12194 pts · July 26, 2012
I'm here to chew bubble gum and shitpost. And I'm all out of bubble gum
Low end is probably closer to $700. But in these kinds of cases he could have got a pair of cheap handguns and done as much damage too.
Are you saying abortions should have a waiting period as well, or that neither should?
Can you imagine somebody in one of these on a future battlefield just screaming while dive bombing enemy positions? Lol
Some probably. Pales by comparison to Soviets or ww2 Germany though. What they did adds up to some crazy shit orders of magnitude worse.
Raising his weapon to deter people when he felt threatened. You don’t attack simply for raising a gun at you and warning to stay back (2)
There’s no evidence I’ve seen (or even suggestion) he was waving it at random people to randomly threaten. I believe he is seen (1)
And if your arguing any weapon discharge counts as “into the crowd” its a dishonest attempt at engineering the context for emotional appeal
You could try reasoning your point out with me instead of downvoting BTW. Accomplished nothing in of itself.
That same person with gun actually fired it. It’s referring to the first incident with Rossnbaum, not a seperate inc firing into a crowd.
That’s not what its saying. It’s an attempt at being sensational by saying this Jeremiah has a gun pointed at him earlier, and later (1)
Vigilante. Which was senseless and wasteful even if you assume he murdered somebody. Unless he was actively threatening others.
If it was murder. That’s the entire question, and those people that attacked kyle didn’t bother to validate that. Or, they decided to go
Was lethal force warranted or not? That’s what the jury needs to find out.
Incident, which its not at all, even assuming his guilt. He was clearly in a defensive scenario and retreating in the first vid. Question is
You can if the first incident was self defense as well. Which is the entire question. It’s been wrongly advertised as an active shooter
Other than that part i didn’t notice a portion in skimming that substantiates your claim
Because if so, it’s not saying what you’re claiming FYI. You should re-read that stretch.
“A few minutes later, Jeremiah saw the same guy pointing his weapon at someone else. This time, Kyle Rittenhouse fired.” Is that the line?
He didn’t attack anybody first though. The question is if lethal force was warranted for the defensive situation Kyle was in.
I mean, i am almost positive the military are going to be used as guinea pigs first.
And I wish you good fortune in the wars to come.
Stand up to any professional analysis I've seen or any legal details I've ever studied up on. In any case, Thanks for keeping it civil,
information than you or I have at this point. But claiming his right to self defense is automatically invalid is meaningless and doesn't
Ultimately, everything hinges on if he used appropriate levels of force in that first encounter. And a Jury will decide that with far more
been there armed in the first place is a different matter which I think we would wholly agree on. It was not a smart situation to be in.
The kid is no expert, but he is clearly being restrained in those videos, and he is clearly a reasonable shot--Arguing over if he shouldve
Thirdly, I am going to question your level of expertise or experience with a firearm if you think he was as laughably untrained as you claim
And it does not give anybody the ability to attack somebody for guarding private property or putting out dumpster fires.
brandished his weapon. That statute does not authorize deadly force, it does not authorize anybody to chase (clearly seen in the videos)--
Secondly, the statute you did cite does not warrant Kyles attackers to go after him, even if we assume the un-validated position he
Low end is probably closer to $700. But in these kinds of cases he could have got a pair of cheap handguns and done as much damage too.
Are you saying abortions should have a waiting period as well, or that neither should?
Can you imagine somebody in one of these on a future battlefield just screaming while dive bombing enemy positions? Lol
Some probably. Pales by comparison to Soviets or ww2 Germany though. What they did adds up to some crazy shit orders of magnitude worse.
Raising his weapon to deter people when he felt threatened. You don’t attack simply for raising a gun at you and warning to stay back (2)
There’s no evidence I’ve seen (or even suggestion) he was waving it at random people to randomly threaten. I believe he is seen (1)
And if your arguing any weapon discharge counts as “into the crowd” its a dishonest attempt at engineering the context for emotional appeal
You could try reasoning your point out with me instead of downvoting BTW. Accomplished nothing in of itself.
That same person with gun actually fired it. It’s referring to the first incident with Rossnbaum, not a seperate inc firing into a crowd.
That’s not what its saying. It’s an attempt at being sensational by saying this Jeremiah has a gun pointed at him earlier, and later (1)
Vigilante. Which was senseless and wasteful even if you assume he murdered somebody. Unless he was actively threatening others.
If it was murder. That’s the entire question, and those people that attacked kyle didn’t bother to validate that. Or, they decided to go
Was lethal force warranted or not? That’s what the jury needs to find out.
Incident, which its not at all, even assuming his guilt. He was clearly in a defensive scenario and retreating in the first vid. Question is
You can if the first incident was self defense as well. Which is the entire question. It’s been wrongly advertised as an active shooter
Other than that part i didn’t notice a portion in skimming that substantiates your claim
Because if so, it’s not saying what you’re claiming FYI. You should re-read that stretch.
“A few minutes later, Jeremiah saw the same guy pointing his weapon at someone else. This time, Kyle Rittenhouse fired.” Is that the line?
He didn’t attack anybody first though. The question is if lethal force was warranted for the defensive situation Kyle was in.
I mean, i am almost positive the military are going to be used as guinea pigs first.
And I wish you good fortune in the wars to come.
Stand up to any professional analysis I've seen or any legal details I've ever studied up on. In any case, Thanks for keeping it civil,
information than you or I have at this point. But claiming his right to self defense is automatically invalid is meaningless and doesn't
Ultimately, everything hinges on if he used appropriate levels of force in that first encounter. And a Jury will decide that with far more
been there armed in the first place is a different matter which I think we would wholly agree on. It was not a smart situation to be in.
The kid is no expert, but he is clearly being restrained in those videos, and he is clearly a reasonable shot--Arguing over if he shouldve
Thirdly, I am going to question your level of expertise or experience with a firearm if you think he was as laughably untrained as you claim
And it does not give anybody the ability to attack somebody for guarding private property or putting out dumpster fires.
brandished his weapon. That statute does not authorize deadly force, it does not authorize anybody to chase (clearly seen in the videos)--
Secondly, the statute you did cite does not warrant Kyles attackers to go after him, even if we assume the un-validated position he