FabSwingers.com
 

FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rittenhouse not guilty

Rittenhouse not guilty

Jump to: Newest in thread

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *9alMan  over a year ago

Bridgend

American law seems mad to me, if you go out with a gun looking for trouble & shoot 3 people should be locked up for a long time.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood

Take it you didnt watch the trial then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oo hotCouple  over a year ago

North West


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP."

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about."

except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences."

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place."

machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ercuryMan  over a year ago

Grantham


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about."

I agree. What I've seen of the accused, he certainly came over as rather immature.

And allowing such a person to be walking strange streets, at a time of heightened tension, armed with a deadly firearm, fills me with horror.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about."

Complains about bias

then proceeds to fill the post with bias

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests"

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

It’s not against the law to open carry a weapon. It is against the law to attack someone with a skateboard, set fire to private property and sexually abuse children.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing."

Did you actually watch the trial?

It's quite obviously self defense as was obvious from the very first video released last year.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing."

they were attacking him and one had a firearm as well and if your gona acusse someone of having a machine gun get ya facts straight first,no doubt u think he crossed state lines with it aswell

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

Don’t forget that almost every “protester” came from outside the area including the DB who got it in the arm.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing.they were attacking him and one had a firearm as well and if your gona acusse someone of having a machine gun get ya facts straight first,no doubt u think he crossed state lines with it aswell"

Everything okay this morning?

You seem to be angry that I don't know the difference between different types of mass murder weaponry. And then made up something about what you think that I might think about crossing state lines.

This has gone beyond parody.

I'll leave you guys to the excitement that in the US you can shoot and kill people and get off. And yet if you're suspected of theft it's a reasonable reason for members of the public to shoot and kill you.

Have fun.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

You’re very talented in the way of spinning things.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing.they were attacking him and one had a firearm as well and if your gona acusse someone of having a machine gun get ya facts straight first,no doubt u think he crossed state lines with it aswell

Everything okay this morning?

You seem to be angry that I don't know the difference between different types of mass murder weaponry. And then made up something about what you think that I might think about crossing state lines.

This has gone beyond parody.

I'll leave you guys to the excitement that in the US you can shoot and kill people and get off. And yet if you're suspected of theft it's a reasonable reason for members of the public to shoot and kill you.

Have fun. "

Deluded

If Kyle had been the aggressor then he would of been found guilty. But he wasnt, he was protecting himself from a baying mob. Which is his legal right, as now seen in the juries verdict.

Seems like alot of people would of liked to see his head smashed in. Says more about them imo

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"You’re very talented in the way of spinning things. "

Taking notes from Don Lemon and Brian Stelter it seems

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole

And had he been killed by the mob, it would have not gotten any attention at all. I think yesterday there was a person killed at a protest from being beaten to death with a skateboard.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *unnyPair OP   Couple  over a year ago

Seminole


"You’re very talented in the way of spinning things.

Taking notes from Don Lemon and Brian Stelter it seems "

My thoughts exactly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *wisted999Man  over a year ago

North Bucks

Seems weird that he shot three people who just happened to be multiple felons rampaging through Kenosha. Seems those sort of riots attract a lot of criminal hangers on.

Massive respect to those who demonstrated last night and remained overwhelmingly peaceful.

Apart from Portland but we all knew that was going to happen. Bet they can’t refund the police quick enough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Seems weird that he shot three people who just happened to be multiple felons rampaging through Kenosha. Seems those sort of riots attract a lot of criminal hangers on.

Massive respect to those who demonstrated last night and remained overwhelmingly peaceful.

Apart from Portland but we all knew that was going to happen. Bet they can’t refund the police quick enough. "

Thats just another day in Portland tbf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

Do you need a machine gun to put out fires?

Is the appropriate punishment fort someone suspected of being "a thieving piece of shit" being shot to death by a member of the public, immediately, with no trial?

USA is pretty fucked up place.machine gun pmsl it was an ar15 and one guy smashed him with a skate board one of the peacefull protesters was pointing a gun at him and one was a kiddy fiddler,fact is if the poluce had of actually been doing there job rittenhouse wouldnt of even been there at those riots oopps i meen peacefull protests

So it's okay he shot to death a few people because it's a different type of gun and it was the police's fault anyway.

Amazing.they were attacking him and one had a firearm as well and if your gona acusse someone of having a machine gun get ya facts straight first,no doubt u think he crossed state lines with it aswell

Everything okay this morning?

You seem to be angry that I don't know the difference between different types of mass murder weaponry. And then made up something about what you think that I might think about crossing state lines.

This has gone beyond parody.

I'll leave you guys to the excitement that in the US you can shoot and kill people and get off. And yet if you're suspected of theft it's a reasonable reason for members of the public to shoot and kill you.

Have fun. "

everythings fine johnny how about yourself lol luckily the jury looked at the facts instead of letting emotions get involved,why did u think he had a machine gun?? Is that what the news told you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Backwards country. America is great. Is it F**k

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences."

He was extinguishing fires with a semi automatic rifle?

A hose may have been better.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"And had he been killed by the mob, it would have not gotten any attention at all. I think yesterday there was a person killed at a protest from being beaten to death with a skateboard. "

Kyle should've allowed himself to be killed or injured before defending himself. The prosecution and MSNBC would rather have seen that!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ap d agde coupleCouple  over a year ago

Broadstairs

Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent "

Doesnt help when 3/4 of the media lie about the case

For example look at this framing at the beginning of the article, that is nothing but posioning the well

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-high-profile-murder-trial-184350101.html?guccounter=1

"Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semiautomatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha during a turbulent protest in the summer of 2020 and opened fire on demonstrators, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and seriously wounding Gaige Grosskreutz."

This article has been written after the verdict

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *9alMan  over a year ago

Bridgend


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent "

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

Doesnt help when 3/4 of the media lie about the case

For example look at this framing at the beginning of the article, that is nothing but

posioning the well

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-high-profile-murder-trial-184350101.html?guccounter=1

"Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semiautomatic rifle on the streets of

Kenosha during a turbulent protest in the summer of 2020 and opened fire on demonstrators, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and seriously wounding Gaige Grosskreutz."

This article has been written after the verdict "

You are talking absolute rubbish here.

It's way more than 3/4 of the media lying about the case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

Doesnt help when 3/4 of the media lie about the case

For example look at this framing at the beginning of the article, that is nothing but

posioning the well

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-high-profile-murder-trial-184350101.html?guccounter=1

"Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semiautomatic rifle on the streets of

Kenosha during a turbulent protest in the summer of 2020 and opened fire on demonstrators, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and seriously wounding Gaige Grosskreutz."

This article has been written after the verdict

You are talking absolute rubbish here.

It's way more than 3/4 of the media lying about the case "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize"

wasnt he on his own housing estate? and I watched that news clip again and again, the mob attacked him and he responded to that attack...

As for biden wanting to unite america and then calling the trial and justice system out, WOW if trump had done that hed been accused of stirring trouble

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ty31Man  over a year ago

NW London

Unfortunately I don't know the ins and the outs of this case so I won't comment on the rights and wrongs. All I will say is that I do think there would be less of this sort of thing if it was a *privilege* to bear arms instead of a *right* to do so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize

wasnt he on his own housing estate? and I watched that news clip again and again, the mob attacked him and he responded to that attack...

As for biden wanting to unite america and then calling the trial and justice system out, WOW if trump had done that hed been accused of stirring trouble "

He wasn't on his own estate.

He drove 30 minutes to get to the riot. He and others chose to take semi automatic weapons.

Biden said the jury decision must be respected.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize

wasnt he on his own housing estate? and I watched that news clip again and again, the mob attacked him and he responded to that attack...

As for biden wanting to unite america and then calling the trial and justice system out, WOW if trump had done that hed been accused of stirring trouble

He wasn't on his own estate.

He drove 30 minutes to get to the riot. He and others chose to take semi automatic weapons.

Biden said the jury decision must be respected."

then respect it nothing will change and it's america there problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize

wasnt he on his own housing estate? and I watched that news clip again and again, the mob attacked him and he responded to that attack...

As for biden wanting to unite america and then calling the trial and justice system out, WOW if trump had done that hed been accused of stirring trouble

He wasn't on his own estate.

He drove 30 minutes to get to the riot. He and others chose to take semi automatic weapons.

Biden said the jury decision must be respected."

yea he did say that at first but now there talking about trying to get him on federal charges so not really respecting the court and jury

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urham 3 riversMan  over a year ago

Co. Durham


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed "

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ovebjsMan  over a year ago

Bristol


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more "

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *urham 3 riversMan  over a year ago

Co. Durham


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway "

how about target shooting as at the Olympics ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ust RachelTV/TS  over a year ago

Horsham

[Removed by poster at 21/11/21 15:52:05]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway "

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

how about target shooting as at the Olympics ?"

Keep the guns used at the target range

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt "

How do you know? Your guessing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt "

In this specific case, two people are dead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt

In this specific case, two people are dead."

Indeed

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt

In this specific case, two people are dead."

Two people that attacked another without provocation.

Unless you think stopping arson is provocative

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt

In this specific case, two people are dead.

Two people that attacked another without provocation.

Unless you think stopping arson is provocative "

If none of them had guns. Probably none of them would be dead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"Thankfully the MSM tactic of overwhelming fake news didn’t affect the verdict. Kid did what he had to do. I don’t think he should have gone there in the first place, but I’m happy that the justice system judged him on a fair system and that he is free. I hope he sues the shit out of everyone who defamed him including the idiot in the Oval Office and his useless VP.

It would be useful to have a non-partisan discussion thread about this but when bias boils over in every sentence… it’s quite a hard thing to do.

I think that most normal thinking people will wonder how a 17 year old can take a rifle into another state, claim on TV to be part of the emergency services and end up shooting dead two people and injuring another.

On a very, very basic level there are so many things wrong with him getting off with that and the precedent that it sets for gunslinging rednecks right across the country is horrific to think about.except he didnt cross a state line with a firearm also whats your thought on the guy who was pointing a gun at him? Or the guy smashing him with a skateboard? Let me guess you would of tried talking to those people instead,you chase someone down who is armed your gona win a stupid prize

wasnt he on his own housing estate? and I watched that news clip again and again, the mob attacked him and he responded to that attack...

As for biden wanting to unite america and then calling the trial and justice system out, WOW if trump had done that hed been accused of stirring trouble

He wasn't on his own estate.

He drove 30 minutes to get to the riot. He and others chose to take semi automatic weapons.

Biden said the jury decision must be respected. yea he did say that at first but now there talking about trying to get him on federal charges so not really respecting the court and jury"

Who are talking about it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt

In this specific case, two people are dead.

Two people that attacked another without provocation.

Unless you think stopping arson is provocative "

And we’re shot, using a gun ,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

So your trying to use skateboarders as scapegoats over 17 year olds welding an AR15. You people who protect these murderers are just playing out bannons and crews neo nazisms. Are you proud to be a fascist modern day Nazi or do you live pretending your ideals are sound? As they are very unsound and inhumane

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"And had he been killed by the mob, it would have not gotten any attention at all. I think yesterday there was a person killed at a protest from being beaten to death with a skateboard. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"So your trying to use skateboarders as scapegoats over 17 year olds welding an AR15. You people who protect these murderers are just playing out bannons and crews neo nazisms. Are you proud to be a fascist modern day Nazi or do you live pretending your ideals are sound? As they are very unsound and inhumane"

English please

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 21/11/21 18:21:39]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you"

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed? "

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?"

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die? "

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ick270Man  over a year ago

Here

Trial by media never works out, look at the USA now media wanted Biden that was not a good move was it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

"

How the hell did he know he was a ‘child predator’ when he shot him? Btw, I am not surprised by the verdict, technically he didn’t break the law , no wonder America is so fucked up

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Trial by media never works out, look at the USA now media wanted Biden that was not a good move was it?"

Did Biden shoot some punters and get let off? What's going on here!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

How the hell did he know he was a ‘child predator’ when he shot him? Btw, I am not surprised by the verdict, technically he didn’t break the law , no wonder America is so fucked up "

When did i say he did?

Rosenbaum is the only one responsible for what happened to him. His actions lead him to being legally shot. If he had left Kyle alone he most likely would be alive right now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich

Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

How the hell did he know he was a ‘child predator’ when he shot him? Btw, I am not surprised by the verdict, technically he didn’t break the law , no wonder America is so fucked up

When did i say he did?

Rosenbaum is the only one responsible for what happened to him. His actions lead him to being legally shot. If he had left Kyle alone he most likely would be alive right now."

So he deserved to be killed ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother"

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record? "

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm"

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial. "

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

How the hell did he know he was a ‘child predator’ when he shot him? Btw, I am not surprised by the verdict, technically he didn’t break the law , no wonder America is so fucked up

When did i say he did?

Rosenbaum is the only one responsible for what happened to him. His actions lead him to being legally shot. If he had left Kyle alone he most likely would be alive right now.

So he deserved to be killed ? "

Im not getting in to these stupid arguements that go round and round with you. So this is it

Legally, he deserved to be shot. If the outcome of that is that he dies, thats on him.

The fact that open/concealed carry is even a thing is a totally different debate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hybloke67Man  over a year ago

ROMFORD

Unless you are American or live/lived in the USA I very much doubt you are going to understand the gun laws in the USA.

So when it comes to any trail involving firearms, us over here just do not understand the whole picture.

Personally I still can't understand how OJ got acquitted.!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed? "

Those thugs in Europe used live rounds against civilians.... well a mob of civilians... yes the police did in rotterdam...OMG!

The mob shouldn't have behaved how they did and ritterman could have stayed away.... but both didn't. ... and the mob attacked him.... play with fire boys and girls....

As for Biden and vice pres, both have made it clear they think justice hasn't been done.... so much for bringing people together, hes opened door for trump.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?"

Someone didnt watch any of the trial it seems

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Did Kyle deserve to be atttacked?

Definitely not, did his attackers deserve to die?

Deserve is a strong word.

I personally dont find it regrettable that a convicted child predator tried to attack a minor and got his Darwin award by express delivery.

Maybe dont try to attack people and grab rifles? A rifle that he is fully legal to open carry and use to defend himself if needed.

How the hell did he know he was a ‘child predator’ when he shot him? Btw, I am not surprised by the verdict, technically he didn’t break the law , no wonder America is so fucked up

When did i say he did?

Rosenbaum is the only one responsible for what happened to him. His actions lead him to being legally shot. If he had left Kyle alone he most likely would be alive right now.

So he deserved to be killed ?

Im not getting in to these stupid arguements that go round and round with you. So this is it

Legally, he deserved to be shot. If the outcome of that is that he dies, thats on him.

The fact that open/concealed carry is even a thing is a totally different debate. "

Foxes like being chased and then cry when the hounds get them, pointless, UK and USA different worlds

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?"

He tried to get to the police but was chased away from them. He probably brought a gun for the same reason that the person who was pointing an unlicensed gun in Rittenhouses face. Three on one and one of those also had a gun

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Unless you are American or live/lived in the USA I very much doubt you are going to understand the gun laws in the USA.

So when it comes to any trail involving firearms, us over here just do not understand the whole picture.

Personally I still can't understand how OJ got acquitted.!"

It's easy to understand.

Gun = good.

Shooting and killing punters = also good.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?

He tried to get to the police but was chased away from them. He probably brought a gun for the same reason that the person who was pointing an unlicensed gun in Rittenhouses face. Three on one and one of those also had a gun"

Where's the evidence he couldn't make it to police lines?

The unlicensed gun, was it a semi automatic assault rifle?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Unless you are American or live/lived in the USA I very much doubt you are going to understand the gun laws in the USA.

So when it comes to any trail involving firearms, us over here just do not understand the whole picture.

Personally I still can't understand how OJ got acquitted.!"

That is true, if you can accept the verdict from this case then you have to accept the verdict from the OJ case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?

He tried to get to the police but was chased away from them. He probably brought a gun for the same reason that the person who was pointing an unlicensed gun in Rittenhouses face. Three on one and one of those also had a gun"

The guy should have shot Rittenhouse first then , that’s his it works

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Those thugs in Europe used live rounds against civilians.... well a mob of civilians... yes the police did in rotterdam...OMG!

The mob shouldn't have behaved how they did and ritterman could have stayed away.... but both didn't. ... and the mob attacked him.... play with fire boys and girls....

As for Biden and vice pres, both have made it clear they think justice hasn't been done.... so much for bringing people together, hes opened door for trump."

PMSL, trump is finished, I know it’s hard to accept but he won’t be president again,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Rittenhouse grew up and lived in Kenosha with his father. He lived in Antioch when staying with his mother

He didn't carry a gun across state lines

He had been beaten to the ground, beaten with a skateboard, kicked in the face and the guy who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

Rosenbaum was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for sexually abusing children.

Huber had been charged with domestic abuse and also served time after he tried to kill his own brother

Tbh the verdict isn’t a surprise and judging by the law he was not guilty, there were 3 people shot , did the other person have a criminal record?

The other person who was shot in the arm was pointing his unlicensed gun at Rittenhouses face before Rittenhouse shot him in the arm

I see, there is nothing to complain about then, 3 people shot, 2 killed , 1 injured , I can’t see why it even went to trial.

Can someone please explain the following

If he was there to put out fires why was he carrying an assault rifle?

If he felt in danger, why didn't he get behind the police lines?

He tried to get to the police but was chased away from them. He probably brought a gun for the same reason that the person who was pointing an unlicensed gun in Rittenhouses face. Three on one and one of those also had a gun

The guy should have shot Rittenhouse first then , that’s his it works "

How it works

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Unless you are American or live/lived in the USA I very much doubt you are going to understand the gun laws in the USA.

So when it comes to any trail involving firearms, us over here just do not understand the whole picture.

Personally I still can't understand how OJ got acquitted.!

It's easy to understand.

Gun = good.

Shooting and killing punters = also good."

Man with gun points his gun at man with gun, gets injured ,then man with gun then shoots and kills two other people. All good

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *wisted999Man  over a year ago

North Bucks

I wonder why they didn’t arrest shrodingers arm man for his unlicensed firearm?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *hybloke67Man  over a year ago

ROMFORD


"Unless you are American or live/lived in the USA I very much doubt you are going to understand the gun laws in the USA.

So when it comes to any trail involving firearms, us over here just do not understand the whole picture.

Personally I still can't understand how OJ got acquitted.!

That is true, if you can accept the verdict from this case then you have to accept the verdict from the OJ case "

Yeah, so if you accept the verdict of the OJ trail you have to accept the verdict of this trail.

Simples.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Those thugs in Europe used live rounds against civilians.... well a mob of civilians... yes the police did in rotterdam...OMG!

The mob shouldn't have behaved how they did and ritterman could have stayed away.... but both didn't. ... and the mob attacked him.... play with fire boys and girls....

As for Biden and vice pres, both have made it clear they think justice hasn't been done.... so much for bringing people together, hes opened door for trump.

PMSL, trump is finished, I know it’s hard to accept but he won’t be president again, "

There's something in the water

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Those thugs in Europe used live rounds against civilians.... well a mob of civilians... yes the police did in rotterdam...OMG!

The mob shouldn't have behaved how they did and ritterman could have stayed away.... but both didn't. ... and the mob attacked him.... play with fire boys and girls....

As for Biden and vice pres, both have made it clear they think justice hasn't been done.... so much for bringing people together, hes opened door for trump.

PMSL, trump is finished, I know it’s hard to accept but he won’t be president again,

There's something in the water "

Human shit? Or is that just here.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Veery interesting that you have several peeople here on the side of the agressors

As i have said before, says more about you

Do you think these people deserved to be killed?

Those thugs in Europe used live rounds against civilians.... well a mob of civilians... yes the police did in rotterdam...OMG!

The mob shouldn't have behaved how they did and ritterman could have stayed away.... but both didn't. ... and the mob attacked him.... play with fire boys and girls....

As for Biden and vice pres, both have made it clear they think justice hasn't been done.... so much for bringing people together, hes opened door for trump.

PMSL, trump is finished, I know it’s hard to accept but he won’t be president again,

There's something in the water

Human shit? Or is that just here. "

That's just your taps!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements."

Im sorry. But can you explain how free of specch is involed in this?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *erlins5Man  over a year ago

South Fife


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more "

Surely that is a good thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Surely that is a good thing? "

You'd think so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements."

who got shot because someone said somethinhg who some one didnt agree with?? I thought he shot them because they were attacking him

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"So your trying to use skateboarders as scapegoats over 17 year olds welding an AR15. You people who protect these murderers are just playing out bannons and crews neo nazisms. Are you proud to be a fascist modern day Nazi or do you live pretending your ideals are sound? As they are very unsound and inhumane"
modern day neo nazi pmsl get a grip you clown

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ittleAcornMan  over a year ago

visiting the beach

There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws."

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws."

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess "

No they wouldnt

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters"

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew"

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt"

Definitely would,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ittleAcornMan  over a year ago

visiting the beach


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

"

I think it's a reasonable assumption to make based on his own social media posts, and things he has said. However, assumptions are not evidence (either way).

The onus is on the prosecution to prove these things.

However, even if he went for the confrontation, the self-defence laws are fecked up enough that he could still call on them for his defence.

There have been a few cases exactly like that, where someone has started a fight, when it turned against them they have then shot in "self-defence" because they feared for their lives.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would, "

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry"

When he aimed his gun and shot someone and was shot by another person, this person could claim the same self defence .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry"

I don’t have bias, he was acquitted in accordance with the law,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry

When he aimed his gun and shot someone and was shot by another person, this person could claim the same self defence . "

No they couldnt

Thats exactly why Kyle was found not guilty of the rest of charges. That was the prosecutions strategy

He was not an "active shooter" and was acting in self defense. Therefore every attack on him was illegal and he was within his rights to shoot his attackers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry

When he aimed his gun and shot someone and was shot by another person, this person could claim the same self defence .

No they couldnt

Thats exactly why Kyle was found not guilty of the rest of charges. That was the prosecutions strategy

He was not an "active shooter" and was acting in self defense. Therefore every attack on him was illegal and he was within his rights to shoot his attackers"

And if he has been shot they could have used the same ‘self defence’ , it has happened before .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense"

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry

When he aimed his gun and shot someone and was shot by another person, this person could claim the same self defence .

No they couldnt

Thats exactly why Kyle was found not guilty of the rest of charges. That was the prosecutions strategy

He was not an "active shooter" and was acting in self defense. Therefore every attack on him was illegal and he was within his rights to shoot his attackers

And if he has been shot they could have used the same ‘self defence’ , it has happened before . "

And Rossembaum or anyone else that attacked hiim would be making his way back to prison at this moment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *abioMan  over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

Doesnt help when 3/4 of the media lie about the case

For example look at this framing at the beginning of the article, that is nothing but posioning the well

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-high-profile-murder-trial-184350101.html?guccounter=1

"Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semiautomatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha during a turbulent protest in the summer of 2020 and opened fire on demonstrators, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and seriously wounding Gaige Grosskreutz."

This article has been written after the verdict "

He did kill those people

the jury found that he wasn’t legally culpable for them…

both statements can be true….. self defence doesn’t mean the incident never happened!

The next interesting bit will be to see if the families of those who he killed (note I am not using the word murdered) go after him civilly where the burden of proof is lower

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

I agree, and if Rittenhouse had been shot and killed before he had chance to shoot the same laws would apply , it is a mess

No they wouldnt

Definitely would,

If anybody had shot kyle first that would of not been a legal shooting and would of been Murder

He was not the aggressor. He was not an "active shooter"

I know you really really want him to be. As it would confirm your bias. But its just not true sorry

When he aimed his gun and shot someone and was shot by another person, this person could claim the same self defence .

No they couldnt

Thats exactly why Kyle was found not guilty of the rest of charges. That was the prosecutions strategy

He was not an "active shooter" and was acting in self defense. Therefore every attack on him was illegal and he was within his rights to shoot his attackers

And if he has been shot they could have used the same ‘self defence’ , it has happened before .

And Rossembaum or anyone else that attacked hiim would be making his way back to prison at this moment"

Irrelevant, shoot first, ask questions later,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

Doesnt help when 3/4 of the media lie about the case

For example look at this framing at the beginning of the article, that is nothing but posioning the well

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-of-all-charges-in-high-profile-murder-trial-184350101.html?guccounter=1

"Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semiautomatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha during a turbulent protest in the summer of 2020 and opened fire on demonstrators, killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and seriously wounding Gaige Grosskreutz."

This article has been written after the verdict

He did kill those people

the jury found that he wasn’t legally culpable for them…

both statements can be true….. self defence doesn’t mean the incident never happened!

The next interesting bit will be to see if the families of those who he killed (note I am not using the word murdered) go after him civilly where the burden of proof is lower"

They probably will and will probably win the case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle."

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws."

The defence was extremely well funded by US gun nuts and far right people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

"

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

"

To put out a fire He should have taken a super soaker

XP100 instead

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

"

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari"

Americans do shoot and kill lots of punters with AR15s though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari"

Do they both shoot bullets that kill people ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Americans do shoot and kill lots of punters with AR15s though.

"

Not really

When you look at the actual statistics most shootings are with pistols, mainly 22.

Media just hype up the ones using an ar15.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Do they both shoot bullets that kill people ?"

Are Cows Horses then because they both have 4 legs and shit in a field?

Is a Ford Fiesta a Hypercar? They both have wheels and use fuel

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari"

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Do they both shoot bullets that kill people ?

Are Cows Horses then because they both have 4 legs and shit in a field?

Is a Ford Fiesta a Hypercar? They both have wheels and use fuel"

They are both cars that drive from A to B

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ittleAcornMan  over a year ago

visiting the beach


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

"

Who cares? The terminology is irrelevant, whether it's military spec or not, is irrelevant. It's a powerful long arm designed for killing people.

Why the feck does anyone a) need one, b) take it for "protection" if all you are going to do is offer first aid and put out fires? Stick a red cross on your back pack and help people, no one will interfere with that.

The fact you are focusing on terminology would seem to indicate you can't really justify the above.

I guess a relevant question would be how many people did he treat? How many fires did he put out? He was there quite some time, you would assume he had a few opportunities to assist.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine."

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Americans do shoot and kill lots of punters with AR15s though.

Not really

When you look at the actual statistics most shootings are with pistols, mainly 22.

Media just hype up the ones using an ar15. "

Is that because a pistol is cheaper or easier to buy, or is it because the pistol is a more efficient way to kill lots of punters in a short space of time?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *igNick1381Man  over a year ago

BRIDGEND


"American law seems mad to me, if you go out with a gun looking for trouble & shoot 3 people should be locked up for a long time. "

Tell me you're an idiot without telling me you're an idiot

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

"

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Americans do shoot and kill lots of punters with AR15s though.

Not really

When you look at the actual statistics most shootings are with pistols, mainly 22.

Media just hype up the ones using an ar15.

Is that because a pistol is cheaper or easier to buy, or is it because the pistol is a more efficient way to kill lots of punters in a short space of time?"

A couple of the recent mass shootings used a pistol. I maybe wrong buy i think the florida nightclub attack a pistol was used, same with sandy hook. I.

22 pistol bullet is about the same size as a 223 from an AR15. Which yes is the same size as what we know as 22. in air rifles

Pistols are harder to buy in some places i think due to them being easy to conceal. I would also guess that most shootings are with pistols that are not suicides(suicide counts towards the total gun death figure) because most people killed by firearms are already involved with crime and are killed by another criminal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

Americans do shoot and kill lots of punters with AR15s though.

Not really

When you look at the actual statistics most shootings are with pistols, mainly 22.

Media just hype up the ones using an ar15.

Is that because a pistol is cheaper or easier to buy, or is it because the pistol is a more efficient way to kill lots of punters in a short space of time?

A couple of the recent mass shootings used a pistol. I maybe wrong buy i think the florida nightclub attack a pistol was used, same with sandy hook. I.

22 pistol bullet is about the same size as a 223 from an AR15. Which yes is the same size as what we know as 22. in air rifles

Pistols are harder to buy in some places i think due to them being easy to conceal. I would also guess that most shootings are with pistols that are not suicides(suicide counts towards the total gun death figure) because most people killed by firearms are already involved with crime and are killed by another criminal"

Interesting. Thank you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

"

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

"

What was the gun for?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for? "

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

"

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns? "

No they normally have the protection of the police in the first place, if its to dangerous they just wont go. Which is what was happening here. People where left to the mob. Not only that the police drove the rioters towards the people protecting the businesses in the first place. Which was fucking stupid

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns?

No they normally have the protection of the police in the first place, if its to dangerous they just wont go. Which is what was happening here. People where left to the mob. Not only that the police drove the rioters towards the people protecting the businesses in the first place. Which was fucking stupid"

So what was he thinking? Do we know if he provided any first aid or put out any fires as well as killing 2 people and injuring another

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *laymateteeMan  over a year ago

bristol


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

The case shows why there is a good reason why civilians could own guns. He would be dead if he didnt "

If he didn't have the gun then he wouldn't have had the confidence to travel to another state and put out fires and end up shooting 3 people. He only went there because he had a gun and if anyone on here has ever held a gun then you'll know how it makes one feel just knowing you've got it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns?

No they normally have the protection of the police in the first place, if its to dangerous they just wont go. Which is what was happening here. People where left to the mob. Not only that the police drove the rioters towards the people protecting the businesses in the first place. Which was fucking stupid"

The situation was dangerous.

So why didn't he just get out of there? Perhaps he'd found himself in the environment where he wanted to be, where he could use assault rifle he'd brought to fight fires with?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns?

No they normally have the protection of the police in the first place, if its to dangerous they just wont go. Which is what was happening here. People where left to the mob. Not only that the police drove the rioters towards the people protecting the businesses in the first place. Which was fucking stupid

The situation was dangerous.

So why didn't he just get out of there? Perhaps he'd found himself in the environment where he wanted to be, where he could use assault rifle he'd brought to fight fires with?"

Bored now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws.

You are making an assumption he went for confrontation.

if there was evidence that he went from confrontation then from my knowledge that would not constitute self defense

The only evidence we have is that he went to provide medical aid and his rifle was for protection not confronting rioters

you don't go to provide medical air armed with an assault rifle

you don't claim to be standing guard at the same time, i believe he made that claim to a tv crew

In that exact interview he said his other job is to provide medical aid

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

The exact same guy filming has spoken alot about how it was self defense

"Other job"

You do not turn up to provide first aid armed with an assault rifle.

He went there looking for excitement and trouble.

He killed people during that little journey.

He did not have to go.

He did not have to carry an assault rifle.

He didnt carry an assault rifle. I would learn some terminolgy before you start throwing words around you dont understand

Only the military and a few individuals that are rich enough to be able to pay the cost of the tax stamp and the cost of an auto sear and registered select fire lowers have access to what even can be called an "assault rifle"

An AR-15/10 is not an M4/M16

The AR 15 is an off shoot of the armalite. It is designed for combat. It's a direct descendant of the Stug 44, what it's designer Stoner intended it for, combat. He did not design it for use in first aid or putting out fires.

AR means Armalite, not an ofshoot. You are getting confused with gas systems

An assault rifle is a rifle with select fire capabilities while firing an intermediate cartidge mainly 5.56x45 in NATO countries and or 5.45×39 in Russia.

An AR15 does not have slect fire and can only be used in semi automatic. Unless you modify it illegally

Its been nearly 30 years since an actual assault rifle was used in a crime during the Hollywood shootout

you are basically trying to compare a kit car to a real ferrari

The AR 15 is an off shoot of Stoners original design.

If you want to try and argue about the history design and purpose of these designs I'll happily take you for a wander including touching on the various calibres considered including the 4.485 mm EM2.

Just because those lovely chaps in the NRA have fought tooth and nail to try and avoid the legal ramifications, it is an assault rifle.

Moose killed by AR15, probably 0

Bears killed by AR15, probably 0

People killed by the AR15, lots

He took an assault rifle to try and put out fires and provide first aid?

That's taking the urine.

I am well aware of different calibres. They come under intermediate catridges. Same as the STG44 using the 7.92×33mm Kurz which was a shortend 7.92×57mm used by the K 98k. Thats why it is known as an intermediate cartidge as it is between the size of large rifle cartidge and a small submachinegun cartridge. This is also why the Browning BAR is not known as the first "assault rifle" as it uses the 30-06 Springfield (7.62×63mm). 7.62x39 is normally the upper limit of Assault rifles as anything above that is not very goood for automatic fire. 7.62x51 is still used a fair bit in stuff like FALS/SLRS/G3's, is a calibre mainly used in semi auto DMR's though. And those weapons where either limited to semi auto or soldiers where trained to use semi auto.

Again an Assaullt rifle is a specific thing. The most important of that being the select fire ability and the size of the round. A AR15 is not an M4, a VPO-136 is not an AK

They are just Rifles, same as an SKS, Ruger Mini or any other semi automatic

Loads of people kill moose and bears with ar-15's lol. Just swap the barrel and reciever for a larger calibre. Even 556x45 can do it. Heres proof

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waImlLmnOB0

He took an assault rifle to put out fires and provide first aid.

Nope

He took a fire extinguisher and a Medical kit for those tasks

What was the gun for?

Well seeing what happened it was quite obvious

See as the last attacker was about to shoot him with an illegal pistol.

Others are armed legally and illegally he is allowed to have the means to defend himself from those people

pretty simple

Do medics and fire fighters usually carry guns?

No they normally have the protection of the police in the first place, if its to dangerous they just wont go. Which is what was happening here. People where left to the mob. Not only that the police drove the rioters towards the people protecting the businesses in the first place. Which was fucking stupid

The situation was dangerous.

So why didn't he just get out of there? Perhaps he'd found himself in the environment where he wanted to be, where he could use assault rifle he'd brought to fight fires with?"

Presumably he knew the laws, knew he could shoot and kill people and face no consequences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *V-AliceTV/TS  over a year ago

Ayr

If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"There are two very different things to consider in this case. The first, and obviously most important in regard to guilt or otherwise, is the law as it stands in Wisconsin.

It appears that under the self-defence laws, if he felt he was threatened, and felt in fear of his life. He was justified in using lethal force.

I believe the prosecutor failed to make a very good case, and the defence were successful in convincing the jury he did feel this way.

The very separate issue is the morality of this law, how it can be used to justify people seeking confrontation to then defend their actions for example.

I think both these things are quite alien to UK (and in fact much of European) thinking.

To my mind these laws are very wrong, in fact I think that about ownership of guns also. But those are not the points of this case.

Sadly I think this was the right decision under these horribly wrong laws."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America."

been drinking early?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America."

Spot on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *V-AliceTV/TS  over a year ago

Ayr


"If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America.

been drinking early? "

Been reading, ever? LOL

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *eroy1000Man  over a year ago

milton keynes

Some of the American laws do seem very odd to me but if that's their law and this guy acted within it what else can they do. Maybe the civil approach will be successful but not sure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America.

been drinking early?

Been reading, ever? LOL"

Read your words and apparently everyone in America is uneducated, according to you!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts

USA big rambling country with animals that can kill you, where help can be miles away etc etc I'd want a gun. A pink one

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *oxychick35Couple  over a year ago

thornaby


"If he'd been black, the police would have shot him dead.

If he'd shot black people, he may not even have gone to trial.

If anyone, in future, sees him walking round with a weapon - and they have one of their own - they can shoot him dead and know they'll get away with it.

Unless they're not white.

God Bless the Uneducated States of America."

pmsl wtf

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"He wasn’t out looking for trouble. He was extinguished fires the idiot rioters were lighting in their widely accepted behavior to destroy private property to show their protest against police. If any concept is mad, it’s the concept that it’s okay to be a thieving piece of shit and not face any consequences.

He was extinguishing fires with a semi automatic rifle?

A hose may have been better."

Why not, they put out oil well fires with explosives.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway "

There are plenty of good reasons for owning a gun, pest control, hunting, target shooting and stress relief (aka going on a shooting spree).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

There are plenty of good reasons for owning a gun, pest control, hunting, target shooting and stress relief (aka going on a shooting spree)."

Is that worth the 10,000+ dead people per year in the states?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements.

Im sorry. But can you explain how free of specch is involed in this?"

I could explain but just can’t be arsed to do so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

There are plenty of good reasons for owning a gun, pest control, hunting, target shooting and stress relief (aka going on a shooting spree).

Is that worth the 10,000+ dead people per year in the states?"

the voting public say yes! think a fair few shoot themselves! seriously!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts


"Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements.

Im sorry. But can you explain how free of specch is involed in this?

I could explain but just can’t be arsed to do so."

oh thats nice, come onto a forum, have a rant and then just claim you cant be arsed to explain! well i think the world is flat, id tell you why but do you know what, ICBA

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Don’t think us in the U.K. understand US gun laws , so how can we judge? Anyway a jury has found him innocent

we have very restrictive gun laws in the UK but I dont think this case will help to get them relaxed

True it will only get our gun laws tightened more

Well there is not good reason for civilians to own guns anyway

There are plenty of good reasons for owning a gun, pest control, hunting, target shooting and stress relief (aka going on a shooting spree).

Is that worth the 10,000+ dead people per year in the states?"

Its only 10,000, America has plenty more targets to shoot.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"Clearly the American Constitution is at odds with itself, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Put it this way, you say something and someone don’t agree with it you have the right to shoot someone because of it.

You can’t make this stuff up.

the kid was the victim of same failed system as those who died. He will have to live with his mistakes, I hope he realises that he is just another pawn in a twisted game of human suffering delivered by extremist elements.

Im sorry. But can you explain how free of specch is involed in this?

I could explain but just can’t be arsed to do so."

So you cant explain it then?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *V-AliceTV/TS  over a year ago

Ayr

The bottom line in all of this is that in the USA, Republicans value property over human life; especially non-white life. They've proven that over and over again.

We have a similar problem in the UK, with Tories. They don't use guns, obviously - just contracts for cheaper, sub-standard, cladding for tower blocks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"The bottom line in all of this is that in the USA, Republicans value property over human life; especially non-white life. They've proven that over and over again.

We have a similar problem in the UK, with Tories. They don't use guns, obviously - just contracts for cheaper, sub-standard, cladding for tower blocks."

No, the bottom line is - after being chased, beaten to the ground, hit over the head with a rock, kicked in the face, threatened to have his heart cut out and a gun pointed at his head - he had the right to defend his own life

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"The bottom line in all of this is that in the USA, Republicans value property over human life; especially non-white life. They've proven that over and over again.

We have a similar problem in the UK, with Tories. They don't use guns, obviously - just contracts for cheaper, sub-standard, cladding for tower blocks.

No, the bottom line is - after being chased, beaten to the ground, hit over the head with a rock, kicked in the face, threatened to have his heart cut out and a gun pointed at his head - he had the right to defend his own life"

he went to the site of a riot with an assault rifle, but wasn't looking to get involved?

OK

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *host63Man  over a year ago

Bedfont Feltham

You truly are a revolting person.

His mother drives him across two state lines in order to kill someone.

That's called murder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"You truly are a revolting person.

His mother drives him across two state lines in order to kill someone.

That's called murder "

Sadly it's not murder under US law. It's not even a crime.

You can kill some people, and get off, if you have an extremely well funded defence team.

As mentioned above, the jury came to the correct conclusion based on US law.

Nothing will change there. The NRA aren't going to let them do anything to affect gun sales. And there are plenty of people cheering it all on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"The bottom line in all of this is that in the USA, Republicans value property over human life; especially non-white life. They've proven that over and over again.

We have a similar problem in the UK, with Tories. They don't use guns, obviously - just contracts for cheaper, sub-standard, cladding for tower blocks."

Pmsl such a drama queen,i dont vote tory but you seem to blame them for everything,you really think there responsible for the cladding? Nothing to do with the contractors or buildin inspector who signed the work off.pmsl think boris is living in your head sweetheart

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *estivalMan  over a year ago

borehamwood


"You truly are a revolting person.

His mother drives him across two state lines in order to kill someone.

That's called murder "

nope its called self defence and the courts and jury came to that conclusion,thems the laws in that state no matter what you may think

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

The result was the right one, self defence against a mob is justified. On that note, British people need to understand that the USA's view on gun possession is different to theirs. As weird as it is, it's normal in Wisconsin to be able to walk around with a gun. Yes they have to live with the gun crime but each person, as this case proves, is capable of using their gun to defend against multipe aggressors. All we have over here for that would be keys in our pocket...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts

[Removed by poster at 23/11/21 13:14:34]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *ohnnyTwoNotesMan  over a year ago

golden fields


"The result was the right one, self defence against a mob is justified. On that note, British people need to understand that the USA's view on gun possession is different to theirs. As weird as it is, it's normal in Wisconsin to be able to walk around with a gun. Yes they have to live with the gun crime but each person, as this case proves, is capable of using their gun to defend against multipe aggressors. All we have over here for that would be keys in our pocket..."

True. And the "keys in our pocket" seems to be much better.

Hardly anyone gets shot to death day by day. Gun crime here way less than in the states.

It's fantastic living in a country without punters walking about with guns.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS  over a year ago

Notts

In reply to the ranting rhetoric, where we're all the gun happy yanks when the guy drove a truck into the crowd, where were the gun tooting cops? Waiting to shoot anything that moves?

News story, police fail to shoot crazed driver? Many killed as consequence?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *wisted999Man  over a year ago

North Bucks

Lol.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago

I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle. "

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man"

Any money he gets will probably be gone when he loses the civil case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man

Any money he gets will probably be gone when he loses the civil case "

That remains to be seen

What will be very interesting is how those media outlets will now cover a civil case. The only money Rittenhouse would have will be from winning a defamation law suit against the likes of CNN and MSNBC

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man

Any money he gets will probably be gone when he loses the civil case

That remains to be seen

What will be very interesting is how those media outlets will now cover a civil case. The only money Rittenhouse would have will be from winning a defamation law suit against the likes of CNN and MSNBC "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *r-OreoMan  over a year ago

telford

This is an example of white privileges and anyone who agrees with the verdict are also from the village called White privilege.

If it was a non Caucasian kid, he'd be doing multiple life sentences.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By *or Fox SakeCouple  over a year ago

Thornaby


"This is an example of white privileges and anyone who agrees with the verdict are also from the village called White privilege.

If it was a non Caucasian kid, he'd be doing multiple life sentences. "

Well said

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

 

By (user no longer on site)  over a year ago


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man

Any money he gets will probably be gone when he loses the civil case

That remains to be seen

What will be very interesting is how those media outlets will now cover a civil case. The only money Rittenhouse would have will be from winning a defamation law suit against the likes of CNN and MSNBC "

CNNs lawyers will eat him alive,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

  

By *adetMan  over a year ago

South of Ipswich


"I hadn't really looked at this trial before this thread, but seems to me it's a reflection of US gun laws and their relaxed nature to carrying arms which means the bar is higher for pre meditation and they are happier with play dumb games, win dumb prizes.

While I get the back drop of BLM marches it's suprised me about the race angle/profile. Took a few reports to even realise all parties were white. Felt like this over shadpwes the usual NRA versus angle.

Yes the left wing media want to convince you that he is a white supremacist and just went out to kill innocent black people who were peacefully protesting. I've even seen reports as recently as last week that claimed he shot 3 black men. These aren't mistakes, it's entirely deliberate. Just look at some of the wildly inaccurate comments on this thread alone

It's also why he's likely to sue the pants off these media outlets and become a very wealthy young man

Any money he gets will probably be gone when he loses the civil case

That remains to be seen

What will be very interesting is how those media outlets will now cover a civil case. The only money Rittenhouse would have will be from winning a defamation law suit against the likes of CNN and MSNBC

CNNs lawyers will eat him alive,"

What just like they did Nicolas Sandmann?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

0.5156

0