so what happens when Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted?

Using reverse "logic" here.

If you resist arrest, even unarmed, you deserve to be held accountable, even death. Shouldn't have done that, so it's on you.

If you willingly break curfew to attend a riot scene while armed (oh, you happen to be a minor in illegal possession of said gun) and engage others instead of rendering first aid per original intent, you should not be held accountable, even though you should not have done that? In fact, you're a hero? Originally Posted by reddog1951

Not often that you come across some fish in a barrel like this, so...

A person is being detained or arrested by a trained member of law enforcement who has been given the power by the community to use lethal force if necessary to prevent your escape...versus

A citizen being chased by members of an armed mob who are intent on vandalism, arson, battery, and quite possibly murder.

An officer is using relative force to effect an arrest but the situation escalates as the criminal resists...versus

A convicted pedophile and another who has a criminal history of violent assault are actively trying to hurt or kill (the confessed intentions of one) a underage citizen.

A convicted felon has no right to be armed and resists arrest...versus

A citizen LEGALLY carrying a weapon (there was nothing illegal about that) resists...what? Murder...assault...rape?

Those fish are starting to look pretty dead now.

That's why you have a plate carrier and more mags.

For those that don't shoot - The 100 round magazine thing is a bit of a meme, because those are really only ideal for fixed positions. a 100 round mag has the same capacity as 3 1/3 normal magazines, but weighs the same as 5 magazines. It's more efficient to just carry more 30 rounders. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

100 round mags jam much more frequently that 20-30 round mags.

you omit the fact that the police and guard were hamstrung from doing their job in the first place. if not for that, none of this would have gotten out of control. same in Chicago and Portland. They enabled these riots. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Correct. The cops weren't arresting many rioters, they were getting bailed out, the DAs weren't charging them and the judges refused to either convict them or jail them. And the media was egging them on.

I read a story a few days ago where the Portland mayor asked citizens to help the police by writing down license plate numbers of cars that were at the riots and giving them to the cops. The cops/feds should have been doing that for months. They just aren't serious.

100 round mags jam much more frequently that 20-30 round mags. Originally Posted by gnadfly

some do by design, others need a fair amount of break in AND proepr loading. Either way, they're still a pain in the ass.

"A person is being detained or arrested by a trained member of law enforcement who has been given the power by the community to use lethal force if necessary to prevent your escape...versus"

Please show me exactly where LE is authorized to use lethal force merely to prevent escape when there is no imminent threat to the life of the officer or another.

"A citizen LEGALLY carrying a weapon (there was nothing illegal about that) resists...what? Murder...assault...rape?"

First off, the citizen in question was in violation of curfew and therefore ILLEGALLY present, as were all at the scene. He also was only 17, and in general, barred from openly carrying due to age. There appears to be some ambiguity in Wisconsin law that will likely be argued by defense as a loophole based on the barrel length of his gun, but it is likely that it will be determined that he was carrying illegally. It is discussed at length here:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...mce-story.html


But I think you missed the point of logic that I was trying to convey. Some here argue that Floyd evoked the chain of events of his incident simply by being "there"....he shouldn't have been high, he shouldn't have passed a fake bill, he shouldn't have resisted....etc.

If that's what you think, fine, you have a right to your own opinion. But if that is you opinion, how can you logically not extent the same thought process to Rittenhouse. Did he then not evoke the chain of events in his incident as well...underage, in violation of curfew, evidently initiated the first confrontation, etc. In my estimation, a KID had no business being "there". Neither did the rioters on BOTH sides, but that a different discussion.

Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as stupid does". Floyd and Rittenhouse were both stupid in different ways. No one should have died from either's stupidity, but did.

Open carry does not generally include long guns. Show me the law that says otherwise.

Maybe you missed it, the police are authorized to use force deadly or otherwise. Rioters, especially pedos, are not.

"Open carry does not generally include long guns. Show me the law that says otherwise."

I linked a discussion about Wisconsin open carry, especially in regards to minors. Remember that Rittenhouse was a minor. Not as clear cut as you'd like to believe.


"Maybe you missed it, the police are authorized to use force deadly or otherwise. Rioters, especially pedos, are not."

True, LE is authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty in certain circumstances. Chauvin might be a good resource to as about those limits. You are correct about rioters not authorized to use deadly force. Rittenhouse was a rioter and wasn't even authorized to be there..by law via curfew..nor by his legal guardian according to Mom's statements.

"A person is being detained or arrested by a trained member of law enforcement who has been given the power by the community to use lethal force if necessary to prevent your escape...versus"

Please show me exactly where LE is authorized to use lethal force merely to prevent escape when there is no imminent threat to the life of the officer or another.

"A citizen LEGALLY carrying a weapon (there was nothing illegal about that) resists...what? Murder...assault...rape?"

First off, the citizen in question was in violation of curfew and therefore ILLEGALLY present, as were all at the scene. He also was only 17, and in general, barred from openly carrying due to age. There appears to be some ambiguity in Wisconsin law that will likely be argued by defense as a loophole based on the barrel length of his gun, but it is likely that it will be determined that he was carrying illegally. It is discussed at length here:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...mce-story.html


But I think you missed the point of logic that I was trying to convey. Some here argue that Floyd evoked the chain of events of his incident simply by being "there"....he shouldn't have been high, he shouldn't have passed a fake bill, he shouldn't have resisted....etc.

If that's what you think, fine, you have a right to your own opinion. But if that is you opinion, how can you logically not extent the same thought process to Rittenhouse. Did he then not evoke the chain of events in his incident as well...underage, in violation of curfew, evidently initiated the first confrontation, etc. In my estimation, a KID had no business being "there". Neither did the rioters on BOTH sides, but that a different discussion.

Forrest Gump said "Stupid is as stupid does". Floyd and Rittenhouse were both stupid in different ways. No one should have died from either's stupidity, but did. Originally Posted by reddog1951

Excellent post reddog

Excellent post reddog Originally Posted by Jam3768

if you say so

You are reaching oebbie levels of repetitiveness with your "if you say so" bs whako.

FYI -- that is not a good thing

You are reaching oebbie levels of repetitiveness with your "if you say so" bs whako.

FYI -- that is not a good thing Originally Posted by Jam3768

i invented that. oeb has nothing to do with it.

in fact i invented all the "cool" memes, trends and catch phrases here. i own them


BAHHHHAAAAA


thank you valued poster.

I think even a rioter has a Constitutional right to self defense with a weapon if the law allows for that weapon to be carried which I'm not at all sure of in this case. They can probably get this kid for something but 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter shouldn't be on the table. Maybe some degree of "recklessness", I don't know but not the above two charges.


Thing is, I won't riot if he is found guilty or not guilty. That's something reserved for the Left only.

You are reaching oebbie levels of repetitiveness with your "if you say so" bs whako.

FYI -- that is not a good thing Originally Posted by Jam3768

C'mon. It's not that bad. oeb11 is a sad weirdo. Wacky Is a mad genius.

Look at me! Defending Waco?

C'mon. It's not that bad. oeb11 is a sad weirdo. Wacky Is a mad genius.

Look at me! Defending Waco?


Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

look at you .. fishing for more points.


All the best
ECCIE Worldwide

I think even a rioter has a Constitutional right to self defense with a weapon if the law allows for that weapon to be carried which I'm not at all sure of in this case. They can probably get this kid for something but 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter shouldn't be on the table. Maybe some degree of "recklessness", I don't know but not the above two charges.


Thing is, I won't riot if he is found guilty or not guilty. That's something reserved for the Left only. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Just when I thought he was only making a stupid statement about a rioter defending himself, he makes it worse with the second-to-last word.

look at you .. fishing for more points.


All the best
ECCIE Worldwide Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Are you that sensitive, snowflake? You feel his pain? Who's going to RTM it?