Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[god bother]

Hi onlinebiker, mind if i ask a genuine question? I'm an Aussie and i'm trying to get my head around US gun culture. I understand that the pro-gun side of the argument is often misrepresented. If i was a woman working 2 jobs and forced to use a laundry mat at night, i might carry a gun too. I believe that those that do are statistically safer.

I've had a driving licence for 20 years and never had a major smash. However, i recognise that the danger is always there whenever i take to the road - i might seriously harm someone. Also, when i first started driving i occasionally drove after drinking. I still reflect on what a stupid kid i was - thank god i didn't have a gun as well!

Anyway, here are the questions and feel free to tell me to bugger off if it's none of my business. Aussies are nosy beggars.
1 - Does it ever weigh upon your mind how using your firearm might impact your life afterwards?
2 - Do you leave your gun at home with your car keys if you're going out for a few drinks?

Honestly, i'm just looking for some schooling here. I also have no idea what drives people who follow ice hockey!
Regards, god bother

No worries mate.

1. Yes. But the key to your question is "life after". You have to be alive to do anything - as we say here z "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

2. I don't go to bars. Haven't much since I got my concealed carry permit almost 20 years ago. If we do go to a eatery that serves alcohol - I become the designated driver. On occassion (twice I recall).I have handed the keys and gun over to the SO. She has a carry permit as well.

Thanks onlinebiker. I appreciate that. I guess a lot of the problem is that lots of people don't take gun ownership as seriously as you do. Bit like the morons you see driving like lunatics. Cheers. Hope you never need to use the thing.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Killing is not always murder. Are you one of those vegans who calls killing cows murder too? What exactly does the word murder mean to you?

Murder is, in varying degrees, the unjustified killing of a human being. Zimmerman confronted Martin when he didn't have to, which makes the killing unjustified and - hence - murder. If Zimmerman had done what he was advised to do, the confrontation would have been avoided.

If I pick a fight with you and then kill you, it's murder.  If i pick a fight with you and you kill me, it's self defense. 

Boru

Confronted Martin when he didn't have to? He also didn't have to not confront him. It's called freedom of movement. You are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. Zimmerman was not advised to do anything as far as I know. You are assuming Zimmerman picked a fight when you can't really back that position up. Zimmerman was the one with his head bashed and bloodied, so it looks like Martin instigated the violence. He instigated the violence, and he died because of it. If you could prove Zimmerman started a fight, I'd change my position. I only care about the evidence. Trying to fill in the blanks by making claims that can't be backed up is not the right way to go about things in my opinion.

The same goes for Rittenhouse. If someone can show me exactly what he did that made it justifiable for someone to grab his gun and try to take it away, I'll change my position on that too. I don't see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that either Zimmerman or Rittenhouse committed murder though.

[LadyForCamus]

One of the major bits of the clusterfuck that is Kenosha...

This kid is claiming self defense -after killing a couple people and oddly enough President Trump seems to be going along with that.

...
My thoughts -

I have carried a concealed pistol - almost every day - for going on 20 years. I have not had an incident to date.

A big part of that is because I avoid areas where trouble might be likely to happen.

Like riots.

The kid is lucky I won't be on his jury - because I would likely go along with the prosecutor on this one. He could have stayed home and not been part of the problem. And - he should not have dragged a loaded gun into a riot situation. Trained professionals only do that as a last resort.

Were I the prosecutor - I would also go after whoever got him his rifle - because a 17 year old cannot legally purchase one.

He brought the fight to the crowd.

If the crowd had brought the fight to him - it would be a different story.

For once, we agree!

[Brian37]

One of the major bits of the clusterfuck that is Kenosha...

This kid is claiming self defense -after killing a couple people and oddly enough President Trump seems to be going along with that.

...
My thoughts -

I have carried a concealed pistol - almost every day - for going on 20 years. I have not had an incident to date.

A big part of that is because I avoid areas where trouble might be likely to happen.

Like riots.

The kid is lucky I won't be on his jury - because I would likely go along with the prosecutor on this one. He could have stayed home and not been part of the problem. And - he should not have dragged a loaded gun into a riot situation. Trained professionals only do that as a last resort.

Were I the prosecutor - I would also go after whoever got him his rifle - because a 17 year old cannot legally purchase one.

He brought the fight to the crowd.

If the crowd had brought the fight to him - it would be a different story.

For once, we agree!

@onlinebiker

Why, if you avoid trouble areas, would you need a gun at all? 

I DO agree that this moron should have stayed at home. But even with you? I still don't get it. "Stay out of troubled areas", I get. But if you are already staying away of troubled areas, you wouldn't need even a concealed weapon. 


You've carried for 20 years? Ok, I just turned 54 on Wednesday, and haven't touched a firearm of any kind since I was 19, and I too avoid trouble. I know I ruffle feathers here verbally, but I am no Rambo, or Dirty Harry. 

Don't defend this kid. His parents sold him evil bullshit and indoctrinated the fucker just like Isis does with their youth. He was looking to play hero. 

MLK didn't need a gun to defend himself, yes, he died because of bigotry, but he didn't shoot anyone like this little fuck snot did.

[onlinebiker]

For once, we agree!

@onlinebiker

Why, if you avoid trouble areas, would you need a gun at all? 

I DO agree that this moron should have stayed at home. But even with you? I still don't get it. "Stay out of troubled areas", I get. But if you are already staying away of troubled areas, you wouldn't need even a concealed weapon. 


You've carried for 20 years? Ok, I just turned 54 on Wednesday, and haven't touched a firearm of any kind since I was 19, and I too avoid trouble. I know I ruffle feathers here verbally, but I am no Rambo, or Dirty Harry. 

Don't defend this kid. His parents sold him evil bullshit and indoctrinated the fucker just like Isis does with their youth. He was looking to play hero. 

MLK didn't need a gun to defend himself, yes, he died because of bigotry, but he didn't shoot anyone like this little fuck snot did.

Where do you see me defending this kid?

You really are megamyoptic......


And.


 MLK not only owned guns for self defense but in 1956 he applied for a concealed carry permit. (It was rejected).

[The Architect Of Fate]

Confronted Martin when he didn't have to? He also didn't have to not confront him. It's called freedom of movement. You are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. Zimmerman was not advised to do anything as far as I know.r Zimmerman or Rittenhouse committed murder though.

Freedom comes with consequences for exercising it . In this case it was an ass kicking because Zimmerman refused to mind his own business . Zimmerman was advised to back off . 

 You are assuming Zimmerman picked a fight when you can't really back that position up. Zimmerman was the one with his head bashed and bloodied, so it looks like Martin instigated the violence.

Irrelevant if you stalk people you get what coming 

He instigated the violence, and he died because of it.

He didn't like being followed or integrated and acted accordingly and was murdered 

 If you could prove Zimmerman started a fight, I'd change my position. 

He didn't need to he was wrong from the start 

I only care about the evidence. Trying to fill in the blanks by making claims that can't be backed up is not the right way to go about things in my opinion.

You opinion is already made your just inventing excuses and hair splitting to maintain it 

The same goes for Rittenhouse. If someone can show me exactly what he did that made it justifiable for someone to grab his gun and try to take it away, I'll change my position on that too. 

It's a fact he was intimidating with it as was already pointed out and no you won't you'll inventing excuses to maintain your current position .

I don't see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that either

You can't see with closed eyes

[Irreligious Atheist]

Confronted Martin when he didn't have to? He also didn't have to not confront him. It's called freedom of movement. You are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. Zimmerman was not advised to do anything as far as I know.r Zimmerman or Rittenhouse committed murder though.

Freedom comes with consequences for exercising it . In this case it was an ass kicking because Zimmerman refused to mind his own business . Zimmerman was advised to back off . 

 You are assuming Zimmerman picked a fight when you can't really back that position up. Zimmerman was the one with his head bashed and bloodied, so it looks like Martin instigated the violence.

Irrelevant if you stalk people you get what coming 

He instigated the violence, and he died because of it.

He didn't like being followed or integrated and acted accordingly and was murdered 

 If you could prove Zimmerman started a fight, I'd change my position. 

He didn't need to he was wrong from the start 

I only care about the evidence. Trying to fill in the blanks by making claims that can't be backed up is not the right way to go about things in my opinion.

You opinion is already made your just inventing excuses and hair splitting to maintain it 

The same goes for Rittenhouse. If someone can show me exactly what he did that made it justifiable for someone to grab his gun and try to take it away, I'll change my position on that too. 

It's a fact he was intimidating with it as was already pointed out and no you won't you'll inventing excuses to maintain your current position .

I don't see any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that either

You can't see with closed eyes

Zimmerman was not advised to back off, and even if he was, a 911 dispatcher has no authority to give commands, so that wouldn't even matter. Refusing to mind ones own business may have consequences, but legally you don't have to mind your own business, and we're speaking legally, so that doesn't matter either.

If you bash and bloody someone's head when you could have just gone home which he was right next to, then you get what's coming too. I feel bad for Trayvon but he made a dumb decision.

Zimmerman was morally wrong by following in your opinion, you mean, not legally. Legally wrong is all that matters when it comes to the law. The law doesn't care what you think is right or wrong. The law cares about what is legally acceptable.

I understand that Rittenhouse was seen as intimidating having a gun. You don't get to take someone's gun because they're intimidating. You can take it maybe if you have a justifiable reason to say he's about to go on a shooting spree, and I don't just mean a gut feeling, I mean a legit reason. You can try to grab it if he's pointing it at you and in the process of robbing you. You can grab it if he's pointing it at you and tells you to get into the position because he's about to execute you with it. Did he do any of those things? Not as far as I know. Acting like a touch guy and intimidating people is not enough to legally justify grabbing a gun out of his hands. They were wreckless and careless enough with their lives and committed suicide. They may as well have ran out in a freeway in front of a transport truck. They get the darwin award. Congratulations to them. Hopefully others will learn from their stupidity.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Zimmerman was not advised to back off, and even if he was, a 911 dispatcher has no authority to give commands, so that wouldn't even matter. Refusing to mind ones own business may have consequences, but legally you don't have to mind your own business, and we're speaking legally, so that doesn't matter either

It didn't need to be a command . the dispatcher didn't need to have authority . And Zimmerman chose not to listen and got his ass kicked as a result for not minding his own business 

If you bash and bloody someone's head when you could have just gone home which he was right next to, then you get what's coming too. I feel bad for Trayvon but he made a dumb decision.

If bash someones head when should have left you the hell alone you don't deserve to be murdered the person you bashed should have common sense not to approach you to begin with .

Zimmerman was morally wrong by following in your opinion, you mean, not legally. Legally wrong is all that matters when it comes to the law. The law doesn't care what you think is right or wrong. The law cares about what is legally acceptable.

Legalty Smegality Zimmerman got what was coming to him end of story 

I understand that Rittenhouse was seen as intimidating having a gun. You don't get to take someone's gun because they're intimidating. You can take it maybe if you have a justifiable reason to say he's about to go on a shooting spree, and I don't just mean a gut feeling, I mean a legit reason. You can try to grab it if he's pointing it at you and in the process of robbing you. You can grab it if he's pointing it at you and tells you to get into the position because he's about to execute you with it. Did he do any of those things? Not as far as I know. Acting like a touch guy and intimidating people is not enough to legally justify grabbing a gun out of his hands. They were wreckless and careless enough with their lives and committed suicide. They may as well have ran out in a freeway in front of a transport truck. They get the darwin award. Congratulations to them. Hopefully others will learn from their stupidity.

We have been over this already . It was a fact he intended to use it for intimidation that's not a feeling it's a fact , And the people he was threatening had every right to disarm a potentially dangerous moron without him doing any of the things you suggest above . And again legal smegal they were in the right to do it . Rittenhouse had no right to kill them for his stupidity , And the only thing this proves is Americans laws defends gun toting morons .

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC it could be proven that he broke laws, again, his own testimony condemned him on grounds of murder in the second. He's a murderer, he's just a murderer that the prosecution dropped the ball on, that a jury decided to let skate.

Or, if we prefer, he's a murderer that had the sort of defense I hope we all have if we ever find ourselves in court - whether we committed the crime or not. A defense that made great plays in jury selection, and could convince a jury of two patently untrue things in order to modify a plain 2nd degree charge. Criminals beating charges, contrary to popular opinion, is a sign that our system still functions.

As to whether you can take someone's gun for intimidating people with it, wrong again. That shit is illegal. You may think that it shouldn't be, but it is. We can absolutely take guns away from people who use them to threaten other people, and we do.

[Irreligious Atheist]

New video