Teen Carjacker Shot, Killed by Concealed Carry License-Holder on Chicago's South Side

Nobody cares what color they are except leftists: Exhibit A.

 

See DGUs. Retract false claim.

 

Choosing to stick a gun to someone's face isn't a mistake. It's a calculated choice.

 

Protecting property is a right one has. Exercising one's simple rights is simply being an innocent victim going about their life if one is attacked while doing so.
What made it appear he was looking for a fight? When he ran away from the assailants until pursued at bay unable to flee further despite no legal obligation to do so?

 

Personally, I think all police in Chicago should walk off the job. What's the point in having them?

 

delete, merged with another post

 

Going to a riot to counter the riot in any way is looking for a fight. It wasn't his property. He was knowingly inserting himself into a hostile situation, but most likely he thought his gun would deter people and nobody would be stupid enough to try to attack him with a skateboard, lol. Vigilantes are not the same as somebody minding their own business. You may approve of and like vigilantes, but it's not the same.

 

But we are told by the left that crime isn't actually up!

 

A riot is not a thing that has a riot to be. Protecting property is a right. Being there to exercise your right is not looking for a fight. You're there to do what you have a right to, they are there to break the law.
Fault lies with the lawbreaker, not with the person exercising their right.
Doesn't have to be your property, please go watch the case again. It was all televised, they covered this. Go watch it again, and learn something.

He was not a vigilante.

 

Yes he was. He acted like a cop and was not a cop. Going and protecting other people's property is the police's job, not some universal right, and they didn't want people there doing what he did, hence the curfew. But did he act properly in using force once he had to? Yes.

A right would be more like he went and stayed at his family business or his own business to protect that property, not patrolling in public and responding to vandalism of somebody else's business like a cop.

I didn't really want him convicted of anything but going there was stupid of him.

 

On what do you base this 'appearance'? In addition to a fire extinguisher (for protecting property) and a rifle (for protecting himself) he was also carrying a medbag, which he testified (and it was not contested) that he had used to render basic first aid to people. Most folks would just call that helping, if he'd either not had a gun or if he had a gun and a badge. Are you suggesting that merely carrying a gun without a badge is indicative of 'looking for a fight', or was it something else he did?

 

He had family who lived and worked there.

People who live in Chicago knowingly insert themselves into a hostile situation. Do they deserve to be murdered?

 

It's clarified in later posts. It does sound overstated there, but to restate: Going to a riot to counter the riot is asking for trouble. He wanted to be a vigilante and protect the businesses. I don't think he really wanted to kill people, though.

 

No he was not guarding his family business.

No. So? My point was the controversy around his actions, even after the facts were known, relates to the vigilantism. The OP, however, is not similar in that way.

 

I didn't say he was. I said he had family who lived and worked there.

What we need are more Americans willing to do what Kyle did, instead of hiding in the basement. Come to where we live and work and try to burn, loot and murder? No.

 

I know you didn't say he was. I was saying because he wasn't, it wasn't protecting his property, it was vigilantism.

This exactly highlights why Rittenhouse is different. Conservatives believe this. Liberals do not. Liberals want police and national guard doing this kind of thing (if anyone... I know) not regular citizens. That's the crux of the controversy. The OP is not a similar case.

 

Funny how those crime numbers went up instantly after Chicago elected woke prosecutor Kim Foxx in 2016 (with millions of dollars of support from George Soros). 8 years of murder and mayhem. You get what you vote for, in this case more than 4,000 extra murders - almost entirely black. The black community supported this diversity hire and now they are paying for that support with their lives. If they want it, they should have it. I couldn't give less of a damn.

Kim Foxx - Wikipedia

 

If I live and shop, have neighbors and people I care about, and you come and try to burn it down, you're harming me directly, though.

How do you know something like that isn't going to result in the deaths of someone you care about? You can't predict where they will go or what they will do.

 

Ammo is pretty expensive, but I'd urge you to consider the savings to the public by doing it this way instead.

 

BuckyBadger had suggested that liberals are reacting to this differently than Rittenhouse because the near-victim in this case is black. I was pointing out how the cases are different in a more important way that liberals reacted to. Most liberals don't like people carrying around big guns trying to be a cop. Because cops are trained in the use of force and trained to enforce the law. Rittenhouse, fortunately, used force well, but the different reaction is because of the regular citizen playing cop with a big gun, not race.

To answer your post though. No I think what he did was foolish and more likely to hurt people than help people. And people did die who otherwise would not have - granted it was people who acted incredibly violent and stupid. Maybe some cars were saved. He should have left it to the national guard and come to help clean up when the violence abated.

 

Have you considered the possibility that he just cared about his community and wanted to help out when and where he could?



He's on video offering medical assistance to people the night of the riot. I'm pretty sure he was just a good dude that wanted to help people.

 

I much prefer all parties to survive when possible. The expense of trial and incarceration does not negate the value of due process and the potential for reform. I've defended the shooting as (unless any new information comes to light) justified.

 

I'm not trying to pass judgement. The issue is vigilantism. That's what makes that case different. Patrolling a public space with an AR during a curfew to counter riots is being a vigilante. You can feel free to say it's a good thing, but it's definitely a different thing than the OP, and not based upon race.

 

That'd be nice. But the cops didn't do anything. They were posted up blocks away at a roadblock while people beat eachother and burned things. If you recall the trial (if you even watched it) Rittenhouse went to one of these roadblocks and told the cops he'd just shot somebody. The cops told him to leave.

The moral of the story is that we can't count on 'the authorities' to act properly even when they are able to show up on time, which is rarely. So as much as "Liberals want the police and national guard doing this kind of thing", it would be unwise to rely on them without a backup plan.

 

Vigilantism in the absence of normal law and order isn't vigilantism, it's simply surviving.