daz28

Way too many dropped balls by backs costs us

Gabeday Davis

Super Mario 2

I imagine if we had someone else with 5.0 yds per carry, he would get a shot.

According to a Raider fan there was A LOT of contact. I saw little to none

Whoever hits the Covid lottery is also a factor.

Could you provide even one example of an American leftist that shows they don't believe in private property rights? I would hope this is just extreme hyperbole.

I'm saying that becasue there was a shot to the back, that could be a reason to want to have a jury trial. I'm not arguing it wasn't self-defense. All along I've said I felt he may have been somewhat negligent. The jury did not know many of the facts in determining that: 1) if he said in that recording that he wished he had his AR to shoot shoplifters; 2) Was it legal for him to be carrying the weapon; 3) Did the video show him pointing a weapon at people before the shootings It's almost like he knew that if he used the weapon he brought to protect himself, it could put him in a very precarious situation right after. I'm sure he just ran, because he was scared, but that seems to be what precipitated the actions of people afterwards. I'm not going to blame Kyle for that. That falls squarely on the shoulders of the city, which couldn't police itself.

I don't know that it's "obvious self-defense" when one of the people was shot in the back. That alone raises questions, and letting a jury decide it probably wasn't a bad idea What's funny is most of the people saying that this case shouldn't have even made it to court are the same ones saying that he should sue Biden, when there's pretty clearly no defamtion case. #hypocritenation

Politicians are responsible for all of this, and in many more ways than we can even begin to think of. Can she prove he's not a white supremecist? That's like trying to prove you don't like the smell of farts.

They are not clearly 2 totally different things. I brought up the Bernhard Goetz trial, and if you're not familiar, I suggest you look into it. He was acquitted even though one of the men he shot was cowering in fear when he was shot, which is as clear cut of an example of not being self-defense that it's laughable. The second statement is PATENTLY false. Many, many arrests were made. This is from Fox news, which is why I was surpirised you never saw it: Federal prosecutors have announced the arrests of more than six dozen people on charges ranging from murder to arson to looting in connection with rioting that grew out of protests over the death of George Floyd in the past five weeks. The cities did do a horrible job, but so did you. Your statement was both a bold and bald faced lie. The judges incompetence has left citizens believing that it is indeed legal to carry at age 17. A fact which could have very easily been discovered had he not been incompetent. People get very confused as to what defamation is. Both sides should be held accountable for propoganda. Fox has openly argued that people shouldn't believe them.

It can be a fine line though. I'm old enough to remember Bernhard Goetz.

This sums it up really well. I just wanted to touch base, and this is pretty much what I would have had to say. Well done! Especially after seeing what a horrible mess the judicial system is. I just hope that the stupid Antifa/Prowd boi nonsense doesn't lead to a bloodbath, because of this ruling. Everyone having a 'right' to be there, then feeling threatend, so people end up dead.

I work, and pay taxes so that trained police can do their job. Somehow their failure leads to my being a bad citizen in your view. Would it be reasonable to assume that trying to undo what agrravated protesters were doing would, I don't know, maybe "PROVOKE" them?? When the guy said, "if I see you again alone, I'm going to kill you" maybe make you think staying in your group, or better yet getting the heck out of there might be a good idea? As for your virtue signalling, being a stupid kid doesn't make him a bigger hero than me. He's extremely lucky to even be alive. This coming from you, who earlier reminded me that the people trying to stop him were dumb, and that's why they're dead. You've admitted Kyle is dumb, and that's where I'm at, too. For the record, I'm not pro-riot, but he went to one willingly, knew threats to himself were present and current, and yet he still put himself in a position for a bad outcome. Now people are dead. The riot was going to happen with or without him, so that point is moot(your chicken or egg argument). I think the funniest thing is even after this debacle, you're still claiming that less people would have been hurt if more people present had guns. Oy vey! You tried, but I still feel that he put himself in a bad and dangerous spot, which he was not qualified to handle. That situation was a certainty. His attendance didn't need to be. Was he a vigilante? In my opinion, no. Did he put himself in a situation where it was likely he would end up one? Yes. Was he aware of that possibility? After receiving a death threat, most certainly. What did he choose to do after knowing this? He stayed. I feel after all this, and the way he knowingly skirted the means to obtain the gun, he is culpable of some negligence. I still have some questions about why Rosenbaum was shot 4 times, including 1 in the back. The skateboard kid also seemed to be trying to get away when shot. At the end of the day you'll have your opinion, I'll have mine. I'd say there's a very good chance you get your outcome, and he's aquitted. I'd like to see him get a couple years. It's really a shame that all of this is going on no matter what 'side' anyone is taking. I don't think there's many of the people you call hypocrites, though. Most people do distinguish violence from peace. Rioting bad, insurrection bad, social injustice bad. It's really not that difficult.

Just a horrible analogy. First off my sister's not a dumb kid; Kyle is. My sister wouldn't lie under oath after saying she had someone else buy her a gun, then claim she didn't know it was illegal to have it; DUH!!!! My sister is smart enough to realize if she provokes angry people, whether committing criminal acts or not, it might not end up well for her. Maybe, just maybe if the cops, medic, and firefighters are staying clear, my sister would be smart enough to stay away, too. How come the "common sense" and "play stupid games win stupid prizes" people aren't applying that here, where it CLEARLY fits? Cuz hypocrites, that's why. All of HIS actions, including going there with a gun he knew he shouldn't have precipitated this. It's pretty obvious that SOMETHING he did provoked something. Even if that something was being in a place he had a "right" to be in, doesn't mean he should be there. If you're a member of the Outlaws, you don't go in a Hell's Angels bar, and expect a good result even if while running away you yell, "friendly!".

No matter what direction you ran in you were "running towards police". It's funny you're acting like being stupid is hazardous to everyone's health, but Kyles. No one dies that day if he wasn't the genius medic with a gun.

In the world we live in seeing a guy who just shot someone running is about as big of a direct threat as you'll ever encounter. It would be VERY reasonable to assume he's a shooter. Your whole "street justice" narrative in unfounded. Now you want to blame them for "poor decisions", while Kyle gets none. "Take cover and call the cops" is not the mantra of the "good guy with a gun" crowd. Their mantra is take him out without prejudice as quickly as possible to mitigate a the further threat. See how quickly your idea of a "hero" changes based on how you view them, and the situation. Except an officer is clearly marked as such. Kyle, to any onlooker, would have had the appearance of an active shooter. In your instance, the janitor would have laid his weapon down after he mistakenly shot someone. Totally different. People here are acting like all the people he shot were just an angry mob looking to hurt someone. If that's true, then why pick on the guy with a gun?? It makes ZERO sense, and isn't a reasonable argument.

I think the kid had good intentions, but I think that him playing cop would likely been taken by many as a provocation. Almost everyone reacts adversley to anyone who's not an authority figure judging their actions. He shouldn't have had a weapon, and being a kid, shouldn't have been there playing hero. As for yes or no, I'd say yes, he was defending himself. Did his negligence put him in that spot? Also yes. The super grey area imo, is when he started firing on the second group of people trying to disarm him. Does that allow them to in turn defend themselves and shoot him??? If they were trying to stop a shooter, and he fired on them, they certainly would have been left fearing for their lives, too. The "good guy with a gun" advocates want to pretend that never happened, because it shows that it's not always cut n dried in those circumstances. Answer me this yes or no: if the 2nd group of people thought he was a shooter, and were trying to disarm/stop him, would they have had a right to shoot him after he fired on them???

I just want to hear what they find, aka the facts. Are you saying I shouldn't, because it takes political theater to obtain it? It's like you're placing the sins of the politicians squarely on me. Just some internet guy with zero ability to assuage anything. If people testify and present documents, I don't have any problem with looking at them and listening. Next time I'm Speaker of The House though, you can be assured I'll run it with a lot more integrity. Also, we've established both sides do the same political stunts, but now you're choosing to only blame what you contend to be "my side".

It's tough to track it down, but I just read that the judge could have easily asked an appeals court to rule on it, but he didn't("shame on me", he said), because he waited too long it's now moot. Just another blunder in a long list. Wisconsin law is bad in many ways, but it's very obvious that open carry law is intended for 18+. He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away. “I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

I just added to my last post, and I don't know if you saw it. Here's the problem: The barrel length was necessary for it to fit under the 17 year olds hunting staute, not to qualify it as an open carry weapon for those 18 and older(adults). He was clearly and self-admittedly using the weapon as open carry, and that's not legal. I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but judges OFTEN make bad/poor calls. This is one of them, because if he's considered legally allowed to carry the weapon, then that takes away the negligence factor.

It was not obvious to drop it. The judge initially did not. From what I understand is the hunting exemption is what was accepted, because 17 year olds can use them for hunting. The b arrel length is also a factor, but I'm only pointing at the hunting part. Imo, if that's the provision, and he was not hunting, then it shouldn't apply. His own words: "People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse told the Daily Caller in a video interview before the shooting. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit." He VERY CLEARLY did not have his rifle for hunting.

If I see you're collecting millions of dollars, buying new Nikes, and not paying me my $10k, eventually I'm snitching, too.

Lot's of people are victim shaming, and taking the position you are that they targeted him. I'm arguing that it's more likely people targeting a known shooter aren't just looking to get a few licks in on an easy target(one armed and known to use the weapon???), but rather trying to stop him evading or causing further harm. If you're correct about him needing reassurance, why didn't he contact police shortly after, or turn himself in sooner? He will say he was scared, but if I just get done protecting myself from people attacking me, I don't go into hiding. My personal opinion is he is negligent, because he was a child with a weapon who shouldn't have had the weapon. He was NOT hunting, and that's what the rifle exception is for. If he stayed at the car lot, likely no one is harmed. Other people's actions led to their own harm(we will not know their true intentions), but none of them happen if he is following the law in the first place. The kicker of this whole thing is that the guy who bought him the gun is going to be in prison for many years, but all the negligence after that is somehow washed down the drain.

Dropping the gun charge is a HUUGE aspect, imo. If he shouldn't have had the weapon, that makes him much more negligent. The Wisconsin law is sketchy, but how in the world was it ACCEPTED as a hunting exception??? Kyle didn't take the weapon there to hunt, and this was testified as fact by the purchaser. You can't legally hunt in the city, and it was night time. Doubtful he has a WIS hunting license. I wasn't asking if the charge was dismissed, but rather why it was, when it's clear he was indeed not hunting. Also, one could easily argue that him shooting someone shortly beforehand would be considered a "threat", and running "AWAY" from a scene is almost always a sign that you were doing something wrong. He lied to the camera person. He didn't "turn himself in". He could have easily walked in front of a police car to stop it, which is EXACTLY what I(or anyone) would have done if I was in fear for my life, and attempting to turn myself in/seek protection.