Jump to content

Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots


clapclapclap

Recommended Posts

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Now go look at Clinton v. Jones for the ruling that really matters.

Because Biden was not in office when he made the defamatory tweet at issue.  It was during the campaign when he was a private citizen.  Hint: a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.

Donald Trump GIF by Election 2016

(if you ask that guy or sack et al 2017-2021)

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Do you have a source for this? I was told that opinions weren't allowed here. kEep iT In tHE cLOaCk rOOm

please outline anything political about my argument.

then think about what you are actually arguing.

or, are you actually arguing anything, or just trying to one up someone else?

you are a terrible poster.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thank god we have a really competitive Longhorn football game tomorrow to get a needed break from this, yet another national breakdown in civic discourse. 
(checks notes)

oh for fuck’s sakes!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now go look at Clinton v. Jones for the ruling that really matters.

Because Biden was not in office when he made the defamatory tweet at issue.  It was during the campaign when he was a private citizen.  Hint: a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.

Ah, you are correct. I was off on the timing of Biden's comments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

there's an argument to be made that carrying a gun at low ready is threatening to anyone in the general vicinity. do you disagree?

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be harassed.

Edited by JBJ
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JBJ said:

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be sexually harassed.

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

So fuck around and find out?

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's what i think yall are doing. hope it feels good today. i'm worried about tomorrow. see cloak room.

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hayden_horn said:

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

Anyone is a potential shooter. Have you not heard about concealed carry? Try your question in the CR and maybe you'll get the response you're looking for

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be harassed.

Cool.  So, El Paso Shooter 2.0 gets out of his truck in the La Michoacana parking lot.  In his head, he intends to murder brown invaders.  But outwardly, he's just carrying at a low ready.  When do I get to decide he's a threat?  After he shoots me?  Cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This changes nothing for 99% of us gun owners in America.  But with looser carry laws, self defense precedence, and just a general rotting bifurcation…I really do see a handful more guys sitting at home like “Psycho” Francis,

”Alls I know is, I finally get to kill somebody.”   
 

I’m sure we’re all somebody’s list.  I really should stop taunting people in public as much as I do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Anyone is a potential shooter. Have you not heard about concealed carry? Try your question in the CR and maybe you'll get the response you're looking for

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Mainstream media is evil. They tried to convict a person, who was obviously defending himself, because he dared to defend himself against an attack by a a riot mob they agreed with.

Despicable.

It is amazing the disinformation that fuels the emotional hysterics. Reading through Facebook there are still people out there that believe Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a gun, drove directly to the riots, randomly shot three black people, and left.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hayden_horn said:

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

This isn't about the gun.  Those trying to deflect to this have their own clear agenda.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

Remember that couple in St. Louis that pointed firearms at unarmed, Black protesters?  The same folks defending Kyle also celebrated that couple. In their minds, the people pointing the assault rifle at the unarmed people were the victims. 

Edited by Foosters
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hayden_horn said:

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

Neither provoke a response in-and-of itself.  To assault either person is a crime.  A normal response might be to approach each person and talk to each to find out what's up.

If someone is actually low ready, maybe, but most of the pictures I see here of "low-ready" are guns at peoples hips.  Low ready has the gun barely below the chin and is definitely pointing.

Far-left is low ready:

16441190_web1_190416JPD_CCFR_Training02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

If we wanted to make this political, we’d openly contemplate why another Wisconsin judge, federal judge Ludwig, didn’t get this much “ah yes, the judge followed the law and the facts…justice was done here…” as we are seeing here today.  
 

I blame lance ito for most of this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

This changes nothing for 99% of us gun owners in America.  But with looser carry laws, self defense precedence, and just a general rotting bifurcation…I really do see a handful more guys sitting at home like “Psycho” Francis,

”Alls I know is, I finally get to kill somebody.”   
 

I’m sure we’re all somebody’s list.  I really should stop taunting people in public as much as I do.  

Yeah all those pesky laws really deterred GG from doing the right thing. Carry on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hayden_horn said:

it's 100% about the gun.

if he isn't carrying, does anyone die? is there even a trial?

See the man beaten to death with the skateboard.  Not saying the gun didn't play a part, do you think if he's wearing a MAGA hat his life is also not in danger with these crowds?

We're back to the girl wearing a short skirt argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Neither provoke a response in-and-of itself.  To assault either person is a crime.  A normal response might be to approach each person and talk to each to find out what's up.

If someone is actually low ready, maybe, but most of the pictures I see here of "low-ready" are guns at peoples hips.  Low ready has the gun barely below the chin and is definitely pointing.

Far-left is low ready:

16441190_web1_190416JPD_CCFR_Training02.

merlin_178250748_cc08b3d7-f5fd-47c2-90dc

i dunno whatever

i get uncomfortable in european airports sometimes. i see the barrel pointed toward my foot, i feel like someone is a bit aggro. this dues was walking streets with a rifle. he wasn't badges. but i guess okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

What are you referring to specifically?  Whether to sequester the jury?  Something else?

If there are allegations jurors are following media coverage of trials, possibly being influenced, etc?  Just a general question on containment and sequestering efficacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

merlin_178250748_cc08b3d7-f5fd-47c2-90dc

i dunno whatever

i get uncomfortable in european airports sometimes. i see the barrel pointed toward my foot, i feel like someone is a bit aggro. this dues was walking streets with a rifle. he wasn't badges. but i guess okay.

And there was another "dude" with a Glock that was carrying illegally. Is that ok with you as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BabaYaga said:

If there are allegations jurors are following media coverage of trials, possibly being influenced, etc?  Just a general question on containment and sequestering efficacy

Judge has discretion on whether to sequester the jury.  It's unusual to see total sequestration -- most people don't like to be kept from their families, etc. for extended periods.

As for allegations of jury tampering and/or juror misconduct, the judge again has discretion to adopt measures designed to address the issues.  I think most judges would start out by questioning jurors individually to see if there is any substance to the allegations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, immortal13 said:

And there was another "dude" with a Glock that was carrying illegally. Is that ok with you as well?

not sure you'd like my answers on any sort of carrying firearms.

i think we should be able to hunt. i'm probably not hunting with a glock. so...i dunno. figure that shit out for yourself.

i'm very, very against public carrying of firearms.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Judge has discretion on whether to sequester the jury.  It's unusual to see total sequestration -- most people don't like to be kept from their families, etc. for extended periods.

As for allegations of jury tampering and/or juror misconduct, the judge again has discretion to adopt measures designed to address the issues.  I think most judges would start out by questioning jurors individually to see if there is any substance to the allegations.  

Thx

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...