For real!!!
....might even shoot someone!
I don't get it?
- Thread starter fallenarch
- Start date
....might even shoot someone!
...and live until the ripe old age of 45 or so...(if he didn't get killed before).
Or get shot....
...and that's a sad statement right there....just how readily available are AR15s (and other weapons) when you can borrow one from a friend?
Not really.
Guns and AR's(very scary, lmao) are legal here.
Most people are responsible with them.
What's worse? Cars!
Alot more people have cars...and stay on their phone while driving.
Those dumbasses kill more people every year than gun violence.
Sad fact.
Should the kid have been there with a gun? No.
But, it Was self defense...and good riddance to who he killed too.
I wonder how he even asked to borrow it...did the conversation go like this:
"yo, think I could borrow your bicycle to go to see what's happening in Kenosha?"
"yeah but I don't have a lock for it so take my AR just in case someone tries to steal it"
To address your argument regarding cars...really?
"When the original designer of the automobile was in his initial planning stage did someone say "better be careful, people will use these to kill other people..."
Guns were originally designed to kill other people.
You watched too many cowboy movies, definitely did not attend history classes.
How old was his friend and who bought the rifle?
JeffSyh
Registered
You've definitely not been to many mining towns.... All saloons in western Canada
From the 1800-1930's were literal brothels... for miners...
This is drumhellers oldest saloon (was there this summer for a trip) and the history behind it is common to all mining town saloons, drinking, smoking, fighting and hookers. Men didn't go home to their wife's and family after working in a absolute hell hole of working conditions and seeing people die left right and center. They went and got drunk and did stupid chit even at younger ages than kyle ritten house.
Over 18 and Legal
Yes really
Apparently you haven't been ran out of the road on a motorcycle Multiple Times from some ass hat who looks up last minute and laughs.
Or drove an 18wheeler nationwide...and lock the brakes down daily for same said idiots.
And also seeing the death and carnage leftover from it all.
I said the Kid should not have been there, but, he ran, he yelled 'friendly' multiple times...and then he defended himself.
Fortunately he killed a couple POS's anyway...give him a "you got lucky this time"...and a medal.
Quiksilver
Registered
Alot of things/people shouldn't have been there that night. Giving he was there putting out fires I'm almost positive he would have his head smashed in like a few others during the riot.....protests. He was there to protect property and administer first aid, the gun was to protect himself.
I don't think he should have been there but I also don't think most of the other looter...protestors should have been there either.
All good observations however, automobiles were NOT designed to kill people whereas guns were.
The court and jury will decide this young man's fate. I've watched a bit of it and there are good arguments on both sides. As for shooting POS humans....they weren't wearing signs on them stating who they were or what kind of people they were so he gets no "Kudos" for that.
With the millions and millions of automobiles on the roads and questionable drivers, the chances of incidents are quite high. The same people who will complain about liberties and freedoms will be the same ones complaining about distracted driving and asking the government to do something in order to quell it.
How often do we see a driver with their head down texting while driving...it seems every second car these days.
I agree with that...but, guns were also designed for hunting...and Defense.
As far as K.R not knowing the details about the people he shot...is a non-issue to me.
As one had a gun, another tried to beat him with a skateboard.
Again, K.R should Not have been there, but he repeatedly ran away yelling "friendly"...yet the continued to chase and try to attack him.
Under those circumstances...karma, dumbasses get shot and/or killed by chasing and trying to harm the guy with the gun...the same guy that gave them alot of chances to stop.
As for the car thing...more of the same, self-centered dumbasses wasting good air, as their Likes on fakebook are more important than the risk to your life or mine.
And
If you want to stand or march with signs to protest something, go ahead.
But burning and looting your city, and BLM destroying Alot of black business is total BS.
Open fire on that crowd.
Not sorry.
Guns were initially designed to kill other humans as a replacement for the bow and cross bow, hunting with them came later.
There are good arguments out there, some say they thought he was an active shooter and the people who attacked him thought they were stopping a nut with a gun (the fact that one of them was a sick pervert is not withstanding)...I can see that as it's not a usual thing (or shouldn't be) to see someone walking around with a slung AR...
If this were the case, people would be walking in the mall with them and when anyone approaches they can state the same thing "friendly" up and to the point they are no longer "friendly."
Lots of these people who are doing the damage are "professional" protesters who travel around to different hot spots stirring up crap-they could care less about what this does to a community. Protesting is a right, rioting isn't but rioting is often the product of a protest.
It sure doesn't take much to stir people up....look at what happens to a city after the Stanley Cup playoffs if a team loses....millions upon millions of dollars of damage over a sporting event.
JeffSyh
Registered
I found a good write up about the kyle rittenhouse that by the video I've watched, he has a good chance of getting off.
Gaige Grosskreutz was the 3rd person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. Yesterday, he testified in court, called as a witness for the Prosecution, and effectively torpedoed the Prosecution's argument that Rittenhouse had shot Grosskreutz unjustly by admitting he was pointing his own pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot.
Upon cross-examination, the Defense backed Grosskreutz into a corner on 3 key issues - Why where you following Rittenhouse if you felt your life was in danger, why had you drawn your firearm before approaching Rittenhouse, and mainly, did Rittenhouse shoot you AFTER you pointed your gun at him?
He could not give a clear answer to either of the first two questions, arguing semantics about terminology (chasing/following/running after/going the same direction as) as well as being shown to have had gun-in-hand before even approaching Rittenhouse at that final moment.
Finally, he's claimed that Rittenhouse aimed at him so he put his hands up, then when Rittenhouse re-racked the rifle, he decided to make a move and that's when he was shot. Defense plays the video again, and you can clearly see Grosskreutz putting his hands up, Rittenhouse aiming at him but NOT shooting and then lowering the rifle BEFORE Gaige Grosskreutz charges at Rittenhouse and points his pistol at him, at which point Rittenhouse raises the rifle again and fires.
The Defense then questioned Grosskreutz on this and asked: "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?"
To which Grosskruetz replied: "...Correct."
The reason this seriously hurts the Prosecution's case is because Rittenhouse is being defended on the grounds of Self Defense. The Witness Testimony in the shooting of Rosenbaum largely supported the notion that Rosenbaum was in the process of assaulting Rittenhouse, lunging for his rifle before being shot. This was already a serious blow to the Murder Charge.
The second shooting of Anthony Huber is a lot more clear cut as the video shows Huber striking Rittenhouse with a Skateboard, which becomes a weapon when used to hit somebody. When asked, Grosskruetz agreed that being struck with a skateboard constitutes serious bodily harm, bolstering the argument for self defense in this shooting.
This third shooting of Grosskruetz was ultimately the last hope to prove intent on Rittenhouse's part- the idea that Rittenhouse had shot a surrendering person would help establish malicious intent. But that narrative was quickly dismantled by the Defense with the video evidence to back it up.
Lastly, when asked why he had a gun at all, Grosskruetz referenced the Second Amendment and claimed he carried it for protection. He also made an earlier statement that he believed the presence of a gun greatly increases the chances of an incident taking place. So he simultaneously gave Kyle Rittenhouse a justification for being armed, and basically admitting to knowing that bringing his own gun increased the chances of injury/death which calls his own intent into question - if you know this, and brought it anyway, what were you really intending to do with it?
Gaige Grosskreutz was the 3rd person shot by Kyle Rittenhouse. Yesterday, he testified in court, called as a witness for the Prosecution, and effectively torpedoed the Prosecution's argument that Rittenhouse had shot Grosskreutz unjustly by admitting he was pointing his own pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot.
Upon cross-examination, the Defense backed Grosskreutz into a corner on 3 key issues - Why where you following Rittenhouse if you felt your life was in danger, why had you drawn your firearm before approaching Rittenhouse, and mainly, did Rittenhouse shoot you AFTER you pointed your gun at him?
He could not give a clear answer to either of the first two questions, arguing semantics about terminology (chasing/following/running after/going the same direction as) as well as being shown to have had gun-in-hand before even approaching Rittenhouse at that final moment.
Finally, he's claimed that Rittenhouse aimed at him so he put his hands up, then when Rittenhouse re-racked the rifle, he decided to make a move and that's when he was shot. Defense plays the video again, and you can clearly see Grosskreutz putting his hands up, Rittenhouse aiming at him but NOT shooting and then lowering the rifle BEFORE Gaige Grosskreutz charges at Rittenhouse and points his pistol at him, at which point Rittenhouse raises the rifle again and fires.
The Defense then questioned Grosskreutz on this and asked: "It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?"
To which Grosskruetz replied: "...Correct."
The reason this seriously hurts the Prosecution's case is because Rittenhouse is being defended on the grounds of Self Defense. The Witness Testimony in the shooting of Rosenbaum largely supported the notion that Rosenbaum was in the process of assaulting Rittenhouse, lunging for his rifle before being shot. This was already a serious blow to the Murder Charge.
The second shooting of Anthony Huber is a lot more clear cut as the video shows Huber striking Rittenhouse with a Skateboard, which becomes a weapon when used to hit somebody. When asked, Grosskruetz agreed that being struck with a skateboard constitutes serious bodily harm, bolstering the argument for self defense in this shooting.
This third shooting of Grosskruetz was ultimately the last hope to prove intent on Rittenhouse's part- the idea that Rittenhouse had shot a surrendering person would help establish malicious intent. But that narrative was quickly dismantled by the Defense with the video evidence to back it up.
Lastly, when asked why he had a gun at all, Grosskruetz referenced the Second Amendment and claimed he carried it for protection. He also made an earlier statement that he believed the presence of a gun greatly increases the chances of an incident taking place. So he simultaneously gave Kyle Rittenhouse a justification for being armed, and basically admitting to knowing that bringing his own gun increased the chances of injury/death which calls his own intent into question - if you know this, and brought it anyway, what were you really intending to do with it?
This of course applies to both Grosskruetz and Rittenhouse.
JeffSyh
Registered
Differnce is though kyle was shown to use his gun in self defense were Grosskruetz used his as an aggressor.
Similar threads
