B-Man Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 Dealing with the Aftermath of a Defensive Shooting. “Even in a lawful defensive shooting, the armed citizen may be arrested. He or she will certainly be questioned at length concerning the incident. And, let’s face reality, they may be the victim of a prosecutor who may desire to charge them in spite of the fact that their actions were lawful. I am not saying that this always happens, but it can and does happen and a smart person will plan for the worst.” https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/dealing-with-the-aftermath-of-a-defensive-shooting/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 10 minutes ago, BillStime said: Exactly my reaction to you... -3 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 Hopefully the jury ends "deliberating" (this was a slam-dunk for the defense, who are we kidding?) and comes back tomorrow early morning with their not guilty verdict. That way any/all protesting will start during daylight and not when it's dark. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 (edited) 5 hours ago, BillStime said: How many other people died that night outside of Rittenhouse victims and the police shooting of Jacob Blake? And regarding self defense - no else should have feared a kid running around with an AR-15? My point is city and state officials repealed the rule of law when they consciously decided not to enforce it because of favored causes and groups and looked the other way as looters and rioters rampaged through the city. All they had to do was let the police do their jobs. The bloods on the hands of the mayor and governor. How can you break the law when there is no law to break? As the mayor decided not to enforce the law. They could have stopped any violence and injuries from happening simply by doing their jobs correctly. The question is have the idiots running the city and the state learned their lesson? Are they going to let rioters run free to pillage and burn the city again if the verdict is innocent? It wouldn't surprise me. Edited November 17, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 13 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: My point is city and state officials repealed the rule of law when they consciously decided not to enforce it because of favored causes and groups and looked the other way as looters and rioters rampaged through the city. All they had to do was let the police do their jobs. The bloods on the hands of the mayor and governor. How can you break the law when there is no law to break? As the mayor decided not to enforce the law. They could have stopped any violence and injuries from happening simply by doing their jobs correctly. The question is have the idiots running the city and the state learned their lesson? Are they going to let rioters run free to pillage and burn the city again if the verdict is innocent? It wouldn't surprise me. Can you source where the city and state repealed the rule of law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 A Reality Check for Progressives on the Rittenhouse Case: “In these and many other instances [of armed self-defense during the summer 2020 riots], there is not a white nationalist, or a vigilante, in sight. Just people, usually local residents, trying to protect their neighborhoods from chaos and destruction while the police stood down, usually on orders from superiors.” https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/17/a-reality-check-for-progressives-on-the-rittenhouse-case/?comments=true#comment-9213939 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 * Reminder: Thread title is incorrect. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 1 hour ago, B-Man said: * Reminder: Thread title is incorrect. I'm not going to comment on the guilt or innocence of Kyle Rittenhouse because I'm torn. But the fact that these ***** destroyed businesses like this "just because" pisses me of like you wouldn't believe. 😡 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Chef Jim said: I'm not going to comment on the guilt or innocence of Kyle Rittenhouse because I'm torn. But the fact that these ***** destroyed businesses like this "just because" pisses me of like you wouldn't believe. 😡 Out of curiosity, what are you torn about? It seems to be a clear case of self defense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 18 minutes ago, Westside said: Out of curiosity, what are you torn about? It seems to be a clear case of self defense. I have a huge problem with a kid walking around with a AR-15. Who's to say the Kyle wasn't getting the ***** kicked out of him by others to defend themselves against someone with an AR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 6 hours ago, B-Man said: I can see the judge granting a mistrial if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict. He doesn't want to throw this out himself, and is hoping to get bailed out by the jury. I do feel that the jury is also is trying to find evidence to convict Kyle of something so they won't get targeted by the mob. There shouldn't be this much deliberation, considering the facts of the case, and especially If they have to review a grainy video; that's already reasonable doubt. Shouldn't convict if you have to guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. What it doesn't say is that we have the right to use them... (loophole!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 28 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I have a huge problem with a kid walking around with a AR-15. Who's to say the Kyle wasn't getting the ***** kicked out of him by others to defend themselves against someone with an AR. If that's their motivation/excuse, they're idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Buffalo Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 30 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I have a huge problem with a kid walking around with a AR-15. Who's to say the Kyle wasn't getting the ***** kicked out of him by others to defend themselves against someone with an AR. The kid is stupid l, which is not in doubt in my mind, but the question is about murder, which he shot people who were over him and pointing guns at him, so definitely self defense. The people he shot were the aggressors initially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Doc said: If that's their motivation/excuse, they're idiots. Let me ask you. Do you think anyone would attempt to confront and disarm someone they saw walking down the street with an AR? 2 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: The kid is stupid l, which is not in doubt in my mind, but the question is about murder, which he shot people who were over him and pointing guns at him, so definitely self defense. The people he shot were the aggressors initially. I have not followed this too closely because I stopped paying attention to the circus when I was a kid but which confrontation came first? The guy with the skateboard or the guy with the gun? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 6 hours ago, B-Man said: A Reality Check for Progressives on the Rittenhouse Case: “In these and many other instances [of armed self-defense during the summer 2020 riots], there is not a white nationalist, or a vigilante, in sight. Just people, usually local residents, trying to protect their neighborhoods from chaos and destruction while the police stood down, usually on orders from superiors.” https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/17/a-reality-check-for-progressives-on-the-rittenhouse-case/?comments=true#comment-9213939 This is why the left has tried relentlessly to define white supremacist as anyone who disagrees with their radical views. Actual white supremacists are an almost non existent portion the US population. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 MMMMMMHMMMMMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 41 minutes ago, Chef Jim said: I have a huge problem with a kid walking around with a AR-15. Who's to say the Kyle wasn't getting the ***** kicked out of him by others to defend themselves against someone with an AR. The video shows otherwise. He wasnt walking around with his AR looking to pick people off or start with them. Who in their right mind tries to defend themselves vs someone with an AR who isn’t threatening them? That’s the definition of stupid, which these knuckleheads who tried to take out Rittenhouse most definitely were. He wasn’t on the side of the lawless rioters and they wanted to kill him because of that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts