I don't really follow American politics anymore because its toxic af.

@Northwest Its not really a good idea to run up to an active shooter either.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
I hope you never have to be in a situation where you have to make that decision for yourself, but suppose there's an active shooter in a school, and your options are:

1. Hope they don't target you.
2. Hope they don't target someone you care about it, or just anyone.
3. Try to do something about it to stop the carnage.

Not too long ago, an active shooter, a guy who walked into a cafeteria at my son's university, armed with intent to kill as many people as he can. He fired the first shot, instantly killing a student, one of the students (a senior working at the cafeteria) was next to him. He grabbed the rifle and wrestled the shooter to the ground, and other students piled on.

He prevented a massacre, and I for one am extremely grateful. The longest two hours of my life. When I got the text from my son: active shooter, I am in lockdown.

@Northwest So was Rittenhouse an active shooter? Or are you purposing tackling everyone with a gun just in case?

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
Only those who were there can respond to this question, and the answer is: it depends on the person's perspective. Rittenhouse was not a cop, he was not wearing special clothing, he did not have a badge, he was a guy with a rifle who just shot someone.


It wasn't everyone with a gun, it was anyone actively killing people, and not wearing anything identifying them as part of law enforcement.

@Northwest Until he was attacked I don't believe he was shooting anyone? I could be wrong. I often am.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
That's not the correct perspective. It's a dynamic situation. A few feet away, others do NOT have the proper context, and they may assume any number of scenarios. It's not like we're like the Borg and everyone is connected through a wireless neural network, giving us instant "single perspective" awareness of any situation.

BTW, "he was attacked" was actually the guy who attempted suicide a few hours earlier, throwing a small plastic bag at him, with his underwear in it (given to him by the hospital staff when they released him). But I am willing to consider, that a 17-year old may fire first and ask questions later, based on his mental condition, as in what propaganda he was exposed to prior to arriving on the scene. It's not like he was aware the guy was a child molester who spent most of his adult life in jail.

@Northwest Like you said. People are not the Borg. Are you telling me that Rittenhouse was expected to know that one of the people attacking him had mental health issues?

Is any perspective that is not yours the correct one i wonder?

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
Not I told you the opposite of that:



In our system, the only correct perspective is the one your attorney manages to convince a jury of 12 people, is the right perspective.

@Northwest I dont really care about your system. Genuinely no offence intended. I am trying to look at this from an overall humanistic perspective. I am not choosing a side. I am stating what I see.

@Northwest I guess you're just like the majority of the Left, you didn't watch the whole video. You just watched the edited portions that the media originally put out. Which means that you didn't see the first dead guy strike first with chains before being shot, then you didn't see the second dead guy strike first with a fire extinguisher before getting shot, or the third guy aim his pistol inches from the boy's head before getting shot. Leftists never ever look at the big picture.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
No system is perfect. That applies to us and unless you live in Nirvana, it applies to whatever system you live under.


I did not present sides.

@dakotaviper
It's really idiotic to make assumptions and label people you don't know.

@Northwest I didn't call any system perfect. I said I did not care about yours.

You are clearly not neutral on this subject though.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
What subject?

@Northwest the topic we are discussing. The whole Rittenhouse thing.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
If you re-read my comments, you will see that I did not present a verdict. I stated that there are multiple perspectives and each one of those perspectives is valid, based on what the person knew was "true", at the they did what they did.

But I guess you decided I am not neutral, because I proposed a rational argument, rather than a regurgitated narrative?

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz It's a situational awareness/fog of war thing. The people who tried to interdict him later, had enough cause in the moment to think he was an active shooter who needed to be disarmed. It doesn't take much. At the same time, Rittenhouse had enough cause to defend himself with lethal force as well. Sometimes, in these screwed up situations, everyone has casus belli.

This is why Reagan was right when he banned open carry. It's explosive when combined with political unrest.

@Northwest you have clear bias see @QuixoticSoul answer for how it should be done

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz


Re-read what I said:

@Northwest You stated the obvious and then toted one of those perspectives. What do you want me to say? that you made an unbiased argument. Its not true, sorry. #go re-read what you wrote.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
Where's the bias in my statement?

@Northwest Try to work it out first yourself and come back to me if you are truly stuck. I have faith in you.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
Try some reading comprehension, it might help with your biases.

When I say:

I stated that there are multiple perspectives and each one of those perspectives is valid

Only someone with a bias, or someone who refuses to accept reality would claim it's biased.

@Northwest I dont think you are trying as hard as you can. Go back and try again.

@TheDeathOfOzymandiaz
Try exercising your brain, there must be something usable there.

I stated that there are multiple perspectives and each one of those perspectives is valid

Where is the bias in that?