Kyle Rittenhouse shooting (Kenosha WI)

[Highway Star]

So red shirt guy was a convicted kid f***. Like 10 yr old boy right in the butt.

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeElk/status ... 3773428736

[ME2VTSkier]

Heaven forbid your town has a looting problem someday. If it happens, do you want some 17 year old GI Joe from 21 miles away to show up to help?

Since when is 21 miles long distance?! That's just a hop into town for some! Mainers usually measure by hours, not miles!

[easyrider16]

I believe the point was not about commute time but rather the fact that this kid was not near his home and sticking his nose (and his gun) into a volatile situation where he really didn't need to be.

[Mister Moose]

I believe the point was not about commute time but rather the fact that this kid was not near his home and sticking his nose (and his gun) into a volatile situation where he really didn't need to be.

Just curious, when the police stand down and don't protect property or lives, who "needs to be" helping out? Asking in general, not asking for qualifiers of this specific case, like 17 years old or 21 miles.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I believe the point was not about commute time but rather the fact that this kid was not near his home and sticking his nose (and his gun) into a volatile situation where he really didn't need to be.

Just curious, when the police stand down and don't protect property or lives, who "needs to be" helping out? Asking in general, not asking for qualifiers of this specific case, like 17 years old or 21 miles.

Classic Whataboutism fallacy.

[easyrider16]

I believe the point was not about commute time but rather the fact that this kid was not near his home and sticking his nose (and his gun) into a volatile situation where he really didn't need to be.

Just curious, when the police stand down and don't protect property or lives, who "needs to be" helping out? Asking in general, not asking for qualifiers of this specific case, like 17 years old or 21 miles.

So you're going to selectively remove facts from what actually happened but keep the ones you like to make some sort of point? Sorry but I'm not a fan of vigilantism, especially by young, untrained, and inexperienced people, and particularly when it comes to just protecting property. I don't think there was an issue of protecting lives in this case until the guys with the guns showed up. And do we know that the police stood down? From what I recall, there were police on the scene. Or is that another fact you want to change?

[Mister Moose]

I believe the point was not about commute time but rather the fact that this kid was not near his home and sticking his nose (and his gun) into a volatile situation where he really didn't need to be.

Just curious, when the police stand down and don't protect property or lives, who "needs to be" helping out? Asking in general, not asking for qualifiers of this specific case, like 17 years old or 21 miles.

So you're going to selectively remove facts from what actually happened but keep the ones you like to make some sort of point? Sorry but I'm not a fan of vigilantism, especially by young, untrained, and inexperienced people, and particularly when it comes to just protecting property. I don't think there was an issue of protecting lives in this case until the guys with the guns showed up. And do we know that the police stood down? From what I recall, there were police on the scene. Or is that another fact you want to change?

I moved from the specific case to the general question. Is that a problem? Did police ever stand down and let property burn and be looted? What should the owners do? Should they be allowed armed help of any kind? Remember, the police are not responding.

[easyrider16]

I'll tell you what the owners shouldn't do - shoot people to defend property.

In answer to the general question, in general, vigilantism is bad and leads to unnecessary suffering, of which this case is a near perfect example.

[Mister Moose]

I'll tell you what the owners shouldn't do - shoot people to defend property.

That varies state to state and even more so by the circumstances. Most states do allow you to defend your property with force.

In answer to the general question, in general, vigilantism is bad and leads to unnecessary suffering, of which this case is a near perfect example.

Yes, while vigilantism is not always bad, it can be, and this is why is it so important for the police to not stand down when people are being injured and or their property is being destroyed.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I'll tell you what the owners shouldn't do - shoot people to defend property.

That varies state to state and even more so by the circumstances. Most states do allow you to defend your property with force.

Should individuals have the right to defend private property, if they’re not associated with the property in anyway, as they see fit?

[daytripper]

I'll tell you what the owners shouldn't do - shoot people to defend property.

In answer to the general question, in general, vigilantism is bad and leads to unnecessary suffering, of which this case is a near perfect example.

I shouldn't shoot someone to defense my property?? I have to disagree with you here. If you are breaking into my house prepare to be shot.

[Mister Moose]

Should individuals have the right to defend private property, if they’re not associated with the property in anyway, as they see fit?

"As they see fit" is a wide latitude, so of course not. "Not associated" needs to be clarified. A property owner does have the right to have others assist his defense. That's what private security is.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Should individuals have the right to defend private property, if they’re not associated with the property in anyway, as they see fit?

"As they see fit" is a wide latitude, so of course not. "Not associated" needs to be clarified. A property owner does have the right to have others assist his defense. That's what private security is.

I don't think the law (in most states) permits civilians or property owners to use deadly force to protect private property. Is this what you're proposing? For example, in PA if someone is breaking the windows to my home and spray painting my garage I don't have the right to kill them unless I feel my life is being threatened. I think we all agree the law gives individuals the right to defend themselves.

[easyrider16]

I'll tell you what the owners shouldn't do - shoot people to defend property.

That varies state to state and even more so by the circumstances. Most states do allow you to defend your property with force.

You're right, it does vary. It also depends on whether you're defending your home, other personal property, or someone else's property. In my state you are generally not allowed to defend property using lethal force. You are allowed to defend your home using lethal force. The guy we are talking about in this thread was not at home, and was purportedly defending someone else's property.

In answer to the general question, in general, vigilantism is bad and leads to unnecessary suffering, of which this case is a near perfect example.

Yes, while vigilantism is not always bad, it can be, and this is why is it so important for the police to not stand down when people are being injured and or their property is being destroyed.

I think vigilantism is almost always bad. The only exception I can think of was the A-Team. I agree, though, that it is important that police not stand down when property is being destroyed.

[Highway Star]

Lotta navel gazing in this thread.