Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

2nd Amendment - Open Carry Victory


BMc

Recommended Posts

Im not sure what this case had to do with the second amendment. A guilty verdict would not have diminished the 2A nor is an innocent verdict a victory.

It is definitely a victory for the use of deadly force in a crowd situation. Even if you inserted yourself into that situation on one side of a fight. 

There were a bunch of fools running in the streets that night. One fool didn't go to jail for shooting three more fools who were confronting him. 

I don't disagree with the verdict. The kid was scared shitless and had gotten himself in way over his head. He was armed (although that was irresponsible given the situation he placed himself in) and he had a right to protect himself against an aggressor.

I honestly don't think he was faced with a deadly threat. But he was afraid of his weapon being taken away and his teeth being kicked in. I see where the jury was coming from.

I do disagree with Rittenhouse, his motives for being there and his decision to shoot. He was a terrified little boy armed to the teeth in a situation he himself had purposely created. But those guys were fools for messing with him just as much as he was a fool for being there.

He took two lives in a situation that did not result in jail time. He is surely no hero. He's just another street thug with a gun that killed a couple people in a riot. 

  • Sad 1
  • Hmmmmmm 1
  • wow 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Im not sure what this case had to do with the second amendment. A guilty verdict would not have diminished the 2A nor is an innocent verdict a victory.

It is definitely a victory for the use of deadly force in a crowd situation. Even if you inserted yourself into that situation on one side of a fight. 

There were a bunch of fools running in the streets that night. One fool didn't go to jail for shooting three more fools who were confronting him. 

I don't disagree with the verdict. The kid was scared shitless and had gotten himself in way over his head. He was armed (although that was irresponsible given the situation he placed himself in) and he had a right to protect himself against an aggressor.

I honestly don't think he was faced with a deadly threat. But he was afraid of his weapon being taken away and his teeth being kicked in. I see where the jury was coming from.

I do disagree with Rittenhouse, his motives for being there and his decision to shoot. He was a terrified little boy armed to the teeth in a situation he himself had purposely created. But those guys were fools for messing with him just as much as he was a fool for being there.

He took two lives in a situation that did not result in jail time. He is surely no hero. He's just another street thug with a gun that killed a couple people in a riot. 

A street thug?
Someone even said he was a white supremist. The media called him all kinds of things and defamed him with a bunch of lies. 
Defamation suits are coming. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, a street thug. Everyone involved fit that description in my opinion. After the protests turned to violence and vandalism anyone that stayed on the street were thugs and criminals. Including the scared little boy with the gun pretending to be a warrior. Or a victim. Whichever one of his stories you want to believe.

I'll be anxiously awaiting my subpoena Slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody has mentioned it that I know of but any argument for limiting magazine capacity falls short in the Rittenhouse case. He may have needed more than the 30 round capacity of his gun.  

Edited by Dakota Slim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dakota Slim said:

Nobody has mentioned it that I know of but any argument for limiting magazine capacity falls short in the Rittenhouse case. He may have needed more than the 30 round capacity of his gun.  

Nobody has mentioned it because it wasn't relevant. It was a murder case. Not a second amendment issue. Not a gun rights issue. Not a call for stricter control. 

What difference would it make in this case?

None. 

Because hi cap magazines just weren't a factor in this case. Conversely this case would not be relevant in any argument for limiting magazine capacity.

Just like this case wasn't about the 2A, it was also not about magazine capacity. It was about deciding if his killings were punishable under the law. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Nobody has mentioned it because it wasn't relevant. It was a murder case. Not a second amendment issue. Not a gun rights issue. Not a call for stricter control. 

What difference would it make in this case?

None. 

Because hi cap magazines just weren't a factor in this case. Conversely this case would not be relevant in any argument for limiting magazine capacity.

Just like this case wasn't about the 2A, it was also not about magazine capacity. It was about deciding if his killings were punishable under the law. 

 

This thread is titled "2nd Amendment - Open Carry Victory"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Yes, a street thug. Everyone involved fit that description in my opinion. After the protests turned to violence and vandalism anyone that stayed on the street were thugs and criminals. Including the scared little boy with the gun pretending to be a warrior. Or a victim. Whichever one of his stories you want to believe.

I'll be anxiously awaiting my subpoena Slim.

Summons

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

Thug.

Just helping with the vocabulary Bob. If you get sued, it's a summons. Didn't want any confusion that might place you in jeopardy of a default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Bob, if you were a young tike, say 17 or so, and your Grandparents livelihood ( gas station) was being threatened, by these useless morons, would you sit at home and wait for the news reel or go try and make sure that it wasn’t destroyed?  Remember, the cops and NG were on “stand-down” orders.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, OferAZ said:

So Bob, if you were a young tike, say 17 or so, and your Grandparents livelihood ( gas station) was being threatened, by these useless morons, would you sit at home and wait for the news reel or go try and make sure that it wasn’t destroyed?  Remember, the cops and NG were on “stand-down” orders.

Come on man. This wasn't even close to the scenario. 

Get real. The shooting was justified given the circumstances at the moment Rittenhouse shot. That is all the law looks at.

He wasn't protecting anyone's property when he shot. He was protecting his own behind as he tried to run away from the first threat. That guy had just been released from the mental ward and had been after Kyle all night. He was chasing him down the block and catching up to him. Kyle fired because he couldn't run away fast enough.

He did not lay down his weapon or stay at the scene of the shooting. He fled. Armed. And he shot the second guy who was trying to stop him from fleeing the scene. Yes he was justified in shooting. But the man was also justified in trying to stop an armed killer from fleeing the scene. 

The third guy was a paramedic. He was armed with a pistol and it was in his hand because there were shots being fired. Kyle was an untrained kid way over his head and mistook him for a combatant. Again the shot was justified but again he didn't shoot an attacker or a threat. He shot at fear.

The only guy that was a true threat to him was the first one. The others were no danger to him. They were just interpreted as a threat. His motives for shooting were not criminal. But he didn't shoot any rioters. He wasnt protecting property. They were just trying to keep a killer from getting away. And in the heat of the moment Kyle saw them as attackers.

He wasn't protecting his frail grandfathers business. He didn't shoot any looters or arsonists. He was running down the road trying to keep a crazy guy from beating his azz and taking his gun. And the second two men were just responding to the fact he just shot a guy and ran from the scene.

It would have been much different if Kyle had stayed home and played Mortal Combat rather than try to be a warrior. No one would be dead and he wouldnt have two aces on his soul. He didn't do anything but screw things up good and turn an already bad situation into something much worse.

Wouldn't you try to stop a guy running from the scene of a shooting? Or would you stay home and wait for the news reel?

That is all the second guy did. He just responded the way any brave man would to a shooter runnning away from the scene. Yes he was trying to take the gun from him. Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you draw your gun in a situation where shots had been fired? Or would you hide in the bushes and wait for the fight to blow over? The only reason the third target was justified was because he was armed. Lots of people were armed and could have been seen as a threat in that situation. But inexperienced Kyle saw a gun and shot because he was scared to death.

Again, he wasn't a hero and he wasn't protecting his lovely grandmothers flower shop. He was just a kid with a gun who put himself in a situation that he couldn't handle. He is a killer.

None of those men had to be shot. Only one was a danger to Kyle. And even though his actions weren't criminal they were anything but valiant. They were overt cowardice, ignorance and inexperience.

If he had been trained he wouldn't have ran away armed after he fired his weapon. The fact that he did run away armed prompted the other two guys to chase him. 

They all were fools. None of them are heroes. None had a good excuse to be in the situation. They all went down there looking for excitement and they all got more than they bargained for. 

Trying to paint the victims as "morons" and Kyle as a "hero" is ridiculous. None of the guys he shot posed any threat to property. And the mental patient's only problem was a child with a gun pretending to be some type of citizen enforcer. 

Get real man. It was killings that were only justified in the extreme circumstances that existed in the moment. And none of it would have happened if Kyle had any training or experience. Or the common sense to stay out of that type of situation in the first place.

The whole thing was a colossal screw up. Everyone involved made every mistake you could think of. And two people were killed and another seriously injured.

Trying to make this a good vs. evil scenario is nothing but ignorance.  It shows a complete lack of understanding of how to handle a chaotic situation. Anyone that has experience knows there just aren't any good guys or bad guys. And that everyone shares a little blame while no one carries it all.

Kyle was an inexperienced little boy that was there for all the wrong reasons. He was in a situation he clearly could not handle and couldn't get out of no matter how fast he ran. People needlessly died as a result. 

If I was a juror I would have probably voted to acquit. The shots were (from his perspective) in self defense. But if I was his grandpa I would take him out behind the family fried chicken business and teach the snot nosed kid a thing or two about conflict. He desperately needs to get control of himself or he is going to shoot the next person who scares him a little. And he obviously scares very easily.

 

  • Sad 1
  • Hmmmmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can’t argue with all of your info.  The only info I was told about the case was that he was there for his Grandparents gas station, and something about him extinguishing a fire in a dumpster that they were rolling towards the gas station in order to blow it up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OferAZ said:

Can’t argue with all of your info.  The only info I was told about the case was that he was there for his Grandparents gas station, and something about him extinguishing a fire in a dumpster that they were rolling towards the gas station in order to blow it up.  

That information conflicts with the testimony as well as the widely available videos and witnesses to the shootings. 

None of your story checks out. He was guarding a car lot with a group of militia. The owner of the car lot testified that he did not request help. The owner of the car lot was not related to Rittenhouse. 

Rittenhouse fell in with a group of local militia. They went to an area that had been vandalized the night before. The militia leader picked the car lot to "guard". Rittenhouse didn't. 

Rittenhouse ran away from that location when an unarmed mental patient with his belongings in a plastic bag got the best of him. He couldn't run fast enough and shot the unarmed mental patient a hundred yards down the block from the car lot. Then he ran away armed and shot the guys trying to keep him from leaving the scene of the homicide. 

Rittenhouse's father lived in Kenosha. He may own a service station. If he does that is quite irrelevant. 

The police were not "standing down". They were enforcing curfew. They were clearing the streets with armored vehicles driving the remaining protesters onto the street where the militia was stationed.  They actively pushed protesters into the situation. They had no idea where the militia was stationed even though they knew the militia was there in force. There was no coordination between the police and militia and this set up a powder keg situation. Driving the protesters into a bunch of untrained and emotional novices with lots of hardware. It may have never happened If the police had done it a little differently. 

It certainly wouldn't have happened if the militia had stayed home.

...

So you are basing your opinions on what happened with no real knowledge of what happened? Believing stories that aren't true?

Imagine that!

Im not sure I could in good conscience form an opinion on a double homicide with no more research than that. Especially on cases that are touted to be "Second Amendment Victories". 

The second amendment is important to you isnt it?

It is to me. And im afraid if we have too many more irresponsible untrained idiots out there trying to take the law in their own hands my rights might be infringed upon. Along with rights comes responsibility. And responsibility to me means acting responsibly with my weapons as well as knowing the facts before I form an opinion. 

My opinion is they should have all gone home after the peaceful protest and not been running wild in the streets. And when the curfew came they should have complied and went home. Everyone. The protesters, the arsonists, the mental patients, the gravy seals, the little boys with guns. All of them. They were ALL thugs and trouble makers. There was not a hero or a righteous man in the entire bunch.

It was a solid self defense shooting. It had nothing to do with the second amendment. Nor does it allow militias to protect someone else's private property. Nor did it change the use of deadly force. It didn't make anyone a hero.

They proved he believed he was acting in self defense. He had no criminal intent at the time he pulled the trigger. Only fear and the belief he was going to be physically harmed. He met the criteria for self defense. You just can't deny that.

The jury made the right decision. Kyle Rittenhouse on the other hand made a whole bunch of wrong decisions. And he will in time pay for those bad decisions one way or the other. Things always seem to balance out on their own.

  • Hmmmmmm 1
  • wow 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come in off the ledge Bob, and quit while you're behind, Please! Let's move on!  You don't have to waste the rest of your life doing this!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, BMc said:

Come in off the ledge Bob, and quit while you're behind, Please! Let's move on!  You don't have to waste the rest of your life doing this!

You don't want to discuss the Rittenhouse trial Mac?

I figured thats why you started the topic. 

Why don't you tell us why you think it is a second amendment victory? I obviously don't see any connection with the 2A. 

How does it relate to hunting, fishing and guns? Because Rittenhouse used a gun to shoot three people? Or because you used the term "Second amendment" in the title?

:idunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

You don't want to discuss the Rittenhouse trial Mac?

I figured thats why you started the topic. 

Why don't you tell us why you think it is a second amendment victory? I obviously don't see any connection with the 2A. 

How does it relate to hunting, fishing and guns? Because Rittenhouse used a gun to shoot three people? Or because you used the term "Second amendment" in the title?

:idunno:

Bob, you can take your pick, and cast your vote how ever you wish. The jury voted, now others get to do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BMc said:

Bob, you can take your pick, and cast your vote how ever you wish. The jury voted, now others get to do the same. 

No Mac. Only the jury gets to "vote". The rest of us just get an opinion on their decision. I'm simply asking you to discuss yours.

No one here has disagreed with the jury's verdict. Some of us would like to pretend the jury was deciding on something else besides self defense in a murder case. But we all agree that Kyle acted in "self defense".

How is this case about the second amendment Mac? How is it a "victory" for open carry? Why would you post it in this forum about hunting, fishing and guns?

It's a real discussion Mac. About the topic.

Can you have one?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bedrock Bob said:

No Mac. Only the jury gets to "vote". The rest of us just get an opinion on their decision. I'm simply asking you to discuss yours.

No one here has disagreed with the jury's verdict. Some of us would like to pretend the jury was deciding on something else besides self defense in a murder case. But we all agree that Kyle acted in "self defense".

How is this case about the second amendment Mac? Or hunting, fishing and guns? How is it a "victory" for you?

It's a real discussion Mac. About the topic.

Can you have one?

 

Bob,  IMO, You have flip-flopped so much that your argument has collapsed under its  own weight and has no merit worthy of discussion,

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...