FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Rittenhouse not guilty
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) |
"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) |
"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) |
"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) |