Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "Kyle Rittenhouse plans to sue Whoopi Goldberg" video.

  1. If that were true, he wouldn't have taken an assault rifle to a peaceful rally.
    6
  2.  @huggybare9  It was until people showed up with assault rifles.
    5
  3. Turns up with an assault rifle. Kills someone Claims he's the victim and never intended to hurt anyone. Only in America.
    2
  4.  @toddmintz4269  He wasn't a cop though. You can't just go shooting people because you think they're breaking the law. This isn't the 1850s you know. The human race had evolved to be s little more civilised than that. Perhaps you knuckle dragging, gun totin' Alt right nutters should do so as well.
    2
  5.  @toddmintz4269  Why would he? That sounds premeditated to me.
    2
  6.  @toddmintz4269  BS. Staying home instead of going out looking for trouble would have saved his life, as well as the lives of several others.
    1
  7.  @Tyreker  How on earth is that my logic? I said nothing of the sort.
    1
  8.  @kmgyening  It's the act of taking the laws into your own hands. What do you think it means?
    1
  9.  @kmgyening  Semantics. The definition you just gave is precisely what "taking the law into your own hands" means. Stop playing childish games.
    1
  10.  @kmgyening  Bash blah blah. He's still a vigilante, no matter how you dress it up.
    1
  11.  @kmgyening  Now it appears that you're the one who doesn't know what vigilante means.
    1
  12.  @kmgyening  The dictionary definition of vigilantism "law enforcement undertaken without legal authority by a self-appointed group of people". Please describe how that distress from "taking the law into your own hands". To me, they sound like the same thing.
    1
  13.  @kmgyening  So... more semantics then. How predictable.
    1
  14.  @kmgyening  It was a rhetorical question, they're the same thing.
    1
  15.  @kmgyening  I don't know where you come from, but In Australia, the phrase "taking the law into your own hands", is a perfectly accurate colloquialism used to describe the meaning of the word "vigilante". And as this word is not defined by Wisconsin law, it's pointless to look there for such a definition. Just as it's pointless to continue a discussion who would base their entire argument on such childish semantics. So I'll leave you to it. I'm done. I see no point in continuing to engage in a battle of wits with an obviously unarmed opponent. Good day.
    1
  16.  @kmgyening  It doesn't matter how you spin it, he still a vigilante who killed unarmed people.
    1
  17.  @kmgyening  If someone was trying to shoot me at close range, I'd probably try to grab their gun too. That wouldn't justify their actions though.
    1
  18.  @kmgyening  No, if you claim self defence, the onus is on you you prove it. Sounds to me like Rosenbaum was trying to the bad with the gun.
    1
  19.  @kmgyening  If course he was.
    1
  20.  @kmgyening  He shot unarmed people, he needs to be the one providing evidence that it was self defence.
    1
  21.  @huggybare9  Feel free to replace "Fox" with the right wing crackpot news channel of your choice.
    1
  22.  @Tyreker  He wasn't sitting at home minding his own business. He was a vigilante, actively looking for trouble to deal with, and he took his gun specifically to deal with that trouble. His gun wasn't stored safely in his gun safe, it was in his hand, as he actively went looking for people to use it on. That's premeditated, and isn't in any way represented by your hypothetical.
    1
  23.  @Tyreker  This is the perfect example of why open carry is such s stupid law.
    1
  24.  @Tyreker  Sounds like a good place to stay away from. In case you were still wondering why I called him a vigilante, you just summed it up perfectly.
    1
  25.  @Tyreker  Perhaps he should leave it to the professionals who are trained to handle such situations without shooting people. Vigilante actions like his only ever make things worse.
    1
  26.  @Tyreker  Yes, I'm well aware he did the exact opposite of what the professionals did, and people died as a result. Interesting that you see this as a sign he did the right thing.
    1
  27.  @Tyreker  Maybe the professionals knew that going in there guns blazing, like KR did, only makes things worse. Anyway, the fact remains, people died because he ignored the directive given to the police. How can you not hold him to account for that?
    1
  28.  @kmgyening  They were obviously trying to stop the bad guy with the gun.
    1
  29.  @toddmintz4269  Why would I be to blame? I was nowhere near it.
    1
  30.  @toddmintz4269  Rights come with responsibilities. Exercising his rights in an irresponsible was is what killed these people.
    1
  31.  @Tyreker  Nobodies knows how it started, we just have to take KR's word for it. Unlike you, I hold them both responsible.
    1
  32.  @Tyreker  Sounds to me like they were both looking for trouble. Going into a conflict zone, fully armed, against professional advice... how is that not looking for trouble?
    1
  33.  @toddmintz4269  He killed unarmed people.
    1
  34.  @toddmintz4269  Yeah, that's the solution, more guns, and the deaths that come with 'em. 🙄
    1
  35.  @toddmintz4269  Princess? Sweetheart? Why don't you grow up, child?
    1
  36.  @toddmintz4269  What ever you say, child.
    1
  37.  @toddmintz4269  People with a valid point don't need to resort to such childish name calling.
    1
  38.  @Tyreker  You made that point yourself. Why question me on it, it's your point.
    1
  39.  @toddmintz4269  You're the one who's so triggered that you need to resort to childish name calling to get your point across. You play the man because your can't play the ball. There's nothing more pathetic. Anyway, you're obviously so desperate to have the last word, even though you clearly have nothing to say, so I'm going to leave you to it. Bye.
    1
  40.  @aguyontheinternet9095  So you're saying Kyle drew first?
    1
  41.  @matthewsmith1941  Say hello to Dunning and and Kruger for me, when you get off the far left hand side of their curve.
    1
  42.  @Tyreker  You made the point that the professionals left the situation week alone. They did this because they knew they'd just make the situation worse and put outdoors love at risk. The proof of that being fair and square in the pudding.
    1
  43.  @Tyreker  Shooting unarmed people. What more do you need?
    1
  44.  @Tyreker  Sure, he went to help people. If you believe that then you might be interested in buying this bridge I have for sale. It's going cheap, with a lovely view of Sydney Harbour.
    1
  45.  @Tyreker  1, that's not logic, and it's certainly not my logic; it's a non sequitur. 2 They eventually did charge him, so your flawed logic falls apart at the point.
    1
  46.  @Tyreker  We know the reason they died they died because he brought a gun. That's all that matters.
    1
  47.  @Tyreker  Do you even know what vigilante means?
    1
  48.  @Tyreker  Maybe if he wasn't threatening people with a gun he wouldn't have been attacked.
    1
  49.  @Tyreker  So you're saying he went into what you describe as a dangerous riot zone, armed with an assault rifle, but he wasn't a vigilante, he was cleaning up graffiti? Stop an think about that for a minute, then ask yourself how gullible you'd have to be to believe that.
    1
  50.  @Tyreker  I'm not a vigilante, so I stay well away from riots.
    1
  51.  @Tyreker  That's an invalid syllogism. What makes you think that's all he was doing?
    1
  52.  @Tyreker  But how do you know that's all he was doing? How do you know his motivation wasn't to deliberately provoke people purely to garner an opportunity to shoot them? What evidence do I have? How about the 3 people he shot?
    1
  53.  @Tyreker  I agree, Kyle was the bad guy with a gun you right wingers keep telling us about.
    1
  54.  @huggybare9  Stop believing everything you see in fox news.
    1