Portland.

[Parkbandit]

I took the time to read the piece, and I support the perspective that he railed on the youth using words and accusative assumptions I do not appreciate. I also hold that he railed on others as well and in the same vein if not to the same numeric quantity. I found his line that we were so busy winning the arguments that we forgot to solve the problem to be incredibly accurate and self-prophetic.

But I took most of the man-child commentary to be more targeted towards the youth's upbringing and a commentary on our collective social posture today. Not all, certainly. But enough so that I paused to ask myself:

Should any child be permitted, supported or even encouraged to do this shit?

Is this to become the right of passage for our nation - go find someone who differs in political, religious or ethical belief and murder him or her to be considered an adult?

If any of us truly answer yes to either or both of those questions, I would have to say the youth is not the problem.

[Tgo01]

I haven't read anyone actually putting him up on a pedestal as a hero. Who's doing that?

Sitting congresswoman Ayanna Pressley:

https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/s...431224832?s=20

A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15.

He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives.

Fix your damn headlines.

Her tweet received almost 400k likes and 113k retweets.

I was being slightly hyperbolic in saying he was being hailed as a hero, although I'm sure I could find a lot of Antifa and BLM supporters praising him as a hero.

[Solkern]

Do you honestly believe that the young man in question murdered these people and he wasn't justified in defending himself?

You talk about our collective posture and indicate you believe it is a bad thing. Which parts of it are bad in your eyes and why?

No, I don’t think murdering or killing another person was the solution. Was he in danger? Yes, life or death? I do not think so. While yes, another person did have a gun, he never used it, nor do I think he ever had the intention to use it. If he did have intention to use it, why didn’t he? Instead he ran up trying to take the kids gun, (That’s what the police report says I believe, and if I remember correctly, looks like it in the video) instead of shooting him.
I guess that comes down to training, maturity etc. which the kid did not have, nor should he have had the gun In the first place.

He went in there trying to play hero, he killed two people. Let’s wait for the courts.

[Archigeek]

He refers to the 17 year old in a derogatory manner throughout this piece. Some examples:

1) He is an undercooked and emotionally underdeveloped man-child
2) He has obvious incompetence
3) He can't grow a beard (he's not a real man)
4) He is baby faced and undersized (he's short)
5) He is the least competent-looking member of the gun-toting idiots
6) He is an immature wannabe
7) He is engaging in stupid LARPing
8) He has counterfeit confidence in his mastery of the situation
9) He is a silly man-child
10) He was running away with his tail between his legs (he's a coward)
11) He had illusions that he was simply playing a role in a video game
12) He's in a full panic
13) He has no control over his weapon
14) He has no real plan of action
15) He's a mediocre shot at best
16) He's scared and flees
17) He trips and falls on his stupid face
18) He's an out of shape LARPer
19) He can't walk and chew gum at the same time
20) He is terrified
21) He's a panicking moron with an AR-15
22) He's a stupid idiot

That's halfway through the piece of trash writing. It's clear that this "author" has a bias and it's also clear you didn't pick up on it because it mirrors your own and you aren't smart enough to read something and know you are being pushed to believe the situation one way.

You legitimately believe this is an unbiased accounting of events... and that is more of a knock against your reading/comprehending ability than it is the "authors".. because at least the "author" did his job.. which was to make you believe it was unbiased... and you really did. Probably still do.

Which is why you are a perfect voting Democrat.

Nice list. I can make a longer one for the douchebags who chased after this kid. Same article.

[Stolis]

No, I don’t think murdering or killing another person was the solution. Was he in danger? Yes, life or death? I do not think so. While yes, another person did have a gun, he never used it, nor do I think he ever had the intention to use it. If he did have intention to use it, why didn’t he? Instead he ran up trying to take the kids gun, (That’s what the police report says I believe, and if I remember correctly, looks like it in the video) instead of shooting him.
I guess that comes down to training, maturity etc. which the kid did not have, nor should he have had the gun In the first place.

He went in there trying to play hero, he killed two people. Let’s wait for the courts.

The guy with the gun had his gun in hand. I gotta tell you, I don't walk around with my pistol in my hand unless I have the intent to use it. He had his gun out while running at the kid, who was running way from harm. If someone is running after you with a gun in hand, and you are running away also with a gun, who exactly is the aggressor in this situation?

[Risen]

Do you honestly believe that the young man in question murdered these people and he wasn't justified in defending himself?

You talk about our collective posture and indicate you believe it is a bad thing. Which parts of it are bad in your eyes and why?

No. Nor did I offer any opinion of my own on the collective social posture today. I said I felt the author's views were offered as a commentary on our collective social posture today. I will admit it might be just a shade too subtle a distinction here. But I will not argue with you about what you believe your posture is. It was an intriguing attempt to deflect the problem though.

Still not sure? Let me just ask - if that were your child, even if that youth were 32 but still your boy, what would be the first thought that went through your head? If it is anything other than 'good for you, son!', then you may understand my position that the youth is not the problem here. And if it is 'good for you, son!' then you will never understand my position.

[Archigeek]

The guy with the gun had his gun in hand. I gotta tell you, I don't walk around with my pistol in my hand unless I have the intent to use it. He had his gun out while running at the kid, who was running way from harm. If someone is running after you with a gun in hand, and you are running away also with a gun, who exactly is the aggressor in this situation?

There were 2 guys who had guns in this story besides Rittenhouse, and one of them fired his gun into the air, a very jackass thing to do in the best of circumstances, and worse in this one.

[Solkern]

The guy with the gun had his gun in hand. I gotta tell you, I don't walk around with my pistol in my hand unless I have the intent to use it. He had his gun out while running at the kid, who was running way from harm. If someone is running after you with a gun in hand, and you are running away also with a gun, who exactly is the aggressor in this situation?

Let me ask you, if I had you had any intention to use a gun, would you run up and Try to wrestle the other persons gun away? Or would you be shooting at him? That’s the issue with your argument. The man had every chance to shoot the kid, EVERY chance. Yet never once took a shot. The kid fell down, he was a prone target, he still didn’t take the shot. Why not?

The man had discipline, the kid did not. For all we know the guy with the gun felt threatened, and still didn’t pull the trigger.

[~Rocktar~]

Let me ask you, if I had you had any intention to use a gun, would you run up and Try to wrestle the other persons gun away? Or would you be shooting at him? That’s the issue with your argument. The man had every chance to shoot the kid, EVERY chance. Yet never once took a shot. The kid fell down, he was a prone target, he still didn’t take the shot. Why not?

The man had discipline, the kid did not. For all we know the guy with the gun felt threatened, and still didn’t pull the trigger.

Bullshit. The man, who had been chasing the guy, approached the kid with his hands up pretending to help, then drew his weapon once very close and the kid shot him in the arm before he could raise it to fire. Gods the mental gymnastics you go through to defend this piece of shit criminal going after this kid.

Rational people who don't want conflict run the fuck away from people shooting guns and don't approach them then draw their own weapon. People attempting to help don't draw their weapon.

The discipline here was the kid not killing him which he would have been justified in doing once the guy had cleared his weapon from it's holster.

[Jeril]

No. Nor did I offer any opinion of my own on the collective social posture today. I said I felt the author's views were offered as a commentary on our collective social posture today. I will admit it might be just a shade too subtle a distinction here. But I will not argue with you about what you believe your posture is. It was an intriguing attempt to deflect the problem though.

Still not sure? Let me just ask - if that were your child, even if that youth were 32 but still your boy, what would be the first thought that went through your head? If it is anything other than 'good for you, son!', then you may understand my position that the youth is not the problem here. And if it is 'good for you, son!' then you will never understand my position.

So, you do believe there is a problem here? If you do, what deflection was I making? I want to know what you believe the problem is. Or do you not have any firm idea of what it is?