Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
5 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jeff, can you account for the whereabouts of your penis around 19 yrs ago?  Seeing how hot the mom is, I really can't fault you.

19 years ago????  There's no telling.  It got around a lot, that's all I can say;).   But I haven't spent any time in either IL or WI - too cold - so likely not my seed.  

And you think she's "Hot"????  She's not even a Fargo 8 or a Deployment 7.  I went through a fairly serious MILF phase back in my late teens and early 20's.  THEY were hot.  A "Milf" she is not...... More of a MIRNF.  just saying. 

She's more of a "MIRNFIAMY-EWCD"**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

**Mother I'd Rather Not Fuck In A Million Years - Even With Cal's Dick

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ha ha ha, Americanos and their gun nutz, your gun culture is fucked. 

The fact that a young punk can present himself at a riot, parade around with an illegal assault rifle, shoots three people - (surprise surprise) and can reasonably be expect to be acquitted on grounds

I have to say that I regard anyone with a gun on their hip or slung over their shoulder walking around in public as being a threat to my life. I now include police in this generalization; I used to gi

Posted Images

42 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I'm a veteran

- DSK

When I served I was taught that the three most crucial items  for a soldier are, weapon, food and shelter.

And that if someone takes your weapon then the other two are irrelevant.

Another thing I learned is that you never point a weapon at someone unless you are prepared to use it.

A few chaps learned those lessons the hard way in Kenosha and if you are indeed a “veteran” then you should understand this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, he was talking on the stand, in court today AFAIK. Said it twice, actually; talking about why he wanted to run to the police "because I didn't do anything wrong" and a minute or so later, "I did nothing wrong, I was defending myself."

It was a year ago but soldiers who kill enemy soldiers in war, on the battlefield where those enemies are trying to kill them, are often have traumatic grief and guilt for the rest of their lives.

Only a psychopath kills and feels no wrong. Kyle may not really be one but he's putting on a fine imitation

- DSK

 

He's on trial now. What else can he say? However at the time there's some vid of him saying his life might be over. The kid knew even then it might not have been totally right, and since has seen evidence some of the people he shot might have mistaken him for an active shooter. 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Judge should be removed from the trial, and it should start over fresh. He's obviously biased, and quite frankly, a nut case.

 Maybe he has a 17 y/o grand son who likes to break laws, and kill people, but his actions on the bench are inexcusable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

It irked me quite a bit to see him on the news exclaiming that he didn't do anything wrong.

Killing people is wrong. If you don't think so, you're a psychpath. Literally.

Killing a person in self-defense can be legally and morally justified, but that doesn't change it's wrongness.

- DSK

See, I don't understand that logic in the slightest.  I'd be interesting in why you think a justifiable homicide is "wrong".  If it's justifiable, then it means there was a reason WHY it was justifiable.  That reason means that the shooter had to chose between two or more options.  Let's use the "self defense, defense of others" home invasion scenario.....  A biker gang breaks into YOUR home, doug, and attempts to rape your wife and daughter.  You happen to come home from the YC just in time as they are ripping off their clothes.  You grab your hunting shotgun/glock/AR-15 from the closet/safe/wherever and use lethal force to stop any more harm coming to your family.

Are you still going to tell us that that action was "wrong"?  Can you really look yourself in the mirror that your action to defend your family was "wrong"?  Really?  I'm honestly curious how you call this wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Do you think KR has the firearm experience or maturity to be on the streets in that environment with an AR-15 around his neck?  Did you hear when he described his time target shooting where his max range was on the order of 20'?  And clearly he needs considerably much more practice.

Do all AR-15 owners blubber like babies, my guess, too much estrogen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Possibly.  But I'd rather be disliked than dead.  Had either of those 3 people who attacked hem been able to get his rifle away from him, that's exactly where'd he be right now.  D-E-D dead.  

BS. If the guy with the sidearm wanted him dead he wouldn't have gotten that close. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Two wrongs don't make it right.

And killing another person is a traumatic shock to a mentally healthy human.

I'm a veteran, what military branch did you serve in?

- DSK

Did you kill anyone, Veteran Doug?

Btw - thank you for your service.  Truly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sea warrior said:

When I served I was taught that the three most crucial items  for a soldier are, weapon, food and shelter.

And that if someone takes your weapon then the other two are irrelevant.

Another thing I learned is that you never point a weapon at someone unless you are prepared to use it.

A few chaps learned those lessons the hard way in Kenosha and if you are indeed a “veteran” then you should understand this.

Kyle had no legal right to hold that assault rifle, nor to point it at anyone, especially considering that he claims he went there to act as a medic, and to protect private property.

I agree if you point a gun at someone, you intend to kill them. Kyle denies this. He claims he just wanted to protect himself.

 The best way a 17 y/o from another state could protect himself in Kenosha that day/night was to not be there with a loaded assault weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

See, I don't understand that logic in the slightest.  I'd be interesting in why you think a justifiable homicide is "wrong".  If it's justifiable, then it means there was a reason WHY it was justifiable.  That reason means that the shooter had to chose between two or more options.  Let's use the "self defense, defense of others" home invasion scenario.....  A biker gang breaks into YOUR home, doug, and attempts to rape your wife and daughter.  You happen to come home from the YC just in time as they are ripping off their clothes.  You grab your hunting shotgun/glock/AR-15 from the closet/safe/wherever and use lethal force to stop any more harm coming to your family.

Are you still going to tell us that that action was "wrong"?  Can you really look yourself in the mirror that your action to defend your family was "wrong"?  Really?  I'm honestly curious how you call this wrong.

 

"Justifiable" is different from "right"

You think it's fine and dandy to kill people? Or just libby-rulls? Wait that one guy had a gun too, he must have been an American Patriot not a liberal pussy, they are by definition unarmed worms. Does that change the equation?

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The Judge should be removed from the trial, and it should start over fresh. He's obviously biased, and quite frankly, a nut case.

 Maybe he has a 17 y/o grand son who likes to break laws, and kill people, but his actions on the bench are inexcusable.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/as-kyle-rittenhouse-trial-nears-end-judges-decisions-from-the-bench-come-under-scrutiny/2021/11/10/93cd45c6-3dad-11ec-9ef1-5cd499f0a123_story.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

See, I don't understand that logic in the slightest.  I'd be interesting in why you think a justifiable homicide is "wrong".  If it's justifiable, then it means there was a reason WHY it was justifiable.  That reason means that the shooter had to chose between two or more options.  Let's use the "self defense, defense of others" home invasion scenario.....  A biker gang breaks into YOUR home, doug, and attempts to rape your wife and daughter.  You happen to come home from the YC just in time as they are ripping off their clothes.  You grab your hunting shotgun/glock/AR-15 from the closet/safe/wherever and use lethal force to stop any more harm coming to your family.

Are you still going to tell us that that action was "wrong"?  Can you really look yourself in the mirror that your action to defend your family was "wrong"?  Really?  I'm honestly curious how you call this wrong.

Rittenhouse chose to be there, to be armed, and to engage with the protesters. That makes him an aggressor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jeff,

Do you think KR has the firearm experience or maturity to be on the streets in that environment with an AR-15 around his neck?  Did you hear when he described his time target shooting where his max range was on the order of 20'?  And clearly he needs considerably much more practice.

Do all AR-15 owners blubber like babies, my guess, too much estrogen. 

No, I don't think he had the maturity or experience to be on those streets that night.  I have said numerous times - immediately after it happened in fact - that he should have never been there, much less armed with an AR.  

And we all need more practice.  Training should never end.  But given he's alive and the others are not after a 3 vs 1 melee - I'd say his accuracy and handling of the rifle was more than adequate that night.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Jeff,

Do you think KR has the firearm experience or maturity to be on the streets in that environment with an AR-15 around his neck?  Did you hear when he described his time target shooting where his max range was on the order of 20'?  And clearly he needs considerably much more practice.

Do all AR-15 owners blubber like babies, my guess, too much estrogen. 

The effective range of a target shoot for an AR15 is about20' just like a Colt Model 1911.

 Made for blasting away, not target shooting (or hunting). Basically they're bore shot guns with slugs.

 It looks like his weapon was fitted with a bump stock, which would make it almost an automatic weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark K said:

BS. If the guy with the sidearm wanted him dead he wouldn't have gotten that close. 

I'm not sure what you're saying here, Mark.  Are you saying that the dude with the Glock wouldn't have bothered to get that close and instead shot him at a greater distance or that KR would have seen his intent and shot the guy at a greater distance rather than letting him get that close???

In both cases, you (incorrectly, I believe) assume that both parties are rational, experienced in the manual of arms and combat tactics, as well as and the ability to move and shoot accurately in a very stressful and chaotic situation.  That night was more like Marines being ambushed in Fallujah, than a "peaceful" protest gone bad in Kenosha. WI.

Just saying.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No, I don't think he had the maturity or experience to be on those streets that night.  I have said numerous times - immediately after it happened in fact - that he should have never been there, much less armed with an AR.  

And we all need more practice.  Training should never end.  But given he's alive and the others are not after a 3 vs 1 melee - I'd say his accuracy and handling of the rifle was more than adequate that night.  

I would say you're dead wrong. If his accuracy and handling were proficient no one would be dead by his hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Did you kill anyone, Veteran Doug?

Btw - thank you for your service.  Truly.  

JZK is pontificating about things he knows nothing about, as always.

I have never deliberately killed any human being directly. Serving in the military (even the Air Force) entails that possibility though, and the risk involved, which of course JZK could not face up to.

And thank you for your service, Jeff. I mean that sincerely.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

"Justifiable" is different from "right"

You think it's fine and dandy to kill people? Or just libby-rulls? Wait that one guy had a gun too, he must have been an American Patriot not a liberal pussy, they are by definition unarmed worms. Does that change the equation?

- DSK

 

Seriously, stop with the political Right vs Left rhetoric.  Politics has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.  That's nothing more than a deflection.  I'm asking you point blank what is "Wrong" with justifiably defending yourself, your family, or others?  

Are you saying that despite an act being legally allowed - that taking a human life is ALWAYS wrong.  I'm simply asking you to explain that further.  Is it really always wrong.  Is there never a time or situation where taking a life is actually the right thing to do?  I'm honestly trying to understand your POV here and you are doing nothing more than getting defensive about having to explain it.  Are you coming from a biblical wrong?  An emotional or moral wrong?  A societal "Wrong"??  Which is it.

Are you saying there is NEVER an moral justification for taking a life?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

I'm not sure what you're saying here, Mark.  Are you saying that the dude with the Glock wouldn't have bothered to get that close and instead shot him at a greater distance or that KR would have seen his intent and shot the guy at a greater distance rather than letting him get that close???

In both cases, you (incorrectly, I believe) assume that both parties are rational, experienced in the manual of arms and combat tactics, as well as and the ability to move and shoot accurately in a very stressful and chaotic situation.  That night was more like Marines being ambushed in Fallujah, than a "peaceful" protest gone bad in Kenosha. WI.

Just saying.  

No. That was nothing like a fucking fire fight ambush in Fallujah. That was a protest rally in a relatively peaceful city not in a war zone. The people involved were not US Marines. They were a few citizens who were marching to protest the killing of an unarmed man, who were presented with the menace of a teenager with an assault rifle. The teenager instigated the conflict. He killed people. He could have been back in his parent's home playing video games. Instead he killed real people.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

The effective range of a target shoot for an AR15 is about20' just like a Colt Model 1911.

 Made for blasting away, not target shooting (or hunting). Basically they're bore shot guns with slugs.

 It looks like his weapon was fitted with a bump stock, which would make it almost an automatic weapon.

Dude, seriously - you should really just stop making these generalized statements which are absolutely incorrect.  You are making yourself look silly.  I can consistently hit man sized steel targets with a common, OTS non-accurized AR style weapon offhand at 200m with iron sights or non-magnified red dots.  I can do the same with about 50-60% hit rate out to 400m.  And frankly I am very average to mediocre when it comes to offhand AR shooting.  It's an extremely inherently accurate rifle.  Which is why it's favored by the military, LE, hunters and private citizens.  

And bump stockas - not that's funny.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Kyle had no legal right to hold that assault rifle, nor to point it at anyone, especially considering that he claims he went there to act as a medic, and to protect private property.

I agree if you point a gun at someone, you intend to kill them. Kyle denies this. He claims he just wanted to protect himself.

 The best way a 17 y/o from another state could protect himself in Kenosha that day/night was to not be there with a loaded assault weapon.

And the best way for a jackoff not to get a hole in his arm or chest is to not try to pull a gun on a guy or not try to bash in the head of a dude carrying a long gun .

 

You see, Darwin called and those idiots answered the call.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I would say you're dead wrong. If his accuracy and handling were proficient no one would be dead by his hand.

I don't understand this.  Please elaborate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

Seriously, stop with the political Right vs Left rhetoric.  Politics has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.  That's nothing more than a deflection.  I'm asking you point blank what is "Wrong" with justifiably defending yourself, your family, or others?  

Are you saying that despite an act being legally allowed - that taking a human life is ALWAYS wrong.  I'm simply asking you to explain that further.  Is it really always wrong.  Is there never a time or situation where taking a life is actually the right thing to do?  I'm honestly trying to understand your POV here and you are doing nothing more than getting defensive about having to explain it.  Are you coming from a biblical wrong?  An emotional or moral wrong?  A societal "Wrong"??  Which is it.

Are you saying there is NEVER an moral justification for taking a life?  

No, I'm saying that deliberately killing another person is morally wrong (no particular religion attached), and is also emotional painful to a normally-balanced person.

There are several justifications for killing people. When you're a soldier, when you are defending your own life against a deadly threat, when you are defending your home and family; no need to elaborate with gory adolescent scenarios.

From what I've seen/read about this case, it's very likely that both sides could claim self-defense. Kyle shot first. Why pistol-guy didn't shoot him, I don't know. Reluctance to kill, probably. If you or I were standing next to somebody in a similar situation, and saw Kyle start his active-shooter routine, either of us would have done our best to kill him before he shot us, too.

That's the instantaneous situation. When you add Kyle's prior statements and actions, which the jury cannot be told about, he comes off much worse.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't understand this.  Please elaborate.

I'm not surprised.

 

11 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Dude, seriously - you should really just stop making these generalized statements which are absolutely incorrect.  You are making yourself look silly.  I can consistently hit man sized steel targets with a common, OTS non-accurized AR style weapon offhand at 200m with iron sights or non-magnified red dots.  I can do the same with about 50-60% hit rate out to 400m.  And frankly I am very average to mediocre when it comes to offhand AR shooting.  It's an extremely inherently accurate rifle.  Which is why it's favored by the military, LE, hunters and private citizens.  

And bump stockas - not that's funny.  

Ars are notoriously spray shot weapons. If you can hit a "man sized target" at 200 M (I doubt it) then you could be taking off a foot, or an ear. That's not really very good.

The point is, these are close conflict weapons designed to kill people. Not deer. Not target paper. People.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:

This is pure horseshit.

If you have no other choice to kill someone to defend your life, it is not "wrong."  It may be unfortunate and the situation regrettable, but it is not "wrong."

You never answered the question:  would you feel the same if one-arm was charged and Rittenhouse was dead? Hell, I’d say they never would have charged him. We WANT people to take down active  shooters. Just, now, active shooters get to claim self defense. Well, it’s the law, so I guess it’s ok.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

You can say that until you're blue in the face, but it still won't make it so.

Pretty sure if one-arm was a better shot, there wouldn’t even be a trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Likely quote from KR,

You touch my gun, I'll kill you.

And he meant it.

Are suggesting that there is something wrong with that concept?

 

Before you answer, remember, Darwin is watching you..

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

See, I don't understand that logic in the slightest.  I'd be interesting in why you think a justifiable homicide is "wrong".  If it's justifiable, then it means there was a reason WHY it was justifiable.  That reason means that the shooter had to chose between two or more options.  Let's use the "self defense, defense of others" home invasion scenario.....  A biker gang breaks into YOUR home, doug, and attempts to rape your wife and daughter.  You happen to come home from the YC just in time as they are ripping off their clothes.  You grab your hunting shotgun/glock/AR-15 from the closet/safe/wherever and use lethal force to stop any more harm coming to your family.

Are you still going to tell us that that action was "wrong"?  Can you really look yourself in the mirror that your action to defend your family was "wrong"?  Really?  I'm honestly curious how you call this wrong.

I thought you retired your rape fantasy. At least you mixed it up and it ain’t a black guy no more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Likely quote from KR,

You touch my gun, I'll kill you.

And he meant it.

After kyle gets acquitted, the next ammosexual incel at a BLM protest will have a quiet blade slipped between his ribs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrleft8 said:

No. That was nothing like a fucking fire fight ambush in Fallujah. That was a protest rally in a relatively peaceful city not in a war zone. The people involved were not US Marines. They were a few citizens who were marching to protest the killing of an unarmed man, who were presented with the menace of a teenager with an assault rifle. The teenager instigated the conflict. He killed people. He could have been back in his parent's home playing video games. Instead he killed real people.

Are you really this uninformed, believe that BS or is it a troll?

Relatively peaceful  city? 40 buildings destroyed, $50 million in damages!


A few citizens? Thousands took to the streets from all over the country!

Unarmed man    Blake had a knife when he was shot!

Menace of a teenager with a gun? No one knew his age, plenty of guns on the street, that night on both sides !

Instigated the conflict? Every video Every testimony shows him being chased and attacked.

Real people?  Well you got that right no manikins were killed that night. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

After kyle gets acquitted, the next ammosexual incel at a BLM protest will have a quiet blade slipped between his ribs. 

I heard that Gaige Grosskraut only truly became a leftie after he was shot, any truth to that rumor?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Video of that evening did not show peaceful marchers protesting in any organized fashion. That was after-curfew mischief at best and a loose mob looking for targets of opportunity and mayhem when they found KR.

Thats why numty was there playing armed medic and “protecting” gas stations.

It was a bit of a free for all, and the cops took sides as much as they could. 

And Kyle was kind of right, when he said his life was over. His future is no longer under his control: some of his life is in the hands of judge and jury, some is up to the press/media and hashtags, and some is up to the next person he meets and what their politics are. He’s become a football and he’s no longer in control of “his” life the way he was before Kenosha.

Im not surprised he broke down on the stand. He’s under enormous pressure and he’s killed two people under chaotic circumstances. Survivors guilt and natural aversion to killing are just two names for why remorse & grief are part of a normal, healthy reaction.

But his detractors think they are crocodile tears and now even his fans think he’s weak. I just think he’s still in over his head. 

Just like in Kenosha.

I remain pissed at the boys in blue. They did not protect and serve this kid that night, nor those he encountered.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

After kyle gets acquitted, the next ammosexual incel at a BLM protest will have a quiet blade slipped between his ribs. 

You are way off on this one. 

That is not how BLM protests work. 

Not in the slightest. 

Just ask the DOJ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, I'm saying that deliberately killing another person is morally wrong (no particular religion attached), and is also emotional painful to a normally-balanced person.

There are several justifications for killing people. When you're a soldier, when you are defending your own life against a deadly threat, when you are defending your home and family; no need to elaborate with gory adolescent scenarios.

Wait a minute!  I still don't get this.  It's "Justified", but it's still wrong???  I think it's not only justified to defend your own life and the life of others - it's also very right that you/they are alive and the shitbag attackers are not.  

I have no doubt that doing so can be emotionally traumatic.  Nothing unusual about that.  But it doesn't mean that emotional pain means you did something wrong. 

I personally don't subscribe to the common notion in Christianity and other religions that every life is precious and worth saving.  I think there are some vile "humans" out there.... more than we care to admit in fact - that deserve little more than a bullet to the back of the head.  However, the legal and emotional dilemma comes from "who gets to decide".  I don't want that responsibility. So therefore an orderly society generally makes it hard for people to decide on their own who is worthy of living or now, lest we have chaos and anarchy.  However, there comes defining moments - such as being threatened with your own life or the life of loved ones where we DO get to decide.  And should decide in our favor.  There is nothing wrong with feeling remorse over having to use violence to quell violence.  But it doesn't make it morally "wrong", IMHO.  Who among us would hesitate to put a bullet in the back of Hitler's skull if they got the chance?  Or a Pol Pot, or Pincochet, or name any other monster out there.  But there are evil monsters who roam the earth that are not in history books.  Yet.  

Just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'm not surprised.

 

Ars are notoriously spray shot weapons. If you can hit a "man sized target" at 200 M (I doubt it) then you could be taking off a foot, or an ear. That's not really very good.

Would you like to make a bet on that???  And when I say "man sized" target - I am talking about a torso and head only.  No feet, no ears. no legs and arms.... center mass only.  Name your price.  I'll send video evadents and two signed witness statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

After kyle gets acquitted, the next ammosexual incel at a BLM protest will have a quiet blade slipped between his ribs. 

You are way off on this one. 

Nah, I think @MR.CLEAN is correct on this one.  Every once in a while, he's right about something.  

Quote

That is not how BLM protests work. 

Not in the slightest. 

Just ask the DOJ 

remind us skippy, how do BLM protests work.  Do they start with looting first and firebombing second.  Or is it more of a free flow thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

... But given he's alive and the others are not after a 3 vs 1 melee - I'd say his accuracy and handling of the rifle was more than adequate that night.  

Exactly what is wrong with the gun culture.  Two people died as a result of a teenager having easy access to weapons, and the discussion is about the technique with which he dispatched them.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Exactly what is wrong with the gun culture.  Two people died as a result of a teenager having easy access to weapons, and the discussion is about the technique with which he dispatched them. 

American gun idiots regard this as gun control.

 

First Pistol Target.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican whack jobs have so lost their minds they now are defending underage assholes who bring loaded guns to crowds .

 

I grew up in a small town where we brought our guns to school to be taught in hunter safety classes about  firearm safety, care, maintenance, use, and etc. 

NEVER was I ever taught ANYTHING about any possibility where bringing guns to large gatherings of humans was appropriate. 
 

Republicans  have lost their minds!! 
 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Possibly.  But I'd rather be disliked than dead.  Had either of those 3 people who attacked hem been able to get his rifle away from him, that's exactly where'd he be right now.  D-E-D dead.  

Unfortunately, they are not here to tell you what was on their minds.

Disarming an idiot kid and giving him a clip around the ear is a distinct  possibility. But we'll never know because they are dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You must be watching a different trial, because zero of those facts are correct.  Do you ever tire of being wrong??  Just wondering if you have to work at it, or does it just come naturally?

In good faith, and to the best of my knowledge, this is what I have picked up, from the media.

After gunfire in one spot, with two fatalities FFS, the AW guy passes the real EMT (with the Glock holstered in the small of his back), and they had a verbal exchange. 

"You just shot those guys!"m the EMT with two biceps says. Kyle replies to him with a BS denial, while splitting. The EMT guy un-holsters his gun (with no intention to kill, according to himself) and began a vigorous pursuit...to administer aid, according to himself. He catches up with KR, but must throw his arms in the air, since he finds himself facing an AW>. As he does, KR allegedly racks the slide on his gun, and the EMT's next move is the last move before the vaporizer gun is employed. Voila, one bicep now.

And you were wrong up=thread. your ears were boxed by @Cal20sailor..

Spool it up, mate. Give us the color commentary, on all the gun mayhem, in this OK Corral situation. But Kyle smells like a roaming Americana nightmare to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You probably don't get the irony in your post at all, joe.  It seems like a well trained citizen armed with an AR-15 stopped an obviously dangerous man from doing further harm.  But because the other cop was incompetent and poorly trained we must.... BAN ALL ASSAULT RIFLES NOW!!!!

So a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun.  And unfortunately a stupid cop then stopped the good guys.  But shirly, banning all assault rifles now (TM @Burning Man) will prevent future cops from killing heros with handguns.  

What a mess. Cop shoots a good guy... one who is fondling a crime scene weapon, after killing a perp.

Again, what a mess. What a predictable mess.

This very situation was predicted during the Supreme Court arguments last Wednesday. The statement was made before the SC that LE does not want crime scenes littered up by well-intentioned good guys with guns. The presentation was made that LE does not favor PTC, accordingly.

We will have the opportunity to discuss this again.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burning Man said:

 

remind us skippy, how do BLM protests work.  Do they start with looting first and firebombing second.  Or is it more of a free flow thing.

??? Fluff again? Some PUI? Racial animus? What?

The empirical evidence is that 93-97% of BLM activity has been peaceful. 

BLM and Floyd protests were largely peaceful, research finds - CSMonitor.com

 

A ridealong, Jeff with dana.JPG

A RIDEALONG with The Jeffie Anti Rape Squad.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

No, I'm saying that deliberately killing another person is morally wrong (no particular religion attached), and is also emotional painful to a normally-balanced person.

I would agree with you. But I have to take issue with how you’ve framed events.

Do you think Kyle’s shooting and killing & oundimg others that evening meet a generally accepted definition of the word “deliberately”?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

I would agree with you. But I have to take issue with how you’ve framed events.

Do you think Kyle’s shooting and killing & oundimg others that evening meet a generally accepted definition of the word “deliberately”?

Yes.

All he had to do, if he truly did not want to shoot anyone, is not bring a gun. Easy.

IMHO if he had not brought a firearm, he almost certainly would not have been singled out by those demonstrators and attacked. They would not have seen him as a deadly threat to themselves.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

In good faith, and to the best of my knowledge, this is what I have picked up, from the media.

After gunfire in one spot, with two fatalities FFS, the AW guy passes the real EMT (with the Glock holstered in the small of his back), and they had a verbal exchange. 

"You just shot those guys!"m the EMT with two biceps says. Kyle replies to him with a BS denial, while splitting. The EMT guy un-holsters his gun (with no intention to kill, according to himself) and began a vigorous pursuit...to administer aid, according to himself. He catches up with KR, but must throw his arms in the air, since he finds himself facing an AW>. As he does, KR allegedly racks the slide on his gun, and the EMT's next move is the last move before the vaporizer gun is employed. Voila, one bicep now.

And you were wrong up=thread. your ears were boxed by @Cal20sailor..

Spool it up, mate. Give us the color commentary, on all the gun mayhem, in this OK Corral situation. But Kyle smells like a roaming Americana nightmare to me.

Pretty much wrong on all the key points.  Says a lot about your Media  sources and explains why there will be lawsuits filed after the trial.    
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes.

All he had to do, if he truly did not want to shoot anyone, is not bring a gun. Easy.

IMHO if he had not brought a firearm, he almost certainly would not have been singled out by those demonstrators and attacked. They would not have seen him as a deadly threat to themselves.

- DSK

You are therefore describing carrying a weapon as “deliberately” killing someone.

Video evidence of his actions are therefore irrelevant?

And anyone walking our streets with a firearm is just as guilty as Kyle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

You are therefore describing carrying a weapon as “deliberately” killing someone.

Video evidence of his actions are therefore irrelevant?

And anyone walking our streets with a firearm is just as guilty as Kyle?

Not at all. Not everyone who carries a gun kills another person, or even shoots -at- another person, or even fires at all.

However carrying a gun demonstrates the intention to hold that threat over others.

Think for a second, why did all those guys line up to get their photo taken with their guns? Why did they think that being seen holding guns would help them "protect property?" 

Because they were holding the threat of death to others.

If you don't want to shoot anybody, don't bring a gun. Lots of people did it that day.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Raz'r said:

You never answered the question:  would you feel the same if one-arm was charged and Rittenhouse was dead? Hell, I’d say they never would have charged him. We WANT people to take down active  shooters. Just, now, active shooters get to claim self defense. Well, it’s the law, so I guess it’s ok.

What is your quesiton?

The testimony showed that Rittnehouse was not an "active shooter."  He only shot when being attacked and even then at the very last minute.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not at all. Not everyone who carries a gun kills another person, or even shoots -at- another person, or even fires at all.

However carrying a gun demonstrates the intention to hold that threat over others.

Think for a second, why did all those guys line up to get their photo taken with their guns? Why did they think that being seen holding guns would help them "protect property?" 

Because they were holding the threat of death to others.

If you don't want to shoot anybody, don't bring a gun. Lots of people did it that day.

- DSK

 

Once you carry a firearm in public you void your rights to self defense?

Any use of your gun is therefore unjustified? The only value of a gun is to threaten others?

 

Your opinions are completely wrong according to federal and state gun laws. You are entitled to them, but would need to set them aside in order to be the member of a jury considering such a case.

You know this, right?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Once you carry a firearm in public you void your rights to self defense?

Any use of your gun is therefore unjustified? The only value of a gun is to threaten others?

 

Your opinions are completely wrong according to federal and state gun laws. You are entitled to them, but would need to set them aside in order to be the member of a jury considering such a case.

You know this, right?

It looks to me like you're really straining to avoid seeing my point, so I will try to explain better.

The value of a gun is similar to the value of a battleship, on a smaller scale. To hold the threat of death over other people who would otherwise threaten harm. If you know the slightest amount of history, you know this does not always work smoothly.

If you DON'T carry a gun, you are not threatening others with shooting them. That means THEY will not have any justification in defending themselves against you.

This is nothing new. I was told from a very early age, by a family that was very familiar with firearms, hunting, military, and gun culture in general, DO NOT EVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE. Unless of course you are going to shoot them, in which case do so quickly before they shoot you. Kyle seems to have missed this lesson.

If you're openly carrying a gun, you're a threat to others. If they shoot you, they are defending themselves.

Why was Kyle singled out to be attacked by the BLM demonstrators? Lots of other guys were carrying guns that day & evening.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

 

Nice  deflection to it’s the judge.   The prosecutor knows the case is lost so he was trying to force a mistrial.  The judge was spot on for getting upset.   He ruled a few hours earlier that all his rulings on these issues would stand.  So the prosecutor starts off by talking about the defendants post incident silence.  Against the constitution and as the judge said has not been allowed for  40/50 years.  Prosecution 101.   Then the prosecutor deliberately starts to talk about a prior event  already ruled inadmissible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It looks to me like you're really straining to avoid seeing my point, so I will try to explain better.

The value of a gun is similar to the value of a battleship, on a smaller scale. To hold the threat of death over other people who would otherwise threaten harm. If you know the slightest amount of history, you know this does not always work smoothly.

If you DON'T carry a gun, you are not threatening others with shooting them. That means THEY will not have any justification in defending themselves against you.

This is nothing new. I was told from a very early age, by a family that was very familiar with firearms, hunting, military, and gun culture in general, DO NOT EVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE. Unless of course you are going to shoot them, in which case do so quickly before they shoot you. Kyle seems to have missed this lesson.

If you're openly carrying a gun, you're a threat to others. If they shoot you, they are defending themselves.

Why was Kyle singled out to be attacked by the BLM demonstrators? Lots of other guys were carrying guns that day & evening.

- DSK

What a load of crap.  Obviously you haven’t watched the trial.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If you're openly carrying a gun, you're a threat to others. If they shoot you, they are defending themselves.

Why was Kyle singled out to be attacked by the BLM demonstrators? Lots of other guys were carrying guns that day & evening.

- DSK

This is probably the single dumbest post in this thread.   People regularly open carry in Wisconsin, and you can't just go up and shot them.  

Why was Kyle singled out? 

Because he was alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jzk said:

   People regularly open carry in Wisconsin, and you can't just go up and shot them.  

Just to clarify, no we don’t. Excluding police officers and hunters, I’ve seen a grand total of ONE person open carrying in Wisconsin in my entire life, and I’ve lived here all but five years of it. The nut jobs bringing weapons to Trump, BLM, NRA, etc. events are anomalies, not the norm. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monkey said:

Just to clarify, no we don’t. Excluding police officers and hunters, I’ve seen a grand total of ONE person open carrying in Wisconsin in my entire life, and I’ve lived here all but five years of it. The nut jobs bringing weapons to Trump, BLM, NRA, etc. events are anomalies, not the norm. 

Just to clarify your statement, you have no right to shoot someone in Wisconsin that is open carrying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jzk said:

Just to clarify your statement, you have no right to shoot someone in Wisconsin that is open carrying.

No he’s right I’ve been there over the years never seen open carry.   Although they do consider opening day, of deer season a state holiday.  

I did a race in Wi years ago, maybe Racine and they were using a shotgun, as the starting gun.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Wait a minute!  I still don't get this.  It's "Justified", but it's still wrong???  I think it's not only justified to defend your own life and the life of others - it's also very right that you/they are alive and the shitbag attackers are not.  

I have no doubt that doing so can be emotionally traumatic.  Nothing unusual about that.  But it doesn't mean that emotional pain means you did something wrong. 

I personally don't subscribe to the common notion in Christianity and other religions that every life is precious and worth saving.  I think there are some vile "humans" out there.... more than we care to admit in fact - that deserve little more than a bullet to the back of the head.  However, the legal and emotional dilemma comes from "who gets to decide".  I don't want that responsibility. So therefore an orderly society generally makes it hard for people to decide on their own who is worthy of living or now, lest we have chaos and anarchy.  However, there comes defining moments - such as being threatened with your own life or the life of loved ones where we DO get to decide.  And should decide in our favor.  There is nothing wrong with feeling remorse over having to use violence to quell violence.  But it doesn't make it morally "wrong", IMHO.  Who among us would hesitate to put a bullet in the back of Hitler's skull if they got the chance?  Or a Pol Pot, or Pincochet, or name any other monster out there.  But there are evil monsters who roam the earth that are not in history books.  Yet.  

Just saying.

For context, what's your personal body count?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

No he’s right I’ve been there over the years never seen open carry.   Although they do consider opening day, of deer season a state holiday.  

I did a race in Wi years ago, maybe Racine and they were using a shotgun, as the starting gun.  

My family has had property in Kenosha County for 50 years.  I spent my summers growing up there.  I have seen plenty of people open carrying there.  I never felt that I could shoot the person open carrying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jzk said:

My family has had property in Kenosha County for 50 years.  I spent my summers growing up there.  I have seen plenty of people open carrying there.  I never felt that I could shoot the person open carrying.

But what do you do when the person open carrying points the gun at you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sail611 said:

But what do you do when the person open carrying points the gun at you?

Better aim well. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Isn't that the lesson from this?  /s

Sorry, forgot sarcasm font. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It looks to me like you're really straining to avoid seeing my point, so I will try to explain better.

The value of a gun is similar to the value of a battleship, on a smaller scale. To hold the threat of death over other people who would otherwise threaten harm. If you know the slightest amount of history, you know this does not always work smoothly.

If you DON'T carry a gun, you are not threatening others with shooting them. That means THEY will not have any justification in defending themselves against you.

This is nothing new. I was told from a very early age, by a family that was very familiar with firearms, hunting, military, and gun culture in general, DO NOT EVER POINT A GUN AT ANYONE. Unless of course you are going to shoot them, in which case do so quickly before they shoot you. Kyle seems to have missed this lesson.

If you're openly carrying a gun, you're a threat to others. If they shoot you, they are defending themselves.

Why was Kyle singled out to be attacked by the BLM demonstrators? Lots of other guys were carrying guns that day & evening.

- DSK

Just to confirm: nothing about your opinion and verbiage on this issue is your understanding of laws regulating the legal and illegal use of guns, right?

This is just you talking about the morality of carrying firearms in public?

In other words, we are discussing the mindset of those choosing to open carry, not about the actual laws governing their actions in context of events which transpire.

In this case, you hold Kyle morally responsible for the injuries and deaths associated with his decision to open carry, regardless of the outcome of his trial.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

Just to confirm: nothing about your opinion and verbiage on this issue is your understanding of laws regulating the legal and illegal use of guns, right?

This is just you talking about the morality of carrying firearms in public?

In other words, we are discussing the mindset of those choosing to open carry, not about the actual laws governing their actions in context of events which transpire.

In this case, you hold Kyle morally responsible for the injuries and deaths associated with his decision to open carry, regardless of the outcome of his trial.

The actual laws reflect that carrying a firearm, and especially pointing it at people, is a deadly threat. This could easily be a trial of Mr One-Arm Pistol Guy for shooting Kyle.

And yes, I do hold Kyle morally responsible. As should everybody.

- DSK

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The actual laws reflect that carrying a firearm, and especially pointing it at people, is a deadly threat. This could easily be a trial of Mr One-Arm Pistol Guy for shooting Kyle.

And yes, I do hold Kyle morally responsible. As should everybody.

- DSK

Open carrying a firearm itself is not a deady threat to anyone.  

Kyle had a moral responsiblity to defend his life, and he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Elegua said:

Well, better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Isn't that the lesson from this? 

I think the actual lesson is that minors should not acquire high powered rifles, then drive miles from their homes to take those rifles to a protest.  

There are rights, and with those rights come responsibilities.  Everyone supporting KR has seemed to neglect that point.  

KR put himself into a position where he would have to defend himself, because he was illegally carrying a firearm, and being an asshole about it.

Once he put himself into that position, he apparently does have the right to defend himself.

However, what is being overlooked is that while KR ended up in a (self imposed) position to exercise his right, he absolutely had the responsibility not to.  

Y'all ever been skiing?  Taken a fall and had to go to ski patrol?  One of the things they ask you is "How could you have prevented this from happening?"

So let's apply that to KR.  How could he have prevented this from happening?  He could have stayed home.  He could have attended the protest, but not brought a gun.  He could have attended a protest, with a gun, but not pointed it people, thus instigating violence.

The lengths some of you are going to, to avoid KR's responsibility in this thing is actually quite astounding.

Or does personal responsibility not matter anymore?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sail611 said:

I think the actual lesson is that minors should not acquire high powered rifles, then drive miles from their homes to take those rifles to a protest.  

There are rights, and with those rights come responsibilities.  Everyone supporting KR has seemed to neglect that point.  

KR put himself into a position where he would have to defend himself, because he was illegally carrying a firearm, and being an asshole about it.

Once he put himself into that position, he apparently does have the right to defend himself.

However, what is being overlooked is that while KR ended up in a (self imposed) position to exercise his right, he absolutely had the responsibility not to.  

Y'all ever been skiing?  Taken a fall and had to go to ski patrol?  One of the things they ask you is "How could you have prevented this from happening?"

So let's apply that to KR.  How could he have prevented this from happening?  He could have stayed home.  He could have attended the protest, but not brought a gun.  He could have attended a protest, with a gun, but not pointed it people, thus instigating violence.

The lengths some of you are going to, to avoid KR's responsibility in this thing is actually quite astounding.

Or does personal responsibility not matter anymore?

How far can armed minors drive from their homes?  Is 1 mile ok?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Elegua said:

Better aim well. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6? Isn't that the lesson from this?  /s

Sorry, forgot sarcasm font. 

That’s not sarcasm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The actual laws reflect that carrying a firearm, and especially pointing it at people, is a deadly threat. This could easily be a trial of Mr One-Arm Pistol Guy for shooting Kyle.

And yes, I do hold Kyle morally responsible. As should everybody.

- DSK

If one-arm had shot Kyle, no trial. EMT taking out an active shooter.

just like the cop killing the hero upthread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sail611 said:

I think the actual lesson is that minors should not acquire high powered rifles, then drive miles from their homes to take those rifles to a protest.  

There are rights, and with those rights come responsibilities.  Everyone supporting KR has seemed to neglect that point.  

KR put himself into a position where he would have to defend himself, because he was illegally carrying a firearm, and being an asshole about it.

Once he put himself into that position, he apparently does have the right to defend himself.

However, what is being overlooked is that while KR ended up in a (self imposed) position to exercise his right, he absolutely had the responsibility not to.  

Y'all ever been skiing?  Taken a fall and had to go to ski patrol?  One of the things they ask you is "How could you have prevented this from happening?"

So let's apply that to KR.  How could he have prevented this from happening?  He could have stayed home.  He could have attended the protest, but not brought a gun.  He could have attended a protest, with a gun, but not pointed it people, thus instigating violence.

The lengths some of you are going to, to avoid KR's responsibility in this thing is actually quite astounding.

Or does personal responsibility not matter anymore?

Personal responsibility is not the law in Wisconsin. Shoot if in fear, is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The actual laws reflect that carrying a firearm, and especially pointing it at people, is a deadly threat. This could easily be a trial of Mr One-Arm Pistol Guy for shooting Kyle.

And yes, I do hold Kyle morally responsible. As should everybody.

- DSK

So, you are saying that all the people who Kyle pointed his illegal weapon at, would have been protected by the law, if they killed Kyle?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Voyageur said:

So, you are saying that all the people who Kyle pointed his illegal weapon at, would have been protected by the law, if they killed Kyle?

Pretty much. Wisconsin law. We didn’t write it. Especially after he had already shot a couple guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites