Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

> They mention the kid in Kenosha that killed two people, but leave out the part where he shot them because they were attacking him, which is clearly visible in the video.

Video proof confirming above (content warning for violence): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdMTghlrFiw&bpctr=1598560684

Edit: I know it's HN etiquette not to complain about downvotes, but what are people downvoting here? The post's text is 'video proof confirming above'. The link is video proof confirming above. I've added a content warning just in case that's it. Here's an account from a man described by a news agency as an eyewitness corroborating: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=0zSECoazDSE&...

View on HN

It's funny how the media are saying this kid defending himself from the violent mob is the devil for using self-defense and protecting the city, but at the same time Jacob Blake (who was charged with sexual assault and had a long history of violence) is an angel. We are living 1984. The truth is the opposite of what we are being told. All values are inverted.

Nobody’s calling him an angel, but unlike the guy you’re praising, he wasn’t a murderer.

What part of this would you consider murder?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbsOIoqcit4

The part where he took a gun he doesn’t legally own, drove to another state, and inserted himself into a tense situation because he was itching to shoot someone.

He drove 20 minutes. His attackers may have driven for even longer. The law around the long gun is true though, he should have used a handgun for protection.

I could drive 20 minutes and be in Canada, but if I did that and committed several crimes like he did, the fact that I was only 20 minutes from home wouldn’t help me any. And if it looks like I drove those 20 minutes in order to commit a crime, like he did, it would be even worse.

(Used to be able to drive 20 minutes, of course, since Canada won’t let me cross the border for a while)

The criticism focuses on his actions as a whole, the crowd's, his motivations, and the people praising the killing. Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.

> Which legal charges stick and which do not are interesting, but using them as a stand-in for morality is a common fallacy employed in irrational political side-taking.

Agreed, but morality is in lock step with the law here: the result of the attacks is the moral responsibility of the attackers. Which know isn't Kyle, because we have video evidence from multiple angles of all three attacks.

You are going against the narrative so you are getting downvoted.

The boogaloo crowd has made it clear that killing certain people is the goal - the intent is to antagonize and threaten murder in order to escalate until they feel they have arrived at a situation where they can legally kill the enemy. A protest/riot is an ideal place for this tactic. You may criticize the crowd for "falling" for it, but it's unrealistic to be so one-sided about it.

Source that this kid was a member of the "boogaloo crowd"?

This 17 year old kid was being chased by a mob that included one 36 year old convicted pedophile. These mobs burning cities to the ground everytime some story gets bent out of shape are going to destroy this country and millions will perish along with those systems including many of your loved ones and probably you as well. We don't have to guess because that's exactly how the first half of the 20th century worked out. These are no longer protests. They're terrorists burning businesses, apartments and churches to the ground, assaulting police officers, and leaving nothing but hatred and flames in their wake.

Unfortunately we don't have enough information. If a guy with a gun threatens your life, it's reasonable to act in self defense, but we don't know whether or not that happened. But the outcome of this individual case is independent of the bigger picture: You're confident without that information. You also felt that it was somehow relevant to point out that somebody in a crowd was a pedophile. I hope you try to understand that, for many people, your attitude is the scary one that threatens their society, and the lives of their loved ones and their friends. I too wish people wouldn't riot, but to simply ignore the monstrous crimes against civilization that are spurring them, or the poisonous hatred coming from the groups that are cheering this child's killings, is a message that you're not interested in a good faith attempt to save society - that all that matters is who the political enemy is.

And, yes, in a sense you're right: Framing civil unrest and riots as just villains destroying our precious country with no consideration for why it is happening is exactly how you get to a place where lots of people die.

> Unfortunately we don't have enough information. If a guy with a gun threatens your life, it's reasonable to act in self defense, but we don't know whether or not that happened.

Yes we do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=pbsOIoqcit4...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com