Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "" video.

It was self-defense. You can't go running around assaulting people. It's self-defense for Kyle. He was protecting himself from the lunatics.
3
@JoJo-vg8dz "You ARE the provocateur." - At this point you actually deserve to be attacked, and when you try to accuse your attackers the DA says you're the provocateur for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You deserve the rules you want to impose on others.
3
@Doppe1ganger "if a gun is involved and the question is raised whether there should have been a gun involved" - If there was a violent mob involved and the question is raised whether there should have been a violent mob, you people go back to the same "muh gun" BS. The guy was attacked, three assailants wanted to try their luck, they lost. The end.
3
@JoJo-vg8dz "He did the worst thing a human being can do." - No, he didn't. He actually did a good thing.
3
He knew how to handle a gun. He defeated two attackers and won the gunfight against Gauge. He showed more professionalism than police officers. He showed more restraint than police officers.
2
Gun charges were dropped.
2
@riccardo9383 "If you see an armed person shooting people and you try to disarm them, then you're acting in self-defense" - So if you see a woman shooting an attacker in an alley, you disarm them in self-defense? "That's a much better case than a murderer" - It's not murder if it's not premediated and done with malicious intent. Shooting people fighting you isn't malicious. You can't premediate an attack.
2
@mainscreen4939 Yes. By your logic then nobody can defend themselves.
2
It's not vigilantism if you only shoot people attacking you.
1
@stevemickler452 Nope. The guy who had his bicep vaporized also brought a gun. Was he a vigilante? Kyle is on trial, not the police. Convicting Kyle will not help you against the police.
1
@stevemickler452 No, you said you blamed them. Not that they were vigilantes. So now my question is, since so many progressives supported leftist vigilantism, how can you question progressives now?
1
@stevemickler452 Then who are you to question progressivism? That was your initial comment.
1
@stevemickler452 It's not Vietnam anymore. And your own sentence says you should have learned the lesson. Police went there with guns. They were prepared to use violence on you. The "idea" doesn't matter. Ghandi, aside from being a massive racist and a child abuser, was only able to do his thing because the British happen to have one ounce of humanity in them, even though they don't seem to most of the time. MLK was not the only one involved in civil rights and even he had armed guards. That non-violence stuff doesn't work outside of very strict conditions. Kyle wasn't protesting. He was cleaning grafitti and putting out fires. He had no "idea". The people with the "ideas" attacked him. The people with the "ideas" justified his decision to be armed, to be protected from the crowd that decided to be violent. You come here and blatantly contradict yourself. So the police could protect itself from you during non-violent protests, but a good samaritan can't protect himself from a violent protest. He wasn't there to break up the protest, arrest anyone or issue citations. He had every right to protect himself and you question "progressives" for admitting that Kyle was right.
1
And then their leader said an AR fires if you close the bolt. I love Grandmaster Jay. He reminds me of Sam L. Jackson in "Basic".
1
Kyle was not called to assemble. You're the racist person by saying black people attack businesses. Black people have a grievance against a white kid killing his white attackers? What?
1
They sure as hell brought security. Kyle is still alive, and two scumbags are not with us anymore. If he didn't have a gun they'd have hurt him. That's valid. Worst case scenario he'd have his skull cracked or left a vegetable after hitting the asphalt. You think people don't die or get severely injured?
1
@amirbabfish Yeah. Attacking someone for being armed is illegal.
1
That's because the UK is beyond c^cked. Pretty sure 7-8 years ago some British actress was in her kitchen preparing dinner, saw a peeping tom in her garden looking through the window, and pointed the kitchen knife at him while she got the phone. When the police arrived and she reported the situation the cops cut her off and warned her that she shouldn't have pointed the knife. The fact that your nation is deathly afraid of cutting utensils doesn't say anything about morals.
1
Murder also requires malice and premeditation. You can't premeditate an attack, and it's not malicious to use force against people in a fight. Your final sentence clearly shows you have no clue about the legal system. There's plenty of ways one can ne at fault for his/her own fear, and still be allowed to use lethal force.
1
@sikaifu5509 The weapons charge was dropped. If a robber retreats from the household and the homeowner gives chase and attacks him, the robber is authorized to use the minimal force necessary to escape. Kyle isn't a robber. If you end up starting a fight, but you do your due diligence to escape and the fight resumes, you can resort to self-defense.
1
All of that is meaningless to the case. There's no "need" to bear arms, there's a "right". The Army has extensive training and accreditation? Do not make me laugh. Stop watching movies. You're not accredited for anything, and training time is scarce.
1
What did a crowd of criminals think was going to happen by chasing and assaulting a kid?
1
The bigger the gun the less they're used in homicide. Most people killed in firearms homicide were shot by handguns. It's popular with EVERYONE. It's one of the most widely produced weapons. If you want an equivalent but with a different configuration, you'll be paying more for less quality. They can be had for as little as 450 dollars when the prices are low, and some have managed to build ultra-budget variants with 260 dollars by ordering iffy Chinese made parts and taking advantage of sales. How is an AR going to "draw attention" when it's the most common rifle manufactured and sold in the past two decades?
1
@Doppe1ganger Why are people beating each other down in the streets?
1
And that's why you lose. You'll stay home and act like criminals have more rights than you, and allow the conviction of people who were in legitimate danger. One day you will not leave the house because you know everywhere is dangerous, and anyone who still has a pair will be in jail because his attackers are victims. The "medic" the protesters had was pointing a Glock at Kyle. So they were armed. It would be a good precedent. Because if Kyle gets convicted you might as well toss the guns into a molten steel puddle. Just give them up. You think victim blaming is good, well you will be blamed if you ever have to use them. So you have no business owning them.
1
@memg5742 1. Nobody should have been there, they were there anyway. Playing the "if" game is no good. 2. He worked there and his father also apparently has a house there. 3. If you were in a dangerous place it's morally wrong to be armed? 4. How did he play vigilante? He was attacked. He wasn't arresting or threatening anyone. 5. Victim blaming. It's always the victim's fault the victim was in the wrong place. We automatically absolve them. 6. The people who are dead weren't worth much alive. He shouldn't pay a heavy price. Just look at Rosenbaum's list of crimes.
1
@memg5742 Doesn't matter. He was indeed in immediate danger. You people hated police officers last year. You can go with a gun anywhere where carry isn't prohibited. Doesn't matter if it's not his job. It's also not my job to drink beer, I'll crack open a cold one occasionally. Kyle didn't appoint himself law enforcement. He wasn't a vigilante, he wasn't aggressive towards the protestors. It's not a first amendment right to attack someone. Kyle didn't shoot the protestors. He shot people attacking him. You can't use first amendment as a defense. It wasn't wrong for Kyle to be there either. It wasn't an assault rifle. His actions had consequences - two criminals are no longer a threat to the community. Read their rap sheets.
1
@happyaxolotl3736 If someone was exposing p3dos but made the decision to attack an armed person, that makes them a noble person who decided to throw away their nobility to become an attacker.
1
@memg5742 If you don't hate police, you're not paying attention. It wasn't an assault rifle. If you want to use specifics for shock value, I'm going to nitpick the specifics. An assault rifle is an intermediate caliber rife with a detachable magazine that can switch between semi-automatic and automatic fire modes. Since the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (signed into law by Reagan, no less) that automatic weapons cannot be purchased by civilians. If Kyle couldn't have an automatic weapon, he didn't have an assault rifle. Don't want me to beat you over the head with details about guns? Don't open the door to scrutiny. Vigilantism: "Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong" - a protection service isn't vigilantism. A security guard is not law enforcement. Kyle was not taking the law into his own hands as he was not arresting or issuing citations. He wasn't attempting to effect justice as he was not doing anything other than putting out fires and scrubbing graffiti. That's not "justice". It's not LE's job to protect people and property. Supreme Court already ruled that they have no duty to protect. Protesters that didn't attack people were not shot. So how is that related? "Kyle showing up with an AR-15 style weapon (that’s not an assault rifle? what are you calling it?)" - As seen above, assault rifle is a specific category of weapon. Don't get surprised and ask if that's not an assault rifle. Ask yourself who told you about the term "assault rifle" and what you were told it was. "assault rifle-style weapon" - Now it's your turn. In detail, explain to me what assault style rifle even is. And what you're trying to say. Don't give me the buzzword, just spell it out what you think is wrong about the AR and it being used.
1
It was legal. All weapons are military style. Rittenhouse did need to shoot people. They were attacking him. All weapons are assault weapons. You beat someone with a wooden chair, it's assault with a deadly weapon.
1
Zimmerman was just on the lookout. By that logic nobody can go anywhere. There's dangerous people everywhere and they rule the streets. Only criminals and uber eats can move around now.
1
It's not vigilantism if it's only defense of the self. People don't have the right to stop someone who defended himself. None of this would have happened if the criminals out that night didn't decide to chase Kyle.
1
It wasn't automatic.
1