Originally Posted by rodneygt
From the POV of KR and the second two people shot, those two shootings are analogous to what we would have in the Ahmaud Arbery case if Ahmaud Arbery had been armed and been the survivor of that altercation instead of the defendants. I believe Arbery had a right to defend himself.

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

Correct.... While I think it was stupid for Arbery to fight, especially the way he did... he absolutely had every right to do so... And they killer should NOT be able to claim self defense as HE accosted Arbery and made no attempt to flee the scene...

In contrast to the KR shootings... Even if we grant that KR was the aggressor as claimed (because he had a weapon) He indisputably tried to retreat from every confrontation and was pursued. That change who the aggressor was instantaneous, which gave KR the right to defend himself should he feel to be in danger of death or great harm.

It is amazing that anyone who would side with Arbery would argue so dishonestly against KR... it shows their true motives and complete lack of consistency and honesty.

Yes, I see people taking opposite positions in threads about both cases. It seems inconsistent to me. The McMichaels and Bryan had no more information on the details of what had gone on with Arbery at the home construction site than the second two people shot in the Kenosha event had of the details of what went on between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Presumably the McMichaels/Bryan thought Arbery had committed some crime and the second two Kenosha "victims" thought Rittenhouse had murdered someone. The defendants in the Arbery case took it upon themselves to chase down Arbery and in the Kenosha case, the second two "victims" took it upon themselves to chase down KR. I agreed with the posters in the Arbery thread who said that the McMichaels/Bryan were in the wrong, that Arbery had the right to defend himself and that the McMichaels did not have the right to defend themselves. I think the cases are very similar and that at the time of the second shootings, KR and the second two victims were in the same legal positions as Arbery and the McMichaels.

I first brought this up in Aug. 2020 in the main KR thread:

There are certainly parallels between Rittenhouse and Arbery. The situation that Rittenhouse was in when being chased reminds me quite a bit of the situation that Ahmaud Arbery found himself in. However, Arbery didn't have a means to protect himself.

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...&postcount=151

Originally Posted by rodneygt

Yes, I see people taking opposite positions in threads about both cases. It seems inconsistent to me. The McMichaels and Bryan had no more information on the details of what had gone on with Arbery at the home construction site than the second two people shot in the Kenosha event had of the details of what went on between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Presumably the McMichaels/Bryan thought Arbery had committed some crime and the second two Kenosha "victims" thought Rittenhouse had murdered someone. The defendants in the Arbery case took it upon themselves to chase down Arbery and in the Kenosha case, the second two "victims" took it upon themselves to chase down KR. I agreed with the posters in the Arbery thread who said that the McMichaels/Bryan were in the wrong, that Arbery had the right to defend himself and that the McMichaels did not have the right to defend themselves. I think the cases are very similar and that at the time of the second shootings, KR and the second two victims were in the same legal positions as Arbery and the McMichaels.

I first brought this up in Aug. 2020 in the main KR thread:



https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/show...&postcount=151

It seems inconsistent because it is... However, If you look for where the people taking opposite stances are consistent, you can see the true underlying biases and misconstruing of the situations to suit emotional leanings.


Some believe it is OK for a group of people, one with a gun, to try to apprehend/stop Rittenhouse... BUt it was not OK for the 3 men to try to apprehend Arbery.

Some believe it was OK for Arbery to fight back, but not for KR.


Some believe it was perfectly acceptable for The men to try to stop Arbery, but not OK for the people who tried to stop KR



People looking at these two scenarios without biases do not share those inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by Roto Rob

No one violently attacked Kyle. The first person shot was just running behind Kyle. Kyle quickly turned and shot him. And the fatal shot was in the back. Kyle is not the keeper of who can run and where. There was many people running from gun shots. Can't just draw down on and fire at people in the crowd because you are paranoid that someone is after you because you just murdered a person.

That's some flight of fantasy you have going on there....

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

Yea, real clarity.... "No one violently attacked KR"

I simply cannot fathom that anyone can actually believe that... we have concrete evidence that EXACTLY that happened... We see 1 person chasing him and throwing stuff at him and a witness that stated that man was trying to take KR's gun.... Then we have more video and high quality still shot of a man performing a flying jump kick strait to KR's head. Then we have video and high quality photos of someone hitting KR in the head with a skateboard and then trying to take KR's gun... And Lastly we have a man that charges up/around KR with a pistol in his hand pointed at KR which cost him a bicep. That same Bicep less person said he regretted "not killing the kid and putting my entire mag in him"

Yet despite these facts and video PROOF of them... some people still want to claim that no one used violence against KR.

Sad.

There is no man more blind than one who will not see.

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

I would love to do so.... but as I have already been reported TWICE on the same post for calling a STATEMENT a lie... I am leary of posting any pictures or video as they will certainly be reported.

This is a shameful topic on RCG because the Kyle H8ers hide behind the rules so they can dishonestly "debate" a subject the entire country has seen video evidence of.

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

This is a shameful topic on RCG because the Kyle H8ers hide behind the rules so they can dishonestly "debate" a subject the entire country has seen video evidence of.

They don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him.

Originally Posted by dynodude

They don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him.

Well, that, and he put a few of their Brownshirts on ice and ruined a third's pole vaulting gold medal chances...


Only in LTUP will you find Liberals go to the aid of armed felons, domestic violence convicts and pedos handpicked to be professional agitators, and here we are...

Originally Posted by Dave Campbell

Well, that, and he put a few of their Brownshirts on ice and ruined a third's pole vaulting gold medal chances...


Only in LTUP will you find Liberals go to the aid of armed felons, domestic violence convicts and pedos handpicked to be professional agitators, and here we are...

What they did prior is irrelevant. This is supposed to be a nation of laws.

Originally Posted by Sherlock

What they did prior is irrelevant. This is supposed to be a nation of laws.

So you think they don't take character into account in law? Bwah ha ha.

Originally Posted by Sherlock

What they did prior is irrelevant. This is supposed to be a nation of laws.

wait... wait... I thought you said it DID matter what people did prior.... I mean prior to the shooting KR went there with a gun. If that matters then how does the criminal mind of the attackers not?

What is yoru arbitrary time frame where prior actions are no longer relevant?

Originally Posted by AustinTatious

wait... wait... I thought you said it DID matter what people did prior.... I mean prior to the shooting KR went there with a gun. If that matters then how does the criminal mind of the attackers not?

What is yoru arbitrary time frame where prior actions are no longer relevant?

He basically uses arguments in one tribal direction on a daily basis.

If Kyle is found not guilty it will dramatically change the level of impunity under which the left has been allowed to attack and injure others with deadly weapons such as bicycle locks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, fireworks, etc. . It may even change the dynamics of how police respond to these deadly types of attacks and lower their threshold for use of deadly force when they are attacked. Peaceful protests may actually become peaceful when leftist protesters have to worry about being shot in self defense of their violent actions. Kyle being found not guilty will set a precedent under which future cases will be charged and adjudicated.
As I said, they don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him and what a not guilty verdict will represent.

Originally Posted by dynodude

If Kyle is found not guilty it will dramatically change the level of impunity under which the left has been allowed to attack and injure others with deadly weapons such as bicycle locks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, fireworks, etc. . It may even change the dynamics of how police respond to these deadly types of attacks and lower their threshold for use of deadly force when they are attacked. Peaceful protests may actually become peaceful when leftist protesters have to worry about being shot in self defense of their violent actions. Kyle being found not guilty will set a precedent under which future cases will be charged and adjudicated.
As I said, they don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him and what a not guilty verdict will represent.

Matt Christiansen goes into detail concerning and specifically exactly that.

YT: Matt Christiansen

Prosecution Takes Major Losses in Rittenhouse Pre-Trial | But the Feds Have a Wildcard

Originally Posted by dynodude

If Kyle is found not guilty it will dramatically change the level of impunity under which the left has been allowed to attack and injure others with deadly weapons such as bicycle locks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, fireworks, etc. . It may even change the dynamics of how police respond to these deadly types of attacks and lower their threshold for use of deadly force when they are attacked. Peaceful protests may actually become peaceful when leftist protesters have to worry about being shot in self defense of their violent actions. Kyle being found not guilty will set a precedent under which future cases will be charged and adjudicated.
As I said, they don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him and what a not guilty verdict will represent.

That is the real deal here, the left abandoned peaceful protests for violent protests they have gotten some results from them which never should have been allowed or tolerated. They feel like they have gamed the system and won, it's time that crap is nuetralized.

Originally Posted by dynodude

If Kyle is found not guilty it will dramatically change the level of impunity under which the left has been allowed to attack and injure others with deadly weapons such as bicycle locks, bricks, Molotov cocktails, fireworks, etc. . It may even change the dynamics of how police respond to these deadly types of attacks and lower their threshold for use of deadly force when they are attacked. Peaceful protests may actually become peaceful when leftist protesters have to worry about being shot in self defense of their violent actions. Kyle being found not guilty will set a precedent under which future cases will be charged and adjudicated.
As I said, they don’t hate him. They’re terrified of him and what a not guilty verdict will represent.

Interesting view... Totally forgetting the fact that BLM came into being because of the allready ridiculously low threshold for the police to use lethal force against blacks as has been demonstrated ever since Rodney king, and doing so will only allow things to spiral out of control.

Because, you know... these "lefty Antifa trash", they are americans too, born and raised with the notion of 2A. What do you think? They will be scared?
Heck, they carry too, and will only arm up further, since they, like you, consider themselves the good guys with the guns, and they, like you, think that 2A is there to act against an "overbearing government" (AKA the police)... The effect you expect, will MOST definitely NOT be the effect that will actually occur. It never has been and it never will be, because 2A is clear:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

does not mention a political leaning, so that means that it applies to the left AND to the right...

Your post is the least well reasoned out epistle I have read in a while.