Jump to content

Gun Legislation, Crime, and Events


Tigerbomb13

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Actually, all three were folks had rap sheets, all with some serious crimes in them.  Folks against Rittenhouse want to claim he went out searching to kill people, if so, just how ironic the three he shot all are horrible people.  

 

I take that back, the one battled bi-polar.  Additionally, the one that got shot in the arm, his attack on Grandma was 10 years before when he was a minor.  Still ironic that all the folks he happened to shoot had a checkered past.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ewsieg said:

I take that back, the one battled bi-polar.  Additionally, the one that got shot in the arm, his attack on Grandma was 10 years before when he was a minor.  Still ironic that all the folks he happened to shoot had a checkered past.  

Good thing there was one good boy to blast them to smithereens.  Thank the maker his mama drove him into that riot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Good thing there was one good boy to blast them to smithereens.  Thank the maker his mama drove him into that riot. 

His mom didn't drive him there, just more MSM reports that were never corrected.  And as I stated, he, nor anyone, has the right to be judge/jury/executioner.  But from a legal standpoint, he violated a curfew, that's it.  You're allowed to be stupid and not go to jail, which is a good thing for Rittenhouse.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your life is in danger you do have a right to be judge, jury and executioner. Most of you are condemning Rittenhouse for being there but why are you not condemning the BLM and liberal rioters for being there?  Many of you just support whatever fits the liberal narritive no matter how wrong it is.

Edited by Archie
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

His mom didn't drive him there, just more MSM reports that were never corrected.  And as I stated, he, nor anyone, has the right to be judge/jury/executioner.  But from a legal standpoint, he violated a curfew, that's it.  You're allowed to be stupid and not go to jail, which is a good thing for Rittenhouse.   

I've had a few moments on here where I've called for the Jan 6 protestors to be met with deadly force.  But, the US Capitol being the critical point in the execution of democratic processes was a bit different than Kenosha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, romad1 said:

I've had a few moments on here where I've called for the Jan 6 protestors to be met with deadly force.  But, the US Capitol being the critical point in the execution of democratic processes was a bit different than Kenosha. 

Let me get this straight, you support killing an unarmed and non violent people because they were in Capitol but a guy who what being beaten and had a gun pointed at him was not supposed to defend himself.  You libs never cease to amaze me.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Archie said:

Let me get this straight, you support killing an unarmed and non violent people because they were in Capitol but a guy who what being beaten and had a gun pointed at him was not supposed to defend himself.  You libs never cease to amaze me.

To say the insurrection was not violent is some serious revisionist history. You Trumpers never cease to amaze me. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

To say the insurrection was not violent is some serious revisionist history. You Trumpers never cease to amaze me. 

Just curious, how many guns were confiscated on January 6th? Yes there was violence and those pukes deserve to rot in jail but I dont remember weapons being a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Just curious, how many guns were confiscated on January 6th? Yes there was violence and those pukes deserve to rot in jail but I dont remember weapons being a concern.

Violence can happen without guns. I would say 150 police offers sustaining injuries is not good. Offers were tased, beaten with flag poles/hockey sticks, and sprayed with bear spray. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-injuries-riot/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Violence can happen without guns. I would say 150 police offers sustaining injuries is not good. Offers were tased, beaten with flag poles/hockey sticks, and sprayed with bear spray. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-injuries-riot/

 

 

 

100% agree with you, I am just really suprised no one showed up with guns of any sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Archie said:

Let me get this straight, you support killing an unarmed and non violent people because they were in Capitol but a guy who what being beaten and had a gun pointed at him was not supposed to defend himself.  You libs never cease to amaze me.

This is the problem, too many folks want to focus on the evidence that only supports the vew they want portrayed.  You (and I) would have supported the police if they killed an unarmed person that was showing no violence to any other person, but trying to break into the courthouse in Portland as an unlawful mob was pushing them on.  We would use the same argument that the left is using to argue about Babbit, in support of the officer that shot her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Archie said:

When your life is in danger you do have a right to be judge, jury and executioner. Most of you are condemning Rittenhouse for being there but why are you not condemning the BLM and liberal rioters for being there?  Many of you just support whatever fits the liberal narritive no matter how wrong it is.

Incorrect, in self defense you become the executioner.  You then hope that the DA agrees with your belief that it was self defense.  If he doesn’t agree, then you hope the trial acts as judge and jury and sides with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Incorrect, in self defense you become the executioner.  You then hope that the DA agrees with your belief that it was self defense.  If he doesn’t agree, then you hope the trial acts as judge and jury and sides with you.

LOL yeah I'll not be hiring you to be my lawyer.

IN self defense you don't become the executioner.  You become the person that uses just enough force to alleviate the thread.   My goodness this is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Archie said:

Let me get this straight, you support killing an unarmed and non violent people because they were in Capitol but a guy who what being beaten and had a gun pointed at him was not supposed to defend himself.  You libs never cease to amaze me.

Have you made that significant donation to the defense fund yet? You know Donald would approve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Proportional Response

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pfife said:

LOL yeah I'll not be hiring you to be my lawyer.

IN self defense you don't become the executioner.  You become the person that uses just enough force to alleviate the thread.   My goodness this is ridiculous.

I was playing off of the judge/jury/executioner line.  Self defense is any force to alleviate the threat, up to and including death.  

And with that, then you hope that force is deemed necessary by the DA or a jury if it goes that far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

It took over a year for the video to be released too. The cover up looks as bad or worse than the crime to the average person out there too. Why not release the footage right away.

Honestly? This incident will simply fade into the blizzard of similar incidents over the years, and the sheer firehoseness of it all will cause eyes to glaze over and people to reach for the remote to see what's streaming tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...