Amateur Hour Continues

#34,251
#34,251
evillawyer said:
Let me buy this gun with a government check. Can't have socialism coming to 'Murica!

Click to expand...


Kenosha man who allegedly bought Kyle Rittenhouse gun used in shootings faces charges
Dominick David Black allegedly admitted to purchasing the weapon with Rittenhouse's money and put it under his own name

Per Fox "News"
 
#34,253
#34,253
MontyPython said:
Kenosha man who allegedly bought Kyle Rittenhouse gun used in shootings faces charges
Dominick David Black allegedly admitted to purchasing the weapon with Rittenhouse's money and put it under his own name

Per Fox "News"
Click to expand...

"Mo guns=Mo safe" -- 95% of VolNation
 
#34,256
#34,256
1972 Grad said:
There shouldn't be a need to be there.
Click to expand...

There *wasn't* a need for Rittenhouse to be there. It is 100% illegally to use deadly force to protect *property*. Him being there with an AR15 was inherently wrong.

Mobs wanna do mob stuff and burn it all down, have at it! Cops exist to prevent this and to arrest those who do so, NOT vigilantes.

At the end of the day, stuff is replaceable... the 2 people he killed ain't never coming back.
 
#34,258
#34,258
MontyPython said:
There *wasn't* a need for Rittenhouse to be there. It is 100% illegally to use deadly force to protect *property*. Him being there with an AR15 was inherently wrong.

Mobs wanna do mob stuff and burn it all down, have at it! Cops exist to prevent this and to arrest those who do so, NOT vigilantes.

At the end of the day, stuff is replaceable... the 2 people he killed ain't never coming back.
Click to expand...
If you people would stop burning businesses down and beating people in the streets there would not be a need to protect these places
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#34,261
#34,261
MontyPython said:
There *wasn't* a need for Rittenhouse to be there. It is 100% illegally to use deadly force to protect *property*. Him being there with an AR15 was inherently wrong.

Mobs wanna do mob stuff and burn it all down, have at it! Cops exist to prevent this and to arrest those who do so, NOT vigilantes.

At the end of the day, stuff is replaceable... the 2 people he killed ain't never coming back.
Click to expand...

Those two idiots that thought chasing a guy holding an AR in his hands was a good idea , should have used common sense . They seem to have lacked that capability , so natural selection corrected the problem .
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz
#34,262
#34,262
MontyPython said:
There *wasn't* a need for Rittenhouse to be there. It is 100% illegally to use deadly force to protect *property*. Him being there with an AR15 was inherently wrong.

Mobs wanna do mob stuff and burn it all down, have at it! Cops exist to prevent this and to arrest those who do so, NOT vigilantes.

At the end of the day, stuff is replaceable... the 2 people he killed ain't never coming back.
Click to expand...
Seems you still haven't watched the videos. He defended himself against physical attacks from multiple assailants. The dead guys should have probably made better life choices. They'd likely still be alive

It's been repeated ad nauseum but cops have no duty to protect anyone. They fought that requirement
 
#34,263
#34,263
1972 Grad said:
The "property" he used deadly force to protect was his own life, not the car dealership.
Click to expand...

Your circular argument is fundamentally flawed: By your logic, Rittenhouse had the right to use deadly force because he wrongly put himself in a situation where he:

(1) Shot someone while "protecting" a car dealership (which, by law, he had *zero legal right* to use deadly force to protect); then
(2) Shot another person because he was threatened by the resulting mob that ID'd him as the shooter of his first victim.

So, by your logic, I have the right to gun up with an AR15, stroll down to my nearby 7/11, shoot anyone that "threatened" me or the store, then shoot anyone else who "threatened" me by trying to apprehend me, because I was just protecting my own life.

It's an inane argument. Rittenhouse is a murderer. Plain and simple.
 
#34,264
#34,264
MontyPython said:
Your circular argument is fundamentally flawed: By your logic, Rittenhouse had the right to use deadly force because he wrongly put himself in a situation where he:

(1) Shot someone while "protecting" a car dealership (which, by law, he had *zero legal right* to use deadly force to protect); then
(2) Shot another person because he was threatened by the resulting mob that ID'd him as the shooter.

So, by your logic, I have the right to gun up with an AR15, stroll down to my nearby 7/11, shoot anyone that "threatened" me or the store, then shoot anyone else who "threatened" me by trying to apprehend me, because I was just protecting my own life.

It's an inane argument. Rittenhouse is a murderer. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Wanna bet he gets convicted of murder, Your Honor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#34,265
#34,265
MontyPython said:
Your circular argument is fundamentally flawed: By your logic, Rittenhouse had the right to use deadly force because he wrongly put himself in a situation where he:

(1) Shot someone while "protecting" a car dealership (which, by law, he had *zero legal right* to use deadly force to protect); then
(2) Shot another person because he was threatened by the resulting mob that ID'd him as the shooter of his first victim.

So, by your logic, I have the right to gun up with an AR15, stroll down to my nearby 7/11, shoot anyone that "threatened" me or the store, then shoot anyone else who "threatened" me by trying to apprehend me, because I was just protecting my own life.

It's an inane argument. Rittenhouse is a murderer. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Your #1 is completely wrong. He ran away from a threat who continued to pursue him and attempted to take his gun. This is backed by video evidence and you've been corrected many times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz, Sandman 423, 0nelilreb and 2 others
#34,267
#34,267
MontyPython said:
Your circular argument is fundamentally flawed: By your logic, Rittenhouse had the right to use deadly force because he wrongly put himself in a situation where he:

(1) Shot someone while "protecting" a car dealership (which, by law, he had *zero legal right* to use deadly force to protect); then
(2) Shot another person because he was threatened by the resulting mob that ID'd him as the shooter of his first victim.

So, by your logic, I have the right to gun up with an AR15, stroll down to my nearby 7/11, shoot anyone that "threatened" me or the store, then shoot anyone else who "threatened" me by trying to apprehend me, because I was just protecting my own life.

It's an inane argument. Rittenhouse is a murderer. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

You are not even in the same ball park . You are still trying to make his defense of himself being chased by multiple people about the property . I’m starting to think that mask you wear all the time is depriving your noodle of some much needed oxygen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423 and NorthDallas40
#34,270
#34,270
utvolpj said:
Your #1 is completely wrong. He ran away from a threat who continued to pursue him and attempted to take his gun. This is backed by video evidence and you've been corrected many times.
Click to expand...

I've seen the video of the 1st shooting. It's unclear to me what happened. The State has declared that Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse. There are divergent claims about whether Rosenbaum tried to take Rittenhouse's guns, so I suspect witness testimony from 3rd parties may dictate the degree to whether Rittenhouse was truly acting in self-defense.

As for the 2nd shooting, that was very clear what happened. And, yeah, I suspect a jury would find that Rittenhouse had the right to act in "self-defense" to shoot those physically attacking him.

But, I will say this: All of this should be viewed through the prism of whether Rittenhouse should have even been there in the first place. A 17-year old illegally toting an AR15 with live rounds to "protect" an auto dealership of no relationship to him in a different state than where he lived. Come on. Militia mentality has no place in our society. He deserves time behind bars, but he'll avoid a murder rap.
 
#34,273
#34,273
MontyPython said:
I've seen the video of the 1st shooting. It's unclear to me what happened. The State has declared that Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse. There are divergent claims about whether Rosenbaum tried to take Rittenhouse's guns, so I suspect witness testimony from 3rd parties may dictate the degree to whether Rittenhouse was truly acting in self-defense.
Click to expand...
you mean you saw a guy running away from another man who was screaming at him and still believe he was"defending property?"

You're likely watching the wrong video and not eating the statements of those who witnessed the event

MontyPython said:
But, I will say this: All of this should be viewed through the prism of whether Rittenhouse should have even been there in the first place. A 17-year old illegally toting an AR15 with live rounds to "protect" an auto dealership of no relationship to him in a different state than where he lived. Come on. Militia mentality has no place in our society. He deserves time behind bars, but he'll avoid a murder rap.
Click to expand...
Except that's not how it works. No one gets to assault me just because they think I don't belong in a place. He'll get convicted of a gun charge and spend little to no time in jail. The others made their choice to assault a guy with a gun and paid the price. Hopefully others use this as a learning moment and don't make such bad choices
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top