Herb & Suds
Well-Known Member
Triggered!No. I'm sorry I just used his words how he presented them so fuck you very much try again
Triggered!No. I'm sorry I just used his words how he presented them so fuck you very much try again
GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!His home is in Indiana
I'm guessing you don't know much about the history you speak of. In the 1920's Hitler gained patronage from wealthy capitalists to fund establishment of camps for his "brown shirt militia". He also had plenty of small donors who supported his policies. He used that well funded militia to kill and intimidate Hitler's political opposition, jews and other minority groups. Just like today, right wing assholes went out into the streets armed and under police protection to break up rallies, bust heads and carry out the occasional assassination.This is why I support guns for everyone. hard for fascist paramilitary killers to wipe out people if they are armed vs unarmed. If the Jews had all had guns in their homes, the Nazi's might have had a harder time. But this isnt 1920 and we're not in Germany.
Or just stay thereGO BACK WHERE YOU CAME FROM!
The crowd did not arm themselves and cross a state line to arrest someone. They had to use what they could. The law may be written that he is inocent, but the fact that he stuck himself right in the middle of a storm with a rifle to prove might is right.You can't make a citizen's arrest by hitting a running individual with a skateboard, rock, or soccer kick. Nor can you pull a gun on someone attempting to run from the mob. Keep in mind, a jury decided Mr. Rittenhouse had every right to defend himself against Mr. Rosenbaum's aggression, which completely erodes any notion of a "citizen's arrest". Would you enjoy police beating a fleeing suspect with a plank of wood during an unlawful arrest? Weird take
You’re not very good at this, are you?No. I'm sorry I just used his words how he presented them so fuck you very much try again
FranklyDude you are nuts!!! I am having a hard time keeping up with typing and reading the comments as it is
Dude you are nuts!!! I am having a hard time keeping up with typing and reading the comments as it is
But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper positionIn general, you don't have the right to use deadly force when protecting property. Self-defense is triggered when you are attacked by another individual. You can certainly go there and counter-protest with your legal firearms.
The "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the rioters were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent rioter did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).The crowd did not arm themselves and cross a state line to arrest someone. They had to use what they could. The law may be written that he is inocent, but the fact that he stuck himself right in the middle of a storm with a rifle to prove might is right.
With the reckless homicide, the reckless action only needs to be a significant contributor to the homicide, regardless of provocation or self-defense. The only way he could be found not-guilty of reckless homicide is if you don't believe he acted recklessly, which means you believe it's generally safe for untrained minors to bring their AR to the streets during a riot to act as armed security.Thankfully the jury reached the right conclusion based on evidence and not what they subjectively felt. I don't understand your pov. The evidence showed he was acting in self-defense but you think his actions were suspicious. So what? The jury's verdict means he is innocent. We are a country of laws. "The jury's verdict doesn't mean he is innocent, just that he's not guilty as charged." <
that is your opinion, man.The victim is Mr. Rittenhouse. He was violently attacked and his right to self-defense was reaffirmed under law. A just outcome.
FifyThe "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the PROTESTERS were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent PROTESTERS did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).
I will point out that Rittenhouse was a fugitive from justice when he was arrested. Crossing state lines to get away from justice is what guilty people do.The "crossing state line" point has zero bearing on anything. Many of the rioters were "crossing state lines". Mr. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha. His father lived in Kenosha. He had more of a right to be there than any violent rioter did. It's a weird take and you're right, not supported by law (thankfully).
Actually it's the opinion of the court as well.that is your opinion, man.
When one objectively looks at what Rittenhouse he shot three and killed two. His actions that night were what a guilty person does.
Not a practical worry unless you’re more than one person. Then you can have a sniper behind a messenger.But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper position
You are advocating vigilantes period
It may not be safe but its legal. Perhaps the jury, judge and prosecutor, having seen their city in flames last year, were all biased, recognizing other faces in the mob, Community standards.With the reckless homicide, the reckless action only needs to be a significant contributor to the homicide, regardless of provocation or self-defense. The only way he could be found not-guilty of reckless homicide is if you don't believe he acted recklessly, which means you believe it's generally safe for untrained minors to bring their AR to the streets during a riot to act as armed security.
One ancient judge who is trying to get re-electedActually it's the opinion of the court as well.
It seems you don't understand the basis of English and American common law and the application of self-defense. Are you engaging with me in bad faith? Take a peek at the law and your rights and find the part that says you can approach a crowd, subjectively feel threatened, and open fire. You are acting unhinged. Mr. Rittenhouse was running, chased, and defended himself. The law agrees. I wouldn't advise any adult to consider you hypothetical. Mr. Rittenhouse was not a vigilante, that is a fact.But what if as I approach I feel threatened and am much more comfortable from a sniper position
You are advocating vigilantes period