Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:07:35 GMT
He was pointing his gun because he was threatened by the mob, and had every right to address that perceived threat. He is not a murderer.
By the way, if we apply your "pointed gun=threat=assault" logic to history, that would mean that the Confederates were just firing on Fort Sumter to disarm the fort's inhabitants because the Yankees were pointing guns at them.
Thanks for confirming that the Yankees started the War Between the States. Huh? Going a bit afield in your weak response. Greg Sorry, Greg....I forgot that you are clueless about history and it makes you feel inadequate when we bring it up.
Besides, TL brought up 19th century Southern hunting / shooting skills in the gun thread. Was that a bit afield? I missed you chastising him for it.
|
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by demos on Aug 28, 2020 18:10:49 GMT
In case you didn't already know, it *is* a threat to point a loaded gun at someone. Pretty sure this is the argument that was offered when the protester was shot in Austin. Not sure if anyone here made that argument at the time, but it was made in plenty of other places. Now the shoe is on the other foot. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 18:13:21 GMT
Huh? Going a bit afield in your weak response. Greg Sorry, Greg....I forgot that you are clueless about history and it makes you feel inadequate when we bring it up.
Besides, TL brought up 19th century Southern hunting / shooting skills in the gun thread. Was that a bit afield? I missed you chastising him for it.
Then would you care to address the actual law in the State of Wisconsin. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:19:45 GMT
Do you actually ever read what you post? So, by your fallacious "logic", assaulting someone with a gun to take it away from them is a "right" while a person holding a gun has no right to even point it to address a perceived threat? You're rather famous here for your logical fallacies, but this one's in the running for the top five. No, that kid was THREATENED and exercised HIS right to defend himself against a violent mob. He didn't assault anyone; pointing the weapon was a warning that he would defend himself. Another one of your fallacies is believing that the right of self defense was reserved only to the animals in the mob. This isn't about logic, reasoning or "fallacies." Its about the facts. And the fact is this kid was being chased because he was pointing his weapon at people. Don't play dumb. You know full well that no one has the right to brandish a weapon. Nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country every year that save many lives. When threatened, we have a legal right to use a weapon as defense or deterrence.
Facts? Hell, before the shooting the same kid offered medical assistance TO PROTESTERS! What a horrible threat!
If the NY Times has a better handle on the facts than you do:
In most of the footage The Times has reviewed from before the shootings, Mr. Rittenhouse is around this area. He also offers medical assistance to protesters.
About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.
Mr. Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle carrying his rifle and talks with the officers.
He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.
Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
Even the NY Times says that the guy that Rittenhouse wounded in the arm WAS BRANDISHING A PISTOL!
TL, you have neither facts nor logic on your side, as usual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:22:20 GMT
In case you didn't already know, it *is* a threat to point a loaded gun at someone. Pretty sure this is the argument that was offered when the protester was shot in Austin. Not sure if anyone here made that argument at the time, but it was made in plenty of other places. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Yes, and there was some debate about whether that Austin man actually pointed his muzzle at the driver or whether it was in the "ready position." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:23:43 GMT
This isn't about logic, reasoning or "fallacies." Its about the facts. And the fact is this kid was being chased because he was pointing his weapon at people. Don't play dumb. You know full well that no one has the right to brandish a weapon. Nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country every year that save many lives. When threatened, we have a legal right to use a weapon as defense or deterrence. You're playing dumb. No one disputes that people have the right to defend themselves. We dispute that they have the right to brandish weapons and shoot at people for throwing trash and then claim self-defense. This is about offense, not defense. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 18:24:30 GMT
This isn't about logic, reasoning or "fallacies." Its about the facts. And the fact is this kid was being chased because he was pointing his weapon at people. Don't play dumb. You know full well that no one has the right to brandish a weapon. Nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country every year that save many lives. When threatened, we have a legal right to use a weapon as defense or deterrence.
Facts? Hell, before the shooting the same kid offered medical assistance TO PROTESTERS! What a horrible threat!
If the NY Times has a better handle on the facts than you do:
In most of the footage The Times has reviewed from before the shootings, Mr. Rittenhouse is around this area. He also offers medical assistance to protesters.
About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.
Mr. Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle carrying his rifle and talks with the officers.
He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.
Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
Even the NY Times says that the guy that Rittenhouse wounded in the arm WAS BRANDISHING A PISTOL!
TL, you have neither facts nor logic on your side, as usual.
Rittenhouse shot three people. What you've just posted covers the second two. How was the first person killed? Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:26:24 GMT
This isn't about logic, reasoning or "fallacies." Its about the facts. And the fact is this kid was being chased because he was pointing his weapon at people. Don't play dumb. You know full well that no one has the right to brandish a weapon
Even the NY Times says that the guy that Rittenhouse wounded in the arm WAS BRANDISHING A PISTOL!
TL, you have neither facts nor logic on your side, as usual.
That "guy brandishing a pistol" was a first responder who came to offer medical attention to a dead man lying the street, only to find himself staring down the barrel of a rifle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:27:04 GMT
Hopefully, he'll never spend any significant time in jail. The second person killed and the one wounded were kicking the sh*t out of Rittenhouse while he was on the ground and one of them was pummeling him with a skateboard. That's attempted murder.
Evidently, the rule is that one is not allowed to defend one's self from any BLM mob.
Looked like an attempted citizens arrest to me. Greg Perhaps that's what Rittenhouse was attempting to do when he brandished his weapon toward the violent protesters. Two way street, Greg. Read the NY Times article and see if the protesters even had the right to attack Rittenhouse (they attempted to murder him while he was on the ground using a skateboard). |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Aug 28, 2020 18:29:24 GMT
This is a fact-based forum .. You need to back up your claim that he's 'playing' or else .. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 18:30:59 GMT
Looked like an attempted citizens arrest to me. Greg Perhaps that's what Rittenhouse was attempting to do when he brandished his weapon toward the violent protesters. Two way street, Greg. Read the NY Times article and see if the protesters even had the right to attack Rittenhouse (they attempted to murder him while he was on the ground using a skateboard). So, as a member of the jury, you have to ask yourself "If Rittenhouse had been in compliance with the law, would this have happened?" That is, if Rittenhouse had NOT willfully crossed the state line in possession of an illegal firearm, would this chain of events have occurred? Answer is no. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:39:03 GMT
Nonsense. There are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses in this country every year that save many lives. When threatened, we have a legal right to use a weapon as defense or deterrence. You're playing dumb. No one disputes that people have the right to defend themselves. We dispute that they have the right to brandish weapons and shoot at people for throwing trash and then claim self-defense. This is about offense, not defense. You're the one with his head in....the sand. Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself and did so. It's utterly stupid to say in the first sentence "you can defend yourself" and, yet, in the second line start making up ways that the same person is not allowed to defend himself, even if threatened. Brandishing a weapon harms no one, just sends a message. He had every right to send that message in that hostile, threatening environment.
It's also stupid to claim that he fired the first shot simply because someone threw trash at him. He was being chased and had no idea what was being thrown at him. Could have been a knife, brick or any number of harmful items.
And get this through your illogical skull.....Rittenhouse was the one being chased, which is also an assault. If you want to talk about "offense", how the hell can that be the guy who is being chased?
Look at the NYT summary above. A shot was fired by someone else, Rittenhouse's pursuer threw an UNKNOWN object at his back, then Rittenhouse defended himself, as you acknowledge he had every right to do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:42:12 GMT
Perhaps that's what Rittenhouse was attempting to do when he brandished his weapon toward the violent protesters. Two way street, Greg. Read the NY Times article and see if the protesters even had the right to attack Rittenhouse (they attempted to murder him while he was on the ground using a skateboard). So, as a member of the jury, you have to ask yourself "If Rittenhouse had been in compliance with the law, would this have happened?" That is, if Rittenhouse had NOT been in possession of an illegal firearm, would this chain of events have occurred? Answer is no. Greg Same question for the morons who chased Rittenhouse down and tried to pummel him with a skateboard. The third guy shot in the arm was brandishing a pistol when he was shot.
If they had ignored Rittenhouse, instead of acting like animals, would it have happened? Two way street, Greg.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 18:44:01 GMT
So, as a member of the jury, you have to ask yourself "If Rittenhouse had been in compliance with the law, would this have happened?" That is, if Rittenhouse had NOT been in possession of an illegal firearm, would this chain of events have occurred? Answer is no. Greg Same question for the morons who chased Rittenhouse down and tried to pummel him with a skateboard. The third guy shot in the arm was brandishing a pistol when he was shot.
If they had ignored Rittenhouse, instead of acting like animals, would it have happened? Two way street, Greg.
No, this incident was precipitated by Rittenhouse. If he had been in compliance with the law it would not have happened. Greg |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 18:44:04 GMT
You're playing dumb. No one disputes that people have the right to defend themselves. We dispute that they have the right to brandish weapons and shoot at people for throwing trash and then claim self-defense. This is about offense, not defense. You're the one with his head in....the sand. Rittenhouse had the right to defend himself and did so. It's utterly stupid to say in the first sentence "you can defend yourself" and, yet, in the second line start making up ways that the same person is not allowed to defend himself, even if threatened. Brandishing a weapon harms no one, just sends a message. He had every right to send that message in that hostile, threatening environment.
It's also stupid to claim that he fired the first shot simply because someone threw trash at him. He was being chased and had no idea what was being thrown at him. Could have been a knife, brick or any number of harmful items.
And get this through your illogical skull.....Rittenhouse was the one being chased, which is also an assault. If you want to talk about "offense", how the hell can that be the guy who is being chased? 
Look at the NYT summary above. A shot was fired by someone else, Rittenhouse's pursuer threw an UNKNOWN object at his back, then Rittenhouse defended himself, as you acknowledge he had every right to do.
Yep, this is the same willful ignorance that you display when we discuss the Civil War or those monuments to apartheid. You pretend that Rittenhouse was defending himself from being chased/attacked yet ignore the actions that lead up to him being chased. Context is key. I'll say it again, no one has the right to brandish a weapon at others. He lost the right to possess that weapon in public the moment he started using it aggressively. And that "unknown" object was actually a plastic bag. Kudos from moving away from the molotov claim. That's progress. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2020 20:51:57 GMT
Yep, this is the same willful ignorance that you display when we discuss the Civil War or those monuments to apartheid. When we discussed that subject, you lost, and it's happening again. Sorry that you are ignorant of that fact. As in that monument discussion, your illogical opinions are becoming painfully farcical. It's hard to watch. You pretend that Rittenhouse was defending himself from being chased/attacked yet ignore the actions that lead up to him being chased. Context is key. Context IS key. He attacked no one prior to being attacked himself. Pointing a weapon when threatened IS self defense, not offense. The real context is that this kid was surrounded by violent, out of control animals on the prowl. Prior to being chased down by those animals, according to the NYT, he was offering medical aid to protesters. Does that sound like a guy threatening the protesters to you? I'll say it again, no one has the right to brandish a weapon at others. He lost the right to possess that weapon in public the moment he started using it aggressively. In self defense, EVERYONE has a right to brandish a weapon at others. And pointing the firearm in self defense is not using it "aggressively". And I must have missed the part of the Second Amendment where it says " the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless we get upset when you use it aggressively in public". Can you not see why we are doubting the libertarian label? And that "unknown" object was actually a plastic bag. Kudos from moving away from the molotov claim. That's progress. Oh, so that saintly, innocent protester was chasing the poor kid at full tilt just to give him a plastic bag, right? Well, there's nothing aggressive about that at all, is there? Is that the fairy tale that you're peddling? He was being chased down by several protesters. Someone fired a gunshot near him right before he fired the first shots. I don't care if they were throwing flowers, these packs of animals running their prey in the dark streets were an imminent threat which he dealt with properly. It was not murder. |
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 22:04:23 GMT
Yep, this is the same willful ignorance that you display when we discuss the Civil War or those monuments to apartheid. When we discussed that subject, you lost, and it's happening again. Sorry that you are ignorant of that fact. As in that monument discussion, your illogical opinions are becoming painfully farcical. It's hard to watch. You pretend that Rittenhouse was defending himself from being chased/attacked yet ignore the actions that lead up to him being chased. Context is key. Context IS key. He attacked no one prior to being attacked himself. Pointing a weapon when threatened IS self defense, not offense. The real context is that this kid was surrounded by violent, out of control animals on the prowl. Prior to being chased down by those animals, according to the NYT, he was offering medical aid to protesters. Does that sound like a guy threatening the protesters to you? I'll say it again, no one has the right to brandish a weapon at others. He lost the right to possess that weapon in public the moment he started using it aggressively. In self defense, EVERYONE has a right to brandish a weapon at others. And pointing the firearm in self defense is not using it "aggressively". And I must have missed the part of the Second Amendment where it says " the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless we get upset when you use it aggressively in public". Can you not see why we are doubting the libertarian label? And that "unknown" object was actually a plastic bag. Kudos from moving away from the molotov claim. That's progress. Oh, so that saintly, innocent protester was chasing the poor kid at full tilt just to give him a plastic bag, right? Well, there's nothing aggressive about that at all, is there? Is that the fairy tale that oyou're peddling? He was being chased down by several protesters. Someone fired a gunshot near him right before he fired the first shots. I don't care if they were throwing flowers, these packs of animals running their prey in the dark streets were an imminent threat which he dealt with properly. It was not murder. Wisconsin weapons law violation: Greg |
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 28, 2020 22:14:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg55_99 on Aug 28, 2020 22:17:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Aug 28, 2020 22:18:45 GMT
Deadly assault with a plastic bag! Very very dangerous situation! BIGLY bad!
|
|
