Fakenews

Far right Militia member shoots kills 2 in Wisconsin.

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You really have a bug up your ass about a 17 year old kid that was attacked because he was on the other side. 

This is what I do and do not support

I do not support him going to that car lot to defend property 

I do not support his having position of that gun, as he was under age

I do support his right to defend himself when a crazy guy along with others chased him down cornered him and tried to take his gun. 

I do support his right to defend himself from further attack by an attacker hitting him with a skateboard and a second attacker brandishing a handgun at him.  All after he tripped while trying to retreat.

Two other points

I do not approve of hitting anyone, but your desperate attempt to condemn him over a minor incident between teenagers does not in my opinion make him a serial woman beater.  There is no context to the short video other than someone that may or may not have been Rittenhouse hit a girl.  No charges, no police report  no complaint from the girl.  Just a YouTube video that Snoops says doesn’t prove it was him. 
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-punch-woman-video/

The second is I do not consider him a Hero, but I do think he was over charged to appease the mob and prevent further escalation in Kenosha. 
  
I believe that is why many people are supporting him,  in his efforts to defend himself from an overzealous prosecutor.   

 

When he decided to bring a gun to defend property that does not belong to him or his family, he escalated the situation.  I know you'll disagree, as your posts suggest you see his possession of a gun as incidental to what transpired between him and others. 

I would suggest it contributed to the tension leading to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

When he decided to bring a gun to defend property that does not belong to him or his family, he escalated the situation.  I know you'll disagree, as your posts suggest you see his possession of a gun as incidental to what transpired between him and others. 

I would suggest it contributed to the tension leading to violence.

Why?   There were plenty of opportunities for those angered by the gun bearing group to take action.  There are videos of the protestors and gun bearers interacting.  
 

What led to violence hours later was a group with one guy, just released from the mental hospital confronting Rittenhouse when he was separated from his group.  They saw a easy target,  a short chubby baby faced kid playing security guard.  They created the violence by chasing him. Unfortunately for them the baby faced kid was able to defend himself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Why?   There were plenty of opportunities for those angered by the gun bearing group to take action.  There are videos of the protestors and gun bearers interacting.  
 

What led to violence hours later was a group with one guy, just released from the mental hospital confronting Rittenhouse when he was separated from his group.  They saw a easy target,  a short chubby baby faced kid playing security guard.  They created the violence by chasing him. Unfortunately for them the baby faced kid was able to defend himself 

You seem quite sure of an outcome that no one can predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Why?   There were plenty of opportunities for those angered by the gun bearing group to take action.  There are videos of the protestors and gun bearers interacting.  
 

What led to violence hours later was a group with one guy, just released from the mental hospital confronting Rittenhouse when he was separated from his group.  They saw a easy target,  a short chubby baby faced kid playing security guard.  They created the violence by chasing him. Unfortunately for them the baby faced kid was able to defend himself 

When you walk around with a gun, you are advertising your willingness to use it.  Add in testosterone poisoning (afflicting all involved) and the tension that was already there, this was predictable that something would likely go sideways.

This is the reciprocal to the adage "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

He brought a gun to a protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Why would anyone support a POS like Rittenhouse? He hits women. He carries guns to get off. 2 people ended up dead and one maimed for life due to his shitty decision-making skills.

He should have an attorney as he's entitled to one. He should have a jury trial, as he's entitled to one. He may not get convicted by said jury as the law for self defense may be on his side.

But why would anyone "support" such a POS?

Because of the timing. He represents a potential win for a time and place that there are few wins for people with a certain political outlook.

It's the danger of connecting real life to politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Those are good questions and are why I said I "might" try to protect my business. I also might consider it too risky and take the hit on an insurance deductible and likely rate increase, if I had adequate insurance.

As I stated, I would not "wish to kill" anyone just for peacefully destroying my property. I specifically said in response to a threat against me or another person. Not surprised that Joe and Steam read something different from what I wrote, but you often do better.

What did I read that was different than what you wrote? Jumping on the butthurt-rightwingnut Joke/Jeff bandwagon?

Here, refresh your memory....

10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
14 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Lethal force is justified when necessary to prevent death or serious injury to people.

If I had a business that was likely to be destroyed by peaceful protestors, I might try to protect it, meaning the peaceful protestors would have to threaten me to destroy it, and they might just get shot for that threat. I might ask for and accept the help of trusted friends in that endeavor. Adult ones, not 17 year olds.

Because property and money is far more important than human life

Again- what do you think I read in your post, other than exactly what you posted?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Because of the timing. He represents a potential win for a time and place that there are few wins for people with a certain political outlook.

It's the danger of connecting real life to politics.

Oh please I have posted my views back when this started  I haven’t changed.  As for good news this whole election worked out very well,  as far as I’m concerned.  Why don’t you  slip over to Ben’s Trump don’t talk down thread and read what a Democratic congresswoman had to say about the election.  Before  gloating about who won and lost on Election Day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

When you walk around with a gun, you are advertising your willingness to use it.  Add in testosterone poisoning (afflicting all involved) and the tension that was already there, this was predictable that something would likely go sideways.

This is the reciprocal to the adage "don't bring a knife to a gun fight".

He brought a gun to a protest.

He brought a gun to protect the car lot. Not to a protest.  That would be the guy shot in the arm.  I wonder why you and others give that guy a pass he actually did bring a gun to a protest 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

He brought a gun to protect the car lot. Not to a protest.  That would be the guy shot in the arm.  I wonder why you and others give that guy a pass he actually did bring a gun to a protest 

Does he get a pass? Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 1:23 PM, phillysailor said:

But, at what price should we protect property?

 

(Snip)

Which is more important, property or life?

Strictly Legally speaking, life of course.  From a moral, ethical and even practical standpoint - I think the answer is "it depends".  Whose life?  What property?  What are the circumstances? 

I don't personally subscribe to the notion that every life, no matter what, is sacred.  If I had worked my entire life, poured blood sweat and tears into a business or home and would lose it all with no chance of ever rebuilding it if some punks came along and thought it would be fun to torch my life's work just for a laugh - the decision as to which is more important would not be so clear cut.  

If I had a choice of this:

170420-koreatown-los-angeles-1992-riots-

or this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnvnTElZ1pvbo-r3mBJ9c

I'm pretty sure I know which one I would choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:40 PM, phillysailor said:
On 11/30/2020 at 4:01 PM, The Joker said:

This may surprise you but I agree with just about everything you wrote. 
in all fairness I was responding to this post.   By the time the shooting ocurred the peaceful protestors were long gone  I don’t know anyone who thinks this was fine 

Actually, no it doesn't. You've been pretty consistent on the point. 

If it doesn't surprise you and you feel that he's been pretty consistent on that point, what do you think of Steam Liar's assertion that joker and I called the kid a hero and wished he had killed more?  He's what he said:

On 11/28/2020 at 8:19 AM, Steam Flyer said:

According to Jeffreaux and Joke and a few others, the real crime is that the kid only shot 3 and the rest of the militia didn't join in the fun.

Had you seen any shred of evadents that joker or I said these things?  I'm just curious from someone who's been pretty even keeled here - do you think these sorts of blatant lies are helpful to the discourse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:49 PM, phillysailor said:

Did the teen chase the guy down and try to hit him in the head with a three foot laminated wooden board when he tripped? Attempt to aim a gun at him? 

Unless you feel that the music was lethally awful (Christmas bagpipe tunes come to mind) your post doesn't seem relevant.

You're right. A jury will decide if it goes to trial. I doubt it will, TBH. The prosecutor knows he'd likely lose a murder trial, at great expense politically and for the town of Kenosha. More likely this pleads out.

Thank you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Because property and money is far more important than human life

- DSK

Sometimes.  Depends on the "human life" we're talking about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
On 11/28/2020 at 11:19 AM, Steam Flyer said:

According to Jeffreaux and Joke and a few others, the real crime is that the kid only shot 3 and the rest of the militia didn't join in the fun.

Had you seen any shred of evadents that joker or I said these things?  I'm just curious from someone who's been pretty even keeled here - do you think these sorts of blatant lies are helpful to the discourse?

You've made very clear you prefer killing people to having property destroyed, what do you want me to say about that? All I did was clarify.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You've made very clear you prefer killing people to having property destroyed, what do you want me to say about that? All I did was clarify.

- DSK

You didn't clarify anything.  You lied.  Period.  Dot. 

And I don't prefer killing people to having property destroyed.  I just said it's not as clear cut as every sperm is sacred.  And none of that had anything to do with KR.  I said early on that he shouldn't have been there with a gun but that once he was there with a gun, he had every right to defend himself from an angry mob intent on doing him harm.  I was speaking to Philly in general that I can understand people who would kill to protect property from the mob who are gratuitously burning shit down for giggles.  I don't advocate it, but I can sympathize with it.  If I were the business owner and a mob was descending on the place with lit torches and gasoline, I'm not sure what I would do.  As I said, "it depends".  The bottom line is the mob has complete control over what happens, whether they live or die.  If you don't want to die, don't loot and burn down other people's shit.  It really IS as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Strictly Legally speaking, life of course.  From a moral, ethical and even practical standpoint - I think the answer is "it depends".  Whose life?  What property?  What are the circumstances? 

I don't personally subscribe to the notion that every life, no matter what, is sacred.  If I had worked my entire life, poured blood sweat and tears into a business or home and would lose it all with no chance of ever rebuilding it if some punks came along and thought it would be fun to torch my life's work just for a laugh - the decision as to which is more important would not be so clear cut.  

If I had a choice of this:

170420-koreatown-los-angeles-1992-riots-

or this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnvnTElZ1pvbo-r3mBJ9c

I'm pretty sure I know which one I would choose.

Why not use your business insurance?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

Why not use your business insurance?

 

Because you know as well as I do, that insurance will never make someone whole.  If it's a walmart - sure.  The corporate giant will suck it up.  If it's a small mom and pop business that took a lifetime to build - then no, insurance is not going to make them whole.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Because you know as well as I do, that insurance will never make someone whole.  If it's a walmart - sure.  The corporate giant will suck it up.  If it's a small mom and pop business that took a lifetime to build - then no, insurance is not going to make them whole.  

I wonder if killing people as part of your previous profession has clouded your judgement regarding the value of life versus property?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

Why not use your business insurance?

 

That’s a joke right?   There was a local car repair place that burned during working hours luckily no one was killed but about 10 cars burned.  Their clients waited 6 months to get reimbursed for their destroyed cars.  
 

They finally reopened 18 months later.   They had insurance but it took over a year before the insurance company completed their investigation and authorized the rebuild.  By the time they reopened their clients,  they had nurtured for 30 Years had gone to other places, moved or even died off.  Two new repair shops had opened within a mile, both National franchises.  They lasted less than a year before closing permanently. 
 

EDIT: I’m not advocating killing anyone to protect your property, but those that use the “well gee you have insurance” don’t understand insurance in the small business world. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

That’s a joke right?   There was a local car repair place that burned during working hours luckily no one was killed but about 10 cars burned.  The clients waited 6 months to get reimbursed for their destroyed cars.  
 

They finally reopened 18 months later.   They had insurance but it took over a year before the insurance company completed their investigation and authorized the rebuild.  By the time they reopened their clients,  they had nurtured for 30 Years had gone to other places moved or even died off.  Two new repair shops had opened within a mile both National franchises.  They lasted less than a year before closing permanently. 

And killing people would have helped how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, another 505 sailor said:

And killing people would have helped how?

See my edit.  I realized after I posted how it sounded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, another 505 sailor said:

I wonder if killing people as part of your previous profession has clouded your judgement regarding the value of life versus property?

Anything's possible I suppose.  But I don't really think it has anything to do with property.  I just simply don't think every life has equal value.  There are shitbag despots who kill, rape and abuse people all over the globe that could benefit from a bullet to the eyebox.  Child rapists, child abusers, murderers, genocidal shitstains - all have zero value in this world.  I would put them down with as much emotion as a rabid coyote.  And then there are varying degrees of "humans" along the spectrum from these sorts of pure evil shits all the way to Mother Theresa at the other end.  And everything in between.  A mob burning a man's livelihood down just because it would be fun to see it burn isn't quite a Pol Pot level of evil, but they are not that far down the spectrum of shitbags.  Just saying.  

Edit to add:  I'm in no way advocating vigilante justice.  I would rather the appropriate authorities would be there to prevent a mob from burning someone's business down.  But if they are nowhere to be found, then you gotta do what you gotta do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, The Joker said:

See my edit.  I realized after I posted how it sounded

Maybe you're beginning to realize that killing people because you're afraid they might damage your property sounds...

... not good

Because it isn't

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Anything's possible I suppose.  But I don't really think it has anything to do with property.  I just simply don't think every life has equal value.  There are shitbag despots who kill, rape and abuse people all over the globe that could benefit from a bullet to the eyebox.  Child rapists, child abusers, murderers, genocidal shitstains - all have zero value in this world.  I would put them down with as much emotion as a rabid coyote.  And then there are varying degrees of "humans" along the spectrum from these sorts of pure evil shits all the way to Mother Theresa at the other end.  And everything in between.  A mob burning a man's livelihood down just because it would be fun to see it burn isn't quite a Pol Pot level of evil, but they are not that far down the spectrum of shitbags.  Just saying.  

Edit to add:  I'm in no way advocating vigilante justice.  I would rather the appropriate authorities would be there to prevent a mob from burning someone's business down.  But if they are nowhere to be found, then you gotta do what you gotta do.  

Not that I am advocating it, but I have seen others who hold the same view.  With regard to President Trump.

He does click off several boxes you've listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe you're beginning to realize that killing people because you're afraid they might damage your property sounds...

... not good

Because it isn't

- DSK

 

 


More lies  

I haven’t ever promoted or approved the fact  that he was there protecting property. 

 He didn’t kill those guys while protecting anything,  he defended himself from violent people intent on doing him harm   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Oh please I have posted my views back when this started  I haven’t changed.  As for good news this whole election worked out very well,  as far as I’m concerned.  Why don’t you  slip over to Ben’s Trump don’t talk down thread and read what a Democratic congresswoman had to say about the election.  Before  gloating about who won and lost on Election Day. 

Unfortunately, I don't feel a whole lot of excitement over Biden. He's preferable to Trump, but he's taken no position, and staked no claims on ending the era of the flying killer robots drone attacks.

Given that, something has to explain why so many people have jumped on this Rittenhouse horse.

I do agree with you that it's silly for people to gloat about who won and lost on election. These people are public servants, they're our employees. Trump was a shitty employee, he was fired. Biden is so far untested in the role. If he sucks, he should be fired too, until we find someone who can fix real problems ... our nation of both lefties and righties tolerating flying killer robots is just one of these problems. And it's a big one. Ultimately, the people are far more important than these employees, and if we can't get along with each other as neighbors, then there is no hope for our country to be anything more than just another place with slightly different food and a slightly different accent with slightly different television shows.

By the way, Neighbor Day is 3/11.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Strictly Legally speaking, life of course.  From a moral, ethical and even practical standpoint - I think the answer is "it depends".  Whose life?  What property?  What are the circumstances? 

I don't personally subscribe to the notion that every life, no matter what, is sacred.  If I had worked my entire life, poured blood sweat and tears into a business or home and would lose it all with no chance of ever rebuilding it if some punks came along and thought it would be fun to torch my life's work just for a laugh - the decision as to which is more important would not be so clear cut.  

If I had a choice of this:

170420-koreatown-los-angeles-1992-riots-

or this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnvnTElZ1pvbo-r3mBJ9c

I'm pretty sure I know which one I would choose.

You should consider why buildings like that are burnt down. It's often a form of revolt, when some Americans feel that the country for which they have fought, worked, and built no longer represent them, or protect them.

Rather than just blame the fire on that building, you should also blame the institutions that led people to want to burn down their neighborhoods. When a wide swath of Americans live in poverty from generation to generation, own nothing more than a television, some photos and some cheap clothing, and have no way out of this generational despair, they have nothing to gain by protecting the property of those who milk them like dairy cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Anything's possible I suppose.  But I don't really think it has anything to do with property.  I just simply don't think every life has equal value.  There are shitbag despots who kill, rape and abuse people all over the globe that could benefit from a bullet to the eyebox.  Child rapists, child abusers, murderers, genocidal shitstains - all have zero value in this world.  I would put them down with as much emotion as a rabid coyote.  And then there are varying degrees of "humans" along the spectrum from these sorts of pure evil shits all the way to Mother Theresa at the other end.  And everything in between.  A mob burning a man's livelihood down just because it would be fun to see it burn isn't quite a Pol Pot level of evil, but they are not that far down the spectrum of shitbags.  Just saying.  

Edit to add:  I'm in no way advocating vigilante justice.  I would rather the appropriate authorities would be there to prevent a mob from burning someone's business down.  But if they are nowhere to be found, then you gotta do what you gotta do.  

It's interesting, this post ...

You have taken a role of god-like arbitration of life and death for people whom you deem less worthy than others. And you have supposedly acted in that role as well (with a massive destruction of innocents, btw link) but when people with similar complaints to your own, act against the property of those whom they feel have done them wrong, they then rank sufficiently high on your level of "shitbags" that you have deemed them worthy of an early dispatch.

Goose ... gander ...

It seems Rittenhouse had similar mental formulae.

And just as an aside, from The Bronx to L.A., not all protest fires were started out of protest, more than a few of them were crimes of opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

And just as an aside, from The Bronx to L.A., not all protest fires were started out of protest, more than a few of them were crimes of opportunity.

Potato, potatoe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:


More lies  

I haven’t ever promoted or approved the fact  that he was there protecting property. 

 He didn’t kill those guys while protecting anything,  he defended himself from violent people intent on doing him harm   

 

The title of this thread should be "Some idiot hands a kid rifle and lets him run loose in a riot."  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2020 at 4:23 PM, phillysailor said:

To be fair, Rosenbaum, the first guy killed, was bipolar, had assaulted his fiancee recently, and wasn't taking his meds because his pharmacy was closed before he arrived that evening. His prescription was written after a suicide attempt: the bag he threw at Rittenhouse had his deodorant and underwear from his hospital admission. So, I'd say that fits your description of "fucking nut job".

The second guy killed, Huber, also had a history of bipolar disorder and had threatened his brother with a butcher knife and strangled him for ten seconds for not cleaning the house. Also, a fucking nut job. Agreed.

These were not protestors. They were mentally unstable criminals.

 

11 hours ago, shaggy said:
17 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Those are good questions and are why I said I "might" try to protect my business. I also might consider it too risky and take the hit on an insurance deductible and likely rate increase, if I had adequate insurance.

As I stated, I would not "wish to kill" anyone just for peacefully destroying my property. I specifically said in response to a threat against me or another person. Not surprised that Joe and Steam read something different from what I wrote, but you often do better.

So why bring a gun?? 

Because philly is right that attempting to stop a rioting mob might just land you in the path of armed, mentally disturbed individuals.

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
23 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Lethal force is justified when necessary to prevent death or serious injury to people.

If I had a business that was likely to be destroyed by peaceful protestors, I might try to protect it, meaning the peaceful protestors would have to threaten me to destroy it, and they might just get shot for that threat. I might ask for and accept the help of trusted friends in that endeavor. Adult ones, not 17 year olds.

Because property and money is far more important than human life

Again- what do you think I read in your post, other than exactly what you posted?


If you didn't see the difference between a threat to property and a threat to individuals before, why would I expect you suddenly will now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision to value property over life is, I think, made when people with guns decide to stand watch over their property during a period of civil unrest when a curfew is in effect. Such individuals are influencing the outcome just as surely as others do with hammers, rocks and molotov cocktails. Perhaps society needs legislation to alter insurance regulations to reduce the need for such decisions when a curfew is in effect. Just as during a hurricane strike or its immediate aftermath we don't really need business owners putting their lives in jeopardy and increasing the burden on local law enforcement and rescue services, during civil unrest we'd like such people to stay at home and not add their justifiably serious risk of economic peril to foster a bunker "Alamo" mindset paired with ample firepower.

Just because I'd trust Tom in such a situation doesn't mean his ideas and judgements should be accepted by society as the foundations of policy. 

Laws could be changed to ensure business better reimbursement if a curfew was in effect, paired with laws heavily punishing those bringing or using guns when and where a curfew was in effect. Concealed carriers would be educated about such laws and their purpose, and CC regulations modified in appropriate ways to help guide their actions and establish their rights during such periods. 

We understand that during a curfew, our rights are reduced... rights of assembly, free speech and freedoms of movement are temporarily greatly curtailed. If the First Amendment is impacted, it stands to reason we could intelligently consider the second as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

The decision to value property over life is, I think, made when people with guns decide to stand watch over their property during a period of civil unrest when a curfew is in effect. Such individuals are influencing the outcome just as surely as others do with hammers, rocks and molotov cocktails. Perhaps society needs legislation to alter insurance regulations to reduce the need for such decisions when a curfew is in effect. Just as during a hurricane strike or its immediate aftermath we don't really need business owners putting their lives in jeopardy and increasing the burden on local law enforcement and rescue services, during civil unrest we'd like such people to stay at home and not add their justifiably serious risk of economic peril to foster a bunker "Alamo" mindset paired with ample firepower.

Just because I'd trust Tom in such a situation doesn't mean his ideas and judgements should be accepted by society as the foundations of policy. 

Laws could be changed to ensure business better reimbursement if a curfew was in effect, paired with laws heavily punishing those bringing or using guns when and where a curfew was in effect. Concealed carriers would be educated about such laws and their purpose, and CC regulations modified in appropriate ways to help guide their actions and establish their rights during such periods. 

We understand that during a curfew, our rights are reduced... rights of assembly, free speech and freedoms of movement are temporarily greatly curtailed. If the First Amendment is impacted, it stands to reason we could intelligently consider the second as well.

You're very hopeful

I've seen too many bad results where gun loving whackoes are eager to shove their guns in other peoples faces. Especially in a state that expressly allows you to kill somebody else because you "feel" threatened. CC regulations and "education" isn't going to fix that.

And of course, the "Mah gun is gonna defend mah rah-utts" crowd totally deny the connection between a brutal and unresponsive state and the mass of unhappy desperate people. The only answer, to them, is more brutality. I don't see a path to any good outcome.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mikewof said:
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Potato, potatoe.

That you think they're the same thing just means you don't know the difference between them.

https://ny.curbed.com/2019/5/3/18525908/south-bronx-fires-decade-of-fire-vivian-vazquez-documentary

I'm well aware of the difference, mikey.  I'm simply saying that to the guy who gets his business burned down, it makes no difference to him who lit the match or why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The decision to value property over life is, I think, made when people with guns decide to stand watch over their property during a period of civil unrest when a curfew is in effect. Such individuals are influencing the outcome just as surely as others do with hammers, rocks and molotov cocktails. Perhaps society needs legislation to alter insurance regulations to reduce the need for such decisions when a curfew is in effect. Just as during a hurricane strike or its immediate aftermath we don't really need business owners putting their lives in jeopardy and increasing the burden on local law enforcement and rescue services, during civil unrest we'd like such people to stay at home and not add their justifiably serious risk of economic peril to foster a bunker "Alamo" mindset paired with ample firepower.

Just because I'd trust Tom in such a situation doesn't mean his ideas and judgements should be accepted by society as the foundations of policy. 

Laws could be changed to ensure business better reimbursement if a curfew was in effect, paired with laws heavily punishing those bringing or using guns when and where a curfew was in effect. Concealed carriers would be educated about such laws and their purpose, and CC regulations modified in appropriate ways to help guide their actions and establish their rights during such periods. 

We understand that during a curfew, our rights are reduced... rights of assembly, free speech and freedoms of movement are temporarily greatly curtailed. If the First Amendment is impacted, it stands to reason we could intelligently consider the second as well.

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Keith said:

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

Free-dumb baby, free-dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

I'm well aware of the difference, mikey.  I'm simply saying that to the guy who gets his business burned down, it makes no difference to him who lit the match or why.

If you take a few minutes to read even the first few paragraphs of that article, you'll know the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

I assume you mean the curfews that were in response to the police shootings and BLM activism?

Obviously the reason that BLM protestors won't stay home and stay off the streets is because they're protesting injustice. And the reason the anti-BLM protestors won't stay home and stay off the streets is because they're protesting BLM.

Both of those are good things. People should protest their governments when they feel their governments no longer serve them or represent them. And they should even protest each other. From Kenosha to Skokie.

But then a few egotistical fools feel it necessary to bring their loaded guns to civil unrest, and the whole shebang goes to shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Because philly is right that attempting to stop a rioting mob might just land you in the path of armed, mentally disturbed individuals.

How the fuck do you know??  don't bring a gun to a protest..  Simple.  Better to bring a fucking rock...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The decision to value property over life is, I think, made when people with guns decide to stand watch over their property during a period of civil unrest when a curfew is in effect. Such individuals are influencing the outcome just as surely as others do with hammers, rocks and molotov cocktails. Perhaps society needs legislation to alter insurance regulations to reduce the need for such decisions when a curfew is in effect. Just as during a hurricane strike or its immediate aftermath we don't really need business owners putting their lives in jeopardy and increasing the burden on local law enforcement and rescue services, during civil unrest we'd like such people to stay at home and not add their justifiably serious risk of economic peril to foster a bunker "Alamo" mindset paired with ample firepower.

fucking this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Keith said:

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

Because...  Idiots 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Just because I'd trust Tom in such a situation doesn't mean his ideas and judgements should be accepted by society as the foundations of policy.

Normy is a good guy, many of us would trust him. But it's silly for any of us -- including him -- to think that his words on a sailing forum used by millionaires with sailing yachts would have much of anything to do with what happens when someone is in that position, getting shot at by some teenage idiot, or trying to disarm some teenage idiot armed with nothing, or being the teenage idiot fearing for his life.

And in our country, the "policy" is that teenage idiots are allowed to bring loaded assault rifles to a skateboard fight.

It seems that Normy's main difference from Rittenhouse is that he's mature enough to know not to bring a loaded assault rifle to a skateboard fight. But if he did, his reaction might well have been just as lethal at Rittenhouse's reaction.

As is always repeated in PA, "you can't regulate stupid."

And a whole lot of stupid led to that teenage stupid shooting all those protestors. It was the stupid that organized a gun protest at a skateboard protest, the stupid that bought a minor an assault rifle, and the stupid parenting that raised the stupid that had so little connection to proper behavior that he brought a loaded assault rifle to a skateboard fight. And sometimes --- lots of time, really -- people die over stupid, and people go to prison over stupid.

Rittenhouse isn't a hero, he's a stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, shaggy said:

How the fuck do you know??  don't bring a gun to a protest..  Simple.  Better to bring a fucking rock...  

A can of tuna is better, according to *resident Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, shaggy said:
1 hour ago, Keith said:

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

Because...  Idiots 

Well, then idiots get what they deserve.  There IS a cure for stupid, btw.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to touch the 'but they have insurance' angle. Too often is is used as a lazy argument to downplay or dismiss the loss victims suffer and the criminality of the vandals. 

Family keepsakes, meaningful antiques, one of a kind objects, art, special projects you have poured yourself into and don't have the time or strength to rebuild etc. etc. That stuff is irreplaceable.

Time. How do you get back the year or two it takes fighting the insurance companies and buying replacements when you should be enjoying the fruits of your labor? You can't, it's gone. Our time has monetary value too. Who pays for all your time invested replacing property and dealing with endless red tape?

Pain and suffering. Having been through a total loss house fire I can assure it causes emotional damage.

The fact that insurance companies rarely make you financially whole and then raise your rates figures in to this too.

"But they have insurance" is the definition of callous.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

I want to touch the 'but they have insurance' angle. Too often is is used as a lazy argument to downplay or dismiss the loss victims suffer and the criminality of the vandals. 

Family keepsakes, meaningful antiques, one of a kind objects, art, special projects you have poured yourself into and don't have the time or strength to rebuild etc. etc. That stuff is irreplaceable.

Time. How do you get back the year or two it takes fighting the insurance companies and buying replacements when you should be enjoying the fruits of your labor? You can't, it's gone. Our time has monetary value too. Who pays for all your time invested replacing property and dealing with endless red tape?

Pain and suffering. Having been through a total loss house fire I can assure it causes emotional damage.

 The fact that insurance companies rarely make you financially whole and then raise your rates figures in to this too.

"But they have insurance" is the definition of callous.

From the comfy arm chair you are enjoying, you have a really good point. But justice and laws are not about what is fair, and sentimentality goes out the window during civil unrest. 

While protecting lives and property during emergencies I've chopped holes in roofs, smashed windows, blown down a carport with a master stream, and pulled down perfectly good ceilings looking for fire extension. No apologies or fucks given. I've also helped to take care of a volunteer firefighter with 99% surface area burns. For a year.

How is this any different? You are asking for tenderness and consideration for your feelings while a riot is happening. Take your pious sentimentality and shove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

Normy is a good guy, many of us would trust him. But it's silly for any of us -- including him -- to think that his words on a sailing forum used by millionaires with sailing yachts would have much of anything to do with what happens when someone is in that position, getting shot at by some teenage idiot, or trying to disarm some teenage idiot armed with nothing, or being the teenage idiot fearing for his life.

And in our country, the "policy" is that teenage idiots are allowed to bring loaded assault rifles to a skateboard fight.

It seems that Normy's main difference from Rittenhouse is that he's mature enough to know not to bring a loaded assault rifle to a skateboard fight. But if he did, his reaction might well have been just as lethal at Rittenhouse's reaction.

As is always repeated in PA, "you can't regulate stupid."

And a whole lot of stupid led to that teenage stupid shooting all those protestors. It was the stupid that organized a gun protest at a skateboard protest, the stupid that bought a minor an assault rifle, and the stupid parenting that raised the stupid that had so little connection to proper behavior that he brought a loaded assault rifle to a skateboard fight. And sometimes --- lots of time, really -- people die over stupid, and people go to prison over stupid.

Rittenhouse isn't a hero, he's a stupid.

It's quite easy to regulate stupid. We do it all the fucking time. Most regulations are in place because someone did something stupud.

Don't be so stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keith said:

If there is a curfew in effect, why are Americans unable to respect it, and stay home and off the streets?

Start there and you might reduce the problem.

Did you pay attention to the sorts of people involved with this incident? Teenagers with guns and mentally disturbed folks with criminal histories. That sort don't always follow the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

From the comfy arm chair you are enjoying, you have a really good point. But justice and laws are not about what is fair, and sentimentality goes out the window during civil unrest. 

While protecting lives and property during emergencies I've chopped holes in roofs, smashed windows, blown down a carport with a master stream, and pulled down perfectly good ceilings looking for fire extension. No apologies or fucks given. I've also helped to take care of a volunteer firefighter with 99% surface area burns. For a year.

How is this any different? You are asking for tenderness and consideration for your feelings while a riot is happening. Take your pious sentimentality and shove it.

To equate fighting a fire to maliciously setting one is quite a reach. Did I touch a nerve?

I earned my comfortable chair. My mother 's psychopathic and psychotic behavior injured me physically and mentally.  My cowardly, sadistic father did not intervene. I inherited mental and physical disabilities to boot. This made me a pariah in our small, remote town.

 I struggled to improve my life and at no time did I harm anyone else nor did it cross my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Autonomous said:

I want to touch the 'but they have insurance' angle. Too often is is used as a lazy argument to downplay or dismiss the loss victims suffer and the criminality of the vandals. 

Family keepsakes, meaningful antiques, one of a kind objects, art, special projects you have poured yourself into and don't have the time or strength to rebuild etc. etc. That stuff is irreplaceable.

Time. How do you get back the year or two it takes fighting the insurance companies and buying replacements when you should be enjoying the fruits of your labor? You can't, it's gone. Our time has monetary value too. Who pays for all your time invested replacing property and dealing with endless red tape?

Pain and suffering. Having been through a total loss house fire I can assure it causes emotional damage.

The fact that insurance companies rarely make you financially whole and then raise your rates figures in to this too.

"But they have insurance" is the definition of callous.

.

I agree, is there an alternative to shooting people to protect your property in these domestic disturbances?

Asking for a friend whom I actually don't like all that much, who doesn't support Trump but also seems to think BLM and ANTIFA are demonic sub-human monsters, and who doesn't say anything against death threats to politicians who insufficiently support Trump or calls for martial law / civil war

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I agree, is there an alternative to shooting people to protect your property in these domestic disturbances?

Asking for a friend whom I actually don't like all that much, who doesn't support Trump but also seems to think BLM and ANTIFA are demonic sub-human monsters, and who doesn't say anything against death threats to politicians who insufficiently support Trump or calls for martial law / civil war

- DSK

Knowledge of the law and awareness of possible moral, civil and legal ramifications are important to possess before making any such defensive decision. In many states deadly force is a legal response to arson or attempted arson in specified structures. I can't force my morals on you or your friend, you can't force yours on him or me nor should we.

Can you make your property not look like a target? A person sure as hell doesn't want to provoke a mob. Keep your cool, stay alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

Knowledge of the law and awareness of possible moral, civil and legal ramifications are important to possess before making any such defensive decision. In many states deadly force is a legal response to arson or attempted arson in specified structures. I can't force my morals on you or your friend, you can't force yours on him or me nor should we.

Can you make your property not look like a target? A person sure as hell doesn't want to provoke a mob. Keep your cool, stay alive.

Agreed.

I thought it was depressing when the big-box stores in major metro areas started boarding up in advance of the election. Fortunately not needed.

-My- property is just a normal house... a bit below average, if anything... out in the suburbs. Anybody threatening it would have to walk down a fairly long unpaved driveway. Doesn't seem likely to attract a mob, which suits me fine. I don't see the glamor in brandishing firearms the way some people do, got more than my fill of it decades back while in Uncle Sams boys club

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

To equate fighting a fire to maliciously setting one is quite a reach. Did I touch a nerve?

I earned my comfortable chair. My mother 's psychopathic and psychotic behavior injured me physically and mentally.  My cowardly, sadistic father did not intervene. I inherited mental and physical disabilities to boot. This made me a pariah in our small, remote town.

 I struggled to improve my life and at no time did I harm anyone else nor did it cross my mind.

Nope, just that in times of emergency (hurricanes, floods, disasters) eggs are going to be broken

Pictures in frames and knick knacks from that trip to Germany aren't a justifiable reason to shoot people. Talking about the time it takes to cut regulatory tape and sweat equity in a property doesn't really equal a human life. You were saying that insurance can't be used, really, to compensate people after their property is ruined. Well, a dead guy doesn't have even that option. Nor does a guy imprisoned for defending his home but being convicted anyways, or a guy who kills another but lives with a bad decision for the rest of his life.

Compared to these issues, the property is second fiddle, no matter your sob story.

And I never equated setting a fire with fighting a fire... I was discussing dealing with a debacle already in motion. Society may refuse to support shooting someone to prevent a fire during a curfew (or fighting a fire during a riot); you & your property will just have to suck it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you did hit a nerve. The reason I fought fires was to save lives, not to take them. Property saved was typically the houses next door, or limiting the damage done by the fire and our efforts. The cops have training specifically geared to the protecting life vs property issues we are discussing, yet frequently make poor decisions. 

I doubt most yahoos would do any better, and you seem to be saying that because insurance never makes you whole, vigilante justice is ok. 

I vehemently disagree. Disasters, be they man made or natural, suck. Doesn't make it ok to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Maybe you did hit a nerve. The reason I fought fires was to save lives, not to take them. Property saved was typically the houses next door, or limiting the damage done by the fire and our efforts. The cops have training specifically geared to the protecting life vs property issues we are discussing, yet frequently make poor decisions. 

I doubt most yahoos would do any better, and you seem to be saying that because insurance never makes you whole, vigilante justice is ok. 

I vehemently disagree. Disasters, be they man made or natural, suck. Doesn't make it ok to kill.

If that is your takeaway you missed the point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:
6 hours ago, shaggy said:

Because...  Idiots 

Well, then idiots get what they deserve.  There IS a cure for stupid, btw.  

And I meant to add it's also usually 100% fatal.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Autonomous said:

I want to touch the 'but they have insurance' angle. Too often is is used as a lazy argument to downplay or dismiss the loss victims suffer and the criminality of the vandals. 

Family keepsakes, meaningful antiques, one of a kind objects, art, special projects you have poured yourself into and don't have the time or strength to rebuild etc. etc. That stuff is irreplaceable.

Time. How do you get back the year or two it takes fighting the insurance companies and buying replacements when you should be enjoying the fruits of your labor? You can't, it's gone. Our time has monetary value too. Who pays for all your time invested replacing property and dealing with endless red tape?

Pain and suffering. Having been through a total loss house fire I can assure it causes emotional damage.

The fact that insurance companies rarely make you financially whole and then raise your rates figures in to this too.

"But they have insurance" is the definition of callous.

.

Yep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, phillysailor said:

From the comfy arm chair you are enjoying, you have a really good point. But justice and laws are not about what is fair, and sentimentality goes out the window during civil unrest. 

While protecting lives and property during emergencies I've chopped holes in roofs, smashed windows, blown down a carport with a master stream, and pulled down perfectly good ceilings looking for fire extension. No apologies or fucks given. I've also helped to take care of a volunteer firefighter with 99% surface area burns. For a year.

How is this any different? You are asking for tenderness and consideration for your feelings while a riot is happening. Take your pious sentimentality and shove it.

I'm sorry, but that's an absolute BS analogy.  You were saving lives and destroying property in the process of doing good deeds.  It's understandable and excusable.

What we are discussing is wanton destruction of property just because they can.  Just because they don't have the impulse control to not break the law and destroy others lives.  You can't compare those two acts even slightly.  I'm sure someone would see a hole chopped in their roof in order to save their child completely differently than a mob who burned down their house, busted their windows, etc etc.  Your destruction was unavoidable, the criminal kind is 100% avoidable.  

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I agree, is there an alternative to shooting people to protect your property in these domestic disturbances?

Yes, there is an easy alternative.  It's called "don't destroy other people's property".  Quite simple actually.  Even a caveman can do it.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Yes, there is an easy alternative.  It's called "don't destroy other people's property".  Quite simple actually.  Even a caveman can do it.  

There's an even easier alternative... it's called "don't treat citizens with brutality, denying their rights." Not sure if a caveman can do it, but they would credit if they at least gave it a try

The answer is not further brutality, but once the public is enflamed into violent mobs, machine-gunning them is a quick road to bigger disaster and downfall. Don't believe me, ask Tsar Nicholas

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

There's an even easier alternative... it's called "don't treat citizens with brutality, denying their rights." Not sure if a caveman can do it, but they would credit if they at least gave it a try

The answer is not further brutality, but once the public is enflamed into violent mobs, machine-gunning them is a quick road to bigger disaster and downfall. Don't believe me, ask Tsar Nicholas

- DSK

That's quite some imagination, you have there dougly.  Now I am finally starting to see where all your made up stories keep coming from.  Tsar Nick gunning down peasants in the streets is a bit different than a home or business owner protecting his/her life and/or property from violent mobs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

That's quite some imagination, you have there dougly.  Now I am finally starting to see where all your made up stories keep coming from.  Tsar Nick gunning down peasants in the streets is a bit different than a home or business owner protecting his/her life and/or property from violent mobs.  

Seems to me that the justification for home or business owner using deadly force to protect his home or business from violent mobs is that the police are not using enough deadly force to protect their property for them

Some poster here has made remarks to that effect several times, I wonder who that could be. It's amazing how quickly some people forget what they themselves have said

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

There's an even easier alternative... it's called "don't treat citizens with brutality, denying their rights." Not sure if a caveman can do it, but they would credit if they at least gave it a try

The answer is not further brutality, but once the public is enflamed into violent mobs, machine-gunning them is a quick road to bigger disaster and downfall. Don't believe me, ask Tsar Nicholas

- DSK

I live 1/2 hour away from where the BLM-Antifa mobs torched a business under an apartment building.  Fire but more likely toxic smoke is a terrible way to die. The citizens living in the apartments are not cruel oppressors, just ordinary people trying to make a living. Many more examples too but it would exceed tldnr limits.

You would cry like a baby if your life's work was torched by the mob. I know I sure would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Did you pay attention to the sorts of people involved with this incident? Teenagers with guns and mentally disturbed folks with criminal histories. That sort don't always follow the rules.

Are you sure that was the only type of Americans on the street that night? 

Was there a curfew in place on that night?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

I live 1/2 hour away from where the BLM-Antifa mobs torched a business under an apartment building.  Fire but more likely toxic smoke is a terrible way to die. The citizens living in the apartments are not cruel oppressors, just ordinary people trying to make a living. Many more examples too but it would exceed tldnr limits.

You would cry like a baby if your life's work was torched by the mob. I know I sure would.

My life's work is not in a single place, but I understand what you mean.

It is still a very bad idea to kill people to try to protect your property (or anybody else's) from a mob. First of all, it probably won't work, it will very likely just escalate the violence.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It's quite easy to regulate stupid. We do it all the fucking time. Most regulations are in place because someone did something stupud.

Don't be so stupid.

That's the thing about stupid ... stupid is fluid, regulations are concrete. The second you regulate stupid, it will find a way to flow around the regulations.

There is a reservoir of stupid, and it gradually corrodes and weakens any dam that tries to contain it.

Look at motor vehicles for example ... we found out why people die in traffic accidents, so the government mandated all kinds of safety requirements, and the manufacturers even went above and beyond the requirements, often beating the legal requirements by decades, with things like ABS, stability control, crumple zones, blinkers, air bags, automatic lane drift alarms, automatic braking and other technological wizardry.

So what did stupid do? Stupid said "hey thanks for keeping me safe while I'm hurtling through time and space at 70 miles per, now please excuse me, I must text a cat meme to a friend, I'll just be a second, but my attention will be right back on the highway in no time."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Autonomous said:

I live 1/2 hour away from where the BLM-Antifa mobs torched a business under an apartment building.  Fire but more likely toxic smoke is a terrible way to die. The citizens living in the apartments are not cruel oppressors, just ordinary people trying to make a living. Many more examples too but it would exceed tldnr limits.

You would cry like a baby if your life's work was torched by the mob. I know I sure would.

Destroying someone's life's work with fire is nearly as bad as destroying their life. And I agree, insurance is a poor substitute for lack of fire.

Given that, I posted a link that JBSF didn't want to read. Not all of these fires from the dawn of social protest to now are necessarily started by the protestors. When run-down buildings are in run-down neighborhoods, the cover of protest has given more than a few arsonists the opportunity to burn down buildings for the owners to recover the insurance money that is worth far more than a run-down building in a run-down neighborhood that the landlord can't sufficiently fill with profitable rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mikewof said:

That's the thing about stupid ... stupid is fluid, regulations are concrete. The second you regulate stupid, it will find a way to flow around the regulations.

There is a reservoir of stupid, and it gradually corrodes and weakens any dam that tries to contain it.

Look at motor vehicles for example ... we found out why people die in traffic accidents, so the government mandated all kinds of safety requirements, and the manufacturers even went above and beyond the requirements, often beating the legal requirements by decades, with things like ABS, stability control, crumple zones, blinkers, air bags, automatic lane drift alarms, automatic braking and other technological wizardry.

So what did stupid do? Stupid said "hey thanks for keeping me safe while I'm hurtling through time and space at 70 miles per, now please excuse me, I must text a cat meme to a friend, I'll just be a second, but my attention will be right back on the highway in no time."

and yet, the deaths per miles driven keeps falling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

and yet, the deaths per miles driven keeps falling.

Take a penny, leave a penny. If the technological wizardry protects the stupids in their cars, then the stupids will find another way to exercise their art. In fact, this thread is all about that, is it not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, some people here do believe their property is worth killing people. Got it. 

I think that if the society has gotten to the point that riots are happening, there are bigger issues at work, and ignoring them has put you and the rest of society in that ruinous predicament. The outcome is already bad for a large percentage of the nation, but you think you're so special it shouldn't impact on your sheltered, special lives.

Shoot that guy with evil intent, and you MIGHT save your property while keeping your freedom. But at a cost, and predictably, far too high a cost. Unintended consequences happen even when well trained and legally authorized pros attempt to protect property with guns and shouted commands. What happened in Kenosha is far more likely the outcome than everyone waking up the next morning and apologizing to the store owner where someone was killed under murky circumstances. You think they are gonna trust you in the morning? You think your store is safe next week?

If the riots are happening in your neighborhood, and your response is to shoot more people, then think about how effective our efforts have been in Iraq and Afghanistan. Escalation ain't gonna solve that scenario, and it fits the definition of insanity for the town to order MRAPs so you'll feel good.

You aren't thinking clearly if you don't consider the underlying problems that led to the riots in the first place. You're just continuing the same cycle of oppression, expecting this time the violence will work.

Dumbasses don't learn anything. No wonder we cant win insurgencies or survive a pandemic without losing our shit. We are a shithole nation, and the deplorables are proud of their ignorance. Slap in a mag and chamber a round. Yee haw.

 

Fuck that noise.  Black Lives MATTER.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Take a penny, leave a penny. If the technological wizardry protects the stupids in their cars, then the stupids will find another way to exercise their art. In fact, this thread is all about that, is it not?

And yet, until recently, life expectancy has continued to climb.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

From the comfy arm chair you are enjoying, you have a really good point. But justice and laws are not about what is fair, and sentimentality goes out the window during civil unrest. 

While protecting lives and property during emergencies I've chopped holes in roofs, smashed windows, blown down a carport with a master stream, and pulled down perfectly good ceilings looking for fire extension. No apologies or fucks given. I've also helped to take care of a volunteer firefighter with 99% surface area burns. For a year.

How is this any different? You are asking for tenderness and consideration for your feelings while a riot is happening. Take your pious sentimentality and shove it.

I'm sorry, but that's an absolute BS analogy.  You were saving lives and destroying property in the process of doing good deeds.  It's understandable and excusable.

What we are discussing is wanton destruction of property just because they can.  Just because they don't have the impulse control to not break the law and destroy others lives.  You can't compare those two acts even slightly.  I'm sure someone would see a hole chopped in their roof in order to save their child completely differently than a mob who burned down their house, busted their windows, etc etc.  Your destruction was unavoidable, the criminal kind is 100% avoidable.  

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.  

You missed the point of what I was saying, Jeff.

In order to fight a fire, you've got to be willing to sacrifice some stuff to save what can be saved. And whatever you do, you've got to make sure your team and other people stay safe while you're working the fire.

If a riot is happening, some property is gonna burn. Some folks are going to get hurt. There is no stopping it, but that doesn't stop amateurs from trying. You say the destruction of the "criminal kind is 100% avoidable." What absolute horseshit, Jeff. Once a riot starts, there is no controlling what happens. It's time to write off some buildings.

Allowing vigilante justice to happen during a riot will inevitably lead to mistakes, innocent lives lost, blood shed unnecessarily, legal trouble and psych impacts. Taking a group of guys loaded for bear and armed with a sense of sanctimonious privilege into that scenario to protect your store might protect property, but it might also get people killed, some of them your friends, and you will be responsible for their deaths. There is nothing certain other than you've added people and guns to a volatile situation. You have very little actual control over how incidents will play out during such a scenario, and you are foolish to think you're in charge.

You cast off the motives of those rioting as "wanton destruction of property just because they can." You're an idiot if you think that's all there is to it, a willfully blind, ignorant asshole who ignores the jackboot on the neck of whole segments of our population because its not YOUR neck. This is the part of the scenario over which you could exert influence, but because you perceive no personal benefit from it, you don't really care, do U?

Normal societies don't have riots. Healthy societies have a lot more trust in one another, and even the poor have far too much to lose. When people feel comfortable, and valued, and prosperous... when people know their lives matter, they don't engage in civil unrest. 

Sorry, but it's "All Lives Matter" that is the dog without purpose. It's voting for trickle down economies and subsidies for large multinational corporations that helped create these riots, its tax breaks for the rich and unequal housing acts, Redlining and the War on Drugs, felony misdemeanors and DWB or just WWB. You want to save your property? Do something about how society is failing large segments of our population. Once the neighborhood is on fire, its way too late, bra.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 9:46 AM, phillysailor said:

EDIT: Scratch that. I wouldn't be conflicted. I would refuse to shoot someone just to protect my things, and I certainly wouldn't ask my friends to do it, either. A show of force and pushing unarmed people away would be the extent of my efforts and I would make the ROE clear to anyone I was with.


The thing about a handful of unarmed people "showing force" against a rioting mob is that

4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

If a riot is happening, some property is gonna burn. Some folks are going to get hurt. There is no stopping it, but that doesn't stop amateurs from trying. You say the destruction of the "criminal kind is 100% avoidable." What absolute horseshit, Jeff. Once a riot starts, there is no controlling what happens. It's time to write off some buildings. 

Showing up to such a situation armed is risky. The chances of having to use your gun to protect yourself are high, so it's well worth considering whether a building (and/or your life's work) should be written off.

Showing up to such a situation unarmed is reckless to the point of being suicidal. I would never do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Sorry, but it's "All Lives Matter" that is the dog without purpose. It's voting for trickle down economies and subsidies for large multinational corporations that helped create these riots, its tax breaks for the rich and unequal housing acts, Redlining and the War on Drugs, felony misdemeanors and DWB or just WWB. You want to save your property? Do something about how society is failing large segments of our population. Once the neighborhood is on fire, its way too late, bra.

A good start would be to avoid electing a career drug warrior who helped write our fucked up asset forfeiture laws and has never given any indication he wants to undo that part of his career.

Oh well, maybe next election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 10:05 AM, Quotidian Tom said:

I too would refuse to shoot someone just to protect my things. Once again, if people want to threaten or attack me or my friends in order to destroy my property, they might just get shot for the whole threatening and attacking thing.

Or, in the Steam/Joe reading,

2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

@Quotidian Tomtold us one day ago that he and his assembled crew would shoot a demonstrator, over a threat to his business. are creeping in.


Repeat your lies if you must, but it won't make them true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

Or, in the Steam/Joe reading,


Repeat your lies if you must, but it won't make them true.

You are kinda walking it back, so let's just keep going.

What's up with your repetition that "threats" will draw gunfire from Tom Ray, and his assembled friends, down at Tom Ray Inc.? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

What's up with your repetition that "threats" will draw gunfire from Tom Ray, and his assembled friends, down at Tom Ray Inc.? :huh:

One of them might be holding a stump. It's OK to fire at the stump, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Quotidian Tom said:

(a needed distraction, from dogballs)

Do "threats" (to a business or a person) get the death penalty now, from Tom Ray? This is news. Tell us about it.

You would drag your trusty friends into a shootout, at your place of biz, over "threats"? I am quoting you, Tom.

Quote

 I might ask for and accept the help of trusted friends in that endeavor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2020 at 8:30 PM, Burning Man said:

If I had a choice of this:

170420-koreatown-los-angeles-1992-riots-

or this:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnvnTElZ1pvbo-r3mBJ9c

I'm pretty sure I know which one I would choose.

Remind me again how many were shot by those people on the roof? I forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites