More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[jakee 1,489]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

It will be interesting to see the civil cases that come next. There are quite a few outspoken celebrities that made slanderous statements well-before knowing any of the evidence. Joy Reid, Biden, MSNBC and plenty of other media outlets could be on the list.

What slanderous statements? Just because he's legally innocent doesn't stop people from being able to think and say he's a violent racist who should have been convicted of murder. OJ Simpson doesn't get to sue people who say he killed Nicole Brown.

[billeisele 130]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

What? You think you had one accidental shooting each year? You think they stopped?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=south+carolina+accidental+shooting&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

 

Another out of context comment. Either you didn't read or didn't comprehend the post. I was addressing the historic past of men killing their wives and getting away with it. The specific statement was, "Woman killed while husband cleaning shotgun in living room." This was in refence to Baldwin using the excuse of, "I was told it was unloaded." The point being that, IMO, the person holding the gun should be responsible for what occurs. 

 

As to what you posted. These things are all too common and until gun users are held responsible for what occurs, they will continue. This one is under investigation and hopefully there will be consequences. 

Scroll down a little further in your link and you'll read about the 3-year old that picked up a gun in her house and shot herself. Another case of a gun owner not take proper precautions with a firearm. That one is in Richland County, home of the Sheriff of the Year Lean Lott. I guarantee that Leon will press charges.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

What slanderous statements? Just because he's legally innocent doesn't stop people from being able to think and say he's a violent racist who should have been convicted of murder. OJ Simpson doesn't get to sue people who say he killed Nicole Brown.

Why pour fire on the group guzzling  Kool-aid at the NRA-right wing fountain?

Could Kyle Rittenhouse face civil penalties despite acquittals in Kenosha deaths?

Well Yeah, the first one yesterday: Denver Attorney Files Civil Action In Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting with more to follow.

The $250 million from the WP? More Kool-aid "Nicholas Sandmann agreed to settle with the Post because the Post was quick to publish the whole truth—through its follow-up coverage and editor's notes," Sandmann's attorney,

Rittenhouse will likely find the best job in the rest of his life working at a gun shop at minimum wage.

Edited November 20, 2021 by Phil1111

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 hours ago, billeisele said:

I watched a 8+ hours of the trial. It was the prosecutors job to prove guilt. He failed miserably.....

It will be interesting to see the civil cases that come next. There are quite a few outspoken celebrities that made slanderous statements well-before knowing any of the evidence. Joy Reid, Biden, MSNBC and plenty of other media outlets could be on the list.

It was "self defense" because current US gun laws place a heavy burden on the prosecution of shooters. Together with a "fear of life" defense that makes it easy for shooters to defend. The instructions to the jury tied the hands of the jury because they use the fenceposts of current US laws as their foundations.

Open carry of an AR-15,sure. Vigilante justice with a gun,sure. Shoot someone with a skateboard as a "weapon", sure. All because a 17 year old was parading around at night with a AR in order to "protect property" of which he owned none himself.

In a civil action the standards are different. A 17 year old dimwit ain't gonna get big civil damages for slander either.

[Phil1111 1,149]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

What slanderous statements? Just because he's legally innocent doesn't stop people from being able to think and say he's a violent racist who should have been convicted of murder. OJ Simpson doesn't get to sue people who say he killed Nicole Brown.

Because he understands the standards of proof in civil actions. The FOX, NRA, crowd here doesn't understand that nor the 1st amendment.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

That is fucking disgusting.

That was not the sentiment on this forum when an unarmed female veteran was murdered by a cop in DC on 1/6.

[brenthutch 444]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

What slanderous statements? Just because he's legally innocent doesn't stop people from being able to think and say he's a violent racist who should have been convicted of murder. OJ Simpson doesn't get to sue people who say he killed Nicole Brown.

Nick Sandmann settled with CNN and it is said to be in the millions.  

[Phil1111 1,149]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Nick Sandmann settled with CNN and it is said to be in the millions.  

B.S.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I have been paying attention to the reports of the trial daily. I am only surprised that there was not a hung jury. There was no way that he was going to be convicted. As crazy as it is, he did not do anything illegal.  

Sure, sure, but that won't stop the Libtards from arguing that our super cool open carry laws, we fought so hard for, had anything to do with what any sensible person can clearly see is normal, legitimate human intercourse. If those snowflakes have their way we'll never be able to quick draw on main street like great grand pappy maybe done, I hope.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

12 hours ago, billeisele said:

Don't remember much about Nick but didn't he not sue many others that he could have sued? I think CNN and Washington Post took the big hits. I think the WP settlement was $250 million.

No. The original suit was for $250. The settlement was a lot less.

As is typical, terms have not been released.
 

The 'funny' part about this whole thing is the way it was handled by the prosecutor.

There's been some speculation that he 'took a dive' on it.
He did a really poor job on it.

It's not a secret that white people are given preferential treatment in the court system in that part of the state.
There have been several 'self defense' killings that were prosecuted much more aggressively and thoroughly than this one was.

The primary issue (in my mind at least) is the 'unavoidable' aspect of this case.

Rittenhouse chose to inject himself into that situation.
He intentionally travelled there to 'protect property'. 
No authority, no ownership of that property, no real training.

That, from what I've been taught, removes any valid claim of self defense.
Vigilantes don't get to claim self defense when they kill people.

But the combination of the judge's rulings & instructions, the piss poor case presented by the prosecutor and the effective defense got the kid off. 

This will have some very significant consequences down the road.

[gowlerk 2,193]

20 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Vigilantes don't get to claim self defense when they kill people.

Huh? Yes they do. There is no law against vigilantism. 

To Quote Woody Guthrie:

 

Tell me why does that vigilante man

Carry that sawed off shotgun in his hand?

Would he shoot his brother or sister down?

23 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

This will have some very significant consequences down the road.

I'm afraid so. Armed counter protesters are going to become even more common.

 

24 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

It's not a secret that white people are given preferential treatment in the court system in that part of the state.
There have been several 'self defense' killings that were prosecuted much more aggressively and thoroughly than this one was.

All four of the people involved were white. What I wonder about is the victim who Rittenhouse shot because he was aiming a pistol at him. This was after he had already killed. If that person had not lost his nerve and managed to kill Rittenhouse first would he have become the "good guy with a gun" who saved the day from becoming worse? Or would he have been a murderer? So much of what happened involved chaos and luck, both good and bad. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

...There is no law against vigilantism...

... What I wonder about is the victim who Rittenhouse shot because he was aiming a pistol at him. This was after he had already killed. If that person had not lost his nerve and managed to kill Rittenhouse first would he have become the "good guy with a gun" who saved the day from becoming worse? Or would he have been a murderer? So much of what happened involved chaos and luck, both good and bad. 

No, there's no law against vigilantism.
But it should have taken away the 'unavoidable' part of the self defense claim, negating it, resulting in convictions for at least 2 counts of voluntary manslaughter.
The Zimmerman case should have had a similar outcome.

 

I'd bet a dollar that, had the protester shot and killed Rittenhouse, that the prosecutor would have pushed the case a lot harder, claiming that the protestor voluntarily placed himself in a volatile situation with a gun, that a 'reasonable person' could have predicted that violence would occur and any claim of self defense wasn't valid.
And likely gotten a conviction for voluntary manslaughter. And child abuse, seeing that Rittenhouse was 17 when it happened.

[BIGUN 1,314]

37 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Rittenhouse chose to inject himself into that situation.
He intentionally travelled there to 'protect property'. 
No authority, no ownership of that property, no real training.

^This. What was the intent?  

[gowlerk 2,193]

2 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But it should have taken away the 'unavoidable' part of the self defense claim, negating it, resulting in convictions for at least 2 counts of voluntary manslaughter.

It all comes back to the gun laws. 'Nuff said.

[murps2000 86]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:All four of the people involved were white. What I wonder about is the victim who Rittenhouse shot because he was aiming a pistol at him. This was after he had already killed. If that person had not lost his nerve and managed to kill Rittenhouse first would he have become the "good guy with a gun" who saved the day from becoming worse? Or would he have been a murderer? So much of what happened involved chaos and luck, both good and bad. 

All four involved thought they were the hero of the story. And in Fox News world Rittenhouse is a hero. I’ve already seen comments suggesting he run for office someday.

[billvon 2,991]

6 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

All four involved thought they were the hero of the story. And in Fox News world Rittenhouse is a hero. I’ve already seen comments suggesting he run for office someday.

Heck, a few rape allegations and some sexual assaults and he could be the next republican president.

[gowlerk 2,193]

8 minutes ago, murps2000 said:

I’ve already seen comments suggesting he run for office someday.

His lawyer says he has a major case of PSTD and will probably move away from where he is and try for a lot less notoriety. But you never know, he could be seduced and used by the right wing media machine.

[jakee 1,489]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Another out of context comment. Either you didn't read or didn't comprehend the post. I was addressing the historic past of men killing their wives and getting away with it. The specific statement was, "Woman killed while husband cleaning shotgun in living room." This was in refence to Baldwin using the excuse of, "I was told it was unloaded." The point being that, IMO, the person holding the gun should be responsible for what occurs. 

You either didn't read or comprehend the list I posted. Many more than one person a year has been killed 'accidentally' by people they live with, and it's still happening. Unless you have some kind of psychic power that lets you know exactly which ones were deliberate then it's pure wishful fantasy to think that it has stopped.

Quote

That one is in Richland County, home of the Sheriff of the Year Lean Lott. I guarantee that Leon will press charges.

And I'm sure that means it won't happen again.

Edited November 20, 2021 by jakee

[jakee 1,489]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Nick Sandmann settled with CNN and it is said to be in the millions.  

And that's a slanderous statement about Rittenhouse? I don't think he'll win a payout with that, if I'm honest.

[jakee 1,489]

6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That was not the sentiment on this forum when an unarmed female veteran was murdered by a cop in DC on 1/6.

Probably because that is an extremely creative description of what happened.

 

Why are you so anti cop?

[lippy 918]

When the culture is such that any asshat can pick up a gun with less fuss than what’s involved with adopting a cat from the shelter, stupid dipshits end up (briefly) shutting down airports. 
 

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057661558/atlantas-airport-had-an-active-shooter-scare-as-millions-prepare-for-holiday-tra

[murps2000 86]

16 hours ago, gowlerk said:

His lawyer says he has a major case of PSTD and will probably move away from where he is and try for a lot less notoriety. But you never know, he could be seduced and used by the right wing media machine.

I dunno. He had a pretty big smile on his face on the ride home. But who am I to judge

[gowlerk 2,193]

4 hours ago, murps2000 said:

I dunno. He had a pretty big smile on his face on the ride home. But who am I to judge

Well, his motivation and decision making are in a word, deplorable.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

23 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Well, his motivation and decision making are in a word, deplorable.

Open carry gun nuts own this. While I'm at it, I'll include supporters of Heller and any other dumb ass decision that bit by bit has allowed armed speech to trump unarmed speech in the public square. 

[gowlerk 2,193]

24 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Open carry gun nuts own this. While I'm at it, I'll include supporters of Heller and any other dumb ass decision that bit by bit has allowed armed speech to trump unarmed speech in the public square. 

They not only own it, but they own it proudly and openly. They are celebrating it.