Can someone tell me how blaming Kyle RIttenhouse for the ensuing violence because he "inserted himself into a dangerous situation" is different than blaming a rape victim for wearing sexually suggestive clothes?

[–] • 17 pts

Jews use deflection to enable their psychotic plans. They cause problems while transferring the problem to others. You see this all the times. Niggers and guns are another example. Guns don't kill people, niggers do. And since jews want whites to be powerless, they blame guns so they can take guns away from whites.

Kyle is white. Kyle had a gun. They hate whites, especially whites with guns. They need to shift the narrative that Kyle was the antagonist because that fits their warped narrative.

link

[–] • 8 pts

They saw what a properly practiced 17 year old white kid can do to a mob of armed jews and blacks.

parent
link

[–] • 8 pts

And it scares the shit out of their jew, pedo, leftist, nigger asses. Imagine 1 million Kyle's all in one group just walking into DC. It would fall in under 10 seconds.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

...and it scared the beegeezus out of them.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

You only needed to type the first word in that post.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Kyle is white.

Kyle's a spic. One with a lot of White DNA I grant you, but he's still a spic.

parent
link

[–] • 8 pts

Rape victims aren't braving anything. If they put themselves in a dangerous situation, it's because they're stupid. They're not helping anyone. I mean they could be, but they're usually not. Kyle put himself in a dangerous situation with the express purpose of helping other people.

link

[–] • 2 pts

You should help me by sending me your nudes

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Welcome back missed ya

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

send your nudes to me too

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 0 pt

is this you

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 0 pt

The point is that doing something stupid doesn't make you responsible for the actions of people who take advantage of your poor choices. Human beings have agency, which means each actor is responsible for his actions and his actions alone. Each person's culpability ends where the decision of another begins. Kyle did not make Joseph Rosenbaum threaten to kill him. Kyle did not make Joseph Rosenbaum choose to chase him. Kyle did not make Kaminsky choose to fire his .40 S&W while Rosenbaum was chasing Kyle. Kyle did not make Joseph Rosenbaum choose to continue charging Kyle and reach for his weapon after Kyle stopped running and turned around to face him. The only thing Kyle is responsible for is choosing to aim his rifle at Joseph Rosenbaum and pull the trigger. The legal question is whether his decision was justified by the circumstances known to him at the time or whether it was not.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

I don't understand why this point isn't made more often.

The claim that Kyle shouldn't have been there is called "prior restraint" and the courts have routinely upheld that prior restraint is not an element of any crime. You don't have to stop doing legal things just because some dumbass might react to your legal thing by breaking the law.

Kyle was allowed to be at that protest. He is allowed to carry a rifle. He is allowed to go into a crowd to help or not. He is allowed to do everything a free person is allowed to do as long as it does not break the law or directly cause a harm.

The fact that he was attacked for doing things that he is allowed to do has nothing to do with him doing those things allowed and he has no obligation to not do those allowed things.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Technically nobody had a right to be at that protest because of a curfew order. However, since Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gauge Grosskreutz were also illegally there things sort of "cancel out."

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] [deleted] • 8 pts

Don't bother operating off the logic of your enemies. They hate you. They've proven time and time again that the only standard they have is one they expect others to follow.

link

[–] • 5 pts

A tight argument using this to point out "victim blaming" has made a couple of libtard heads explode. He (or she) did nothing illegal although we may find it foolish or even provocative. Trying to rip off her string bikini (or grab his gun) is an illegal act of violence. Both justify self defense. They really have nothing to say.

link

[–] • 0 pt

A tight argument using this to point out "victim blaming" has made a couple of libtard heads explode. He (or she) did nothing illegal although we may find it foolish or even provocative. Trying to rip off her string bikini (or grab his gun) is an illegal act of violence. Both justify self defense. They really have nothing to say.

Someone trying to grab another mans gun probably has malicious intent, a man trying to strip off a woman's string bikini wants the goods which are being advertised, they aren't equivalent at all.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Stealing advertised goods is malicious. So, trying to steal those goods is malicious intent.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Legally they are the same, attempting to remove property from the immediate possession of the holder. Legally, both are assaults and justify self defense. ('sploding libtard brain)

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

Doesn’t seem like intent matters once you’re being attacked. Also he openly had a gun out. Doesn’t the argument go in the exact same way in the opposite direction? Why were THEY hanging around and attacking someone with a gun out?

And so let’s say he did instigate “the attack”. So now all I need to do to murder someone is just prove they instigated an attack of any kind? And if I show up already aggravated, then that’s proof of them instigating the attack by simply being there?

link

[–] • 1 pt

Why were THEY hanging around and attacking someone with a gun out?

I like how open-carrying where it's 100% legal to do so is "provoking a dangerous situation," but grabbing someone's gun isn't.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Guns are a deterrent. Dressing like a whore is an attractent.

Think before you speak son

parent
link

[–] • -1 pt

But the prosecution is insisting that having the gun was an attractant. Having the gun caused the violent reaction.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

You mean your fellow combatants?

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 1 pt

Very good analogy

link

[–] • 1 pt

No.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Or how women take birth control to protect their freedoms while having casual sex. Kyle was protecting himself to enjoy his freedoms that the mob of marxists was trying to take away.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Fun Fact: the chances of a rape "finishing successfully for the rapist" when a woman fights back unarmed is approximately 45%... Since 1960 when these stats started being tracked, only a single rape has been successful for the rapist when the woman fought back and had a gun.