It's not at all bad faith, since it's what he came for and what he did. He crossed state lines armed looking for trouble he might stop using his gun. He went armed to play cop with zero training and illegally carrying a weapon he was too young to have. He might have Intended to only shoot at arsonists, but what he did was randomly shoot into crowds and down the streets, killing two non arsonists, allegedly while blind due to being pepper sprayed.

I can't decipher your good guilty easy innocent hard targets. What?

He has no right to deputize himself, no matter what property crimes he assumed were forthcoming.

Yeah, try to equate property crime to violent murder, it only shows you aren't arguing in good faith yourself.

He was blocks from the parking lot he came, uninvited, to "protect". Was his beat the whole city now?

Big difference between crossing state lines to guard someone else's business and guarding your own home, more bad faith arguments. You can use force to protect your home and family from threats of serious harm, you can't shoot your neighbor for trespassing and cutting some tree branches you didn't want cut.

Do you know who owned the property he murdered the first guy on? Maybe he stands with the crowd and militia boy was trespassing, brandishing a rifle, and eventually murdering someone there before running and gunning his way back home without reporting the shootings, ensuring that property will be torched within a week.
Great job protecting them. For all he knew he was shooting the owner, he wasn't protecting property when he shot.
That is the innocent property owner here, not the owner of the owner of the original parking lot he was guarding, not the kid or his parents, and this gung ho kid's actions ensured their properties destruction and exacerbated the unrest, triggering more property damage. Good job, fucknuts...enjoy big boy prison.

I'm not OK with armed kids shooting up any neighborhood.

If you're presenting Rittenhouse as such a kid, that's a bad faith argument. There is no evidence that 'shooting up the neighborhood' was in any way his motivation when he positioned himself in that neighborhood.

All public information points to him being there to discourage destructive elements (such as armed looters) from taking action in that neighborhood.

The ostensibly guilty parties being a hard target doesn't transform innocent easy targets into valid targets.

Most damage is done to private businesses and of vehicles (with the odd unfortunate being beaten to a pulp on the street).
Minneapolis had homes and churches damaged. I can't speak to homes in other locations because I haven't read up on them.




Property wise:
Property takes money to acquire.
Money takes time to acquire.
Time requires life.

(Not all insurance covers 'angry mob')

If it takes you 3 months to work to purchase something, and someone destroys it, they are taking 3 months of working life away from you. Unless they can refund you that life time, that's life time lost forever.

Reality is : Property is only 'just property' when it's not your own property.
If you can't defend property with force, then people are simply free to show up and take everything you have, and you just have to accept it. I don't know anyone who is ok with that (I doubt you are ok with it happening to you, but maybe I'm wrong).

Generally, I empathize with innocent people. So I lean towards the property owners in these cases.

-scheherazade

The Air Force is quite silly when it comes to close ground support. They never learn that the 'we'll be in and out before they can touch us' doesn't work well.

To give you an idea of what they are planning to return us to with this idea and plane, I refer you to the Vietnam War. The F4 was capable of fast fly-by's, but the problem was that in the foliage it was hard to hit targets at speed. Therefore the F4's had to start reducing speed and take higher attack angles, which caused an issue with the engines. Flameouts and stalls were rampant because the plane was designed for fast fly-by's, not the type of combat it was seeing. Additionally, the slow speed and high AoA EXPOSED the plane to severe enemy return fire. The F-4, by 1 January 1972, ranked second to the F-105 in SEA combat losses-362 (all models), most of them downed by the enemy. Later, in F-4Es alone, the Air Force lost eight in 2 months of intensive combat.

The Air Force found that relying extensively on Helicopters such as the Cobra was ineffective as well. They could deliver good anti-personnel coverage, but not hard targets. They were also slower to arrive to the combat arena. Finally, no helicopter we have ever put in combat, prior to the Apache, has been heavily armored. We don't use Hinds like Russia. The Apache is armored with Kevlar areas and reinforced armor around the cockpit, and has proven effective in open land combat, but has not been extensively tested in areas of high cover during actual combat.

Ironically, the painful lessons learned in Vietnam led to the development of another aircraft, The A-10. Sadly, we are going to waste a ton of money and probably quite a few pilots before we learn this lesson again.

Um...the sky is a hard target to miss so a flare gun doesn't exactly have a bored barrel. It typically uses a 12-gauge round.

Also, since they're designed to be seen from miles away and burn at 1700+ degrees Fahrenheit this guy is extremely lucky. A flare gun can easily be lethal.

It could very easily have been a JDAM - the JDAM is simply a guidance package that attaches to a wide variety of ordnance (including the BLU-109 "bunker buster") in order to allow for GPS guidance as opposed to laser guidance. I am also not convinced that it was a bunker buster, the crater you mentioned is easily created with a standard Mk84 bomb, regardless of guidance package used. A hard target penetrator bomb (bunker buster) won't necessarily leave a larger crater than a standard bomb, but is designed to penetrate more deeply into a hardened target, such as a concrete bunker, before exploding.

Depleted uranium (DU) was used in tank kinetic energy penetrator and autocannon rounds on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War. DU munitions often burn when they impact a hard target, producing toxic combustion products. The toxicity, effects, distribution, and exposure involved have all been the subject of a lengthy and complex debate.

Because uranium is a heavy metal and chemical toxicant with nephrotoxic (kidney-damaging), teratogenic (birth defect-causing), and potentially carcinogenic properties, uranium exposure is associated with a variety of illnesses. The chemical toxicological hazard posed by uranium dwarfs its radiological hazard because it is only weakly radioactive, and depleted uranium even less so.

Early studies of depleted uranium aerosol exposure assumed that uranium combustion product particles would quickly settle out of the air and thus could not affect populations more than a few kilometers from target areas, and that such particles, if inhaled, would remain undissolved in the lung for a great length of time and thus could be detected in urine. Uranyl ion contamination has been found on and around depleted uranium targets.

DU has recently been recognized as a neurotoxin. In 2005, depleted uranium was shown to be a neurotoxin in rats.

In 2001, a study was published in Military Medicine that found DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. Another study, published by Health Physics in 2004, also showed DU in the urine of Gulf War veterans. A study of UK veterans who thought they might have been exposed to DU showed aberrations in their white blood cell chromosomes. Mice immune cells exposed to uranium exhibit abnormalities.

Increases in the rate of birth defects for children born to Gulf War veterans have been reported. A 2001 survey of 15,000 U.S. Gulf War combat veterans and 15,000 control veterans found that the Gulf War veterans were 1.8 (fathers) to 2.8 (mothers) times as likely to report having children with birth defects. In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.

In 2005, uranium metalworkers at a Bethlehem plant near Buffalo, New York, exposed to frequent occupational uranium inhalation risks, were alleged by non-scientific sources to have the same patterns of symptoms and illness as Gulf War Syndrome victims.

The NATO countries of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have consistently rejected calls for a ban, maintaining that its use continues to be legal, and that the health risks are entirely unsubstantiated. The UK government further alleges that cancers and birth defects in Iraq could be blamed on the Iraqi Government's use of chemical weapons on its own citizens.

"Considering the disturbing reports on the ill effects of DU weapons in the Gulf and the Balkans, it is saddening to note that so far appeals for a moratorium coming from different quarters have not yet prevailed. Killing first and asking questions later has, however, never been a sensible solution"

- United Nations Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, at paragraph 171 under the title "Moratorium" for the use of military DU rounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Military_applications

EDIT - Unfortunately I don't see this issue being addressed by anyone soon, because pulling DU out of the entire military ammunition apparatus did not happen since 1991 and Gulf War Sickness when VA vets complained, and I don't see it happening now. This being all sickly ironic given that --

Aircraft may also contain depleted uranium trim weights (a Boeing 747-100 may contain 400 to 1,500 kg). This application of DU is controversial. If an aircraft crashes there is concern that the uranium would enter the environment: the metal can oxidize to a fine powder in a fire. Its use has been phased out in many newer aircraft; Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas discontinued using DU counterweights in the 1980s. Some amount of depleted uranium was released eg. during the Bijlmer disaster, when 152 kg was 'lost'. Counterweights are manufactured with cadmium plating and are considered non-hazardous while the plating is intact.

So unsafe in airplanes, safe in war zones. Huh.