Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Michael Everett   » Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:09 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2578
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

Just as a side-note on the Rittenhouse trial, the Prosecutor seems to have tried to pull of some nasty tricks regarding evidence.
The video evidence that the Defence was allowed to see and base its arguments on was so blocky and low-rez that it could have been almost anything.
The video that the Prosecution put forth was hi-definition (at least by comparison) and was NOT what they gave to the Defence.

Isn't there some rule in the USA about evidence being inadmissible if it is hidden from the other side prior to the start of the actual trial?
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Imaginos1892   » Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:09 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1330
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Joat42 wrote:Interesting, I see you still can't stop yourself from blaming the "left" for all the ills of society, imagined or real.

Not all the ills, but a great many of the ones I see plaguing us today.

Joat42 wrote:You have also neatly constructed a narrative about Rittenhouse, in where he was entirely justified shooting people because they where "violent felons".

That is a lie. Stop lying.

Joat42 wrote:There is just one extremely huge flaw with that narrative that clearly shows your lack of reasoning skills.

That is a false assertion based on your misrepresentation of what I posted. Try reading the actual words on the screen, and stop substituting the ones inside your head. He was justified in shooting them because they pursued him and tried to kill him. Most people understand, that is the meaning of ‘self defense’. Apparently, some do not.

That they later turned out to be violent felons was not relevant to Rittenhouse’s actions, but does provide some explanation for theirs.

One pursued him across a parking lot, threw objects at his head, trapped him in a maze of parked cars, and tried to yank his gun away.

One pursued him down a road, knocked him to the ground by bashing him over the head with a skateboard, bashed him in the head with the skateboard a second time, and also tried to take his gun.

The last one shoved a gun in his face.

All in the middle of a riot.

Would a reasonable person believe that each of the three was trying to kill him? Oh, yeah. Without a shadow of a doubt. The jury agreed. They are to be commended for not being intimidated by mob violence.

Michael Everett wrote:Just as a side-note on the Rittenhouse trial, the Prosecutor seems to have tried to pull off some nasty tricks regarding evidence.

They pulled every nasty trick they could come up with. They should be sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct, and never allowed into a courtroom again except as defendants.

Did you see when the head clown Binger picked up a gun from the evidence table and:

1. Did not check whether it was loaded or not
2. Pointed it at the jury, and
3. Put a finger on the trigger!

Stupid times 3! That's exactly how you get incidents like the Alec Baldwin shooting last month.
———————————
The Democrats are willing to burn America to the ground, so long as they wind up squatting on top of the ashes.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:27 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

@Imaginos1892.
Rather than post an ongoing wall of text. I see this morning that he was exonerated in court. Only in the US.
Firstly "assault rifle", a self loading semi automatic centre fire rifle. I grew up with guns, had military training, and regard that as a valid term. As we were trained with the fully auto capable versions, you only use the full auto in a "spray and pray" situation faced with a human wave. Otherwise double tapping in the centre of mass was more effective. Still owning six various weapons I am not anti gun, just anti gun idiots.
In any first world developed country, taking such a weapon out in public would be an offence in itself. Notice that I didn't say "other".
As to his self defence claims I notice that he wasn't killed after being disarmed. Those who tried to disarm him were heros. I'd like to think that I would have had the courage to do the same.
Regarding the travel bit, to our thinking state lines have no relevance. I was just pointing out that he didn't grab a gun to defend his home or neighbourhood, but went looking for trouble elsewhere.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:27 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

@Imaginos1892.
Rather than post an ongoing wall of text. I see this morning that he was exonerated in court. Only in the US.
Firstly "assault rifle", a self loading semi automatic centre fire rifle. I grew up with guns, had military training, and regard that as a valid term. As we were trained with the fully auto capable versions, you only use the full auto in a "spray and pray" situation faced with a human wave. Otherwise double tapping in the centre of mass was more effective. Still owning six various weapons I am not anti gun, just anti gun idiots.
In any first world developed country, taking such a weapon out in public would be an offence in itself. Notice that I didn't say "other".
As to his self defence claims I notice that he wasn't killed after being disarmed. Those who tried to disarm him were heros. I'd like to think that I would have had the courage to do the same.
Regarding the travel bit, to our thinking state lines have no relevance. I was just pointing out that he didn't grab a gun to defend his home or neighbourhood, but went looking for trouble elsewhere.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Joat42   » Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:41 am

Joat42
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

Imaginos1892 wrote:
Joat42 wrote:You have also neatly constructed a narrative about Rittenhouse, in where he was entirely justified shooting people because they where "violent felons".

That is a lie. Stop lying.

Why did you then spend paragraphs explaining how "violent rioters" where shipped to Kenosha, how the 3 victims where violent felons, how Rittenhouse transporting a weapon over the state border was no big deal, how his medical kit was his primary piece of equipment.

If that is not you constructing a narrative after the fact, I don't know what is.

Imaginos1892 wrote:
Joat42 wrote:There is just one extremely huge flaw with that narrative that clearly shows your lack of reasoning skills.

That is a false assertion based on your misrepresentation of what I posted. Try reading the actual words on the screen, and stop substituting the ones inside your head. He was justified in shooting them because they pursued him and tried to kill him. Most people understand, that is the meaning of ‘self defense’. Apparently, some do not.

No, I didn't mispresent one thing. If you wanted to justify why Rittenhouse was within his rights, you could just have said that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he was assaulted, instead you spend a lot of time on demonizing everyone. The only thing that matters is what Rittenhouse knew and how he responded.

Imaginos1892 wrote:That they later turned out to be violent felons was not relevant to Rittenhouse’s actions, but does provide some explanation for theirs.

Do you actually believe all of them where violent felons. Have you actually verified this? I suggest you should do that because people can easily get the impression that you play fast and loose with the truth.

Imaginos1892 wrote:One pursued him across a parking lot, threw objects at his head, trapped him in a maze of parked cars, and tried to yank his gun away.

One pursued him down a road, knocked him to the ground by bashing him over the head with a skateboard, bashed him in the head with the skateboard a second time, and also tried to take his gun.

The last one shoved a gun in his face.

All in the middle of a riot.

Would a reasonable person believe that each of the three was trying to kill him? Oh, yeah. Without a shadow of a doubt. The jury agreed. They are to be commended for not being intimidated by mob violence.

A teenager scared shitless with an AR-15, we where lucky it was just 2 people who died. What triggered the shootings isn't at question, it's how you characterized the whole thing after the fact.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Imaginos1892   » Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:31 am

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1330
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Daryl wrote:Firstly "assault rifle", a self loading semi automatic centre fire rifle.

Here in the U.S. an ‘assault rifle’ is ‘any gun which anti-gun zealots that know nothing about guns hate because it looks scary to them’.

Daryl wrote:As to his self defence claims I notice that he wasn't killed after being disarmed.

More lies. Kyle Rittenhouse was never disarmed. He survived being attacked by a murderous mob only because he was armed. In the end, he managed to break free of them and escape to the police lines.

Daryl wrote:Those who tried to disarm him were heros.

They were the aggressors throughout every part of that chain of events. Kyle tried to avoid the mob from the very beginning, but they pursued him, they attacked him, again and again. They could have stopped at any time, but they persisted in pursuing and attacking him until he had to shoot three of them in self-defense.

I don't know if you're lying deliberately, or just repeating lies you've been told, but stop it.

Daryl wrote:I was just pointing out that he didn't grab a gun to defend his home or neighbourhood, but went looking for trouble elsewhere.

Bullshit. He worked in Kenosha, and half of his family lives there. It was far more his home and neighborhood than it was to the left-wing rioters that were shipped in from cities hundreds of miles away.
———————————
It takes two to make peace. It only takes one to make war.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:25 pm

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I wonder if it had been someone of Middle Eastern extraction, armed with an AK47, instead of a white person with an AR15, if you would have been so supportive? And yes I know an AK47 is full auto, owned one at one time.

The anti terrorism advice is that - if there is no convenient wall to hide behind while fleeing, if you are fit and able, and there is an active shooter in clear open sight - it may well be safer to try and disarm them than to run away.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Imaginos1892   » Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:50 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1330
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Joat42 wrote:No, I didn't mispresent one thing. If you wanted to justify why Rittenhouse was within his rights, you could just have said that Rittenhouse feared for his life when he was assaulted, instead you spend a lot of time on demonizing everyone.

Oh, but I did. Check the fourth section, and actually read the words in the post this time. Then read what I was responding to in that last section: cthia’s complaint about the judge calling them looters, arsonists and antefa terrorists — which they were — instead of ‘victims’, which they were NOT.

Joat42 wrote:Do you actually believe all of them where violent felons. Have you actually verified this? I suggest you should do that because people can easily get the impression that you play fast and loose with the truth.

Well, you could try checking the facts instead of just nodding along with the left-wing media liars. Their criminal records are publicly available on official government web sites, and have been widely reported on some news outlets.

Daryl wrote:I wonder if it had been someone of Middle Eastern extraction, armed with an AK47, instead of a white person with an AR15, if you would have been so supportive?

Why do you even ask that question? Are you obsessed with race? I’m not. I would support any innocent person in the same circumstances.

Recently, a black man was acquitted for shooting two cops that broke into his girlfriend's house in the middle of the night on a 'no-knock' warrant. I will go with the presumption that the jury got it right.

Daryl wrote:And yes I know an AK47 is full auto, owned one at one time.

Any AK-47 legally sold in the U.S. is semi-automatic. You must have a very expensive license to own any fully automatic firearm, and the government has made it all but impossible to introduce new ones, so you’d have to find an existing ‘grandfathered’ gun the owner is willing to sell.

Daryl wrote:The anti terrorism advice is that - if there is no convenient wall to hide behind while fleeing, if you are fit and able, and there is an active shooter in clear open sight - it may well be safer to try and disarm them than to run away.

I don’t know where you get your delusions. The defense just proved in a court of law that Kyle Rittenhouse did not present any threat, to anybody, before the howling mob tried to kill him — at which point he was completely justified in defending himself. They, the mob, were the domestic terrorists, not him.
———————————
If you try to use violence and brutality to bring about social change, your cause will be taken over by violent brutes.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Mon Nov 22, 2021 3:45 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3276
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I'm not a US citizen or resident so -
"Any AK-47 legally sold in the U.S. is semi-automatic. You must have a very expensive license to own any fully automatic firearm, and the government has made it all but impossible to introduce new ones, so you’d have to find an existing ‘grandfathered’ gun the owner is willing to sell."
doesn't apply to me.
As it stands I owned it before our gun laws tightened up. We now have to have a very special license to even have a semiauto centrefire. Usually for controlling feral wild pigs, and I could claim that but it's too much trouble, so I handed in my couple of such guns (AK47 and SKK) for the buy back bounty.
Ironically at my work in the Australian Army I had access to a whole raft of great guns anyway. The Steyr AUG bull pup is an intriguing little plastic toy, that I shot seven out of ten kill shots on a human sized target at 500 metres. I also had the pleasure of purchasing hundreds of 50 cal and 20 mm anti material sniper rifles. It would take more space than available on here to list my gun types.

It amuses me to read in these discussions, people accusing me of being anti gun. I'm probably the only one on here who has been a commercial hunter, or had such military exposure to so many weapons and weapons systems.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by The E   » Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:54 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

The Rittenhouse case was certainly a thing that happened.

It's interesting, really. Quite fascinating how the prosecution did a lot of stuff to tank their case: It's never a good look if a prosecutor ends up arguing with his own witness, or tries to introduce evidence that is then ruled to be inadmissible
(I also saw some online outrage over the judge's instruction that the people Rittenhouse shot could be referred to as "looters arsonists and rioters" if that were proven, but not "victims" - but that strikes me as somewhat reasonable, given the presumption of innocence rule).

It makes sense that the final verdict was for Rittenhouse to be acquitted - the legal arguments put forth for this position were certainly more persuasive than the absolute mess the prosecution produced.

That being said, while Rittenhouse (seems to have been) in the right legally, I would argue that morally his actions were wrong from the beginning. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a situation he had no business being in (IMO); regardless of the precise legal situation he found himself in, at the beginning of this whole chain of events is him deciding that he should go to Kenosha to protect someone else's property, completely on his own, without being requested or invited to do so. To claim that "his first-aid kit was his primary equipment" is meaningless - he chose to take both that kit and a rifle, and it's easily conceivable that if he hadn't been armed, he wouldn't have been attacked (that he wouldn't have been attacked if he had stayed at home is without question).

The whole after-the-fact lionization of Rittenhouse as a hero for defending himself (and there are far-right idiots who take this a lot further than that!), and the vilification of the people he shot as villains that didn't deserve any better is so fucking typical of right-wing ex-post-facto justification. It's a common script, it happens every. single. time. an unarmed black person is shot by some cop or wannabe vigilante. It's tiresome, really.


As a footnote, what I find very funny is that, in his first interview after the trial, Rittenhouse said that he supported Black Lives Matter and the right to protest - I wonder if that made a difference to his chances at an internship with one of the current crop of Trump party congresspeople.
Top

Return to Politics