Rittenhouse

[babe]

Yes, our current laws are DAF. I posted an example earlier of a shootout that happened in Utah several years ago where two dudes were completely justified in thinking the other was up to no good and a threat and both of them were armed and they shot at each other. I think only one was injured but they both had legitimate reasons to defend themselves from the other one. We need laws to clarify these situations and to make what Rittenhouse did not qualify as self defense. Right now it is legal to put yourself in danger, intentionally and then shoot your way out of danger. It is currently legal to carry a gun and instigate a violent confrontation and then use your gun to solve the violent confrontation you started. Rittenhouse will be found not guilty because our current laws are BAD.

Good sense will usually keep most people out of this kind of trouble. Except in a riot or insurrection or war, the absolute nature of our rights makes your idea of a good law simply wrong. Absolutely wrong. It basically makes our rights subject to arbitrary nullification by lawmakers and/or judges. This is the very definition of BAD GOVERNMENT.

oUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PERTAINS MOSTLY TO EXACTLY "DANGEROUS" SITUATIONS.

 

[One Brow]

Ironic you aren't on here condemning the dude who got shot, or that he isnt on trial for attempting to murder Rittenhouse.

You need an attempt for attempted murder. Grosskreutz didn't fire when he had the advantage.

 

[babe]

Very true. Maybe there wasn't a curfew after all. Do you have evidence, or are you JAQing off?

JAQ = "Just Asking Quastions"

I wasn't there, and I didn't see you there.

I have a negative notion of media coverage and opinion talk together. I was trying, once again, to raise a few questions in your own views perhaps even worth checking out against whatever evidence can be found.

It looks to me like there is an organized Establishment assault on individual property rights and other rights. Paid gangs of rioters burning down cities where they know the commie prosecutor will smile and sing Burn Baby Burn. One more capitalist down for the count. And if people try to stand up against it, they are the ones prosecuted.

As Fish notes above, maybe a lot of the rioters/looters got arrested. How many were just bailed out and put back on the Burning Bus?

I actually have not seen any of this, and my questions here come up from what's on the news and the likes of Hannity and Levin.

Actually, I think Sonnie Johnson is the most reliable and best informed on the general urban scene. David Webb is by far the most solidly grounded talk show host.

Did you know that Virginia's new Governor-elect actually had his team get input from some of Sonnie's friends, and even reached out to her, before going to Richmond's "Black Wall Street". The news on the street was that he was so interested in what he was learning, he even put of Trump so he could get this input.

Sonnie is a street organizer for federalism. In case you have the common mistaken notion of what "federalism" means, it means putting the real power back on the street. In more local jurisdictions. With less top-down meddling.

yo.l That means the cop on the beat answers to grandma.

 

[JazzyFresh]

S* Tabloids and Logbrowns propaganda networks won't show. Robots

 

[One Brow]

I wasn't there, and I didn't see you there.

Which says nothing and means nothing. Thanks for playing.

I actually have not seen any of this, and my questions here come up from what's on the news and the likes of Hannity and Levin.

Both well-known for JAQing off.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Harsh.

I don't think anyone should have had a gun there except the police. I also don't think a single person deserved to die. But don't bother trying to say the same thing, you've made it very clear you fully support vigilante justice and that it is always self-defense as long as the people you shoot die. Anything you say from this point will be tyaken with a ton of salt.

Metric ton. I'm not a Philistine.


See, everyone can do that. Condescension is easy.

Harsh?

Harsh.

I don't think anyone should have had a gun there except the police. I also don't think a single person deserved to die. But don't bother trying to say the same thing, you've made it very clear you fully support vigilante justice and that it is always self-defense as long as the people you shoot die. Anything you say from this point will be taken with a ton of salt.

Metric ton. I'm not a Philistine.


See, everyone can do that. Condescension is easy.

Harsh? Your previous stance is disturbing to say the least. How is anyone supposed to consider anything you say on this after stating you would murder someone without any facts, context, or evidence outside of a crowd yelling shooter + you seeing a gun. Murder first, ask questions later.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You need an attempt for attempted murder. Grosskreutz didn't fire when he had the advantage.

You're trying too hard to rabble rouse in this thread.

 

[Archie Moses]

There’s a couple things I think are true.

1) If Rittenhouse doesn’t take his rifle, he doesn’t kill anybody.

2) If people aren’t attacking the kid with a gun, pointing their gun at him, chasing kid with a gun, etc, etc, they aren’t going to get killed or shot.

It’s unfortunate situation, truly, but legally, it just isn’t murder. The witness for the prosecution said that Rittenhouse did not point his rifle at him until the witness pointed his gun at Rittenhouse. That’s clearly self defense. And I’ve seen a lot of people rag on Rittenhouse bringing a rifle (rightfully so imo), but those same people never have an issue with the guy who got shot illegally having a weapon as well. Stupid people played stupid games, and now people are dead. It’s sad, unfortunate, but legally, it ain’t murder.

1. Should be - If people weren't being destructive and rioting, he wouldn't bring his gun and be a vigilante. There's blame on both sides, 100%.

Reading this thread makes me sad. It's a bunch of grown men arguing their POV on the issue while denying any thought or understanding for their opposition. Not everyone, but a lot.

One thing I think we can all agree on is no one wanted this to happen (at least I hope.)

I hate guns. They take way too many lives in dumb situations that could easily be resolved without the use of deadly force.

 

[Archie Moses]

Fwiw, I think it Rittenhouse really wanted to be a vigilante, he probably could have and would have shot a lot more people. If I was in a situation where I had a rifle during a riot/uncontrolled protest, and people were chasing me, I sure as **** would’ve fired. Now, I also wouldn’t go there or bring a rifle, but that’s irrelevant. If you have a weapon, and you have multiple people telling you they’re going to kill you, chase you, point a gun at you, those people have given you the legal means to shoot them. Being there the way he did could arguably be called “being a vigilante”, but his actions with the rifle cannot, imo.

Pretty much every gun owning, super conservative wanted to be a vigilante during the riots. There's no shock there. I can think of a ton of people I know that would say they wish they could show up with a gun to help. Now whether they actually would if they had the chance, I doubt most of them would. Most are all talk, but it's easy to think of the guy (we all know one) that would.

**** that guy.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Exactly. So its perfectly legal for me to run around with my gun and swear at people in the hopes that one of the people Im swearing at gets mad and pulls a gun and points in my direction cause then its perfectly legal for me to shoot them.

He went there in the hopes he would get to shoot someone and he got his wish.

You don’t know his frame of mind, neither do I. Foolish to act like you do.

The next time you respond to something with a response that isn’t some hypothetical straw man will be a first. Not worth responding to.

 

[fishonjazz]

You don’t know his frame of mind, neither do I. Foolish to act like you do.

The next time you respond to something with a response that isn’t some hypothetical straw man will be a first. Not worth responding to.

In my example you wouldn't know my frame of mind either. You could have a pretty good idea what it was though.
You did say that you thought that what he did was dumb and a bad idea (going to the riots with a gun) but what happened after that point was self defense. So in my example I would have also been doing something dumb yet once I felt my life was in danger then its self defense. See you can simply excuse away anything and everything that happens leading up to the violence as long as when the violence goes down a person can say they felt they were in danger and acted in self defense. This is not a good thing. The stuff that happens prior to the violence should matter.

Btw, you responded to my post that according to you wasn't worth responding to lol.

 

[Nate505]

He'll probably get off of murder charges at least. Personally IMO he should get some sort of time for inserting himself into a riot situation, but I'm not sure what law he broke. On the other hand, I have little sympathy for the people who got killed. Play riot games, win riot prizes.

On another note, I'm quite impressed with how many reports this thread has generated. It might easily be the most in terms of the number of posts in a thread that I've ever seen here in my 10 years or whatever of modship. My vote is to lock it soon since nobody can seem to play nicely, but I am just one vote of the three that's needed.