when you use violence instead of nonviolence in a democratic society.

People love to quote MLK Jr about “rioting is the language of the unheard” but like to ignore what he actually told people to do at protests and how much he deeply disagreed with violence and was called a sellout for denouncing it.

And people that smeared him with lies are the ones that turned him into a martyr tbh. It’s gross that despite 90% of the info people believe about Rittenhouse being wrong, even when confronted with all the facts and being shown what really happen, it gets retreated to “well in any case he was irresponsible”. So we’re just going to ignore that for instance Rob had no idea what even caused the first shooting and thought it was a random guy running up on KR trying to stop a mass shooting when the reality couldn’t be further from that narrative?

I’ll say it again. Rosenbaum was a white man who said the n word at a racial justice protest in ANGER. The fact is that this guy didn’t care at all about BLM, he was mentally unstable, threatening to kill people, starting fights, and he decided to chase down a guy with an AR-15 while his associate yells that KR should be killed.

This story never gained any traction in mainstream media. It was all “well he shot three people on camera” and case closed. What? That’s ridiculous and causes tremendous distrust in the media.

White makes right

Yes exactly. When Israel goes in and levels massive amounts of buildings, people intrinsically know that they are committed to killing whoever may be inside, and that’s why they have to issue no go zones and other warnings.

But even if no one is inside, burning down/leveling buildings is intrinsically an act of war that is extremely violent. That is absolutely 100% correct and it’s a great case to bring up for leftists to understand why arson is intrinsically violent and “I don’t care if they burn down a wendys it’s just bricks” is incredibly dumb.

Women rights (being against people with dicks in women prisons, sport and so on), and anti-racism (protecting whites and asians from widespread systemic racism in university application and hiring and elsewhere).

As i said, martin luther kirk

it’s not very law and order to say people should be prosecuted for not committing crimes.

it's impossible for now until you amend the constitution , unless it's a per capita (apportioned to states depending on population) wealth tax.

States can tax wealth and they do already (property taxes). Ask yourself why democrat controlled states didn't enact wealth taxes on other assets though. And ask them to do that if you think it's good.

Why do you want to impose that on republican states?

btw the 16a was passed to tax 3-4% the very highest incomes.

The end result is taxing normal people a lot, as obvious

Yes, even under all the circumstances you have given for why KR was such a stand up guy, many people believe that a 17yo boy who brings an assault rifle to a riot is not a hero and should be held accountable for his actions.

You think it's gross that someone has a different opinion than you. I think it's gross that you're defending him so strongly.

If these "armed guards" were not on duty at their job, they were also vigilantes, and based on what was said here enabled and encouraged KR.

It is a crime in some cases for parents to provide weapons to their children who then committed acts of violence. I think it should be a crime in every case, and prosecuted as strongly as possible.

Point out where I said I think KR is a standup guy.

I called you gross for defending Rosenbaum after being shown the truth like half a dozen times in this thread about his actions. You never retracted that you think that guy is a HERO. You said that about Rosenbaum, I never said that about Rittenhouse. But you didn’t retract it.

It’s completely bad faith to say I think it’s gross someone has a difference of opinion. That’s the peak of sophistry.

Well, CK said that MLK was a bad man, and that the civil rights laws for which he fought should not have enacted, so I supply that judgment should be returned on himself as well.

Though I've never heard either of those things referred to as civil rights.

They asked the business owner if they could stay on the property to defend it. Although the business owner claimed in court he never agreed, I already pointed out the inconsistencies earlier in the thread. So I guess if that’s true then you have no problem with them at all?

The mom had no idea he was on the streets with a weapon so idk what you’re on about.

Ok, you didn't precisely say he was a stand up guy. But you talked about him trying to be a medic and that his main reasons to be there were to aid injured people and to put out fires, which I still think is ludicrous.

I never said anyone in particular was a hero, and I didn't even refer to either of the men KR killed by name. I described a scenario in which someone who attempted to take an assault rifle away from an irresponsible 17yo with bad intentions would be described as a hero.

Under the actual circumstances I would not call anyone involved in the incident a hero. But I would still call KR a villain, and I still believe he went to the scene hoping for an excuse to shoot someone. As someone else noted, there is a recording of him a few weeks earlier saying that he wished he had a weapon with which he could shoot some people he saw looting.

https://share.google/T8DryIBPcMLFgo38z

If he went to the scene hoping for an excuse to kill someone and you thought those comments were serious, why did he literally run away instead of confronting someone with a gun?

I do weigh that video into consideration, and then I weigh the other overwhelming evidence of what he did that day and his stated reasons for being there which included eyewitness and video evidence.

Again, as I said to bob you can consider him a villain by your moral code. You are entitled to that judgment. What people are not entitled to is to lie about what happened that day and then judge KR and people who “defend him” based off that lie.

Edit: Also Rosenbaum isn’t just not a hero, he’s a villain. A guy with murderous intent who got shot while he tried to kill a 17 year old because he was mad KR had corrected him that day, or he confused him with someone else he had a beef with. That people try to defend him by saying he was unarmed is completely ignorant.

OK, so they were definitely not hired by anyone to defend property, and the owner said he didn't even give them permission to be there. Still vigilantism.

I believe parents should be held accountable for the actions of their minor children, regardless of whether the actions were known or encouraged by them.

Kyle's mother should have known what her son was up to, and prevented him from going vigilante (or alerting the police if she couldn't physically stop him).

The only people worse than violent criminals are the parents of violent criminals (even an adult one), who brought him into existence. If I wrote the laws, parents of violent criminals would be executed along with their children.

If the men killed by KR were the violent criminals described here, and their parents are still alive, I'm all for prosecuting them for the crimes of their sons.

Because planning to do something dangerous is obviously different than being in the actual situation. No one knows exactly how they would react in a violent and stressful situation of which they have no prior experience.

I didn't lie about what happened. I originally was relying on my memory of news coverage (which you believe was biased) and the current Wikipedia entry (which you also believe is biased). So of course I had a somewhat biased view, which I then fluffed up a bit to make a point (which I have already admitted).

I can internally judge anyone for any reason that is in my moral code. But my judgment of KR has not changed based on anything you've said about him. The only thing that has done is make me judge others as criminals as well.

I certainly wasn't determining that you are a bad person for having a different opinion about the guilt of KR, I simply think you are incorrect on this issue.

They were given permission to be on the property and the owner gave a half ass lie on the stand about how he didn’t, which was picked apart on cross examination. The guy did not come off very credible and he had every reason to lie about it.

Justice is holding people responsible for what they can control. KR’s dad lived in Kenosha so going to visit him and his friends wasn’t out of the ordinary.

I get that vigilantism is a moral horror under normal circumstances, I just find it hard to condemn him for it because the police were failing to do their jobs. If we want to blame anyone for the deaths externally it would be whatever policies and practices didn’t result in an immediate and swift stop to the riot after the first few million dollars in damage.

Yes, and his parents had control. They could have declined to bring him into existence. After they deliberately brought him into the world, they are morally responsible of any bad thing he ever does (in my moral system), and should be held accountable for such under the law (if I made the laws).

That wasn’t what I highlighted….

How many you admit to want government to use its full power to eliminate the left ?
Even killing then ?
So it’s good for only your side huh ?

So you think riots are planned in advanced ?