this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
877 points (100.0% liked)

politics

23813 readers
2446 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Let’s say a person doesn’t like certain other types of people (be it due to race, religion, political views, or whatever), and that person also glorifies violence against those types of people and they glorify gun violence in general.

Let’s also say this person knowingly and willingly (and possibly illegally) puts themselves in harm’s way, while carrying a gun, amongst those same certain types of people.

Then they get into a situation where they have to use “self defense” in order to escape harm from those people. Luckily they had that gun with them!

Was it legally “self defense?” Yes, apparently. Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes.

Did Rittenhouse successfully use a self defense plea to get away with murder? Some would argue that he did.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I agree with your take for the most part actually. This is the kindest response I've gotten on Lemmy in the past year since this topic gets brought up.

Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes

He was 17. This fact could easily be argued the other way. In the days preceding the Kenosha riots there were riots in Minneapolis were stores were looted and some buildings burned. About a 1bn in damage happened. Kenosha is a small town where Kyle worked. Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?

Also, just because he received a non-guilty verdict I will be the first to say that doesn't absolve him of culpability in developing a situation that led to harm. As a European that lived in America briefly (ten years) I was very shocked when I encountered the gun culture there. I understand it but I never got comfortable with it.

Thank you again for not resorting to labeling me or putting me down. Gives me a little hope for Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?

Vigilantism is also illegal. It could be argued that had Kyle stayed home those people would still be alive

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Did that hurt? Should we call a doctor? You forgot to mention how left you are this time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's funny. No matter what I say, that's all you will attack. It's all about purity testing and how much of a team player one has to be. Never about what is being discussed.

In the past I didn't mention I was left and all I got to discuss was how evil conservative I am. Even though I despise everything conservatives stand for. I really don't know what to say.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the past I didn’t mention I was left and all I got to discuss was how evil conservative I am.

Honestly, that is an interesting reaction when you take into consideration that you spout right wing talking points.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

which right wing point did i spout that automatically made me a conservative on all my positions....

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Which position have you vociferously defended aligns with a leftist position..?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

just to be clear: in order to discuss this one topic, i have to bring up my whole bio and charter first right? Otherwise we cannot engage, correct? The never ending purity testing.

I align with all left positions: social welfare, gun restrictions, etc. But I shouldn't have to justify this in order to have a nuanced conversation with someone. This is the crux of the problem. Not even people on the left can disagree about something as basic as the facts of a case that was broadcasted on national television.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In that instance the “protesters” create their own bad luck by putting themselves in a situation where self defense rules apply. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Would you be saying that about Rittenhouse if he died due to putting himself in that situation?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, you’re at a protest that had devolved into rioting and looting, whatever happens now is entitely on you.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

To be clear: He didn't happen to find himself at a protest. He actively went to a protest that he did not agree with in order to "protect property". He purposely put himself in that situation.