|
|
#8711
11-09-2021, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
Lock them all into a zone like in snake pliskin from LA.
Better yet. Make LA the zone. Everyone grumpy and lazy goes there. We can air drop in food, water, weapons and ammo. Charge a fee for civies to fly drones filming the action. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#8712
11-09-2021, 12:34 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
Last edited by Rogean; 04-17-2024 at 05:01 PM..
|
|
|||
|
#8714
11-09-2021, 12:42 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#8715
11-09-2021, 12:51 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#8717
11-09-2021, 12:55 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
Last edited by Rogean; 04-17-2024 at 05:01 PM..
|
|
|||
|
#8718
11-09-2021, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
If we set aside the fact that having guns in this situation is what caused the situation to deteriorate.. Set aside Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of a gun that wasnt his, underage.
In regards to Rosenbaum, I think the case for Rittenhouse acting in self-defense is strong. You can see by his actions prior to his death, he was acting quite aggressive. He chased Rittenhouse around the car. He may have even possibly wanted to die. In regards to Huber and Grosskruetz, its really a matter of perspective, and it gets much more fuzzy... On one hand you had people (Huber and Grosskruetz) who believed he was an active shooter, and were trying to stop him. I think in this regard, their actions were appropriate (who wouldn't want to stop an active shooter by any means possible). Huber tried to hit him with a skateboard. Grosskruetz, instead of shooting Rittenhouse, tried to physically restrain him. (Grosskruetz should have probably shot Rittenhouse, and I think if he had done so, he could have claimed self defense and likely gotten off.) On the other hand, you have Rittenhouse, who was clearly acting in his own self defense against people who he believed were going to physically beat him (but kill? Im not so sure). Each had a different perspective of the intentions of the other. To sum it up the question in this case for the jurors is: does the possibility of getting beat up meet the definition of self defense ("great boldily harm") and warrant lethal force? Does his action to shoot those two people fall within the confines of "self defense" ie: to prevent death or great bodily harm. I do not think Rittenhouse's actions meet the threshold of "to prevent death". However, the real question is what defines "great bodily harm". Keep in mind that neither of the deceased were in possession of firearms or deadly weapons and Rittenhouse never saw a gun - Grosskruetz - until after the two were dead. TLDR - this is a sad symptom of the gun laws in this country. We have too many guns and too lax of gun laws allowing people with no training and no business having a firearm, to run freely around acting like vigilantes. The fact that in texas they are passing (or have passed) a law allowing open carry with absolutely zero training, is only going to lead to more situations like Kenosha. | ||
|
Last edited by walfreyydo; 11-09-2021 at 01:28 PM..
|
|
||
|
#8720
11-09-2021, 01:26 PM
|
|||
|
Yeah, but Kyle was exhibiting extensive training. And yes it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an aggressive, angry mob chasing you will use your weapon against you if they infact get it. Once they get your weapon, they are no longer "unarmed". People use the term "unarmed" as if it's a magic get out of jail free card. "Unarmed" is by no means synonymous with "non-lethal".
People say this about police shootings all the time, like mike brown. "Why did you shoot him?? He was unarmed! All he was doing was trying to wrestle your gun away from you while weighing about 100 lbs more than you do!!". Like wtf is he supposed to do? Wait until his gun is stolen and he's been shot in the head to react?? | ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
