Good Guys with Guns exercising First and Second amendment rights?

[wilberforce15]

I agree completely but i have the feeling you don;t really mean 'Eveyone" as in ALL folks

I do, actually, mean all folks. I'd like to 10x the funding of the public defenders office.

And simultaneously 10x the average penalty for crime.

 

[MAKAVELI]

"The Right to Liberty" isn't a thing.

The 14th amendment is a disaster of jursiprudence. It basically is now taken to say the feds can do anything and everything they want, and all lefty rights are enshrined by people who passed the thing, who had no idea what future commies would do to the amendment.

Pass your own Amendment or STFU. It's national law. Ttku.......

 

[wilberforce15]

Pass your own Amendment or STFU. It's national law. Ttku.......

So you admit that they wrote something fundamentally different than what the judges interpret it to be?

 

[MAKAVELI]

So you admit that they wrote something fundamentally different than what the judges interpret it to be?

Arbery's Right to Liberty was violated. Ttku.....

 

[wilberforce15]

Arbery's Right to Liberty was violated. Ttku.....

That's literally not a thing.

No rights violated.

 

[MAKAVELI]

That's literally not a thing.

No rights violated.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Yes it's a thing.

 

[wilberforce15]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Yes it's a thing.

But all the things you've made up about it are fake.

This amendment is used for absolutely everything except for why it was written.

 

[newfie]

Seems the defense attorney that didn't want any more Black Pastors in the courtroom isn't a fan of folks exercising First and Second amendment rights outside of the courthouse either

Armed black militias expected to return to Ahmaud Arbery murder trial

Black Lives Matter 757 called for protesters to return to Glynn County courthouse on Tuesday.

nypost.com

redundant thread. it should be merged with the other one.

 

[BrownFlush]

Arbery's Right to Liberty was violated. Ttku.....

Yeah, the right of blacks to steal and be free from payment.

 

[BMWMC]

Here we have a bad person with a "good" persons (assumption here) gun shooting two police officers.

"Commissioner Shea declined to identify the officers or the suspect, whom he described as a “career criminal with far too many arrests, still on the streets of New York City.” He said the suspect’s gun had been reported stolen in Georgia last year."

I guess we can be thankful is wasn't and AR15.

Two N.Y.P.D. Officers Are Shot in Gun Battle in the Bronx (Published 2021)

One of the officers was released from the hospital on Thursday while the second was still being treated and is expected to survive. The suspected gunman was also shot.

www.nytimes.com

 

[bacha29]

Rittenhouse’s $2 million legal defense funds enabled his lawyers, before his trial, to stage separate “practice” jury trials — one in which 18-year-old Rittenhouse took the stand and one in which he did not. The more favorable reaction from the pretend jurors when Rittenhouse testified informed the decision to let the teenager tell his story to the real jurors. His apparently well-rehearsed testimony was probably the most important factor in the jury ultimately letting Rittenhouse walk.

Rittenhouse also had the benefit of a liberal judge who constantly scolded and admonished the prosecutors almost as a matter of daily practice. A conservative judge might have been more willing to allow more of the prosecutions evidence to be presented in court.
When you combine 2 million bucks worth of top gun defense attorneys with a very liberal judge Rittenhouse had an acquittal in the bag right from the get go.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Rittenhouse also had the benefit of a liberal judge who constantly scolded and admonished the prosecutors almost as a matter of daily practice. A conservative judge might have been more willing to allow more of the prosecutions evidence to be presented in court.
When you combine 2 million bucks worth of top gun defense attorneys with a very liberal judge Rittenhouse had an acquittal in the bag right from the get go.

What a load of BS.
What we witnessed was constant prosecutorial misconduct, and the petulant little prosecutor got put in his place only where it was well deserved.

 

[Box Ox]

When you combine 2 million bucks worth of top gun defense attorneys with a very liberal judge Rittenhouse had an acquittal in the bag right from the get go.

That's the opinion of someone who insists on not believing their lying eyes when they watch video of what happened that night.

 

[BMWMC]

That's the opinion of someone who insists on not believing their lying eyes when they watch video of what happened that night.

You still don't get it, do you?

The people who chased him were stupid and foolish. But,

imagine for a moment, change some details, and think if it was you or I walking with the protesters, on their side, carrying our own assault rifles;
what would you be thinking seeing Rittenhouse, with his weapon at port arms, finger over the trigger, walking/jogging down the street with nothing that identifies him with law enforcement or private security;

now what would you immediately start to think about? Me, I'm thinking active shooter. Whose side he's on is unknown, but the danger of stray rounds or mass casualties puts our fight or flight mental wheels in motion;

My second thought would be to move my weapon from its slung back position, to at the ready, optic caps off, lock and loaded, and, at the double time, begin to flank his movements and attempt to get in front of him, undetected.

Now, imagine, I not knowing anything about this person, or anything about the situation, who I now believe is an active shooter, seeing him live fire and take down someone.

In my now undetected flanked and covered position, waiting for him to come to me, I put a round in both his eyes before he can even think to take another step.

Guess what? Now I'm the self-defence hero. The dead tell no tales and can testify to nothing in their defence.

So, two people can meet each other with guns, and the first to decide if they are afraid can shoot first to avoid being shot first.

Nice piece of peaceful community making logic there, ay!

 

[Box Ox]

what would you be thinking seeing Rittenhouse, with his weapon at port arms, finger over the trigger, walking/jogging down the street with nothing that identifies him with law enforcement or private security;

now what would you immediately start to think about? Me, I'm thinking active shooter. Whose side he's on is unknown, but the danger of stray rounds or mass casualties puts our fight or flight mental wheels in motion;

Kyle clearly wasn't an active shooter. He'd been running for two blocks toward the police line and had not even pointed his gun at anyone the entire time. So the rest of your hero fantasy is a moot point.

The people who chased him were stupid and foolish.

That's for sure.

 

[newfie]

You still don't get it, do you?

The people who chased him were stupid and foolish. But,

imagine for a moment, change some details, and think if it was you or I walking with the protesters, on their side, carrying our own assault rifles;
what would you be thinking seeing Rittenhouse, with his weapon at port arms, finger over the trigger, walking/jogging down the street with nothing that identifies him with law enforcement or private security;

now what would you immediately start to think about? Me, I'm thinking active shooter. Whose side he's on is unknown, but the danger of stray rounds or mass casualties puts our fight or flight mental wheels in motion;

My second thought would be to move my weapon from its slung back position, to at the ready, optic caps off, lock and loaded, and, at the double time, begin to flank his movements and attempt to get in front of him, undetected.

Now, imagine, I not knowing anything about this person, or anything about the situation, who I now believe is an active shooter, seeing him live fire and take down someone.

In my now undetected flanked and covered position, waiting for him to come to me, I put a round in both his eyes before he can even think to take another step.

Guess what? Now I'm the self-defence hero. The dead tell no tales and can testify to nothing in their defence.

So, two people can meet each other with guns, and the first to decide if they are afraid can shoot first to avoid being shot first.

Nice piece of peaceful community making logic there, ay!
View attachment 361220

you clearly ignore the point that if you were watching and flanking Kyle you would see him chased by a mob, beaten with a skateboard and kicked in the head.

how are you the self defense hero when he did not attack you.

 

[Box Ox]

how are you the self defense hero when he did not attack you.

Indeed. Kyle's attackers were clearly just out for blood. If we look at the video (2:05 into it) of Kyle running down the street toward the police line, nobody seems to be concerned that he's an imminent threat as an "active shooter".

The jury saw this and acknowledged it with their verdict of not guilty.

 

[BMWMC]

Kyle clearly wasn't an active shooter. He'd been running for two blocks toward the police line and had not even pointed his gun at anyone the entire time. So the rest of your hero fantasy is a moot point.



That's for sure.

you would be a murderer you had no one trying to hit you in the head with a skateboard when you shot.

Try reread the post again.

"He'd been running for two block towards the police"?
That would mean he was at least two block PAST the police when he was identified by the crowd as an active shooter. FIRST! You can't be running towards police unless your were already far from them in the first place.
You CHOOSE to change the facts to suit your conclusions and it not only runs counter the evidence but your own claims.

I don't need to be directly threatens. The use of deadly force can be justified to prevent an assaults where you think great bodily injury might occur, a rape or kidnapping in progress, or child abduction. It doesn't matter if I knew or didn't know who was the aggressor or defender neither could be identified with any kind of official or unofficial powers.
In fact, I would be even more justified taking Rittenhouse out because of his use of disproportional response. AR15 Vs Skateboard.

 

[BMWMC]

Indeed. Kyle's attackers were clearly just out for blood. If we look at the video (2:05 into it) of Kyle running down the street toward the police line, nobody seems to be concerned that he's an imminent threat as an "active shooter".

The jury saw this and acknowledged it with their verdict of not guilty.

His not guilty verdict was the results of 2 million dollars of world class defense and defects in the self-defense laws I have been highlighting to which you have avoided like the plague and regurgitate simplistic answers to a simplistic understandings of a complex situation.

 

[BMWMC]

you clearly ignore the point that if you were watching and flanking Kyle you would see him chased by a mob, beaten with a skateboard and kicked in the head.

how are you the self defense hero when he did not attack you.

All I see him doing is a tactical repositioning. Looking for his own cover and concealment. My eyes are focused on the weapon and the shooter. Seeing him take down a guy wielding a skateboard would be to me a hot shoot and taking him out because of his application of a disproportional response, the right call in that situation.
Like the prosecutor said; you can't be the instigator and claim self-defenses. I don't agree with the verdict but understand it based current the current permissive gun and self-defense laws. That's why I presented a counter scenario which has just as much a probability of winning a self-defense clam as Rittenhouse had. Which highlights the strange fate and ambiguities of gun ownership and self-defense claims.

"how are you the self defense hero when he did not attack you."

I already answered this in another post but I have every right to shoot to kill anyone who I reasonably believe is about to cause great bodily injury, rape or kidnaping, or child abduction. Many states have even more lack requirement than that. Many state allow you to shoot to kill people who you believe are stealing property or about to steal yours. That's the Rittenhouse defense. He was afraid the very weapon he brought to make him safe, which turned out to put his own life in jeopardy, as people saw him with this weapon as someone there NOT to help but to harm them.

Your not paying attention to the arguments.