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 Panzer   » Wed Jan 05, 2022 4:31 pm

Panzer
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:10 am

The E wrote:You know, it's funny. In isolation, that incident is perfectly understandable, and the reasoning why Rittenhouse thought he was being attacked with lethal intent makes sense.
But here's the thing: That was the second shooting. At that point, the people chasing him had just as much reason to believe that Rittenhouse was a spree shooter as he did have reason to believe that he was acting in self defence. Huber using the tools available to him to stop someone he thought was a danger is just as much an act of self defence as what Rittenhouse did.


I just demonstrated that at least one person who he shot intended to kill him.

Ultimately, this is just a murky situation. The court has exonerated Rittenhouse and declared that what he did that night was legally self-defence. However, that doesn't make his decision to go to Kenosha with a rifle a good one.


It's only murky if you watch MSNBC. If you watched the trial, it's not murky at all. The prosecutor should never have brought this case and should be disbarred and criminally charged for his conduct in this case.

Binger (or P. Baelish, Esq.) tried to use Rittenhouse's Constitutionally protected right not to be a witness against himself as evidence of his guilt.

He also violated Rittenhouse's 5th and 14th Amendment rights by failing to turn over the identity of the first attacker and high definition video that the state used in the trial. No, the first attacker was not Rosenbaum.

I gotta love the one-sided criticism of Rittenhouse for being at a riot, too. Or, excuse me, a fiery, but mostly peaceful protest. Kenosha had a curfew in place, so no one should have been there. The civil authorities did not suppress the riot and abrogated their responsibility to protect the property of their citizens from the fiery part of that mostly peaceful protest. If you want to criticize Rittenhouse, that's fine, but if the three people he shot had also followed the curfew order, they would not have been shot.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Daryl   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 2:07 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3488
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Every country has its own culture and laws, so discussions like this should be informative and polite.
When I was this kid's age I had a bolt action military rifle in a rack in open display behind the seats of my 4WD pick up.
Move on fifty years, and I'd get arrested for that now.

Speaking of nowadays in Australia. If someone did what he did, there would have been a raft of open and shut charges.
Going armed in public, so as to cause fear.
Discharging a firearm in a public place.
Murder and attempted murder.
Owning a semi auto, centre fire weapon.
Affray.
Probably public nuisance, and other minor charges as well.

The US is different, with different laws and attitudes to every other first world nation on this topic. Also with different gun death statistics.
What I do find difficult, is the attitude that having an offensive weapon provides a defensive force shield. Total nonsense, as being armed makes you a threat, thus a target.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by The E   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 4:04 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Panzer wrote:I just demonstrated that at least one person who he shot intended to kill him.


No, you didn't. You demonstrated that something happened that, under other circumstances, could be "assault with a deadly weapon". You cannot prove intent just by pointing at the tool that was used.

It's only murky if you watch MSNBC. If you watched the trial, it's not murky at all. The prosecutor should never have brought this case and should be disbarred and criminally charged for his conduct in this case.


Personally, I am in favour of bringing cases where a citizen kills another in front of a judge to make sure that everything was legit and above-board.
Not sure why you'd want to create a class of killing that doesn't have to go through that process, but you do you, I'm sure you have your reasons.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Panzer   » Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:18 pm

Panzer
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:10 am

The E wrote:No, you didn't. You demonstrated that something happened that, under other circumstances, could be "assault with a deadly weapon". You cannot prove intent just by pointing at the tool that was used.


From photographic evidence, you can clearly see that Huber is using his skateboard as an impact weapon to deliver a strike to KR’s head and neck area. Huber’s actions go beyond ‘assault with a deadly weapon’ and rise to the level what I would describe as a ‘use of deadly force’ for the purposes of this discussion.



1)In the pictures and video, Huber is clearly using his skateboard as an impact weapon.
2)In the pictures and video, Huber clearly strikes Rittenhouse in the head and neck area with his impact weapon.
3)Striking someone in the head or neck area with an impact weapon is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury – the definition of deadly force.


So, Huber is using a weapon, on Rittenhouse, and in a manner that is likely to result in death or serious bodily injury. I’m not merely pointing to the tool Huber used. I’m pointing to the manner in which he used it. Whether it’s a skateboard or a collapsible straight baton, a crowbar, or some other instrument used as an impact weapon, the only reason to strike someone in the head is if you are trying to apply deadly force (i.e. trying to kill) that person.

You can find those guidelines in virtually police department use of force policy in the United States. Hitting someone in the head with an impact weapon is considered deadly force, and police officers only use deadly force to 'stop a threat' which is a polite euphemism for trying to kill someone.

There is no reason to strike someone in the head or neck with an impact weapon except that you intend to inflict a lethal or potentially lethal injury in the person struck. If you can think of another reason to brain someone with a skateboard, feel free to inform the rest of us.


Personally, I am in favour of bringing cases where a citizen kills another in front of a judge to make sure that everything was legit and above-board.


You mean a judge and a jury, right? In the United States, trials are time consuming and expensive, and theoretically, prosecutors have a duty to justice to ensure that they don't prosecute cases that they should know that they could not win.

That’s not how things work in the United States. In the United States, we have ‘the presumption of innocence.’ In the case like the Rittenhouse shooting, the bears the burden of proving that everything WAS NOT aboveboard, and that the homicides were unlawful. The onus is not on the defendant to “make sure that everything is legit.” The state bears the onus of proving everything was not legit. In the United States, the state has to say, ‘What you did was wrong. Here’s why.’ In your case, you would unfairly shift the burden to the defendant. So, in this case, the prosecutor should have examined the facts from the perspective most favorable to the defense and figured out that he couldn't prove that Rittenhouse had not acted in self defense and not brought the charges.

I'm very much a civil libertarian. That's why the prosecutorial abuses in this case very much make me angry. If this wasn't supposed to be a politically motived show trial, why did the prosecutor try to use Rittenhouse's Constitutionally protected rights as evidence of his guilt? Why did the prosecution withhold evidence?

Not sure why you'd want to create a class of killing that doesn't have to go through that process, but you do you, I'm sure you have your reasons.


That's really a rather insipid hot take.

I mean, just in this case, the first guy Rittenhouse actually shot was a mentally unstable, violent predator who had threatened to kill him in a prior encounter. That alone should be a clue that the prosecution here did not have a case.

Wait, he didn't shoot the second guy until he tried to kill him. (If you think I'm wrong, provide me another explantion for bashing someone in the head with a deadly weapon.)

He didn't shoot the third guy until he pointed a gun at him... <facepalm>

Of course Binger doesn't actually know the law all that well, other wise he would not have charged him with the NFA related thing.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by The E   » Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:45 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Panzer wrote:From photographic evidence, you can clearly see that Huber is using his skateboard as an impact weapon to deliver a strike to KR’s head and neck area. Huber’s actions go beyond ‘assault with a deadly weapon’ and rise to the level what I would describe as a ‘use of deadly force’ for the purposes of this discussion.


Sure, why not.

You mean a judge and a jury, right? In the United States, trials are time consuming and expensive, and theoretically, prosecutors have a duty to justice to ensure that they don't prosecute cases that they should know that they could not win.


How do you define that? What's the procedure to use to establish whether or not a case is winnable for the prosecution? Granted, there are cases where such a determination can be made and made easily, but what about cases that fall into a grey area?
The thing is, I don't think it's possible to define a good rule for this that can be applied generally. There are so many variables in a process like that that making ex post facto declarations about how "this case should have never gotten to trial" are fraught; just because the prosecution lost doesn't mean the prosecution should never have started in the first place (That this particular case had some pretty shoddy prosecutorial conduct doesn't impact this).

That’s not how things work in the United States. In the United States, we have ‘the presumption of innocence.’


Really? Oh my. How unlike everyone else. What an outlandish concept.

The above was sarcasm, by the way. I'm sorry, I can't help myself when someone says "we in the US have <thing> (where <thing> is something extremely common)"....

In the case like the Rittenhouse shooting, the bears the burden of proving that everything WAS NOT aboveboard, and that the homicides were unlawful. The onus is not on the defendant to “make sure that everything is legit.” The state bears the onus of proving everything was not legit. In the United States, the state has to say, ‘What you did was wrong. Here’s why.’ In your case, you would unfairly shift the burden to the defendant.


Wait, hang on. All I said was "I think cases like these should be examined in a trial", how is that "shifting the burden"? I didn't say anything about reversing the burden of proof.


That's really a rather insipid hot take.

I mean, just in this case, the first guy Rittenhouse actually shot was a mentally unstable, violent predator who had threatened to kill him in a prior encounter. That alone should be a clue that the prosecution here did not have a case.


And you call my takes insipid?
Think about what you're posting here! You're using facts about the victim that Rittenhouse couldn't possibly have known to make Rittenhouse actions look better. You already have a solid case to make (as in, the actions immediately preceding the actual shooting), now you're just fucking it up by claiming that in addition to those immediate circumstances, Rittenhouse was even more in the right because the dude he shot had prior convictions and/or "mental issues".
Does that not raise some rather worrying implications for you? Does it not bother you, a libertarian, that someone's life could be judged to be less worthy of consideration based on their past, regardless of whether or not that past is relevant at that moment?
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Panzer   » Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:11 pm

Panzer
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:10 am

The E wrote:Sure, why not.

I mean, it's not like they're hard to find. I just typed "Huber skateboard" into a Google image search and that's the first picture that comes up.

You mean a judge and a jury, right? In the United States, trials are time consuming and expensive, and theoretically, prosecutors have a duty to justice to ensure that they don't prosecute cases that they should know that they could not win.


How do you define that? What's the procedure to use to establish whether or not a case is winnable for the prosecution? Granted, there are cases where such a determination can be made and made easily, but what about cases that fall into a grey area?
The thing is, I don't think it's possible to define a good rule for this that can be applied generally. There are so many variables in a process like that that making ex post facto declarations about how "this case should have never gotten to trial" are fraught; just because the prosecution lost doesn't mean the prosecution should never have started in the first place (That this particular case had some pretty shoddy prosecutorial conduct doesn't impact this).


And the state deserves Monday morning quarterbacking for them in a criminal case. The state is trying to deprive someone of his rights. Any such case that results in an acquittal deserves scrutiny.

]
Really? Oh my. How unlike everyone else. What an outlandish concept.

The above was sarcasm, by the way. I'm sorry, I can't help myself when someone says "we in the US have <thing> (where <thing> is something extremely common)"....


I mean, it's not like the US is a large and diverse country and we fought our Civil War over an area the size of Europe or anything...

Wait, hang on. All I said was "I think cases like these should be examined in a trial", how is that "shifting the burden"? I didn't say anything about reversing the burden of proof.


Because the state has to bring charges in a trial.

Unless the families either sue Rittenhouse which is pointless or the state charges him with a crime, these things can't be examined in a trial. That's what the word "trial" means.

I mean, just in this case, the first guy Rittenhouse actually shot was a mentally unstable, violent predator who had threatened to kill him in a prior encounter. That alone should be a clue that the prosecution here did not have a case.


And you call my takes insipid?
Think about what you're posting here! You're using facts about the victim that Rittenhouse couldn't possibly have known to make Rittenhouse actions look better. You already have a solid case to make (as in, the actions immediately preceding the actual shooting), now you're just fucking it up by claiming that in addition to those immediate circumstances, Rittenhouse was even more in the right because the dude he shot had prior convictions and/or "mental issues".


umm...I'm pretty sure that Rittenhouse knew that the guy had threatened to kill him.

By "mental issues", I assume you knew I was referring to his suicide attempt and untreated bipolar disorder. Oh, by the way, he also had a history of violently attacking women. Rittenhouse would not have known of Rosenbaum's propensity for violence but the prosecution sure should have. Is it more likely that the "heavily armed" kid attacked a violent crazy person or that a violent crazy person attacked a kid?

Good thing we're arguing on an internet message board, and not a trial.



Does that not raise some rather worrying implications for you? Does it not bother you, a libertarian, that someone's life could be judged to be less worthy of consideration based on their past, regardless of whether or not that past is relevant at that moment?


He spent his present trying to commit felonies and setting dumpster fires...so...not really, no.

I'll even make a list:

Federal felonies:
1) 18 US Code §922(g)(1) - unlawful possession of a firearm - Rosenbaum attempted to commit this one.

State Felonies:
1) Attempted murder - I mean,
2) Battery
3) Theft of a firearm (or just theft, generally)
4) (attempted) possession of a firearm by a prohibited person - it's the same as 922(g)(1)
5) Robbery

I don't have to reach back any further than the night of his death to show that Rosenbaum was a turpitudinous individual.

Since he's dead, we can't speak to him personally, but we can infer from his prior conduct that he had a propensity for violence toward people weaker than himself, a history of mental illness, and a history of predatory behavior toward minors.

Rosenbaum could accurately be described as a pyromaniacal, violent, unmedicated, mentally ill, and abusive pedophile. Well, golly, gee. That was mean of me to characterize him thusly. Quick! Sue me for defamation. Oh wait! There's an absolute defense to that.

Is it too late to make a joke about how Rosenbaum died trying to do something he enjoyed? That is, to inappropriately touch a minor. I mean, in Europe you probably can't because I'm sure that's as illegal as teaching your dog to make a Nazi salute, but, I'm not in Europe, so, there's that.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Panzer   » Sat Jan 08, 2022 10:11 pm

Panzer
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:10 am

Oh, and for my next trick, where are all the gun banners who want Hunter Biden and Hallie Biden arrested?
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Imaginos1892   » Sun Jan 09, 2022 9:55 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Here’s a better question: Why has Galge Grosskreutz never been charged with illegal possession of a gun?

That crime truly would be an open-and-shut case. Grosskreutz is a convicted violent felon, shown on video with a gun. Possession of a gun by a felon violates those ‘reasonable gun control’ laws at both the federal and state level.

So why no charges? Why no prosecution? There is no question of intent, no possible claim of justification. The plain facts prove beyond any doubt that Grosskreutz committed a crime.

When innocent people are prosecuted for legally possessing guns on their own private property, the fact that Grosskreutz has NOT been charged or prosecuted proves beyond any doubt that our laws are being applied and enforced unequally and unfairly. That is a matter of much greater concern than a young man legally exercising his right of self-defense.
———————————
The Democrats trust violent criminals and terrorists with guns more than they trust you.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by The E   » Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:41 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Meerbusch, Germany

Panzer wrote:I mean, just in this case, the first guy Rittenhouse actually shot was a mentally unstable, violent predator who had threatened to kill him in a prior encounter. That alone should be a clue that the prosecution here did not have a case.


Wow, you really have opinions on civil rights, don't you.

Okay, so according to you, if you shoot someone in what you believe to be self defence, you think that "the person I shot had a prior conviction" or "the person I shot has prior history of mental instability" is a factor in your defence? Regardless of whether or not you know about that history? Regardless of whether or not these historic incidents resemble those you found yourself in?

I mean, congrats, welcome to literally every time a black person gets shot on spurious grounds by law enforcement, I guess.
Rittenhouse was under direct attack. There was literally a dude right in front of him, attacking him with a skateboard which would already justify Rittenhouse defending himself with the tools he had at hand, no, you need to go one step further and claim that his attacker's personal and criminal history (which, again, Rittenhouse could not have known) justifies the shooting.

You had already made your case. Now you're just over-egging the pudding, and in the process, you have inadvertently made the statement that shooting an ex-con or a person with mental health issues should be easier to justify legally regardless of circumstance. Is that really the point you want to be making?

By "mental issues", I assume you knew I was referring to his suicide attempt and untreated bipolar disorder. Oh, by the way, he also had a history of violently attacking women. Rittenhouse would not have known of Rosenbaum's propensity for violence but the prosecution sure should have. Is it more likely that the "heavily armed" kid attacked a violent crazy person or that a violent crazy person attacked a kid?


That's the wrong question, my dude. The question to answer for a self-defence defence is "did the person defending themselves have reason to believe their life was in danger", not "did the victim have a criminal history". Rittenhouse believed himself to be in danger. Video evidence shows that that belief was justifiable. That's it. Done. The victim's history doesn't and shouldn't factor into it unless that history is directly relevant (like, for example, in cases of domestic abuse, where a documented history of abuse would and should count in the evaluation).


I don't have to reach back any further than the night of his death to show that Rosenbaum was a turpitudinous individual.


And? Look, all I'm saying is that this after-the-fact rationalization you're doing is completely unnecessary. You've already won the argument. Well, Rittenhouse did, anyway.

Since he's dead, we can't speak to him personally, but we can infer from his prior conduct that he had a propensity for violence toward people weaker than himself, a history of mental illness, and a history of predatory behavior toward minors.

Rosenbaum could accurately be described as a pyromaniacal, violent, unmedicated, mentally ill, and abusive pedophile. Well, golly, gee. That was mean of me to characterize him thusly. Quick! Sue me for defamation. Oh wait! There's an absolute defense to that.


Not so much accurately as hyperbolically, but sure. Now, the questions I want you to answer are, in a self-defence case, when should the history of the person that got killed matter? Every time or just when it's strictly relevant to both parties?
Self-defence is a defense that relies on establishing the state of mind of the person defending themselves more than anything else. Their personal history, and their personal history with the person that attacked them absolutely matter - But when it comes to things like Rosenbaum's criminal or health history, arguing for these facts to be included in the evaluation when Rittenhouse had no way of knowing them strikes me as weird and silly. As I said earlier, there's already a strong case to be made based on the immediate circumstances of the attack, so why bring in all this extra bs?

Is it too late to make a joke about how Rosenbaum died trying to do something he enjoyed? That is, to inappropriately touch a minor. I mean, in Europe you probably can't because I'm sure that's as illegal as teaching your dog to make a Nazi salute, but, I'm not in Europe, so, there's that.


.... what is it with americans and believing Europe is a no-free-speech-ever zone?

Imaginos1892 wrote:Here’s a better question: Why has Galge Grosskreutz never been charged with illegal possession of a gun?

That crime truly would be an open-and-shut case. Grosskreutz is a convicted violent felon, shown on video with a gun. Possession of a gun by a felon violates those ‘reasonable gun control’ laws at both the federal and state level.


I've taken the liberty of bolding a part of your statement there. Can you guess why?

Yes, you probably can! I highlighted it both because it's what your entire rant hinges on and also because it's wrong.
There's a bunch of dismissed and expunged stuff in his criminal history, he got a probation for a misdemeanor conviction for "intoxicated use of a firearm" in 2015, there's a couple other minor (non-violent) stuff in there. He was charged with a felony, but never convicted; thus, he wasn't a felon, thus he was violating relevant firearms laws only in so far as he was carrying a weapon in a concealed way without having a valid concealed-carry license (he did have an expired one).

So, Imaginos, given that I could find that out with literally a minute of googling... why can't you? Why can't the people you took that talking point from do so?
Last edited by The E on Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Joat42   » Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:44 am

Joat42
Admiral

Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

Imaginos1892 wrote:Did you expect other kids to do your homework for you in school, too? That would explain a lot. Like the illiterate way you keep using 'where' when the correct word is 'were'.

I expect the kids in school to cite their sources when claiming something. When you say all three are violent felons I'd expect you would be able to cite their felonies but somehow you seem unable to. Perhaps because if you tried it would prove you wrong?

And nitpicking on words, seriously? Only juvenile assholes do that.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top

Return to Politics