Does anyone think it was a good idea for him to go there with a gun?
At least we can all agree it wasn't right?
shareDoes anyone think it's a good idea to chase down and violently attack someone with a gun?.
share
MovieChat Forums > Kyle Rittenhouse Discussion > Does anyone think it was a good idea for...
Nope. I think he should have had a lot more company. People have to stand up to the mob.
shareDo you think it was a good idea for those rioters to be there, destroy property, and hurt people?
Let's agree that it's not a good idea to use protests as an excuse to riot, loot, beat, and murder.
Let's agree that people have the right to defend themselves when being attacked, even if the defender has a gun.
If we agree on that, there's hope for you.
No, we can't agree on that. Why was it fundamentally a bad idea to take a weapon into a clear hot zone?
When going somewhere where logic and order have gone out the window due to mob mentality, I think it would be foolish not to be in such an area without a weapon of some sort. Whether or not you believe he should've been there, armed or not, is subjective. At the end of the day, he had just as much of a right to be there as anyone "protesting".
I think it was a really stupid idea for him to do that. It is possible his actions are the product of a society run by adults who clearly wanted everything to collapse and he thought he could do something to change it. That's about the only way I can find nobility in his decision to walk down the street with a gun.
Now, he's absolutely not guilty of murder, he was being attacked, so the trial ended the way it should have. But I don't think he should have been walking around a riot with a gun in the first place.
Thanks!
shareWhy would anyone want to be in the middle of a violent riot without a gun?
shareWhy would anyone want to be in the middle of a violent riot? It seems like many people on moviechat would rather be in the middle of a riot with a gun rather than not go at all.
shareYou can't seem to grasp the simple fact that these rioters were destroying property and in some cases killing people. Property that people had spent their entire lives building as businesses. To have it all lost because a bunch of criminals feel like destroying things.
People want to be 'in the middle of a violent riot' in order to stop this destruction and violence. Those in charge of the police had told them to stand down, so it was up to citizens to protect themselves and their property.
It's easy to say just let them riot and destroy when you're at home sitting on your fat ass with nothing to lose.
I find it hard to believe that none of these businesses had insurance. You're right, it is easier to stay at home and not get involved. It's safer, people don't get hurt.
share"I find it hard to believe that none of these businesses had insurance."
You're displaying your ignorance.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zengernews/2020/09/16/insurance-is-no-guarantee-that-riots-and-looting-wont-sink-a-small-business/?sh=edeb5d359d1d
Rioters Are Wrong to Say: Don’t Worry, Insurance Will Bail Out Small Businesses
Mike and Carolyn Deininger learned the hard way that insurance doesn’t usually make small business owners whole following politically inspired violence.
“A lot of small businesses either don’t have coverage or, particularly in the pandemic, some of these companies go bare, which is the term when they drop their coverage and decide not to renew,” Worters said.
Many small businesses that have seen damage and looting over the past months were likely not so fortunate. The limitations of insurance, potential fights with insurers and the reality of trying to rebuild and reestablish operations have become major hardships. Financial pressures pushed some to drop coverage entirely.
People who assume insurance companies will make every business owner whole are wrong. And the Deiningers aren’t the only business owners dealing with riots or looting.
" You're right, it is easier to stay at home and not get involved. It's safer, people don't get hurt."
Tell that to the 25 people killed, and many others injured in the riots last year.
Including this guy:
https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/
BLM ‘activists’ celebrated as Trump supporter was killedshare
It’s spine-chilling to hear activists in Portland cheering about the cold-blooded murder of a Trump supporter Saturday night.
“I am not sad that a f–king fascist died tonight,” a woman shouts into a megaphone at a BLM-Antifa gathering after a man was shot dead nearby.
“He was a f–king Nazi. Our community held its own and took out the trash.”
"Almost all their windows were broken and a handful of items stolen, requiring a full week of cleanup. Good insurance and a grant that covered the deductible helped.
“We would have been out about $20,000 to $25,000, which is a lot for us,” she added.
Many small businesses that have seen damage and looting over the past months were likely not so fortunate."
-So the person being interviewed was fine, and it was only speculation that others were without coverage. See the last sentence. They use the word "likely" to spin their tale.
And you've posted that link before about the couple who supported Trump being killed. Funny thing is, they were out in public wearing their team's merchandise. What I proposed is that people stay home. Why go out in a riot? Businesses have money, insurance covers businesses. You don't risk having to go to jail, court, death or injury.
Now if the rioters are right outside of your house or on your street. Then by all means have your gun ready. As I've said before though, brandishing a gun will most definitely escalate a situation.
"and it was only speculation that others were without coverage. See the last sentence. They use the word "likely" to spin their tale."
How is that different from you saying this:
"I find it hard to believe that none of these businesses had insurance."
Really? You find it hard to believe that NONE of them had insurance?
Which is more likely, NONE of them had insurance, or SOME of them didn't?
And then there's this:
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2020/06/07/riot-insurance-small-businesses-learn-what-is-and-isnrsquot-covered/42150321/
Riot insurance: Small businesses learn what is and isn’t covered
Compared with other small businesses in Columbus that have been damaged during the past week’s demonstrations, the situation for Supreme Cutz could have been worse.
The Short North barbershop’s windows were smashed last weekend, and some items were stolen, co-owner Emmett Brown said.
Now on Brown’s growing to-do list: figuring out how much of the loss will be covered by insurance. Like a lot of other affected business owners Downtown, in the Short North and elsewhere in the city, he’s not sure what’s covered and what’s not as he scours the fine print in his policy.
“If a business was already open, this is the sort of thing property and business-interruption (insurance) was meant to cover,” said James Lynch, chief actuary of the Insurance Information Institute, an industry group.
But business owners still face deductibles and other out-of-pocket costs.
Specific types of coverage and limits are often going to vary depending on the policy, according to the Ohio Department of Insurance.
J. Averi Frost, executive director of the Central Ohio African-American Chamber of Commerce, is more skeptical about coverage being available to businesses, noting instances when business owners with apparently legitimate claims have seen them denied.
“Insurance has funny ways of getting out of paying sometimes,” she said.
What makes this situation even more bizarre is that the riots have occurred during the coronavirus pandemic, when many businesses already were closed. That might preclude business-interruption coverage, Lynch said.
“Every situation is going to be unique,” said Lynch, who urged business owners to work with their agent, broker or the company handling their policy.
Brown said that Supreme Cutz had just reopened after being closed because of the pandemic.
Also, the owners were planning to expand the shop into the space next door but hadn’t gotten insurance coverage for that space.
Now, Brown is concerned about staying in business.
“It hurt us a lot,” he said. “We have a great landlord, and he’s been working with us.”
Still, Brown is concerned about the future of the business.
"I’m staying optimistic,“ he said.
The damage to the store came at a difficult time: Business has been off about 50% since the coronavirus outbreak, Smith said.
“Ever since the coronavirus, it’s been tough all around,” he said. “Now this has happened. It doesn’t make it any better. It’s just a little harder. It’s something else to deal with. It’s sad to see.”
But yeah, sit back on your couch and tell them they have nothing to worry about. Just accept the riots and destruction.
share
"Funny thing is, they were out in public wearing their team's merchandise. "
Yeah, just like women shouldn't go outside provocatively dressed, because they're just asking to be raped.
Stay home, women. And if you do go out, wear only burkas. Otherwise, you're just asking to have violence done to you.
Pathetic.
They probably should be wearing burkas if they're going to an all out rape fest. Might be a good idea. Business owners might want to get insurance like responsible business owners do as well.
Look, the bottom line is this: I am pro riot.
On a more serious and final note here. I just want to say that it is smarter to watch a stampede of animals rather than get in the middle of it and try to stop them. Agreed?
"I just want to say that it is smarter to watch a stampede of animals rather than get in the middle of it and try to stop them. Agreed?"
Depends. If they're out on the savanna stampeding through the wilderness, destroying only grass and trees, then no, we shouldn't get in the middle of it.
But if they're stampeding through neighborhoods, killing people and destroying property, then yes, we should try to stop it. And if you don't have the courage or ability to do that, at least have the decency to not criticize those who do.
"Business owners might want to get insurance like responsible business owners do as well."
So now it's the business owners' fault that circumstances have led them not be able to afford insurance? So it's their fault if rioters destroy everything they've worked for?
I'm guessing you've never owned a business.
The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of "Men who wanted to be left Alone".
They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love.
They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it.
They know, that the moment they fight back, the lives as they have lived them, are over.
The moment the "Men who wanted to be left Alone" are forced to fight back, it is a small form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. . . .
Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these "Men who wanted to be left Alone", fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at the Left's door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy . . . . but it will fall upon deaf ears.
I don't agree whatsoever. It was a city in chaos and he came to help. Depraved criminals attacked him and he fought back, simple as that.
shareMaybe it is because I'm from the UK, and so access to guns isn't really a thing like it is in the US, but this whole thing has confused me.
I'm kind of glad I leave in the UK, as I'm not a fan of the weapon laws over there. Admittingly there is a big problem with knife crimes, but we don't appear to have as much of an issue with guns, and surely this logically must be because they are not as easy to get hold of.
This isn't me saying people can't get hold of them e.g. there will be gangsters and so on with access, but you don't seem to head a lot of stuff such as school shootings. Obviously my opinion will be slightly different as I have not grown up in a world where they are readily available.
As for the incident I do wonder if Kyle went there looking for trouble or knowing something could happen. I've not seen enough of the footage to fully understand but could Kyle have escaped and/or defended himself without having to kill?
Again I will stress the fact that I come from a different world in regards to guns