Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, it's a pity that the governor made LE stand down. To only protect the government buildings, fire dept., etc., and simply do after the fact mop up on all of the rest.
Should they have gone to IL and busted him out, use bombs or something?
Well, considering people believe he was simply defending himself...YES, action like you mentioned, would be appropriate, (and patriotic) response...to a court trying to convict someone of self defense!!!
What do you think 'patriotism' is?
Would you simply lay down and obey, if the govt started restricting peoples speech, or right to travel, etc? OF course not!! Patriots fight back when Govt acts beyond its scope or tries to do something unconstitutional...this is how/why America became a free and separate nation to begin with.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,448 posts, read 12,481,493 times
Reputation: 10431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
Thank you that clarification of law.
So once you 'defend' yourself, (based on your view). You can continue to slaughter as many folks as you wish since the 'threat' is in that persons' mind...still there.
Nothing like siding with a person who is engaging in 'unlawful' conduct, being able to shoot someone in the back. <snip>
He's accountable for harm.
You claim that law was clarified for you, but then you turn around and prove that you're still ignorant of that law.
"slaughter"? Dramatic choice of words, but, as long as he kept trying to get away and they kept trying to run him down and attack then, yeah.....
Trial is a long way off. I still suspect that they will drop or reduce some of the charges once it gets cold enough and Biden is in office etc. so that they won't get much rioting and protesting as a result.
But, if they take that to trial I have a hard time seeing how at least one juror won't consider what occurred self defense.
It may just be so political that the DA and others can't back off even though they know they're likely to not get a conviction. If they back off their political careers etc. could be over so they just run with it and can then just complain that the jury got it wrong later.
Innocent or guilty, nobody will be rioting after the verdict comes down b/c the ppl shot/killed were all white. Nobody riots over the death of white ppl
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,448 posts, read 12,481,493 times
Reputation: 10431
Quote:
Originally Posted by rstevens62
Well, considering people believe he was simply defending himself...YES, action like you mentioned, would be appropriate, (and patriotic) response...to a court trying to convict someone of self defense!!!
What do you think 'patriotism' is?
Would you simply lay down and obey, if the govt started restricting peoples speech, or right to travel, etc? OF course not!! Patriots fight back when Govt acts beyond its scope or tries to do something unconstitutional...this is how/why America became a free and separate nation to begin with.
Innocent or guilty, nobody will be rioting after the verdict comes down b/c the ppl shot/killed were all white. Nobody riots over the death of white ppl
I don't know....anti-farts are white, and it seems many people riot just for the sake of rioting, especially if its summer and the school is out.
I was just looking at it thru the opinion of him being innocent and it being self defense...If I did believe he truly was defending himself, you can bet I would step up!
There are plenty of very Conservative Democrats especially amongst religous Black, Hispanic, and especially Muslims. Not like Finn is Conservative. CNN did a survey amongst American Muslims, asking "how many were gay?". Not one came back admitting to being gay, not one
It's been posted before, usually in response to a comment. They know it, they just refuse to admit it.
Regarding the part of the above post that is in red..
The videos pretty much prove that Kyle had tried very hard to escape his attackers. A person would have to be blind to not see it. No doubt there will be at least one on the jury who sees it.
The curfew is probably a nothing burger, he's not even charged with that. Maybe no one who'd been arrested over those few days were charged with it.
Maybe, the only thing that will stick will be his carrying the gun. But, that's not set in stone since the gun laws are quite strange. They'd been added to seemingly willy-nilly. If a person reads through the statutes, and follows all of the cites, it may very well be that he just might be considered innocent of the gun charges.
With the other charges, where the videos show what's happening, people watching this unfold do have a strong stance in saying he's innocent. With the gun laws it's not so easy, because of how they're written. No one watching can really say innocent or guilty of the gun charges, at this time.
After watching several videos this AM I now see your point, Kyle was indeed just out walking his rifle when all of a sudden, other people who were also just out walking around armed, began chasing him, Kyle, young, afraid, stupid as hell, did what ALL people who are out walking their rifles-would do..And that would be their choosing what laws apply to them--or not. Only the blind can't see this..
So, in berdee's view: That night in Kenosha wasn't a riot, nor was it a protest, it was just a bunch of people out walking their guns, taking in the smells and excitement of just another Kenosha night of gun walking. The unbelievable crap that now passes for thoughtful commentary allows for this entire debacle to be written down as a spectacle in which politics, not justice, will be served.
This was never about KR's public debut as a certifiable moron, no it is just another political tale wherein the two sides argue about the merits of vigilantism in the new America. We see the insistence on adhering to the law, all the while hoping those laws have enough flexibility in them to allow for a big stretch of what it means to be able to defend oneself, and after all, Kyle was just out walking his rifle--What's so hard to understand about that? He was just "in the area" he just happened to be out walking his weapon, and the others, well, they are saying they were just out having a nice night of peaceful protest.
Those who would defend Rittenhouse are in the same state of mind that allows for rioters to be considered legal protesters, or just a bunch of misguided kids out on the town. So we now live in the midst of people who, because of their political affiliation are willing to have gun toting morons dictate the laws REAL meaning to the rest of us..The courts will preside over the trial not the forum members, so we'll just wait..
Irrelevant. That is 17K vs 18 million. My point is still 100% correct. A concealed hand-gun is the choice of vast majority of people who carry firearms routinely. It is a matter of convenience, because carrying a rifle to grocery stores etc is inconvenient and......silly (IMO). Don't get me wrong, AR is a fine rifle, I own one myself. As for daily carry.....not so much.
I don't think anyone said that.
Rosenbaum was shot in the back. I do not know if that was the 1st hit, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th..... It's possible he started spinning around as the bullets kept coming.
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I am not a leftist, and what I said is 100% true, and yes, I am a gun owner and have a concealed licence.
Fact: Vast majority of people who carry firearms, choose to carry handguns
Fact: Hardly anyone carries AR15s everywhere they go
Fact: Open carry is illegal in many States like Florida
Or maybe you'd like to post something to disprove my points.
The ignorance of the Trump apologists.......
Interesting. You stating the "ignorance of Trump apologists" sure seems like it referred to anyone that doesn't buy into your "Fact:Hardly anyone carries an AR15 everywhere they go"
Yes, a handgun is the first choice for personal protection, but what is the first choice for those that are defending a business ? Which he stated he was doing. He was following what the others in his group where carrying, AR's.
And why is this even a debate ? I guess I lost your point in all these replies.
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I am not a leftist, and what I said is 100% true, and yes, I am a gun owner and have a concealed licence.
Fact: Vast majority of people who carry firearms, choose to carry handguns
Fact: Hardly anyone carries AR15s everywhere they go
Fact: Open carry is illegal in many States like Florida
Or maybe you'd like to post something to disprove my points.
The ignorance of the Trump apologists.......
Interesting. You stating the "ignorance of Trump apologists" sure seems like it referred to anyone that doesn't buy into your "Fact:Hardly anyone carries an AR15 everywhere they go"
Yes, a handgun is the first choice for personal protection, but what is the first choice for those that are defending a business ? Which he stated he was doing. He was following what the others in his group where carrying, AR's.
And why is this even a debate ? I guess I lost your point in all these replies.
Cmon now! LOL, you cannot be serious with this comment?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
