The Statement
-
I am sure the situation with the shooting is not as simple as people want to say. I am sure it was not a vigilante, and I am sure that it was not 100% self-defense.
But one thing is for certain. Same as it was for Mr. Blake, and Mr. Floyd, and this guy.
They made some really bad choices to even put themselves in the situation where there are a good chance of bad things happening.
-
I am sure the situation with the shooting is not as simple as people want to say. I am sure it was not a vigilante, and I am sure that it was not 100% self-defense.
But one thing is for certain. Same as it was for Mr. Blake, and Mr. Floyd, and this guy.
They made some really bad choices to even put themselves in the situation where there are a good chance of bad things happening.
@taiwan_girl said in The Statement:
I am sure the situation with the shooting is not as simple as people want to say. I am sure it was not a vigilante, and I am sure that it was not 100% self-defense.
He was attacked from behind, having just heard gunshots. That's reasonable fear for your life.
They made some really bad choices to even put themselves in the situation where there are a good chance of bad things happening.
IOW they were "asking for it?"
But, as the NRO article said in it's last sentence on the subject, "Where the f*** were the parents?"
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Statement:
I am sure the situation with the shooting is not as simple as people want to say. I am sure it was not a vigilante, and I am sure that it was not 100% self-defense.
He was attacked from behind, having just heard gunshots. That's reasonable fear for your life.
They made some really bad choices to even put themselves in the situation where there are a good chance of bad things happening.
IOW they were "asking for it?"
But, as the NRO article said in it's last sentence on the subject, "Where the f*** were the parents?"
@George-K said in The Statement:
IOW they were "asking for it?"
I think that "asking for it" is too strong.
But if Mr. Floyed had not resisted arrest, if Mr. Blake did not walk away from the police, if Mr.Rittenhouse wasn't going around with a loaded gun in an area with high tempers, etc, what happened to those three guys would not have happened.
The result should not have happened - so many lives changed for the worst. But, in these three case, each of them have some of the blame (no matter how small or how large that amount is.)
That does not excuse the final result for each of them however.
-
There's no such thing as 90% self defense. You either need to defend yourself or you don't. So yes, it was 100% self defense.
Too many people today have forgotten where our rights come from, and what role our Constitution plays in those rights. Far too many people think we get our rights FROM to Constitution. That is 100% incorrect. In fact the Constitution states quite clearly where our rights come from. The Constitution cannot and does not give you ANY rights. It can only place limits on your rights, within reason and in accordance with what we the people allow it to do. Those limits are called laws. We have a system of laws that regulate and oversee those limits. Our rights come from God. If you don't believe in God then that's fine, just think of it as our rights existing naturally.
We have a God given (natural) right to defend ourselves from danger. The laws cannot infringe on that right. It can only set limits on how we exercise our right to defend ourselves. That limit is this: "fear for our lives". The limit the law places on your natural God given right to defend yourself is you must feel in fear for your life. I cannot come along after the fact and decide that you weren't in fear for your life - if you say you were, then by law, you were. The only other limit the law places on your right to self defense is that your response must be roughly in line with the threat. In other words, im not allowed to beat you half to death because you slapped me in the face. "Fear for your life" however is literally a legal definition which if reasoably invoked says you can kill the threat and there's nothing the law can do. The fact that the people in charge of the law are trying to prosecute is proof the Constitution is being abused.
- It is legal to own and carry a rifle.
- Why he was carrying a rifle is none of the law's business.
- Why he was in the area is none of the law's business.
- The only thing that IS the law's business is why he shot and killed someone.
- If he says he was in fear for his life and can show a reason for feeling that way, the law cannot do a thing.
Period.
-
There's no such thing as 90% self defense. You either need to defend yourself or you don't. So yes, it was 100% self defense.
Too many people today have forgotten where our rights come from, and what role our Constitution plays in those rights. Far too many people think we get our rights FROM to Constitution. That is 100% incorrect. In fact the Constitution states quite clearly where our rights come from. The Constitution cannot and does not give you ANY rights. It can only place limits on your rights, within reason and in accordance with what we the people allow it to do. Those limits are called laws. We have a system of laws that regulate and oversee those limits. Our rights come from God. If you don't believe in God then that's fine, just think of it as our rights existing naturally.
We have a God given (natural) right to defend ourselves from danger. The laws cannot infringe on that right. It can only set limits on how we exercise our right to defend ourselves. That limit is this: "fear for our lives". The limit the law places on your natural God given right to defend yourself is you must feel in fear for your life. I cannot come along after the fact and decide that you weren't in fear for your life - if you say you were, then by law, you were. The only other limit the law places on your right to self defense is that your response must be roughly in line with the threat. In other words, im not allowed to beat you half to death because you slapped me in the face. "Fear for your life" however is literally a legal definition which if reasoably invoked says you can kill the threat and there's nothing the law can do. The fact that the people in charge of the law are trying to prosecute is proof the Constitution is being abused.
- It is legal to own and carry a rifle.
- Why he was carrying a rifle is none of the law's business.
- Why he was in the area is none of the law's business.
- The only thing that IS the law's business is why he shot and killed someone.
- If he says he was in fear for his life and can show a reason for feeling that way, the law cannot do a thing.
Period.
@Larry said in The Statement:
- It is legal to own and carry a rifle.
- Why he was carrying a rifle is none of the law's business.
- Why he was in the area is none of the law's business.
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin if you're more than 18 years old.
He's 17, and that's a misdemeanor.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Fine. Put him in jail for six months.
-
It is interesting that in Republic of Korea, in any auto accident, there can never be only one driver at fault.
For example, if you are parked at a stop light waiting for the light to turn green, and someone behind you does not stop and hits you, you are partially at fault.
The thinking is that if you were not there, he would not have hit you. The person behind you may be found to be 99+% at fault, but it will never be 100%.
Kind of funny way of thinking of things. LOL
-
@Larry said in The Statement:
- It is legal to own and carry a rifle.
- Why he was carrying a rifle is none of the law's business.
- Why he was in the area is none of the law's business.
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin if you're more than 18 years old.
He's 17, and that's a misdemeanor.
@George-K said in The Statement:
He's 17, and that's a misdemeanor.
According to news reports he was charged with “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” which is a felony. One of 6 felony charges he faces.
-
@George-K said in The Statement:
He's 17, and that's a misdemeanor.
According to news reports he was charged with “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” which is a felony. One of 6 felony charges he faces.
-
Wow, the fact that the gun was illegally in his possession fucks him on every single charge.
-
All I know is what I saw listed as his charges. I don’t know how the law works in practice.
Google “rittenhouse charges” and see for yourself.
@jon-nyc said in The Statement:
All I know is what I saw listed as his charges. I don’t know how the law works in practice.
Google “rittenhouse charges” and see for yourself.
I did. The first link - “ Rittenhouse is accused of killing Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake; and Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha. The Illinois teenager also faces felony charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide and two charges of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, and a misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.”
-
Yep. My link has it as a misdemeanor.
Funny, when I posted that to George all I had read was this Foxnews piece:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/charges-filed-rittenhouse-kenosha-shootings
Kenosha County District Attorney Michael Graveley filed the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, which include one count of first-degree intentional homicide; one count of first-degree reckless homicide; one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide; two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, all felonies, according to court records obtained by Fox News.
-
Yep. My link has it as a misdemeanor.
Funny, when I posted that to George all I had read was this Foxnews piece:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/charges-filed-rittenhouse-kenosha-shootings
Kenosha County District Attorney Michael Graveley filed the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, which include one count of first-degree intentional homicide; one count of first-degree reckless homicide; one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide; two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, all felonies, according to court records obtained by Fox News.
@jon-nyc said in The Statement:
Yep. My link has it as a misdemeanor.
Funny, when I posted that to George all I had read was this Foxnews piece:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/charges-filed-rittenhouse-kenosha-shootings
Kenosha County District Attorney Michael Graveley filed the charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, which include one count of first-degree intentional homicide; one count of first-degree reckless homicide; one count of attempted first-degree intentional homicide; two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment and one count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, all felonies, according to court records obtained by Fox News.
Jon, you're reading Fox News and driving a Vette.
You're coming around guy, you just don't realize it yet.
Next thing you know, you'll start looking at polished cowboy boots, maybe start shaving like every 4-5 days only, get a pair of those expensive Gucci sunglasses, baseball cap with "Earn It" on the front, swiss army knife on your keychain, wallet made out of alligator hide, eat ribs for breakfast, find Ax confusing, learn to spit.We'll keep working at it. Only a matter of time.
