Tucker Carlson: This is true insanity

[Koda]

This thread is about the ongoing attack on a most basic human right, the right to self-defense

You provided no contex in your post other than a link to Tucker.

But in honor of your intended subject we need more than the Rittenhouse example to describe this ongoing attack. I do think the left is anti- self defense but to suggest that one has to define why they feel that way and this is a difficult subject because most self defense cases are very subjective. What examples do we have of states prosecuting lawful self defense?

 

[Kruel J]

TBO at first glance I thought it was a negative story about Tucker based on the thread title.

And let's face it, even the conservative reporters will spin a story. They all do it.

 

[titsonritz]

Well, the thread title has his name in it, and Tucker is a polarizing figure whether you like him or not.

You provided no contex in your post other than a link to Tucker.

But in honor of your intended subject we need more than the Rittenhouse example to describe this ongoing attack. I do think the left is anti- self defense but to suggest that one has to define why they feel that way and this is a difficult subject because most self defense cases are very subjective. What examples do we have of states prosecuting lawful self defense?

TBO at first glance I thought it was a negative story about Tucker based on the thread title.

And let's face it, even the conservative reporters will spin a story. They all do it.

Fair enough, I have added commentary to the OP but am unable to edit the title. I incorrectly thought being in "Defensive Carry & Self Defense" forum the topic would not be Tucker Carlson.

 

[titsonritz]

What examples do we have of states prosecuting lawful self defense?

Take the Bodega guy, he never would have walked if the public hadn't screamed so loud.

 

[Provincial]

You need to look no further than Multnomah County/Portland and our last two governors to tell that Soros is a threat to self-defense locally. Violence by a preferred sector of the populace (based on political support) against less-favored sectors is condoned, and self-defense is demonized as "vigilantism." The examples used in the broadcast may not be the best of examples, but there are plenty of better ones.

Gun owners are heading for being the objects of attention similar to Jews in early 1930's Germany. A "Kristallnacht" may not be far off, the "Burning of the Reichstag" (Jan. 6th) and the "Burning of the Books" (online/social messaging censorship) having already made their appearance.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's anger demonstrated in a recent post is an example of the forces at play.

 

[trevi]

Surprised he left off Kyle Rittenhouse. He should never have been arrested, let alone charged and tried.

He should not have been there to begin with. Had it been his home city, i may see it differently.

 

[L84Cabo]

He should not have been there to begin with. Had it been his home city, i may see it differently.

It's a free country and he had every right to be there.

He was not there as an aggressor, he was there to help.

Moreover, when the so-called political leaders and police stand down and totally and completely abdicate the rule of law to the mob, somebody needs to stand in the gap. Again, he was not there as an aggressor but to help. If the leaders and police had done their damn jobs to begin with then Kyle would have been home.

He broke no laws. None. But the fact that you seem to think he should have been tried and convicted in spite of that, because he didn't do what you would have done, is simply astounding.

 

[trevi]

It's a free country and he had every right to be there.

He was not there as an aggressor, he was there to help.

Moreover, when the so-called political leaders and police stand down and totally and completely abdicate the rule of law to the mob, somebody needs to stand in the gap. Again, he was not there as an aggressor but to help. If the leaders and police had done their damn jobs to begin with then Kyle would have been home.

He broke no laws. None. But the fact that you seem to think he should have been tried and convicted in spite of that, because he didn't do what you would have done, is simply astounding.

Hahahaha.

He broke no laws!? Really!!

Okay, lad. Cheers!

 

[L84Cabo]

Hahahaha.

He broke no laws!? Really!!

Okay, lad. Cheers!

What law did he break that he was charged and convicted of?

 

[trevi]

What law did he break that he was charged and convicted of?

Why was he not charged with having a gun as a minor? Or, was he and then acquitted?

Granted, i did not watch the trial because i knew i silly the verdict would be.

 

[L84Cabo]

Why was he not charged with having a gun as a minor? Or, was he and then acquitted?

Granted, i did not watch the trial because i knew i silly the verdict would be.

Hahahahahaha! Got it lad!

You didn't watch the trial so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You're just making stuff up like "he broke the law" because of how you personally feel about the situation, not because he factually broke any laws.

Kyle was initially charged with being a minor and having a gun...except it's not a crime in Wisconsin for a minor to have the gun if the barrel is longer than 16 inches. The judge tossed this charge out at the beginning of the trial...because Kyle didn't break the law.

 

[RedRover]

He should not have been there to begin with. Had it been his home city, i may see it differently.

Kyle Rittenhouse's dad Mike (as well as aunts/uncles/cousins) live in Kenosha. Kyle not only had a job as a lifeguard there, he also volunteered at the local firehouse as a trainee/(junior)cadet.

Antioch, IL(25 min. away) is essentially a bedroom community of Kenosha, WI.

So there's that...

 

[jkor]

I hope more people who vote watch this and decide they are sick of it. I also hope more people will not dodge jury duty. Only two ways to "fix this". Vote well and if you end up on a jury refuse to convict people who were defending themselves.

The lies are so thick today thar the truth becomes lies. they see this as propaganda. while they raise up their Ukrainian and BLM flags.

 

[Alexx1401]

What many want to not see is of course Tucker will "spin". That does NOT change what happened. The people jumping up and down to call it spin are desperately trying to pretend they did not see what happened.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

What many want to not see is of course Tucker will "spin". That does NOT change what happened. The people jumping up and down to call it spin are desperately trying to pretend they did not see what happened.

So what happened at the gas station is some wana'be hero picked a fight, followed the guy out to his car, attacked him and was in the process of chocking him out when the woman that was with the guy being attacked by some stranger managed to retrieve a firearm and despite several verbal attempts to deescalate was forced to fire in defiance of her companions life

BUT HE WAS A FELLON - sure we know that after the fact, but wanna'be hero didn't know that
BUT HE WAS ARGUING WITH AND THREATENING THE CLERK - lolz, have you ever worked at a store like that? That's like paragraph 3 of the job description
BUT SHE SHOT HIM IN THE BACK - yeah, sounds like that was the part of the wana-be hero she could see as he was trying to kill the dude

That's what happened

 

[Alexx1401]

So what happened at the gas station is some wana'be hero picked a fight, followed the guy out to his car, attacked him and was in the process of chocking him out when the woman that was with the guy being attacked by some stranger managed to retrieve a firearm and despite several verbal attempts to deescalate was forced to fire in defiance of her companions life

BUT HE WAS A FELLON - sure we know that after the fact, but wanna'be hero didn't know that
BUT HE WAS ARGUING WITH AND THREATENING THE CLERK - lolz, have you ever worked at a store like that? That's like paragraph 3 of the job description
BUT SHE SHOT HIM IN THE BACK - yeah, sounds like that was the part of the wana-be hero she could see as he was trying to kill the dude

That's what happened

Really? So Tucker really took this one from "spin" to flat out lying. If so that makes me sad as I do like to watch the guy. So where are you getting the info you just shared? I would like to read the "rest of the story" so to speak. If its as you just claimed I can see why the firefighter is dead. Again though I would like to see where you're getting this info?

 

[Yarome]

So what happened at the gas station is some wana'be hero picked a fight, followed the guy out to his car, attacked him and was in the process of chocking him out when the woman that was with the guy being attacked by some stranger managed to retrieve a firearm and despite several verbal attempts to deescalate was forced to fire in defiance of her companions life

BUT HE WAS A FELLON - sure we know that after the fact, but wanna'be hero didn't know that
BUT HE WAS ARGUING WITH AND THREATENING THE CLERK - lolz, have you ever worked at a store like that? That's like paragraph 3 of the job description
BUT SHE SHOT HIM IN THE BACK - yeah, sounds like that was the part of the wana-be hero she could see as he was trying to kill the dude

That's what happened

Completely innocent self defense shooting right? That's such a massive stretch. The girlfriend had no idea her boyfriend had previous charges for armed robbery. She had no idea he was a convicted felon. She had no idea the firearm in their vehicle was illegal for him to possess. She naturally assumed that the ruckus in the store was completely unrelated to her boyfriend. He must have run to the car to retreive his firearm in order to act as the "good guy with a gun" to put down some other unknown threat. When her boyfriend was then attacked while holding an illegal firearm... as a felon in possession... it was natural for her to assume that HE was the victim. When her boyfriend handed her the firearm... it was then obvious to her that the man subduing her boyfriend was actually the attacker and was clear to shoot in self defense.

Yeahhhh.... right....!!

I'm not saying it was a good shoot or that it wasn't, but this fairytale... "some rando was choking out her upstanding boyfriend for no apparent reason and she shot purely in clear defense of imminent threat on his life" doesn't fly.

Ignore any pertinent common sense factoids to try and make some point? Really??

I find it entirely more credible that the "good guy" was in fact in "protection mode"... followed him out to ensure the threat was indeed over and that the perp would not be returning with the implements to do further harm.

It's also completely glossing over the fact that if he had NOT persued the perp... it's entirely likely he WOULD have re-entered the store... WITH his retrieved firearm... and may have murdered other innocents within the store. But.... let's just ignore that too in our little fairytale.

 

[Alexx1401]

Completely innocent self defense shooting right? That's such a massive stretch. The girlfriend had no idea her boyfriend had previous charges for armed robbery. She had no idea he was a convicted felon. She had no idea the firearm in their vehicle was illegal for him to possess. She naturally assumed that the ruckus in the store was completely unrelated to her boyfriend. He must have run to the car to retreive his firearm in order to act as the "good guy with a gun" to put down some other unknown threat. When her boyfriend was then attacked while holding an illegal firearm... as a felon in possession... it was natural for her to assume that HE was the victim. When her boyfriend handed her the firearm... it was then obvious to her that the man subduing her boyfriend was actually the attacker and was clear to shoot in self defense.

Yeahhhh.... right....!!

I'm not saying it was a good shoot or that it wasn't, but this fairytale... "some rando was choking out her upstanding boyfriend for no apparent reason and she shot purely in clear defense of imminent threat on his life" doesn't fly.

Ignore any pertient common sense factoids to try and make some point? Really??

I find it entirely more credible that the "good guy" was in fact in "protection mode"... followed him out to ensure the threat was indeed over and that the perp would not be returning with the implements to do further harm.

It's also completely glossing over the fact that if he had NOT persued the perp... it's entirely likely he WOULD have re-entered the store... WITH his retrieved firearm... and may have murdered other innocents within the store. But.... let's just ignore that too in our little fairytale.

What is really sad to me here is some will so blindly support one party that they will see stuff like this and desperately look for ways to "justify" it. Since to admit what is going on makes the party they blindly support look bad. Every time I say a lot of these blind followers are gun owners a lot of people get mad, saying its not so. The reason we keep losing is so many are willing to hand rights off to the law makers as long as they are from the correct party. Of course by the time those who did not want to see what was happening have no choice but to see? Its too late to do much and they will again blame everyone else for getting what they asked for.

 

[Member 82262]

Sounds like staying on topic is important around here, so I'll do my best to do so.

Rittenhouse: He was found not guilty, so that's that. Whether he was morally right or technically wrong, or in between is irrelevant at this point. He was found to be not criminally guilty by our justice system, which isn't saying much. For those still seeking blood about it, maybe you'll get it with the civil rights case he is attached to along with Kenosha Police. Different instructions, different ball game. Personally, everyone there put themselves at risk, he just got lucky and happen to be better armed. Could have been a split second different if he was smashed with the skateboard or swarmed. Whether he belonged there or not, same could be said for everyone there, as plenty were from out of state of city. Chaos hardly has the tint of right and wrong in the moment.

Tucker: Tucker is not a real person, this is not how he is behind closed doors. He is a performer molded for one thing. Using whatever hot button conservative outrage is currently on the rise and tapping into the rage of conservative belief systems for maximum viewership on Fox News, nothing more. He most likely barely believes any of it, and it literally one of the rich elites most conservatives complain about or hate. It's simple to see his brand is hyperbolism and hate towards ideas or people. He's in my opinion a mouth piece to manipulate lonely old conservatives that sit in front of the TV and get their blood pressure up and gives them a reason to be afraid of people and things that don't align with their particular conservative views. He's the equivalent to any other low brow political pundit who speaks to the undereducated and under informed.

The actual topic: I'm under no delusion if I discharge my weapon and kill someone I'm going to jail and going to be interviewed by a detective and most likely going to need a lawyer. That's just how it is going to work. To expect to be treated like a hero or let go, is not realistic. Here is a good example of why the cops should never just take your word that you used self defense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/10pgw4p

In this clip, two men get into an argument over road rage, one is clearly unarmed and the. other shoots him in the back as he walks away. The following interview with the police in which he doesn't shut up, he clearly tries to frame it as self defense and he believes it, but it is clearly murder.

Gregory

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Completely innocent self defense shooting right?

Form the article I linked in post 3 or so:

"These statements and video evidence from the convenience store support the defense of others provision as codified in Missouri law," the office wrote Monday. "Because of this, as stated, Missouri's self-defense and defense of others law required that this case be declined."

Missouri is a Stand Your Ground state so yes, under Missouri law it was a self defense shooting

"some rando was choking out her upstanding boyfriend for no apparent reason and she shot purely in clear defense of imminent threat on his life" doesn't fly.

That isn't what I said but ignoring the ad hominin straw dog stuff you added, please see the above quote

It's also completely glossing over the fact that if he had NOT persued the perp... it's entirely likely he WOULD have re-entered the store...

Or more likely if he had kept his nose out of it the guy would have just shouted some more, maybe knocked over a display and left to go someplace else to buy what he wanted