nightflameauto
Well-Known Member
I thought those movies were documentaries.Ah, it seems like just yesterday when the premise of The Purge seemed entirely too far-fetched to take seriously.
I thought those movies were documentaries.Ah, it seems like just yesterday when the premise of The Purge seemed entirely too far-fetched to take seriously.
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.Not by by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according the laws of Wisconsin, where self defence via lethal force is legal when one is in fear of their life, even though you are not allowed to “escalate force” (unless in that case.)
I'd say Australia, but even they managed to get their gun legislation sorted, and that's in a land where nature itself has a murder-boner.
I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.You can keep them. We have enough f-witts down here, thank you very much!
Depends who all is going. If you sent Tucker Carlson down there, all the hot air would probably melt the ice caps.I think the real solution is Antarctica. With no winter gear.
Casey Anthony has entered the chat.worst prosecution we've seen in a high profile case, possibly in our lives.
Except, this is exactly what Rittenhouse did, no? He feared for his life, but while you could maybe argue he was not guilty of shooting the man with a handgun, he clearly used escalating force against the guy with the skateboad and the guy who appears to have been entirely unarmed. That's the thing I'm hung up on here - yes, a lot of murky things happened, and the one thing that was CLEARLY wrong, the fact Rittenhouse was there in the first place, doesn't actually seem to violate any existing laws... but he also unquestionably applied escalated force in self defense and applied lethal force as a deterrent in the face of nonlethal force.
According to what evidence/testimony? The managers of the car lot both said that was not true, under oath.
Kyle and others, at least from what I recall- they had organised to protect the business amongst themselves after taking photos with the sons of the owners in front of the business and sending texts about doing so.
You are correct that the Son denied organising anything.
We can quibble on if being one of the guys that showed up carrying a long rifle was a puss move but it did end up being the smart move.
I have never heard that claim validated. As far as I ever heard, they organized to protect the car lot... not on the car lot owner's request! Whether that is true or false is hugely important in understanding the context IMO.
How was it a "smart" move? It seems like if he'd shown up without a gun... nothing would have happened. No one would have died. Maybe a car lot would've been vandalized. We'd see some news stories about protests and minor clashes in Kenosha like all the other places that had protests and we'd all have forgotten about it in a few weeks. Rittenhouse wouldn't have spent months in jail and become a pariah to half the country for the rest of his life.
I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?
Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?
But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.
I’m not making up scenarios though just talking about what was said in court. That’s what this is about right? Reality?
Or are you suggesting that everyone is lying who doesn’t fit your agenda, which is based upon what exactly? Mainstream news media?
But what does that even matter? It’s not a crime, that’s already been established.
According to you, you know more about the case than the media. Also according to you, Kyle's claims that he was hired to protect property was validated in court.
I asked who validated that, pretty specific question.
Your answer: well, Kyle and maybe someone else, you don't remember.
I mean, that's some weird recursion there. If Kyle makes a claim in his defense that should be validated by a receipt, contract, text message, etc. pretty easily, and you're willing to accept Kyle's testimony without corroborating evidence against two other witnesses saying it's untrue under oath, then I believe you don't understand how evidence works.