Comments by "r3con woo" (@r3conwoo) on "COURT TV" channel.

the fact that he was even there with a gun in the first place should disqualify any self-defense argument. He was watching conservative trash on TV that hyped him up so he took a firearm illegally and traveled to the riots to take the law into his own hands.
5
@Skarletjonancy no u
1
@tribal_instincts no, try reading what i wrote again. Are you saying that if you break into someone's house and the homeowner comes out with a gun you have the right to kill them in self-defense? It isn't ever just self-defense. The totality of the circumstances have to be considered.
1
@tribal_instincts "which precisely implies that regardless of if / person did rightfully defend themselves or not, they can’t claim self defense if the weapon they used was a gun. It makes no sense." No because I am talking about him, his location and his gun. Not some random what if. You are just completely disregarding the context.
1
@tribal_instincts Okay, let me ask you this is it okay if a burglar breaks into your home and when you confront the burglar they shoot and kill you in "self-defense."
1
@tribal_instincts no it's a great example because it completely destroys your first point that self-defense is justified no matter what. When clearly that is not true, as in the burglars case. Rittenhouse illegally acquired a gun then Rittenhouse illegally crossed state lines with a firearm. Those are already 2 crimes he committed on his way to commit his murders... Rittenhouse was watching conservative media that hyped him up and he decided to go vigilante and commit several crimes on his way to even get to the location. with the totality of the circumstances that kid needs to spend many years in prison and I hope he does.
1
@tribal_instincts the totality of the circumstances is what the judge and jury is going to have to weigh, not just the self-defense. If I was a juror in this situation I would make an example out of him for going vigilante and playing cop and killing people in the process. If it was HIS property then it's a completely different story but he literally traveled to another state to "join the battle" that he was watching on TV. He needs 25 years to life..
1
@tribal_instincts We can't permit or normalize the behavior of people thinking its cool to arm themselves and travel to riots just to look for fights. That is crazy and only going to get more people killed unnecessarily. That is one of the biggest reasons these things keep turning into violent riots. Outsiders (on both sides) coming in often from out of state just looking for a fight. We can't excuse this crap. Now they want to bring guns? What's next the other side use guns? No. 25 years f*** kyle
1
@tribal_instincts If he hadn't been illegally armed the outcome likely would have been very different and the jury is going to have to consider that.
1
@tribal_instincts we will see what happens
1
@tribal_instincts except its not self-defense when the totality of the situation in accounted for. You don't get to grab a gun and play cop because you see riots on TV.
1
@t f I guess you can illegally arm yourself as a child then cross statelines and put yourself purposefully into situations to use that firearm then claim self-defense. But you can ONLY get away with that crap if you are a white conservative. Or very wealthy
1
@t f Look at how they are worshiping this criminal as if he is a hero. To republicans he is a hero. Where do they write down stats like that?
1
@t f nah, that's a disingenuous thing you are trying to do by ignoring everything that matters in that statement to look for an easy way to discount all of it by shifting the focus elsewhere. Not going to let you do that. FIRST address the meat of my statement then we can get to the dessert afterwards. It's no longer self-defense when you knowingly put yourself into that situation. That is like breaking into someone's home then shooting them in self-defense. Which technically might be true but still wrong and still illegal and still murder. He can try to claim self-defense but he is going to have to get the jury to disregard the totality of the circumstances that he was just hyped up on conservative media then took a gun illegally and stormed into "battle" even crossing state lines.. He is going to pay for that. You're not clever enough to do these deflecting trick on me kid. :D
1
@t f AGAIN, you are ignoring the argument and trying to strawman or deflect. How many more chances should I give you to respond to the argument? And if I hurt your feelings or speak harshly well, you deserve it for wasting my time. I am more than happy to answer your question even though it's a deflection from my point but FIRST you are going to address the main body of my argument. And the reason why you won't I suspect is because you cant.
1
@t f That was your third strike pal. Again, you refused to address the body of my argument and instead want to deflect. So I am going to leave you with a reply to your deflection anyway. When was the last time an armed black juvenile guilty of killing two people while illegally carrying a firearm cross state lines is heralded as a hero by half the country? We will see if he get's away with it but it feels like he already has with the celebrity status and tons of money he's received. So there you have a partial response to your disingenuous deflection and if you respond don't expect a reply since you are refusing to address my argument we are done now. Try to learn not to be scared of people on the internet. We are just talking..
1