🇳🇱
Kyle Rittennhouse is...
PS I want to hear what you think, not what you think the jury will decide.
#KyleRittennhouse #KyleRittenhouse
@freemo for me I think it’s kinda sus he just went into the chaos when it wasn’t even in his city. I am not really sure what happened but if there were no direct threat to him then yeah he is guilty. Again I want to précise I am really uninformed on this thing. But yeah, don’t go play the though guys or the cops and go in a dangerous place should be a common sense rule. You’re not equipped nor formed to deal with it (cops should be formed more, but that’s another story), this isn’t cod
@louisrcouture Some would say its suspect that he walked into a dangerous area with the intent of providing first aide and protecting people... I say its what redeems him.
As for a direct threat to him. He didnt shoot at first. A mob started to chase him screaming things about killing him and beating him up, he ran and didnt shoot back instead screaming "friendly friendly friendly" as objects were thrown at him by people chasing him. At every point he only shoots once he has been cornered and is within arms reach of physical assault. Even then one shot and ran, he didnt just start shooting a crowd or anything. At one point a gun was even held to his face showing the crowd was also at least partly armed.
Its a very clear case of self-defense IMO.
This article gives a different telling of the events:
https://theintercept.com/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-jury-decide-men-tried-stop-heroes-villains/
How many people do you think would have died if this incident had happened in a hypothetical country with a lot stricter gun laws?
I really have little interest in the agenda and swing of criminally bias news organizations or how they want to erroneously retell the story.
I watched every second of the court case, I watched every second of video, and I will not invest one second in the media trying to spin things, I have more than enough evidence to know what happened that the news is going to add 0 value here.
Now if you think the news article presents a valid point or new evidence please feel free to voice it, I will be happy to discuss any talking points. But I find 0 value in media diatribes.
Now to answer your question:
Number of people who died with lax gun laws:
2, exactly the people who should have died, the criminals with a history of violence who were trying to kill/severely injure him.
Number of people who would have died with strict gun laws:
1, the innocent person who was out all day providing first aid to protestors who was killed by a mob of angry thugs who deserved to die fdor trying to kill him but werent because gun laws meant he couldnt have a gun.
@freemo @louisrcouture
Your post overflows with bias. "A mob of angry thugs who deserve to die for trying to kill him"? Why not 3 people, protestors, trying to disarm him?
Imagine you just witnessed someone get shot, 4 times. This is a chaotic situation so you do not know whether this was one of those justified self defence shootings or if this shooter is just starting his shooting spree. Do you then deserve to die if you guess the second and attempt to disarm him?
Seems I found some old images on my drive from when i was doing a write up on how restrictions in gun laws consistently cause violence and homicides to increase int he years following it. I was citing other sources but also did some of my own analysis. These images are from third-parties I was referencing (had to go and reverify the data and add some of my own). some thankfully cite their sources.
Anyway they are 4 examples out of about a dozen I analyzed and in every single case we consistently see pretty huge spikes in violence/homicide following restrictions in gun laws and they almost never recover to baseline (though they do sometimes have rebound).
