Good Guys with Guns exercising First and Second amendment rights?

[El Correcto]

In fact, I would be even more justified taking Rittenhouse out because of his use of disproportional response. AR15 Vs Skateboard.

when someone is threatening your life you do not have to answer with a proportionate response.
Aren’t you the dork that “gets real combat”??

 

[El Correcto]

You are still salty that a 17 year old defended himself from a suicidal serial child rapist who was off his meds and trying to kill him.
You’re just bitter that the rioters who you whole heartedly support were shot dead for trying to kill a 17 year old with a rifle.
In your mind he is this evil dude for doing this, that delusion has been shattered by his acquittal and you need to move on.

 

[Poop Head]

AR15 Vs Skateboard.

 

[BMWMC]

when someone is threatening your life you do not have to answer with a proportionate response.
Aren’t you the dork that “gets real combat”??

Proportional response was how self-defense used to be judged by. Now someone throwing a candy bar can be considered threatening if it means they might take your gun away from you.
Again, you read 1/3 of a post, then use what you want out of context to continue to say nothing of any merit.
Why don't you address my hypothetical scenario where I, armed with my own assault rifle, see Rittenhouse, without a single identifying sign of any official or unofficial authority, as an active shooter, and take him out because I feared for my own safety and that of others, or why I should have not?
What about Rittenhouse dress and armament indicated he was with the "good guys"?

 

[El Correcto]

Proportional response was how self-defense used to be judged by. Now someone throwing a candy bar can be considered threatening if it means they might take your gun away from you.
Again, you read 1/3 of a post, then use what you want out of context to continue to say nothing of any merit.
Why don't you address my hypothetical scenario where I, armed with my own assault rifle, see Rittenhouse, without a single identifying sign of any official or unofficial authority, as an active shooter, and take him out because I feared for my own safety and that of others, or why I should have not?
What about Rittenhouse dress and armament indicated he was with the "good guys"?

No you would be prosecuted if society was just.
You’re liable for ever bullet you fire and if you hit someone innocent like Rittenhouse you will be charged with a crime. You hypothetical gives your attorney room to argue mitagating factors in your favor for a reduced sentence so you might not spend most your life behind bars or visit an execution chamber for murdering someone.

 

[El Correcto]

“He was dressed that way he deserved to get murdered” new liberal victim blame game. Pathetic.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

 

[From a Land Brown Under]

The Kyle Rittenhouse case was a clear cut case of self-defense and upholding second amendment rights. However, this one case is a clear cut reason to call 911 and not act on the behalf of the law from these 3 yee-haws. I'm from Arizona, which is the last bastion of gun rights. If all of you are mad at the guy and the guys family being convicted, you ARE anti-police, because they'll come for your guns next. Self defense by law, does NOT protect the outside of your home OR even in your home, unless by equal force. Don't believe me? Call your local sheriff or attorney to get clarification. Down thumb me all you want, but this is BY LAW. Kyle was a clear cut case due to his life being threatened by another gun-man(s). However, this dude jogging was unarmed and only got ahold of a gun by the people pointing at him for a brief second.

 

[El Correcto]

The Kyle Rittenhouse case was a clear cut case of self-defense and upholding second amendment rights. However, this one case is a clear cut reason to call 911 and not act on the behalf of the law from these 3 yee-haws. I'm from Arizona, which is the last bastion of gun rights. If all of you are mad at the guy and the guys family being convicted, you ARE anti-police, because they'll come for your guns next. Self defense by law, does NOT protect the outside of your home OR even in your home, unless by equal force. Don't believe me? Call your local sheriff or attorney to get clarification. Down thumb me all you want, but this is BY LAW. Kyle was a clear cut case due to his life being threatened by another gun-man(s). However, this dude jogging was unarmed and only got ahold of a gun by the people pointing at him for a brief second.

You don’t know anything about gun laws.
There is nothing about equal force in my states gun laws. Kyle was protected despite using a rifle against people armed with blunt objects.
If a samurai ran up on me with a katana I wouldn’t have to be like hold up lemme go get my claymore from home.

 

[El Correcto]

Statue about self defense is clear cut. If you fear for your life. Hell you don’t even got to prove you thought you might die just that there was a chance you’d suffer great bodily harm. Like for me I’ve already had a broken jaw once, if someone were to knock me in my face hard enough it could cause me serious damage and thousands of dollars in medical bills. That is grave bodily harm.

I’ll shoot anyone who comes at me trying to even punch me in the face.

 

[newfie]

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.

your act is still one of cold blooded murder where he was clearly firing at people who were attacking him. Using bold font does not improve your misguided argument

 

[newfie]

His not guilty verdict was the results of 2 million dollars of world class defense and defects in the self-defense laws

which was needed to counter millions in dollars spent misrepresenting the facts of this case.

regardless of whatever defects in law you percieve he acted within the guideliness of those laws.

 

[newfie]

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.

If he is the instigator then every marine that has ever guarded an embassy and every soldior that has ever guarded anything is also one and also deserves the punishment you have outlined.

 

[From a Land Brown Under]

You don’t know anything about gun laws.
There is nothing about equal force in my states gun laws. Kyle was protected despite using a rifle against people armed with blunt objects.
If a samurai ran up on me with a katana I wouldn’t have to be like hold up lemme go get my claymore from home.

If I don't, please quote your state and gun laws then. I'd love to know. It sounds to me you are ANTI-POLICE and lawless. Kyle is innocent like I said, but these guys in this thread should have called the police in regards to theft.

 

[El Correcto]

If I don't, please quote your state and gun laws then. I'd love to know. It sounds to me you are ANTI-POLICE and lawless. Kyle is innocent like I said, but these guys in this thread should have called the police in regards to theft.

I’ve read them plenty of times and even quoted from them here. I know the law regarding self defense and when I’m allowed to draw on someone. I wouldn’t even bother with the legal headache of shooting people for most of the things I’m allowed to shoot them over. Mainly involving other’s property and minor offenses against mine.

You’re sitting here just lying and trolling like always.

 

[From a Land Brown Under]

I’ve read them plenty of times and even quoted from them here. I know the law regarding self defense and when I’m allowed to draw on someone. I wouldn’t even bother with the legal headache of shooting people for most of the things I’m allowed to shoot them over. Mainly involving other’s property and minor offenses against mine.

You’re sitting here just lying and trolling like always.

This isn't a troll. I actually have the balls the post the state I am in and know the self defense laws. Post yours, pussi.

 

[El Correcto]

This isn't a troll. I actually have the balls the post the state I am in and know the self defense laws. Post yours, pussi.

Already have multiple times, hell it’s not even a secret what city I’m in.
Lurk more.

 

[BMWMC]

“He was dressed that way he deserved to get murdered” new liberal victim blame game. Pathetic.

Here another is a clear example by you of taking words out of context to make a completely meritless point.
It what he is perceived to be by an average person by his dress, armament and behavior is the point. He had no other official or unofficial markings of anyone in authority. All the pictures of him that night cast him as a combatant by the way he dress, was armed, and behaved.

 

[BMWMC]

which was needed to counter millions in dollars spent misrepresenting the facts of this case.

regardless of whatever defects in law you perceived he acted within the guideliness of those laws.

And that's the point of my hypothetical. The permissiveness of gun laws and self-defense standards puts everyone in dangerous circumstances where who's who isn't as a important as who gets drawn on first and killed.
I don't agree with the verdict. It sends the wrong message about guns and self-defense. I haven't met anyone who thinks Rittenhouse taking of a assault rifle into an angry mob was a smart thing to do. Had he not brought this weapon his night there would have ended as everyone else's did. No serious injuries or death. It was a weapon in the hands of a fool that got us here and now the verdict supports wantabe hero's and fools.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You see the point is these leftists don't want you to be able to defend yourself or your family. They want you to live in fear. They know their side is violent and evil and they want you on your knees.