Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(11-21-2021, 08:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm just going to leave this here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/liberal-guns-rights-activist-kyle-rittenhouse.amp

This part right here is I think some of us were trying to talk about in this thread:

Quote:I think the discussion should have been about what on Earth are we doing when we say that it’s OK to arm a 17-year-old to go out and defend property against legal protests? But I also think that if you attack somebody, you might get shot. And self-defense is a real defense. And even if we don’t like the person who was defending themselves, it shouldn’t be about whether you like or don’t like the people involved. Being there doesn’t automatically get rid of your right to self-defense.

...


I don’t necessarily like this verdict, and I want to be clear about that. But I understand this verdict. I don’t think this was exonerating a mass murder. I don’t think this was giving a carte blanche to shoot protestors. And I think that’s the two narratives that are being pushed. They’re both wrong. This was not about vigilantism. This was a whole series of horrible things. We never should have been having this trial. That kid should never have been there, and I think that’s the society’s failure. He just shouldn’t have been there at all.

I do think she poo-poos the chance of MORE gun violence if more people on both sides are carrying at a protest a bit more that she should though.  Too often after one of these shootings we get the survivors story without the benefit of the kind of evidence there was in this one.

I do agree more training and the use of common sense would help a LOT...but I don't see that happening when stats pass laws that you can carry without a permit and, like the article says, laws that allow you to hit protestors with your vehicle...which she acknowledges is a strategy more Liberals should be aware of.