Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Captainant 27857]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Now go look at Clinton v. Jones for the ruling that really matters.

Because Biden was not in office when he made the defamatory tweet at issue.  It was during the campaign when he was a private citizen.  Hint: a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.

(if you ask that guy or sack et al 2017-2021)

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

4 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i'm worried about tomorrow.

Who will think of all the Children (that won't get raped now)

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Do you have a source for this? I was told that opinions weren't allowed here. kEep iT In tHE cLOaCk rOOm

please outline anything political about my argument.

then think about what you are actually arguing.

or, are you actually arguing anything, or just trying to one up someone else?

you are a terrible poster.

[Guest Lobo]

Well thank god we have a really competitive Longhorn football game tomorrow to get a needed break from this, yet another national breakdown in civic discourse. 
(checks notes)

oh for fuck’s sakes!!!

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

you are a terrible poster.

[South Austin 52636]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now go look at Clinton v. Jones for the ruling that really matters.

Because Biden was not in office when he made the defamatory tweet at issue.  It was during the campaign when he was a private citizen.  Hint: a President is subject to civil suits for actions committed before he assumes the presidency.

Ah, you are correct. I was off on the timing of Biden's comments. 

[immortal13 4059]

4 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Do you have a source for this? I was told that opinions weren't allowed here. kEep iT In tHE cLOaCk rOOm

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[JBJ 3668]

27 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

there's an argument to be made that carrying a gun at low ready is threatening to anyone in the general vicinity. do you disagree?

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be harassed.

Edited November 19, 2021 by JBJ

[immortal13 4059]

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, JBJ said:

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be sexually harassed.

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Cheers to Gage Grosskreutz for being the Trial MVP

[Brisketexan 105463]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

So fuck around and find out?

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

that's what i think yall are doing. hope it feels good today. i'm worried about tomorrow. see cloak room.

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

potential assaulter

Isn't everyone a potential assaulter? Aren't we innocent until we commit a crime?  Be smarter.

[immortal13 4059]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

Anyone is a potential shooter. Have you not heard about concealed carry? Try your question in the CR and maybe you'll get the response you're looking for

[Incredulity 11684]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Isn't everyone a potential assaulter? Aren't we innocent until we commit a crime?  Be smarter.

CR loves thought crime.

[Brisketexan 105463]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Not in the legal sense. 

More in the sense that a woman with too short a skirt and a lowcut top is asking to be harassed.

Cool.  So, El Paso Shooter 2.0 gets out of his truck in the La Michoacana parking lot.  In his head, he intends to murder brown invaders.  But outwardly, he's just carrying at a low ready.  When do I get to decide he's a threat?  After he shoots me?  Cool.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, immortal13 said:

the response you're looking for

 

It looks like this:

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

  When do I get to decide he's a threat?  After he shoots me? 

Legally, yes. There are 3 guys in Georgia who are going to fry because they determined they would "decide who was a threat". 

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Well thank god we have a really competitive Longhorn football game tomorrow to get a needed break from this, yet another national breakdown in civic discourse. 
(checks notes)

oh for fuck’s sakes!!!

FIFY. Pretty sure West Virginia will be Rosenbaum and we're the kids.

[South Austin 52636]

3 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Isn't everyone a potential assaulter? Aren't we innocent until we commit a crime?  Be smarter.

[Guest Lobo]

This changes nothing for 99% of us gun owners in America.  But with looser carry laws, self defense precedence, and just a general rotting bifurcation…I really do see a handful more guys sitting at home like “Psycho” Francis,

”Alls I know is, I finally get to kill somebody.”   
 

I’m sure we’re all somebody’s list.  I really should stop taunting people in public as much as I do.  

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Lobo said:

I’m sure we’re all somebody’s list.  I really should stop taunting people in public as much as I do.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

9 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Cheers to Gage Grosskreutz for being the Trial MVP

Some lefties are born.  Others are made.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Mainstream media is evil. They tried to convict a person, who was obviously defending himself, because he dared to defend himself against an attack by a a riot mob they agreed with.

Despicable.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

“Hey what happened to my horse in Kenosha?”

it had to be shot 

[hayden_horn 11365]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

 

[ChickenSandwich 9856]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

would you feel better about it if they brought AR's with them to a highly emotionally charged situation just in case they needed to defend themselves?

Blake seems to prefer a blade

[hayden_horn 11365]

10 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Anyone is a potential shooter. Have you not heard about concealed carry? Try your question in the CR and maybe you'll get the response you're looking for

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

[jkates 316]

Justice seems to have been correctly served here given the facts of this case. Good work.

[Harrison Bergeron 1798]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Mainstream media is evil. They tried to convict a person, who was obviously defending himself, because he dared to defend himself against an attack by a a riot mob they agreed with.

Despicable.

It is amazing the disinformation that fuels the emotional hysterics. Reading through Facebook there are still people out there that believe Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a gun, drove directly to the riots, randomly shot three black people, and left.

[BabaYaga 15331]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

This isn't about the gun.  Those trying to deflect to this have their own clear agenda.  

[BabaYaga 15331]

1 minute ago, jkates said:

Justice seems to have been correctly served here given the facts of this case. Good work.

Yep

[Foosters 17889]

 

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....that seems like good public policy.  As a matter of law, we can't treat someone carrying a firearm, with their hands on it in a position where it can be ready to fire in a second, as a threat.  So, gotta wait till he starts slinging lead at La Michoacana shoppers before we can act in self-defense.

OR, we allow people to open carry whatever they want wherever they want, but anyone can deem them a threat if the armed guy's hands are on his weapon, and drop him cold in self-defense.

Those seem like two terribly stupid options.

How about you just don't fucking carry a gun everywhere, and you sure as shit don't put your hands on it if you do?

This.

Society moving in a direction of "bring your gun with you, solve problems with it" versus "leave your gun at home, having guns in every situation creates a high risk of deadly outcomes" is not a positive thing.  But, here we are.  Let's try an approach that even shitty old west towns figured out was a bad idea.

Remember that couple in St. Louis that pointed firearms at unarmed, Black protesters?  The same folks defending Kyle also celebrated that couple. In their minds, the people pointing the assault rifle at the unarmed people were the victims. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Foosters

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

This isn't about the gun.  Those trying to deflect to this have their own clear agenda.  

it's 100% about the gun.

if he isn't carrying, does anyone die? is there even a trial?

[JBJ 3668]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

really, the fact you cannot discern the difference between a potential assault victim and a potential assaulter is a bit strange to me. the woman with the short skirt is the victim. the guy with the gun at low ready is the potential shooter, and would put any normal person on guard. 

does that not make sense to you?

Neither provoke a response in-and-of itself.  To assault either person is a crime.  A normal response might be to approach each person and talk to each to find out what's up.

If someone is actually low ready, maybe, but most of the pictures I see here of "low-ready" are guns at peoples hips.  Low ready has the gun barely below the chin and is definitely pointing.

Far-left is low ready:

[Satoshi 129]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

it's 100% about the gun.

if he isn't carrying, does anyone die? is there even a trial?

No.

Were there any other arrests at all in those riots? 

[Carl Spackler 3505]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

For the legal minds here, how is this usually handled?  Would each side reach out to the judge to figure out what's going on?  

What are you referring to specifically?  Whether to sequester the jury?  Something else?

[Guest Lobo]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

If we wanted to make this political, we’d openly contemplate why another Wisconsin judge, federal judge Ludwig, didn’t get this much “ah yes, the judge followed the law and the facts…justice was done here…” as we are seeing here today.  
 

I blame lance ito for most of this.  

[immortal13 4059]

13 minutes ago, Lobo said:

This changes nothing for 99% of us gun owners in America.  But with looser carry laws, self defense precedence, and just a general rotting bifurcation…I really do see a handful more guys sitting at home like “Psycho” Francis,

”Alls I know is, I finally get to kill somebody.”   
 

I’m sure we’re all somebody’s list.  I really should stop taunting people in public as much as I do.  

Yeah all those pesky laws really deterred GG from doing the right thing. Carry on...

[BabaYaga 15331]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

it's 100% about the gun.

if he isn't carrying, does anyone die? is there even a trial?

See the man beaten to death with the skateboard.  Not saying the gun didn't play a part, do you think if he's wearing a MAGA hat his life is also not in danger with these crowds?

We're back to the girl wearing a short skirt argument

[immortal13 4059]

9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

hmm. 

you sure your argument makes sense here?

i'm a pro gun guy.

but yall are making it really hard. and i'm hard pressed to move this to cloak room. yall really want to make this political.

Or you could just move to the Cloak Room?

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Neither provoke a response in-and-of itself.  To assault either person is a crime.  A normal response might be to approach each person and talk to each to find out what's up.

If someone is actually low ready, maybe, but most of the pictures I see here of "low-ready" are guns at peoples hips.  Low ready has the gun barely below the chin and is definitely pointing.

Far-left is low ready:

i dunno whatever

i get uncomfortable in european airports sometimes. i see the barrel pointed toward my foot, i feel like someone is a bit aggro. this dues was walking streets with a rifle. he wasn't badges. but i guess okay.

[BabaYaga 15331]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

What are you referring to specifically?  Whether to sequester the jury?  Something else?

If there are allegations jurors are following media coverage of trials, possibly being influenced, etc?  Just a general question on containment and sequestering efficacy

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, immortal13 said:

Or you could just move to the Cloak Room?

sure

[Satoshi 129]

They weren’t arresting anybody in Kenosha. To my knowledge whoever did this was never caught. 
 

https://www.newsweek.com/senior-citizen-has-jaw-broken-during-kenosha-protests-while-protecting-his-workplace-1527820?amp=1

[immortal13 4059]

3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i dunno whatever

i get uncomfortable in european airports sometimes. i see the barrel pointed toward my foot, i feel like someone is a bit aggro. this dues was walking streets with a rifle. he wasn't badges. but i guess okay.

And there was another "dude" with a Glock that was carrying illegally. Is that ok with you as well?

[Carl Spackler 3505]

Just now, BabaYaga said:

If there are allegations jurors are following media coverage of trials, possibly being influenced, etc?  Just a general question on containment and sequestering efficacy

Judge has discretion on whether to sequester the jury.  It's unusual to see total sequestration -- most people don't like to be kept from their families, etc. for extended periods.

As for allegations of jury tampering and/or juror misconduct, the judge again has discretion to adopt measures designed to address the issues.  I think most judges would start out by questioning jurors individually to see if there is any substance to the allegations.  

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, immortal13 said:

And there was another "dude" with a Glock that was carrying illegally. Is that ok with you as well?

not sure you'd like my answers on any sort of carrying firearms.

i think we should be able to hunt. i'm probably not hunting with a glock. so...i dunno. figure that shit out for yourself.

i'm very, very against public carrying of firearms.

[BabaYaga 15331]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Judge has discretion on whether to sequester the jury.  It's unusual to see total sequestration -- most people don't like to be kept from their families, etc. for extended periods.

As for allegations of jury tampering and/or juror misconduct, the judge again has discretion to adopt measures designed to address the issues.  I think most judges would start out by questioning jurors individually to see if there is any substance to the allegations.  

Thx

[BabaYaga 15331]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

i'm very, very against public carrying of firearms.

As am I, but for different reason I'd guess.  Either way, the laws are what they are and emotions seemed to trump facts for many