What would turning the tables involve?Originally Posted by Wise_A
A. Rittenhouse being attacked by and shooting card-carrying right wingers?
B. Rittenhouse being one of those doing the burning, looting, pillaging and other wholesome activities on a Kenosha Saturday night?
I might be a little less defensive if people didn't "hide in their houses and then shit talk the kid." (Hat tip to MickAK)
Okay imagine this opposite of KR - RK - is an antifa devotee captured on video saying he wanted to shoot unmasked people protesting vaccine mandates.
A few days later he shows up at a protest with an AK47 even though he's violating curfew and a gun law about minors in possession of firearms. Worse, he is repeatedly seen pointing it at protestors when no imminent threat existed. His behavior is bad enough that other antifa folks begin to distance themselves from him.
An unmasked conservative protestor starts coughing on antifa counterprotestors and RK steps in, getting into a shouting & shoving match. RK starts to run away as the conservative gives chase, throwing a grocery bag full of Ivermectin at him. At the same moment, someone else fires a gun. RK wheels around and shoots the conservative.
A number of other conservatives attempt to make a citizen's arrest of RK, one of whom is using a maglight to hit RK. RK shoots that person. Another conservative draws his gun and again attempts to arrest RK. RK shoots him too.
Later we learn RK has previously punched a girl. And, after a national antifa groups bail him out, he is seen wearing a "free as fuck" shirt and and flashing a black power sign.
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 11-13-2021 at 05:10 PM.
What principles are at play here?
Is it the principle that one can use lethal force to defend one's own property? Not really. While he may have been there for that reason at first, that kind of went away when he 'got out of the boat'.
Is it the principle that a 'reasonable man' can use lethal force to defend themselves from the imminent threat of grievous bodily harm? Indeed it is, even if he was there under questionable circumstances.
But doesn't that principle also apply to Grosscruz, had the shoot gone the other way? One could say that he and others were there for nefarious and questionable purposes, but then again, one could say that about Kyle too.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
There’s a funny sort of virtue signaling we do here sometimes. A person will defend themselves, successfully or unsuccessfully, and we will shame her for being there in the first place — for ‘asking for it.’ It’s kind of a reverse chest thumping, wherein we’re a little desperate to show that we avoid confrontation at all costs, listen to our instructors, and don’t get involved in other people’s problems. It comes off as eminent self-interest, which I know a lot of folks around here don’t consider a vice.
I try not to participate in that.
Ignore Alien Orders
While doing the Stupids doesn't negate your right to defend yourself, it will increase the chances that you will have to. And that you'll have to pay for experts to explain why.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
I’m aware; likewise, I’m aware that if i involve myself in someone else’s fight there’s a good chance I could get in trouble, or even intervene on the wrong side. We really don’t have to rehearse it every time stuff like this comes up, but it’s become our “Ten minutes to Wapner!” It’s as if we’re all looking around for our banana sticker, having pointed out that taking a chance on doing a good thing may not have the best outcome for one’s personal interest.
Ignore Alien Orders
Are you asking, "if Grosskreutz had fired first in that setting, would he have been acting in self defense?"
I don't see it. Not after chasing down a person who was armed with a rifle, stopping, and then advancing on him with a gun pointed at him. That being said, if it had played out that way, I suspect Grosskreutz wouldn't have been charged. "Active shooter kills two mostly-peaceful protesters, stopped by hero paramedic, film at 11." Tied up with a bow.
If you're asking a more-hypothetical question involving switching jerseys, that's a different question.
It is easy for people with family and comfortable lively hoods to sit back in their homes many miles removed and wail on keyboards.
I wonder how many other Kyles were out there that night, and at other burning US cities, that also put themselves in harms way so to help real people, when the rest of society sat at home and watched TV.
I am trying my best to have no opinion on his actions and just see the picture for what it is. Right now as best as I can tell; he saw a town, arguably something he considered his town, burning and the people charged with holding it together standing by and watching it burn.
He decided to put others ahead of himself and ran towards the fire, not just with a gun, but also with medical supplies and from everything I have seen a genuine desire to help.
This is where I do empathize with Kyle. The culture of "somebody do something" has been the rally cry for some time now, but when somebody actually does and it goes wrong, it is easy to play the hindsight game. It doesn't always go wrong.
There's a continuum and I think the truth lies in various portions of the spectrum.
A sincere desire to help.
Being cool as shit.
Interfacing with the public as though he had some lawfully ordained role to play in the event.
It's not all this or all that...more something like this imho:
Most of us do pretty much the same in most walks of life. Motivation is rarely pure.
There's nothing civil about this war.
A desire and willingness to help is admirable. But there also needs to be an honest assessment of one's ability to help.
We see this all the time in search & rescue. Lost hiker? Lost family member? There will be volunteers, and their willingness to help is appreciated. But unless they're already on an organized team, most will be some combination of unfit, untrained, unskilled, or unequipped to participate safely and make a positive contribution to the effort. If they go out on a search they become liabilities. If they want to stay at the command post and help keep the searchers fed? Great! Happy to have them.
Sometimes the best way to be useful is not to be on the front line.
