Donald Trump Jr.’s Interview With Kyle Rittenhouse Goes South In A Hurry

[Mac Mickmanus]

37 minutes ago, kwonitoy said:

And if a 17 year old joins the Army he will receive the proper training and supervision on how to safely handle his rifle

Comparing him to USA soldiers who served in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan , Kyle acted rather restrained and he didn't go on a gung-ho rampage with a "kill them all and let God sort them out " attitude .

   He only used his rifle when absolutely necessary , unlike some trained soldiers in the U.S Army 

   

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Comparing him to USA soldiers who served in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan , Kyle acted rather restrained and he didn't go on a gung-ho rampage with a "kill them all and let God sort them out " attitude .

   He only used his rifle when absolutely necessary , unlike some trained soldiers in the U.S Army 

   

The only reason he used it when "absolutely necessary" was because he was where he shouldn't have been in the first place.

[placnx]

21 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Do you really not know the answer to that and is that a genuine question ?

To the question of why didn't Rittenhouse just stay home, it goes to intent. It does look as though he wanted to pick a fight. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, placnx said:

To the question of why didn't Rittenhouse just stay home, it goes to intent. It does look as though he wanted to pick a fight. 

He didn't want to see his home town being burnt down , so he took measures to stop arsonists burning down his home town

   Had the rioters and arsonists stayed home, so would Kyle have stayed home 

[placnx]

14 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its really no big deal about "crossing state lines" .

You make is sound like he left the USA side in Iraq and went into a I.S held Caliphate in Iraq and took them weapons .

   Crossing "state lines" is really irrelevant and its not against the law to cross state lines and you don't need a passport, visa, or permission or anything .

   Of course the rioters and protestors side with the deceased and hate Kyle for standing up to them and it causes them concern that the next time they go on a destructive riot, some people may once again stand up to them and shoot them .

    I can understand their concern 

It's not necessary to kill people in so-called self defense. Injuring would suffice. As others commented, if Rittenhouse had been black, even threatening to use a gun could have been a fatal mistake.

 

As for your issue with state lines, I think that the point is that people showing up from outside the community, seemingly to suppress the locals, is not contributing to law and order, whatever they claim.  

[placnx]

7 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Comparing him to USA soldiers who served in Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan , Kyle acted rather restrained and he didn't go on a gung-ho rampage with a "kill them all and let God sort them out " attitude .

   He only used his rifle when absolutely necessary , unlike some trained soldiers in the U.S Army 

   

The US Army can't be too choosy about whom they recruit, and it showed in My Lai (Vietnam), besides Afghanistan.

[Mac Mickmanus]

33 minutes ago, placnx said:

It's not necessary to kill people in so-called self defense. Injuring would suffice. As others commented, if Rittenhouse had been black, even threatening to use a gun could have been a fatal mistake.

 

As for your issue with state lines, I think that the point is that people showing up from outside the community, seemingly to suppress the locals, is not contributing to law and order, whatever they claim.  

Shooting a person attacking you , the idea is to stop them and an injured person is often more dangerous . 

   There were nay Black people all over America rioting and looting and burning things down and they didn't get shot and the police just let them carry on and do it .

   Was it the locals who were looting and burning things down ? Also, it was Kyles hometown , it was just a short drive from his house

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Clearly the issue is with dumb laws that allow a little kid to walk the streets with a big gun. Silly America. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Clearly the issue is with dumb laws that allow a little kid to walk the streets with a big gun. Silly America. 

This "little kid" ?

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

This "little kid" ?

 

 

Yes a 17 year old kid. In most countries people of any age don't walk the streets with any guns let alone allowing a 17 year old kid to walk the streets with an assault rifle. Silly. 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Mac Mickmanus]

15 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Yes a 17 year old kid. In most countries people of any age don't walk the streets with any guns let alone allowing a 17 year old kid to walk the streets with an assault rifle. Silly. 

I know how you feel, when we have 17 year old kids sailing across oceans and giving speeches to World climate change meetings , kids should be home in bed by night time 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

30 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I know how you feel, when we have 17 year old kids sailing across oceans and giving speeches to World climate change meetings , kids should be home in bed by night time 

Following the flow of your argument it seems you think I am saying 17 year olds have no capacity to engage in the community at large, but I do think they can participate in intelligent discourse and can have well informed opinions, on a range of topics and issues.

But obviously all things being equal, a 17 year old would be particularly vulnerable to poor decision making when walking down a street with a killer weapon in a tense situation. Greta at 17 with an M16 may not be the best combination. 

Actually it's not normally legal at 17 but whether 17 or 21 or 80, having such widespread gun ownership and letting people walk the streets with guns is silly. 

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Following the flow of your argument it seems you think I am saying 17 year olds have no capacity to engage in the community at large, but I do think they can participate in intelligent discourse and can have well informed opinions, on a range of topics and issues.

But obviously all things being equal, a 17 year old would be particularly vulnerable to poor decision making when walking down a street with a killer weapon in a tense situation. Greta at 17 with an M16 may not be the best combination. 

Actually it's not normally legal at 17 but whether 17 or 21 or 80, having such widespread gun ownership and letting people walk the streets with guns is silly. 

 

Kyles decision making was the correct decision to make .

He initially refrained from firing his gun , he walked away from the trouble and the mob and he even tried running away , he only used his gun when he was in danger  , when his life was in danger , thats when he shot people . 

  Its nothing to do with age , many (older) people would have gone on a murderous rampage shooting as many people as   they could

    Kyle only used his gun when it was completely necessary , he behaved in a mature responsible  way

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Kyles decision making was the correct decision to make .

He initially refrained from firing his gun , he walked away from the trouble and the mob and he even tried running away , he only used his gun when he was in danger  , when his life was in danger , thats when he shot people . 

  Its nothing to do with age , many (older) people would have gone on a murderous rampage shooting as many people as   they could

    Kyle only used his gun when it was completely necessary , he behaved in a mature responsible  way

If he were capable of behaving in a "mature and responsible way" he wouldn't have been there in the first place. 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If he were capable of behaving in a "mature and responsible way" he wouldn't have been there in the first place. 

 

What is immature / irresponsible about trying to stop arsonists from burning property down and destroying a town ?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What is immature / irresponsible about trying to stop arsonists from burning property down and destroying a town ?

Because despite his police wannabe aspirations, he had zero training.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Because despite his police wannabe aspirations, he had zero training.

You mean training like the U.S Police ?

Those trained USA Police who are often in the news for unlawfully killing people ?

   His behaviour showed that he didn't need any training 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You mean training like the U.S Police ?

Those trained USA Police who are often in the news for unlawfully killing people ?

   His behaviour showed that he didn't need any training 

He's one night on the job and he kills 2 people. If he wasn't there, would those 2 people be dead? He got into a situation where, according to the jury, he had no choice but to kill people. You think that's how a professional should conduct themself?

And, to judge from your comment, you clearly don't have a clue about how statistics work.

[ozimoron]

Two lives lost is a far greater cost than any property loss.

[Hanaguma]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Two lives lost is a far greater cost than any property loss.

Not these two... a net benefit I would say.

 

Again, THEY chose to chase a guy armed with a firearm, THEY were angry that he was spoiling their fun.  If THEY had stayed home, they wouldnt have been shot. Or at least if they had protested peacefully.  

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not these two... a net benefit I would say.

 

Again, THEY chose to chase a guy armed with a firearm, THEY were angry that he was spoiling their fun.  If THEY had stayed home, they wouldnt have been shot. Or at least if they had protested peacefully.  

They chased a likely mass shooter. He exactly fitted the profile of a number of mass shooters before him.

Edited March 1, 2023 by ozimoron

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

He's one night on the job and he kills 2 people. If he wasn't there, would those 2 people be dead? He got into a situation where, according to the jury, he had no choice but to kill people. You think that's how a professional should conduct themself?

And, to judge from your comment, you clearly don't have a clue about how statistics work.

OK, how would an armed trained adult processional  policeman have reacted to the situation ?

[Hanaguma]

5 hours ago, placnx said:

It's not necessary to kill people in so-called self defense. Injuring would suffice. As others commented, if Rittenhouse had been black, even threatening to use a gun could have been a fatal mistake.

 

As for your issue with state lines, I think that the point is that people showing up from outside the community, seemingly to suppress the locals, is not contributing to law and order, whatever they claim.  

There is no military or police force in the world that trains members to "shoot to injure". That is a fallacy from bad Hollywood movies.  Firearms are only to be used if your life is in danger, and then they are to be used to neutralize the threat.  Aim for the "centre of visible mass".  

 

As for being from outside the community, Grosskreutz drove from farther away than Rittenhouse. So logically he shouldn't have been their either, eh? Ditto Rosenbaum, who was from Texas and had just been released from a mental hospital in far away Milwaukee. Shoulda stayed home too.

[Hanaguma]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

They chased a likely mass shooter. He exactly fitted the profile of a number of mass shooters before him.

He was no kind of shooter at all before they attacked him.  Other witnesses on the scene described their behavior as aggressive and violent, NOT Rittenhouse. He tried to disengage and de-escalate but was not allowed to by the rioters.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, how would an armed trained adult processional  policeman have reacted to the situation ?

Did any policemen that night get into that situation? Ya think maybe that's because they're professionals and not a 17-year-old police officer wannabe?

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, placeholder said:

Did any policemen that night get into that situation? Ya think maybe that's because they're professionals and not a 17-year-old police officer wannabe?

The Policemen  kept their distance and didn't try and stop the arsonists from setting fire to the property .

   The Police should have carried out their duties and stopped the criminals , which led to the people taking the streets back from the rioters . 

   The people reclaimed the streets that night 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The Policemen  kept their distance and didn't try and stop the arsonists from setting fire to the property .

   The Police should have carried out their duties and stopped the criminals , which led to the people taking the streets back from the rioters . 

   The people reclaimed the streets that night 

Yes, you and Kyle Rittenhouse both know better than the police what to do in such a situation. And thanks to Kyle Rittenhouse the violence was contained, property preserved, and no lives lost... I mean zero out of three ain't bad, right?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Yes, you and Kyle Rittenhouse both know better than the police what to do in such a situation. And thanks to Kyle Rittenhouse the violence was contained, property preserved, and no lives lost... I mean zero out of three ain't bad, right?

Who knows what the outcome would have been in Kyle and his friends didnt make an effort to stop the arsonists , I expect that more properties would have been set on fire .

   Had the deceased NOT violently attacked Kyle , they wouldn't now be deceased .

   Had they not put Kyles life in danger, then they wouldn't have been shot

[placeholder]

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Who knows what the outcome would have been in Kyle and his friends didnt make an effort to stop the arsonists , I expect that more properties would have been set on fire .

   Had the deceased NOT violently attacked Kyle , they wouldn't now be deceased .

   Had they not put Kyles life in danger, then they wouldn't have been shot

What we do know is that you at least believe you know better than the police how to cope with these situations. 

What we do know is that the only 2 people killed that night died from an altercation with an untrained minor carrying a deadly weapon..

And didn't anyone ever tell you about the inanity of invoking contrary-to-fact suppositions?

[placnx]

19 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You mean training like the U.S Police ?

Those trained USA Police who are often in the news for unlawfully killing people ?

   His behaviour showed that he didn't need any training 

The trend in the US to militarize the police has certainly not set a good example. First, recruiting from ex-military, then giving the police used military equipment such as APCs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police

It's not surprising that right-wing and reactionary citizens mimic police violence.