Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[immortal13 4,059]

16 minutes ago, tchookem said:

EDIT: Also, never underestimate people's vigilante fantasies. This kid actually did it. Planned it, carried it out, and was legitimized in court.

You're a nutjob. There is zero proof of this. And the court did not do anything of the sort. 

[TreatyOak 16,435]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I will allow you to illustrate your refusal to state George Floyd has the same right to the use of deadly force to protect his life that Rittenhouse has. 

Since you’re continually choosing to compare a case that is wholly unrelated to Rittenhouse’s court case, do you think that Charles 1st of England had the same right to the use of deadly force that both George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse had?
 

You can argue that his general tyranny, using the Scottish army to invade his own country plus arresting 5 members of the House of Commons and starting the English Civil War were grounds for impeachment, but do you think he was lawfully executed, since there wasn’t a legal precedent for his beheading and there was less than a majority of lawmakers who actually voted for the execution?

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-was-king-charles-i-executed

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

25 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I thought the point was fairly straightforward and I probably could have made it leaving it out entirely-

IF being assaulted by someone wielding a skateboard is the danger level required to legally use deadly force...

THEN being deprived of one's ability to breathe definitely is.

 

Skate board guy was trying to disarm an active shooter. Was it foolish? Perhaps. Did it justify Kyle killing him? I think not. But I wasn’t on the jury and did not hear all the evidence. So I can’t really disagree. But my internet opinion is Kyle should go to jail for killing him.

[TwiceHorn 31,619]

30 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I thought the point was fairly straightforward and I probably could have made it leaving it out entirely-

IF being assaulted by someone wielding a skateboard is the danger level required to legally use deadly force...

THEN being deprived of one's ability to breathe definitely is.

 

Well, I can't really argue with that.

But when you start adding in details, like it's hard to respond with force when you're suffocating and the legal protection that a cop will enjoy most of the time, it starts getting to be strained.

But setting aside how illegitimate our LEO have become (maybe, probably, they weren't ever any different), you can probably see why most "perps" or "defendants" have no right to defend themselves against cops acting in the line of duty.

[TwiceHorn 31,619]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

You're a nutjob. There is zero proof of this. And the court did not do anything of the sort. 

Nah, he's spot on.  There's any number of proud boy or militia types that would love to use a protest/riot as a pretext to go bust some heads or blow some hair.  Those types love Rittenhouse because while his motives may have been more naive and benign than the proud boy/militia types, and the circumstances more justifiable, he "got away with it."

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,588]

7 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Since you’re continually choosing to compare a case that is wholly unrelated to Rittenhouse’s court case, do you think that Charles 1st of England had the same right to the use of deadly force that both George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse had?
 

You can argue that his general tyranny, using the Scottish army to invade his own country plus arresting 5 members of the House of Commons and starting the English Civil War were grounds for impeachment, but do you think he was lawfully executed, since there wasn’t a legal precedent for his beheading and there was less than a majority of lawmakers who actually voted for the execution?

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-was-king-charles-i-executed

 

Your question is based on a premise that's murky at best in Floyd's case but, as per the verdict, clear in Rittenhouse's. 

[LW Goatman 1,125]

36 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I thought the point was fairly straightforward and I probably could have made it leaving it out entirely-

IF being assaulted by someone wielding a skateboard is the danger level required to legally use deadly force...

THEN being deprived of one's ability to breathe definitely is.

 

I just want to say, and I’ve seen you since HF/Bevo, you may have the greatest internet handle of all time. If there is something better I’d like to hear it.

[tchookem 3,919]

Nah, he's spot on.  There's any number of proud boy or militia types that would love to use a protest/riot as a pretext to go bust some heads or blow some hair.  Those types love Rittenhouse because while his motives may have been more naive and benign than the proud boy/militia types, and the circumstances more justifiable, he "got away with it."

He knows this already, but admitting his team isn't completely in the right would mean giving up the internet troll schtick.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,588]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Nah, he's spot on.  There's any number of proud boy or militia types that would love to use a protest/riot as a pretext to go bust some heads or blow some hair.  Those types love Rittenhouse because while his motives may have been more naive and benign than the proud boy/militia types, and the circumstances more justifiable, he "got away with it."

"Would"? Don't wanna nit-pick here, but they did. But then again Mitch Hedberg used to do drugs, so I guess technically you're right. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/09/985872120/4-alleged-boogaloo-members-charged-with-obstructing-probe-into-police-killings

[JimmyJames 12,271]

25 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

You keep saying this but no one on this entire board has called him a hero. Yelling at clouds and shit...

Nobody on this board has called him a hero including you except maybe the sack, if only by implication.

Im talking about the right wing media which clearly has. That to me is a big problem. He can be not guilty but not a hero. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,588]

8 minutes ago, LW Goatman said:

I just want to say, and I’ve seen you since HF/Bevo, you may have the greatest internet handle of all time. If there is something better I’d like to hear it.

Thx but honestly kind of a pain when logging in. 

[TreatyOak 16,435]

17 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Your question is based on a premise that's murky at best in Floyd's case but, as per the verdict, clear in Rittenhouse's. 

YOU are discussing George Floyd. Not me. I am discussing the execution of King Charles the 1st, since it has as much to do with the Kyle Rittenhouse case as George Floyd does.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,588]

3 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

YOU are discussing George Floyd. Not me. I am discussing the execution of King Charles the 1st, since it has as much to do with the Kyle Rittenhouse case as George Floyd does.  

Well you're doing a really bad job of it. 

[Hate 20,149]

Skate board guy was trying to disarm an active shooter. Was it foolish? Perhaps. Did it justify Kyle killing him? I think not. But I wasn’t on the jury and did not hear all the evidence. So I can’t really disagree. But my internet opinion is Kyle should go to jail for killing him.

Nothing like admitting your opinion isn’t based on facts.

[Brisketexan 105,465]

You keep saying this but no one on this entire board has called him a hero. Yelling at clouds and shit...

I mean…this current round of discussion KR was literally prompted by gushing hero treatment of KR at the Turning Point USA conference a few days ago…

[immortal13 4,059]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Nobody on this board has called him a hero including you except maybe the sack, if only by implication.

Im talking about the right wing media which clearly has. That to me is a big problem. He can be not guilty but not a hero. 

Why let that bother you? 

[immortal13 4,059]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean…this current round of discussion KR was literally prompted by gushing hero treatment of KR at the Turning Point USA conference a few days ago…

Well the irony is that political pressure from the left is what made sure this case happened and made him this "hero" to some. The insistence on trying to convict KR with a case that was horribly unwinnable was a poor choice by the DA's office, on an indictment that was  questionable at best.

[Brisketexan 105,465]

Well the irony is that political pressure from the left is what made sure this case happened and made him this "hero" to some. The insistence on trying to convict KR with a case that was horribly unwinnable was a poor choice by the DA's office, on an indictment that was  questionable at best.

Man, at least y’all are consistent. There’s not a single loathsome thing the American conservative movement does that you don’t just say “the left made us do it!” Like clockwork.

[immortal13 4,059]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, at least y’all are consistent. There’s not a single loathsome thing the American conservative movement does that you don’t just say “the left made us do it!” Like clockwork.

Whatever bro. That's rich though coming from the side that plays the race card constantly, even in a white on white case like this. Somehow KR became a "white supremacist" long before his trial ever started, and not surprisingly with no corroborating evidence to support that claim either. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 minute ago, immortal13 said:

Somehow KR became a "white supremacist" long before his trial ever started, and not surprisingly with no corroborating evidence to support that claim either. 

Well when a senior senator/VP/soon to be president tags you as such to millions of his followers, it’s hard to shake, whether true or not. 

[Brisketexan 105,465]

Whatever bro. That's rich though coming from the side that plays the race card constantly, even in a white on white case like this. Somehow KR became a "white supremacist" long before his trial ever started, and not surprisingly with no corroborating evidence to support that claim either. 

So….exactly as I said, KR is a hero, because “the left made us do it!”

When y’all’s “counter arguments” just further prove my exact point…well, they almost always do.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

24 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Well the irony is that political pressure from the left is what made sure this case happened and made him this "hero" to some. The insistence on trying to convict KR with a case that was horribly unwinnable was a poor choice by the DA's office, on an indictment that was  questionable at best.

The left made us do this!! 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

38 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Why let that bother you? 

It bothers me that guys like you worship a turd like that. It’s stupid and on brand. Why would that not bother me?

[immortal13 4,059]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

It bothers me that guys like you worship a turd like that. It’s stupid and on brand. Why would that not bother me?

Well see that's just like you to go spouting off some tough guy shit on the internet. Maybe at least this case served a lesson to guys like you that it isn't wise to go chasing after people with AR-15s at BLM riots. I'll just leave it at that. 

[immortal13 4,059]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

The left made us do this!! 

Wow that's a dumb response even from you. The left and their rabid desire to burn this kid at the stake because their senile leader declared him "WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!" is why this case was ever brought. And your team looked like fools trying to prosecute him, corrupt fools.

Edited December 27, 2021 by immortal13

[JimmyJames 12,271]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean…this current round of discussion KR was literally prompted by gushing hero treatment of KR at the Turning Point USA conference a few days ago…

He’s a hero!!!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

That pic perfectly embodies the entire bankruptcy of the republicans nowadays. Nihilism that believes in nothing and worship turds.

 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

8 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Well see that's just like you to go spouting off some tough guy shit on the internet. Maybe at least this case served a lesson to guys like you that it isn't wise to go chasing after people with AR-15s at BLM riots. I'll just leave it at that. 

Since you felt the need to post right after this I guess you weren’t gonna “leave it at that.”

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Wow that's a dumb response even from you. The left and their rabid desire to burn this kid at the stake because their senile leader declared him "WHITE SUPREMACIST!!!" is why this case was ever brought. And your team looked like fools trying to prosecute him, corrupt fools.

The left made you make this post!!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, immortal13 said:

"Straw man" purchase...lol

If he sues in civil court he will be charged for this. He might be anyway since he’s guilty of it. Even the sack acknowledges that. 

[Hate 20,149]

Just now, JimmyJames said:

If he sues in civil court he will be charged for this. He might be anyway since he’s guilty of it. Even the sack acknowledges that. 

He's laughing because you keep calling it a "straw man purchase" when "straw purchase" is the correct term. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Hate said:

He's laughing because you keep calling it a "straw man purchase" when "straw purchase" is the correct term. 

Oh. Sorry. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

I suppose I need to brush up on my criminal behavior terms. Not as well versed on it as the trump supporters.

[Dutchrudder 11,155]

9 hours ago, Thatguy said:

   Spoken like someone who has never spent one moment in a rough area. Suicidal shooters don't retreat. 99% of shooters DO retreat actually.

 

  Quick story. Out street racing one night. Not freeway street racing, real street racing done in an empty warehouse area. Cars start down at the end and come toward where the sidestreet of spectators were. A couple ruffians broke a bottle on the road. An argument about the dangers of that ensued(I know, people street racing scolding people about the dangers of glass on the road, oh the irony). Said ruffians decided they had enough talk and pulled out the guns and started popping into the crowd. We are all diving behind vehicles. One of the guys coming down the road sees the muzzle flashing and skids to a stop, only to receive a few rounds into his camaro, though he wasn't hit. Shooters scatter, so do we. We regroup in the parking lot close by, only to see one of our associates with a gunshot wound to the back of the head, face down in the parking lot. Guess he got hit while running away and kept running until he collapsed. Everyone is trying to figure out what happened, as the events were not clear quite yet. Guy with the camaro is pissed as is another guy who had a 60's Ford pickup(can't remember exactly it was a long time ago) who's vehicle caught a couple too. Just then someone sees the shooters turning onto highway 6 in a S10 pickup. Couple guys in the back of it and a couple in the cab. Guy with the camaro immediately takes off. Guy with the Ford does too. Camaro, being all hopped up, catches him immediately. S10 driver, trying to get away, does a U-turn on 6 coming back towards us. That's when Classic Ford pickup guy rams the S10 and everyone goes flying. Those guys were seen as heroes. But the reality is that none of us actually saw what happened or how it got started. The story was made clear after the dust settled. People were just reacting to some people who had just shot a dude in the back of the head. Guy running down the street with an AK just killed someone. You have no idea where he is going or what his intentions are. You can tell yourself that you would calmly assess the situation rationally with no emotion, but until you've been in the middle of some shit you have no idea what you would or wouldn't do. I've been in those more times than I would like to admit, and so I know exactly how I would feel, would react, or what I would or wouldn't do.

  You say you would be one of the ones protecting the town, but that's only because life has gone the right way for you. If suddenly you found yourself fighting for the scraps in life you would damn well take to the streets, and anyone saying that they wouldn't is lying. After all, that's what this country was founded on. I wasn't out there and had no desire to be. However, I also don't sit here all self righteously proclaiming I would never be involved. We would all be on either side of the situation given the right circumstances.

I don't know why the hell you thought any of that was relevant here, but your experience has no bearing on this case. The only similarities are that there were a bunch of morons with guns on both sides doing shit they shouldn't be doing. 

An "Active Shooter" is someone trying to murder innocent people in a populated area. There are plenty of sites that define the term, and applying it to Kyle Rittenhouse in his situation is wrong. The purpose of the term's use here by posters and media folks is to help drive the narrative that Kyle was some vigilante running around shooting people without cause. Calling him an "Active Shooter" is implying he's similar to school shooters. He wasn't, the evidence made that very clear. If people want to keep referring to him as such, I think that just shows their bias in evaluating the situation.

As I stated, if Kyle was shooting into a crowd and attempting to kill people, he would be an "Active Shooter" as the prosecution tried to argue. He wasn't, he was running away scared from the initial fight and gunshots, he was attempting to get to safety, and didn't use his gun until he was knocked down.  Now I don't know how many school shootings, mall shootings, or other incidents you have followed, but I haven't heard of a single one where a guy with an AR15 is running down the street around hostile people, and didn't shoot at anyone along the way. It's pretty ridiculous to call that an "Active Shooter" situation, when it clearly was not. 

 

[Willfully Horn 8,064]

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

he was running away scared from the initial fight and gunshots

Interesting. KR was running away from the scene of his first kill. A shooting I believe he actively sought because he brought his firearm, and because I believe the audio.

So, you might not let your peas touch your carrots, but I don’t care if they do. And,  if someone is actively looking to kill another human (even if they want to get off (nod to @slorch,) then I’ll correctly call that menace an active shooter.

He's a next gen George Zimmerman. Laud him if you want, but you forfeit the ability to bitch, non-hypocritically, about our deteriorating society.

 

Edited to add:

”A member of the far-right Boogaloo Boys had admitted he traveled from Texas to Minneapolis in the wake of George Floyd’s death and purported to be a Black Lives Matter supporter while wreaking havoc on the city. Ivan Harrison Hunter, 24, pleaded guilty Thursday to a single count of rioting. He admitted to firing 13 rounds from an AK-47-style rifle into the 3rd Precinct police station as rioters set the building alight in May 2020. He was then filmed yelling “Justice for Floyd!” Hunter wore a distinctive skull mask during the riot that investigators later matched to a video on his Facebook page”

 

This was the setting. Keep telling all y’all-selves the danger was clearly Antifa and the radical left.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/far-right-boogaloo-ivan-harrison-hunter-admits-posing-as-blm-supporter-during-minneapolis-george-floyd-riot

https://apnews.com/article/shootings-police-minneapolis-racial-injustice-riots-c7391638033e527ee453470481cbabce

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Explained

[TreatyOak 16,435]

10 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Well you're doing a really bad job of it. 

If only you could have shared your nonsensical comparisons with the jury! I’m sure it would have made a big difference!

[TreatyOak 16,435]

8 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I suppose I need to brush up on my criminal behavior terms. Not as well versed on it as the trump supporters.

I’m not a Trump supporter in any way, and I find him and many of his supporters and legislative enablers beyond vile, but I support the rule of law, and I agree that based on the actual charges, the jury was correct not to convict Rittenhouse. 

[Thatguy 8,894]

On 12/27/2021 at 2:01 AM, Dutchrudder said:

I don't know why the hell you thought any of that was relevant here, but your experience has no bearing on this case. The only similarities are that there were a bunch of morons with guns on both sides doing shit they shouldn't be doing. 

An "Active Shooter" is someone trying to murder innocent people in a populated area. There are plenty of sites that define the term, and applying it to Kyle Rittenhouse in his situation is wrong. The purpose of the term's use here by posters and media folks is to help drive the narrative that Kyle was some vigilante running around shooting people without cause. Calling him an "Active Shooter" is implying he's similar to school shooters. He wasn't, the evidence made that very clear. If people want to keep referring to him as such, I think that just shows their bias in evaluating the situation.

As I stated, if Kyle was shooting into a crowd and attempting to kill people, he would be an "Active Shooter" as the prosecution tried to argue. He wasn't, he was running away scared from the initial fight and gunshots, he was attempting to get to safety, and didn't use his gun until he was knocked down.  Now I don't know how many school shootings, mall shootings, or other incidents you have followed, but I haven't heard of a single one where a guy with an AR15 is running down the street around hostile people, and didn't shoot at anyone along the way. It's pretty ridiculous to call that an "Active Shooter" situation, when it clearly was not. 

 

   Dude, you seem to struggle with the idea that there are different kinds of shooters. Not every shooter is looking to shoot everyone. Some are only looking for certain targets. Micah Johnson was only looking to kill police officers, still made him an active shooter. Bottom line is I said they "thought" they had an active shooter situation.

  Lastly, my experience was to paint a picture of people who respond in those situations and how they are normally perceived, but you are hell bent on looking at the guys who were trying to disarm Kyle as "the aggressors" and not the guy running down the street with the AR 15, who had just blown a hole in someone's head. Which in and of itself is quite ridiculous when you really think about it.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

On 12/26/2021 at 10:41 AM, Thatguy said:

  You missed his entire point and simply doubled down on the point made by what you called the "second amendment nutjobs", though with more detail. The first shooting is the barometer to judge all the events afterwards. If its a good shoot then the pursuers were "attacking him". If the first shoot was not justified then the pursuers were "heroically putting their lives at risk" to disarm an active shooter. The opinions we had about the pursuers was defined by what we were told about the first shoot. However, reality is that those that were risking their lives to disarm him really did think they had an active shooter on their hands. Had any one of us been there we may have responded the same way.

I would not have.  None of the people saw him shoot Rosenbaum.  They instead just joined a mob chasing him.  It was a mob mentality and they had no way of knowing whether that first shooting was legit.  At the time they engaged him, he was not shooting anyone.  Attacking anyone.  Or pointing a gun at anyone.  Grosskruetz, who unlike Rittenouse was illegally carrying a firearm, even spoke to him as Rittenhouse was fleeing.  He only attacked him after the others did while Rittenhouse was on the ground.

I don't see how Grosskruetz could have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that attacking Rittenhouse was necessary to prevent his own or other's death or serious bodily injury. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

On 12/27/2021 at 3:04 AM, Willfully Horn said:

Interesting. KR was running away from the scene of his first kill. A shooting I believe he actively sought because he brought his firearm, and because I believe the audio.

 

 

Yes Kyle Rittenhouse made the serial child rapist Joseph Rosenbaum threaten to kill him and then chase him down and attempt to kill him.  That was his plan from the beginning.  

[zzzz 39]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

 Grosskruetz, who unlike Rittenouse was illegally carrying a firearm

Grosskreutz's conceal-carry permit had expired. Rittenhouse was carrying a gun he illegally purchased.

 

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't see how Grosskruetz could have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that attacking Rittenhouse was necessary to prevent his own or other's death or serious bodily injury. 

Grosskreutz testified that he saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber.

"In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot," Grosskreutz testified. "I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don't know ... wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don't know ... I do know that I was never trying to kill the defendant."

He said he went into action after seeing Rittenhouse kill a man just feet away — the second person Rittenhouse fatally shot that night.

Edited December 28, 2021 by zzzz

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, zzzz said:

Grosskreutz's conceal-carry permit had expired. Rittenhouse was carrying a gun he illegally purchased.

 

Grosskreutz testified that he saw Rittenhouse re-rack his rifle to load a new round into the chamber.

"In that moment, I felt that I had to do something to try to prevent myself from being killed or being shot," Grosskreutz testified. "I decided the best course of action would be to close the distance between the defendant and I, and from there, I don't know ... wrestling the gun, detaining the defendant, I don't know ... I do know that I was never trying to kill the defendant."

He was not illegally carrying.  The judge dismissed that charge.  Whether it was illegally purchased is up for debate.  

Grosskruetz was illegally carrying.  He was carrying a concealed pistol.  Which in Wisconsin requires a valid permit.  Which he did not have.

I saw his testimony.  His point was he was pointing his gun at someone he never tried to kill?  Does not really matter.  He had no right to attack and point his gun at someone who was not threatening him or anyone else and someone he just witnessed shoot a man who was swinging a skateboard at his head.  He fucked up.  And should be charged with illegally carrying and aggravated assault of a minor.

[zzzz 39]

I said Kyle illegally purchased the gun, which he did.

Grosskruetz carried the gun because he believes in the 2A. If Kyle had indeed been an active shooter and Grosskruetz took him down, then you would be claiming that he was a "good guy with a gun." 

That's actually what Grosskruetz was that night.

 

"aggravated assault of a minor" 

So should everyone who tries to stop a school shooter then because clearly they have more context that a minor is the one doing the shooting and killing.

 

Edited December 28, 2021 by zzzz

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, zzzz said:

I said Kyle illegally purchased the gun, which he did.

Grosskruetz carried the gun because he believes in the 2A. If Kyle had indeed been an active shooter and Grosskruetz took him down, then you would be claiming that he was a "good guy with a gun." 

That's actually what Grosskruetz was that night.

 

 

No he was not.  He is a bad guy who unjustifiably attacked a minor with his pistol he was illegally carrying.  A minor who had just defended himself lawfully against two other attackers.

Kyle was not an active shooter.  He was a young man who lawfully defended himself.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Captainant 27,861]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

No he was not.  He is a bad guy who unjustifiably attacked a minor with his pistol he was illegally carrying.  A minor who had just defended himself lawfully against two other attackers.

Kyle was not an active shooter.  He was a young man who lawfully defended himself.

Yeah set em straight! Kyle was just a good boy who dindonuffinwrong and just happened to be there underage, breaking municipal ordinances, with a feloniously obtained rifle and ammo and looking for "trouble to run towards" (his words). 

Just keep repeating your mantra. But you did uncharacteristically forget to use the word "pedophile". Ah, I'm sure you'll get it next time

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah set em straight! Kyle was just a good boy who dindonuffinwrong and just happened to be there underage, breaking municipal ordinances, with a feloniously obtained rifle and ammo and looking for "trouble to run towards" (his words). 

Just keep repeating your mantra. But you did uncharacteristically forget to use the word "pedophile". Ah, I'm sure you'll get it next time

Underage?  Is there an age you have to reach to be out in public?

Oooooh - municipal ordinances.  Let's throw the book at him for that.

Feloniously obtained?  The feds need to charge him then.  Weird that they have not done so.  Wonder why?

You'll git them Duke Boys yet!

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

He probably jaywalked too.  

[Captainant 27,861]

The irony of a clergyman only viewing something as wrong if the government says it's wrong is pretty hilarious. Nicely done buddy

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Damn, now I am a clergyman.

[Captainant 27,861]

TIL deacons aren't clergy? Or did you finally get honest with yourself and stop the charade