Gotta ask abt his plo coaching tho

the only interesting things to discuss are how the right wing ideology has taken over our country. from the media to this judge who disallowed the social media statements from KR where he basically said he wanted to go shoot protesters and then disallowed footage bc the images were magnified.

the morning shows are going on and on about how it was justified.

they are doing everything they can to paint the guys murdered as pedophiles and thugs.

if some antifa guy shot someone he wouldnt even get to trial as Michael Reinoehl showed. and if it did happen, the media would find out how many times he smoked weed and acted awkward in front of anyone and paint him as a violent thug. instead this media is painting Kyle as a good kid who loved cops and wanted to be a "medic" despite no training and a social media salivating over murdering these people.

there is a massive bias in this country against anyone who has certain audacious ideas. cops shouldnt kill people. people should have health care. companies shouldnt exploit the earth, workers, and citizens.

but even that conversation is boring bc its just so blatantly obv.

so really the only thing to do is point and laugh. in particular this was funny



but also I kinda like PPG posts bc he explains the ideology of this country very well. and anyone that isnt a lefist is in denial if they dont agree with him.

I usually try to stay away from the ideological divide. Sometimes I fail, but I regret it when I do. /derail

Mao>>>>Stalin>Churchill>Hitler

that doesnt mean I think they were good guys

So, FMK?

LOL

Rittenhouse wasn't defending his community and will soon join the ranks of those who have heinous felony records. Those gun charges aren't going away.

I get that he likely won't be found guilty of murder but lets not make a hero out of a dummy. That really doesn't make the world a better place for any of us to live in.

Perhaps we could also take a hard look at a culture of politics that lead several young people to take up arms, go to a protest and when the dust settled, several people had ended up dead.

I get that it is a dangerous argument in the sense that we should tread carefully to not make victims out of those that choose to do this, at the end of the day choices were made. Still, a lot of social media pundits, media personalities and politicians are making careers and solid change out of perpetuating a deep divide that contribute to these situations.

Exactly. And something that really brings that into sharp relief for me:

Once both guns are pointed, I gather we're in a situation where either can shoot the other and have fairly solid grounds of self-defense to stand on. Pretty amazing to me, when I think about it in those terms. Actually, more like frightening - the thought that civilians can go ahead and bring guns on to the streets with them and legally shoot one another.

Wow. So much to unpack here. But I think Howard's said it best, so I'll leave it there:

Why do you think he wasn't trying to kill him?

He put his hands up to protect his head when the round went off, and then he kept them there when he saw the AR was pointed at him. The he charged forward with his gun and brought it down to dude's head level. He also thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter just blasting people, so why wouldn't he want to stop him by using his firearm?

he wasnt trying to kill him bc he didnt ****ing shoot him

An interesting counter point is that if Gaige Grosskreutz had out drawn Rittenhouse and killed him where he sat he too would likely beat a murder charge by claiming self defense, if charged.

His position of 'I thought i was engaging an Active Shooter and shot him when he pointed his AR at me' would almost certainly be an acceptable defense too.

You can foresee this happening a lot in the future with these clashes were when idiots on both sides come together armed they can both claim self defense as they are both at threat from each other.

The question then turns on provocation, i.e. who provoked who. Rittenhouse would seem to be ahead on this point.

You taking the piss?

Nah, this is consistent with his body of work ITF. He's one of the "all taxation is theft" brigade.

he would not have beaten the charge. and he likely would not have made it to trial.

but if he did by some miracle make it to trial, then he is done for.

If you genuinely think the person is an active shooter that is the highest provocation to prompt engagement. Gaige would definitely be ahead on that point if you just isolate their engagement.

not sure if this is intentional obtuseness, but in the interest of engaging, at a most basic level facts dont matter. to put it more pointedly, Gaige is left wing ideologue (ask Howard) and thus he was asking for it. Kyle is a cop loving good kid. (ask the media). you should know which side the state is going to go with since ya kno, the state is made up of cops.

Corporate media gonna corporate and stuff.

Agreed:

It's quite a world that the strong second amendment proponents are supporting, whether that's the intent or not.

Intentional obtuseness when someone doesn't see the world in the same black and white "the state is always evil" way that you do? LOL.

yes its intentional obtuseness if you dont see why KR shooting someone is way different than Gaige shooting KR.

He never had a clean chance to shoot him. Watch the video. He drew his weapon and charged toward him but Huber was in the way and got hit and he put his hands up to cover his head reflexively. Then he decided to charge him and his arm holding the weapon was vaporized and he couldn't get a shot off.

That said, I can be convinced otherwise.

Why did he draw his weapon while charging toward Rittenhouse to begin with?

Why did he drop his hands and place his gun in play and charge at him when Rittenhouse paused?

I posted a video this morning with John Stewart showing video's that the only response in America right now to gun issues is more guns.

When the stats show most gun violence is domestic violence of men killing their female partners the NRA person who had been fighting against more strict gun laws to disarm known domestic abusers was a statement that 'we need to arm more women'.


So shootouts is the only answer.

It is very predictable where this is going as more right wing people show up armed to these rallies and more of the anarchist types are going to acquire a gun knowing they are coming. THis is going to escalate horribly and create an arms race with only the gun lobby winning.

Is it beyond believing that he could have thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter in that instance and he rushed over with his gun at the ready because of that?

Many people might arm themselves if attending that type of rally but not be eager to shoot anyone, even an active shooter. Most people would struggle to actually pull the trigger.

Yes. My first post to Howard was that I think his intention was to shoot him because he had been told that he was an active shooter.

If he was charging a guy with an AR15 with a pistol with no intention of shooting him, then he's even dumber than I originally thought.

The trouble with the "active shooter" thesis is that Rittenhouse was running towards the police and wasn't shooting anyone at that point, which Gaige would have seen and must have known.