Posted on 05/20/2023 6:10:57 PM PDT by grundle
” possess weapons and even kill someone and walk”
Against self defense, check.
repeating yourself doesn’t cure a crap comparison.
FreeRegrds.
“Against self defense, check.”
Depends upon your definition of self defense. Self defense doesn’t automatically free the shooter of the responsibility shooting someone. If that was the case we would be back into the old west when you could come up behind someone who shot at you yesterday and while his gun is holstered, you could aim and take the back of his head. And neither ones of the people he killed had guns.
“Regardless of whether you carry a handgun or some other self-defense tool, the goal of self-defense is to survive and escape without injury by deterring or stopping aggressive behavior. It is not to win a fight or harm another person. In fact, the best defense is to avoid dangerous people and places in the first place.”
Concealedcarry-ed.com is produced by Kalkomey Enterprises, LLC. Kalkomey is an official state-delegated provider that provides handgun education courses and certification and publishing handgun safety education materials.
https://www.concealedcarry-ed.com/
He had no reason to be there, carrying a weapon he was inexperienced in judging it’s use. Saying he could, doesn’t mean he should.
wy69
“other sources the general public can’t get to”
Ah, so, you a polices or fed.
Makes your hostility to someone not precisely conforming to your opinions on self defense understandable.
You sure you are on the right forum?
No. You are quite the standout stand alone example in that regard.
The gun was in the courtroom during his trial. Could have been measured then and there.
“No. You are quite the standout stand alone example in that regard.”
Isn’t it the norm. If you can’t disprove provided facts and their sources, you try to insult and belittle the messenger. Lot of adult class there. And I don’t converse with people who can’t teach me anything and use insults to try to cover the lack of facts provided. You qualify. I won’t be answering any more of your manure.
wy69
Good. I hardly had time for the numerous lies you’ve spewed on this thread.
“Could have been measured then and there.”
Unfortunately there is nothing other than a description of the gun as to barrel length and the law interpretation.
According to a New York Times article, prosecutors argued it was clear that Mr. Rittenhouse’s possession of the gun was illegal and that the jury should be asked to decide on the charge. The defense lawyers argued that the statute barring “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” did not apply in this case.
The statute says it applies to minors carrying a rifle or shotgun only if they are not in compliance with at least one additional statute. Those include the regulation of “hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age,” and the prohibition of rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long. Mr. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings. The judge threw out the charge after nobody in court disputed the length of the gun’s barrel.
So if it wasn’t measured because there was no dispute as to the length by either faction, then Rittenhouse never had a legal or illegal gun to use by law. And without someone disputing the length, it was illegal to measure the gun as it could not be provided as evidence in the case. That would have ended up double jeopardy as that dispute was tossed without further evidence and the rights of the defendant violated after the fact of the trial presentation on that part were finalized.
wy69
I guess that was just another lie of yours.
“So I guess shooting and killing someone changes the whole situation?”
Do you note other difference between the two situations?
Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trialBut the defense argued that Wisconsin law had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. After prosecutors conceded on Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge.
So much for that lie. The prosecutor admitted that the gun was not short-barreled.
It is obvious that you did not follow the case or watch the trial and you're just making crap up as you go.
I watched the court case and heard the testimony. He was protecting businesses and he was a medic. Also he was protecting himself when the mob attacked him. You obviously know this but are trying to rewrite history. You’re an obvious leftist shill. Why are you on Free Republic?
You’rea real piece of work (I’m being polite here). Bringing up Grosskruetz lawyers as credible???? That Binger guy should be disbarred and criminal charges brought up against him for his deception and lying. Meet me guess you’re also a defense attorney, which is one rung below scum of the earth
Andon you’re purposely lying. Grosskreutz actually drew his pistol on Rittrnhouse before he defended himself and the shot tore off his bicep. Even Grosskreutz admitted it in court. You should be ashamed of yourself of lying
Did you see the DUI arrest of Grosskreutz prior to the court case against Rittenhouse but after his arm was disintegrated? Shows you what kind of POS Grosskreutz is. He was combative to the arresting officers and refused a breathalyzer. Even his antifa friend in the car was lying to the police and they still let him go. I can’t believe you’re defending a lying antifa member. Oh and you’re wonderful defense attorneys made it so the whole DUI arrest of Grosskreutz couldn’t be brought up in the trial since it would have destroyed his credibility which is next to zero already.
Citing New York Times as a credible source? You’re really putting yourself here. It’s laughable now you lefty shill
Outing yourself
“He was protecting businesses and he was a medic.”
He wasn’t a medic, he lied about that:
Rittenhouse explained that he’d been a cadet with the Antioch Fire Department in Illinois and while he’d learned some first aid skills, he was not a certified EMT, even though he’d told numerous people that night that he was.
Specifically, Rittenhouse told Richard McGinnis, a video producer with The Daily Caller, that he was an EMT during an interview and acquiesced that he was lying.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/10/five-takeaways-from-kyle-rittenhouses-testimony/
As for the protection part:
“Both Rittenhouse and Dominick Black, a friend accompanying him at the time, previously said they were in Kenosha that evening because the owners of the Car Source asked them to guard the properties. But the Khindri brothers’ testimony on Friday conflicted with those statements.
“After seeing the destruction, there was nothing I could do,” Anmol said.
He denied responding to the message, however. He said he hadn’t known who “Kyle” was at the time and didn’t see the message until the following day.
https://www.insider.com/brothers-say-they-never-asked-rittenhouse-to-guard-car-source-2021-11
“In the video, someone asks Rittenhouse why he fired his AR-15 at Rosenbaum, to which Rittenhouse replied “[Rosenbaum] pulled a gun”—a remark Binger said had been proven by witness testimony and evidence to be a lie.”
So according to these news sources covering the court case, all that can be witnessed here is that Rittenhouse lied on a number of statements. He was not there to protect property because he was never asked to be, he was not an EMT that he openly admitted was a lie, and it was witnessed that Rosenbaum did not draw a weapon as Rittenhouse claimed. So we have an inexperienced kid in a riot zone most people would stay out of, with a questionable weapon that he used to kill one unarmed person, Rosenbaum, and another that was trying to subdue him for the first killing incorrectly and dangerously, and the inexperienced kid lying through his teeth a number of times who told the car people in a text that he would be there and armed so if they wanted he could guard the property the owners witnessed they never responded to. And he’s on the street?
And how many of the people he threatened were conservatives or liberals? I don’t, myself, care how many. Rittenhouse was a lose cannon on the street with a weapon and lied across the board along with making accusations that were witnessed otherwise. And you defend him by saying I’m a leftist shill.
I’ve been on this board since the late 1990’s and voted republican almost across the board since I restarted voting in 1995 when I retired from the military. I only voted for POTUS and VPOTUS because I wasn’t living in states or countries I was in starting in 1967, just assigned there. And I am about as conservative as you can be. But there are laws to be considered that were put in to protect the people and I have as much the privilege to discuss them as you do and I try not to apply language to tell anyone what they are or even appear to be. I don’t know who they are. I ty not to make myself presumptuous.
I currently have two people discussing (?) this issue. I stopped talking about it the first time because people got insultive and didn’t want to observe facts presented and by who. It was a waste of a conversation.
I’ve provided you with four different sources of my observances, told you my thoughts, and I am not going to continue with this discussion as it is returning into the same format as the first time getting personal and to me name calling or character applications based upon personal unproven accusations. Please do not bother me again on this topic.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.