Jump to content

The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict deforms natural law


Vernon

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Vernon said:

I'm not questioning why that article was linked to. I just am wondering what's up with the Black Catholic magazine and why they seem so much like white liberals.

I’m not familiar with the magazine.  I’m thinking it can be a publication of left leaning Catholics much like “America” magazine, “US Catholic,” “National Catholic Reporter.”  I disagree with this author’s opinion.  We as human beings have every right to defend ourselves from harm and death.  In the case of self defense, it’s not considered murder.  He’s trying to tie in the Rittenhouse case with the lynchings of the past.  Not even close!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

I think the articles posted on the home page are automatically generated and posted there, no one oversees the content.  
 

i could be wrong but I don’t think so…

I’m sure democrat politicians would have paid for their bonds had they murdered Kyle that night… 

The handful of mega corporations that control most forms of media have given far more attention to Rittenhouses' trail than Coffee's. It's similar to when a white blonde woman goes missing, they dang sure care about that, 24/7 coverage. Meanwhile, a African American woman goes missing and they don't care so much. 

It's as if they only really care about white people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, rachael said:

Feelings hurt? :popcorn: This is a forum where I can post what I what within the confines of the rules of the forum. Don't like it? Don't post. 

Kyle Rittenhouse performing his own form of vigilante justice against others is not 'natural law.' Kyle came from elsewhere with a semi-automatic rifle to protect a dealership - not his property. What do semi-automatic rifles do to a human body? Kill. Kyle Rittenhouse didn't really need to be in the area, much less armed, in the first place. 

And I still answered your question initially. I don't agree with the verdict. The 'natural right' to shoot the heck out of people? Easily abused as a defense, as seen here. 

So you are the jury, and your evidence is what dramatic news media told you?   

Rifles AND pistols AND blunt objects AND fists can kill.  

There were people there with bad intent.

 It is reasonable to go there to protest, and to protect property. It is unreasonable for anyone to attack others.    

Was it a good idea for a 17yr old kid to have a rifle?    About as good an idea attacking a kid carrying a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Vernon said:

This article was linked to in the front page of Phatmass:

https://www.blackcatholicmessenger.com/rittenhouse-verdict-natural-law/

I don't see any difference between the author and of the haters in the liberal leftwing media who see racism behind every tree. He presumes "white supremacy" without even making a case for it.

I have extreme difficulty taking this supposedly black-Catholic website seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an American so my response to this topic is from an outsiders view.  Why in the name of God can a stupid 17 year old with obviously no armed defense training, have an AR15 (yes I know, I know.  It's just a little tommy gun), claim a position of self appointed security guard of used cars and be authorised to kill unarmed protestors.  I know that many don't see the complete stupidity and absurdity of such a scenario in a supposedly civilised country.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

I'm not an American so my response to this topic is from an outsiders view.  Why in the name of God can a stupid 17 year old with obviously no armed defense training, have an AR15 (yes I know, I know.  It's just a little tommy gun), claim a position of self appointed security guard of used cars and be authorised to kill unarmed protestors.  I know that many don't see the complete stupidity and absurdity of such a scenario in a supposedly civilised country.  

I think you missed the part where three criminal thugs tried to kill him. Yes it's sad that we haver riots and people feel a need to arm themselves, but we have a very corrupt media and many corrupt people in office who incite flames of racial division for their own profit and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

I'm not an American so my response to this topic is from an outsiders view.  Why in the name of God can a stupid 17 year old with obviously no armed defense training, have an AR15 (yes I know, I know.  It's just a little tommy gun), claim a position of self appointed security guard of used cars and be authorised to kill unarmed protestors.  I know that many don't see the complete stupidity and absurdity of such a scenario in a supposedly civilised country.  

Well I'm not sure where you are from but my impression is that there is a bit of a philosophical difference between Europe and the US. When I look at most of the strict gun laws in Europe I think it is "completely stupid and absurd" to disarm the general public given the history of despotism and mass-murder that we have seen in Europe. Personally, I own an AR15 and many other guns as a black American, and encourage others to do the same. I don't see any good reason why I should put faith in my government to protect me or my family, especially if you consider the history of governments in the US when it comes to that. I'll give myself a fighting chance. That's the way I personally look at the issue of gun control, at a high-level.

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Vernon said:

I think you missed the part where three criminal thugs tried to kill him. Yes it's sad that we haver riots and people feel a need to arm themselves, but we have a very corrupt media and many corrupt people in office who incite flames of racial division for their own profit and power.

The point is why was a 17 year old with no armed defense training as a security guard, allowed to bring an AR15 to a used car lot as a self designated defender during a protest?  Why doesn't that give you pause for thought?  It's a guaranteed recipe for some people to get killed. To not see that shows a serious blockage in reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

The point is why was a 17 year old with no armed defense training as a security guard, allowed to bring an AR15 to a used car lot as a self designated defender during a protest?  Why doesn't that give you pause for thought?  It's a guaranteed recipe for some people to get killed. To not see that shows a serious blockage in reasoning.

Well, there does not seem to be anything here that indicates that his lack of self-defense training, or the fact that he did not own the user car shop, was a contributing factor in the two people being killed.

Let's say that it was the owner of the used car shop who stood in front his own store with the AR15, and that he had 10 years of defense training with that weapon. If he was attacked by the same two people and killed them in self-defense, would you then be OK with this result?

I think your issue is that ANYONE should be allowed to openly defend his property while brandishing a weapon, no? The fact that he did not have self-defense training and did not own the store seems to be a bit of a smokescreen, but please correct me if I am wrong here.

Edited by Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well, there does not seem to be anything here that indicates that his lack of self-defense training, or the fact that he did not own the user car shop, was a contributing factor in the two people being killed.

Let's say that it was the owner of the used car shop who stood in front his own store with the AR15, and that he had 10 years of defense training with that weapon. If he was attacked by the same two people and killed them in self-defense, would you then be OK with this result?

The scenario in my jurisdiction where guns are not allowed for self defense, would be hired security guards with defense training and uniforms.  Go from there.  This 17 year old kid got scared by the first guy and started running and the subsequent two people he shot thought he was random shooter and tried to stop him so he turned and shot them.  Isn't that an insane scenario in your view?

Edited by Mercedes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

The scenario in my jurisdiction where guns are not allowed for self defense, would be hired security guards with defense training and uniforms.  Go from there.  This 17 year old kid got scared by the first guy and started running and the subsequent two people he shot thought he was random shooter and tried to stop him so he turned and shot them.  Isn't that an insane scenario in your view?

No, that's not what happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vernon said:

No, that's not what happened. 

Even police at the trial testified that they were responding to an 'active shooter' incident.  When a 17 year old kid with a big gun is shooting people who are trying to stop him... isn't that insane?  What is your version Vernon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mercedes said:

The scenario in my jurisdiction where guns are not allowed for self defense, would be hired security guards with defense training and uniforms.  Go from there.  This 17 year old kid got scared by the first guy and started running and the subsequent two people he shot thought he was random shooter and tried to stop him so he turned and shot them.  Isn't that an insane scenario in your view?

Well I'll confess that I am not intimately familiar with the facts of this case, and there seems to be some level of ambiguity as to what actually occurred, which was proper for the jury to resolve.

I'd say this, if you have a large public demonstration, it is legitimate to put restrictions on the presence of firearms at the demonstration. I think it's legitimate for police to arrest people who openly display firearms at a large public demonstration, because the display of firearms can be a form of intimidation, or could instigate violence, depending on the circumstances.

On the other hand, we have situations where public demonstrations impact people who would otherwise want no part of it. Let's say you are a small business owner. You make your living from the small market or corner-store that you own, and folks in your city who are riled up about the George Floyd killing are going to stage a protest, and march right down the street where your store is. I think we have seen this situation with numerous protests, where totally innocent store-owners have their stores burned to the ground or looted, etc. Does the owner of that store have a right to stand in front of his store with a weapon and defend what he has worked his whole life to achieve? I'd say yes. He should be able to defend his property, as long as he is not going out of his way to instigate violence.

Now, as far as the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, I don't know the facts well enough to say which situation above his actions were closest to. I think that was the job of the jury, and after hearing the facts they thought it was closer to the second scenario than the first.

Now, you do have a valid point about the security guards. Yeah, if instead of having a random untrained 17 year old in front of your store, you had a trained security guard wearing a uniform, I think you are correct that the ultimate chaos that resulted would have been significantly less likely. But here I think the question is, does this justify a complete ban on a private right of self-defense? I'd say no. I mean, a lot of stores are simply not going to be able to afford to pay full time-security guards. If they don't have them on staff full-time, then they are going to need to rush and (hopefully) find short-term security guards for each emergency situation that arises. I don't know if that's too realistic in many situations. It's like George Floyd gets killed the riot is happening within the next couple hours. You don't always know when things are going to spark. You may not have time to plan and need to get out there with a gun and defend your property.

Also, of course, individual citizens will often have a need to carry a weapon for their own personal safety. The single mother who works late in a dangerous neighborhood, for example. It's not like she can hire an armed bodyguard to escort her home. She needs to keep a gun in her purse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



It costs about $850 a year for Phatmass.com to survive–and we barely make it. If you’d like to help keep the Phorum alive, please consider a monthly gift.



×
×
  • Create New...