I do not believe such a description is accurately applied to these three individuals; do you have a cite?
I’m not sure I see the relevance of your beliefs. If someone is walking down the street, they are in fact a person of walking, aka a walker. No cite or conviction necessary.
And none of us can see the relevance of a cite you have not provided.
Then I can factually describe Rittenhouse as a murderer?
Not quite. Self defense is legal. Murder is not. He killed someone, that’s not in question, but he didn’t murder anyone.
Okay, no cite. Thank you for admitting that the three in question were not rioters and that your description of them as such was unfounded and had no basis in reality.
Your silence serves as your agreement.
Not just rioters but they were communists, pedophiles and other not upstanding citizens who traveled to participate in rioting, arson, and general mayhem. Unfortunately, they also felt the need to assault someone and it ended poorly for them.
Reality doesn’t need any of our consents to be.
Are you again making the claim that they were rioters? Cite, please?
“I’m thinking that if you hear gunshots while running away and you turn around and a guy is pointing a Glock 17 at you from three feet away, the ‘benefit of the doubt’ ship has pretty much sailed.”
You might want to familiarize yourself with the facts of the case since nothing like that occurred.
I don’t know, did they? The defense were the ones who wanted to call them rioters, arsonists, and looters. That would seem to put property damage by them at issue. How is calling them arsonists and looters not saying they were destroying property and stealing? How would it not be relevant to his state of mind to show that he thinks shooting people to protect property is appropriate?
The question was asked in the defense case, on cross-examination, so the prosecutor isn’t limited to things they put on evidence of. Was there no evidence that Rittenhouse thought they were arsonists or looters? Didn’t Rittenhouse first get into it with Rosenbaum because he put out a fire that Rosenbaum set or was associated with?
This is wrong. There’s more to it than that, and there may not ordinarily be judgments about what kind of person the other guy is (but there can be) but there will definitely be judgments about what each person was doing prior to trying to kill the other, and why they are trying to kill one another. And if person A knows that person B has a past history of, say, putting people in the hospital, it can be very relevant to A’s claim that he feared for his life when B started threatening him. It’s one of the few times character evidence is allowed.
Oh. no! Not THAT! Why, that’d be most of the gun owners I know! Heck, that’d be most gun owners in the U.S.! I’m sure going to eye my gun-owning friends a LOT more suspiciously when they pop the top of a cold brewski. And here I trusted them because I know they’re good, reasonably safety-conscious people. Well, I sure know better now. Thank you!
Well, in that case he should have shot them on site! AmIRight?
Absolutely not. People are free to believe and say what they wish.
Then why the fuck did you even bring it up?
One thing I’ve noticed with both Kyle and the Arbery case is that those who have the firearm believe that not only will they be disarmed but they will also be murdered with their own firearm. IMHO this is pure gun nut fantasy persecution complex.
Yes, if there is an active shooter or perceived active shooter situation, and I get caught up in it, I will try to stop the shooter. The last thing in my mind is to grab the gun and shoot to kill the perp. Now, I sure as hell may try to grab the gun and put a rifle butt to the head. Much more likely, I will reached back into my distant 5 years of martial arts, and try to incapacitate the weapon holder badly.
Just because one has a firearm and a fantasy that anyone taking it from you is not going to stop with disarming but actually murder you with your own weapon, doesn’t make it valid self defense.
Rittenhouse is literally on video saying he wished he had a firearm so he could shoot people that he THOUGHT were shoplifting. Sounds like an anarchist to me, dunno why octy is so set on defending him. Well, actually…
I didn’t say he was guilty of a heinous crime. It was erroneously reported at the time that he was a felon and prohibited from legally possessing a weapon. That was incorrect. Since it was a misdemeanor, by state law it had no effect on his legal right to own or possess a weapon.
Nobody said you did. You were responding to BippityBoppityBoo’s request for a cite for SpacemanSpiff’s claim about those Rittenhouse shot by explaining how they were:
Yet possession of a firearm while drunk doesn’t make Grosskreutz a violent thug, a child abuser, or mentally ill. So why include that? And unlike RIttenhouse, who pretended to be an EMT, Grosskreutz actually was a paramedic. He treated dozen protestors that night and heroically tried to stop an active shooter. That seems much more relevant than a misdemeanor charge for a very common practice.
Rittenhouse may walk, but I hope he gets the shit sued out of him by Grosskreutz and others.
Of which only one I have I been able to confirm (the child abuser claim). And what does ‘mentally ill people’ have to do with anything? Being mentally ill is not a character flaw, much less a morally reprehensible crime like any kind of domestic or child abuse. I think an apology is owed to mentally ill people.