Reply With Quote
Dear God I heard theyll be bringing zipties
National Guard deployed in case there is a guilty verdict and repugs riot.
Dear God I heard theyll be bringing zipties
Why would a 17yo drop his weapon to fist fight an adult with a history of molesting children?
He turned and pointed his gun at the person attacking and the person kept running towards him.
He was trying to avoid using his gun. Thanks for recognizing the extreme measures he took to avoid using his gun.
I think it's a good thing he gets off not guilty of all charges
Brings us one step closer to a black kid going blood ocean on richie maga kids
At what time does BLM start liberating all those oppressed Plasma TV's today?
That's blackletter law you moron
"You lose the right to self defense when you are the one that brought the gun."
because use of DEADLY FORCE demands it
he had many many options - BEFORE deadly force
use the weapon to smash the guys face who was approaching/chasing him
Fight the guy
Ordering the dude to stop or die
among other -LESS THAN DEADLY - options
even cops would get prosecuted if they just shot an unarmed man 4 times
without trying to apprehend the dude, using a taser, nightstick, pepper spray, etc
there are other less than lethal options BEFORE deadly force but this pussy just murdered the guy- end of story
What are some of the other options?
Pointing a gun at the jury with your finger on the trigger.
Good guy Kyle was just protecting his community.
Asked by whom?
The general advocacy of 2A supporters is that more armed people is better and guns are always the solution, not the problem (good guy with a gun, people kill people, etc), so I would say that the suggestion is pretty real.
I personally have no problem with the 2A, and I actually support it for self/family-protection, but I also think some degree of regulation is warranted as well (and that's where I part ways with the general advocacy).
Hey, I'm discussing it. I'm not here to defend RG, he can do that himself. I'm just stating what I understood that comment to mean, which seemed pretty clear to me when I read it, and it goes to the general advocacy I mention above.
Is it a tangent though? You brought up the analogy with driving, not me.
Take it easy on Nathan, tbh, he's very emotional about this stuff...
He could have -
manned the up and defended himself without even using his crutch
or else
stay the out of an event where violent idiots were out and up to no good
but he thought he was a badass until he started running away like a little
all is fair though - dumb got shot and is dead-
pussy got caught and should go to prison for decades
In the end he defended himself and quite effectively tbh
Another strawman, since that's the left's version of what 2A supporters believe. (amazing that the 2nd Amendment to Bill of Rights can be characterized as having "supporters" and non supporters. What other Amendment has that distinction?)
As a 2A supporter (along with 1A and the rest of the BoR), I don't want everyone to have a gun. I think everyone who's legally and cons utionally clear to own a firearm should have that choice. I also don't think guns are always the solution. I think they are rarely the solution.
So you're one of those 2A supporters you just mentioned above that thinks more armed people is better? Of course not, but then why did you separate yourself from your "general advocacy" statement above? General advocacy is what I stated. Only gun retailers think everyone should own a gun. The rest of us would prefer it was only us.I personally have no problem with the 2A, and I actually support it for self/family-protection, but I also think some degree of regulation is warranted as well (and that's where I part ways with the general advocacy).
Left wing Poster A makes sloppy, broad brush comment, gets called out. (RG)Hey, I'm discussing it. I'm not here to defend RG, he can do that himself. I'm just stating what I understood that comment to mean, which seemed pretty clear to me when I read it, and it goes to the general advocacy I mention above.
Left wing Poster A makes a sloppy retort in defense (RG didn't return lol)
Left wing Poster B shows up and makes a different defense, gets called out for the original claim (I think that's you this time, El. )
Left wing Poster B denies ever making the original claim, even though poster B is defending it (right on cue tbh)
Left wing Poster C shows up, defends original claim, defends poster B
Left wing Poster C gets called out, denies caring about the original claim, denies supporting Poster B, still wants a back and forth about the original claim. (or we could be here, I cannot recall)
Left wing Poster D shows up, posts a strawman meme about the attack on the original claim
The responses pretty much cease because of the web of that's developed,
Left wing Poster E calls fold
rinse and repeat
Sorry to drop that here, but you started by saying RG's broad brush wasn't a strawman, and that "everyone" wasn't infants and convicts. I wasn't even considering that level of pedantry. Now you're saying you want to ignore RG's comment and talk instead about the analogy of a strawman.
It was an analogy of using a strawman (see above).Is it a tangent though? You brought up the analogy with driving, not me.
I should have added at the end of that "Boutons drops 5 or 10 consecutive copypasta liberal rag occupy democrats articles, thread is dead.
FINALLY!
Prosecutor FINALLY making the correct argument;
DEADLY FORCE can ONLY be used when a reasonable person thinks he is in danger of IMMINENT DEATH OR BODILY HARM
not some unarmed midget chasing him
Bodily harm is the kicker, you don't even need the "death" comment.
But you're one of those assholes who hope for results based outcomes, not justice. You need to add to the scoreboard.
so your boy kyle did not have a legal reason to start unloading his mag
thanks!
I think you're wrong, and it's obvious you're not concerned with the law here.
Yeah pretty clear when that dude pointed his glock at his face he had the right to blow off his bicep
He's referring to Rosenbaum a couple minutes earlier. They will have to rely on forensic evidence and expert testimony on the ballistics to determine the position of Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse discharged his firearm. I believe he was horizontal, or near horizontal indicating he was lunging toward Kyle. You cannot determine the extent of the bodily harm someone wants to inflict on you, but knowing you are armed and if you go down, perhaps they are now armed, that factors in just as it does with officers. Plus there was a mob.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
