Crime New Kyle-Styled Hero!

Story doesn't really detail the altercation well. Was the shooter in danger like Rittenhouse was?
 
Gunny said:
What I think is that this thread is the latest of your ideas that sounded better in you head than they do in reality.
Click to expand...

Answer the questions. Let's have the conversation. My threads can only be as good as the contributors are willing to make them. An OP can only be expected to do so much of the heavy lifting.

This story has multiple parallels to the Rittenhouse victim one narrative: Guy with gun sees a problem. No law enforcement on scene. Guy attempts to address problem but gets push back from victim who wants problem to continue. Push back becomes a clear and present threat (in his mind) to his life and guy with gun has to discharge his weapon and stop a beating heart.

Why aren't you willing to defend guy with gun in this scenario? Aren't there noise ordinance laws? Can't private citizens enforce laws?
 
Halifax said:
Story is too basic and no video evidence.

With Kyle Rittenhouse we have loads of videos proving he was a good Samaritan defending an innocent neighbourhood and then attempting to escape a volatile situation and was being relentlessly persued by an attacker by all indications intent on causing bodily harm, who we later learned has a criminal record for child sexual assault. Followed by multiple other attackers attempting to cause serious bodily harm on video.

Thankfully the videos themselves show enough reasonable doubt that no jury pool in America will convict Rittenhouse because proving he had bad intentions to the tune of 98.9% required for beyond a reasonable doubt will prove impossible. The jury could be 95% sure Rittenhouse is a scumbag who wanted to shoot people and 5% doubting and will be told they must acquit if they have 5% doubt because that's how reasonable doubt works. Zimmerman got off for this reason and I think he was guilty as fuck. Kyle rittenhouse is much less guilty looking than Zimmerman ever was.

Fortunately nobody watching that video other than a raging frothing at the mouth leftist could possibly even be 75% certain, let alone 98.9% and they would be eliminated from jury pool potential so fast it will make leftist tears flow. The jury pool will be middle aged reasonable folks who likely have teenage kids and they will be told very early the criminal records of :eek::eek::eek::eek:philia, wife beating and armed robbery of the people attacking the kid.

There isn't a hope in hell that Kyle rittenhouse gets anything but a weapons misdemeanor
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if the unarmed guy who was killed in this case was presenting the same level of "threat" as Rittenhouse's unarmed first victim you will consider this case one of justifiable self-defense. Is that correct?
 
ultramanhyata said:
Answer the questions. Let's have the conversation. My threads can only be as good as the contributors are willing to make them. An OP can only be expected to do so much of the heavy lifting.

This story has multiple parallels to the Rittenhouse victim one narrative: Guy with gun sees a problem. No law enforcement on scene. Guy attempts to address problem but gets push back from victim who wants problem to continue. Push back becomes a clear and present threat (in his mind) to his life and guy with gun has to discharge his weapon and stop a beating heart.

Why aren't you willing to defend guy with gun in this scenario? Aren't there noise ordinance laws? Can't private citizens enforce laws?
Click to expand...

No, I’m not going to do the work of making the mental connection that went through your head but that you failed to convey in the OP. No one sees what you see here. It’s an absurd stretch.

And btw, you know you have a problem when fellow goof troopers don’t even show up to defend you. Just a helpful tip here - have you gone to plead your cause in the lounge? Maybe that’ll muster some reinforcement.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Answer the questions. Let's have the conversation. My threads can only be as good as the contributors are willing to make them. An OP can only be expected to do so much of the heavy lifting.

This story has multiple parallels to the Rittenhouse victim one narrative: Guy with gun sees a problem. No law enforcement on scene. Guy attempts to address problem but gets push back from victim who wants problem to continue. Push back becomes a clear and present threat (in his mind) to his life and guy with gun has to discharge his weapon and stop a beating heart.

Why aren't you willing to defend guy with gun in this scenario? Aren't there noise ordinance laws? Can't private citizens enforce laws?
Click to expand...
Was the guy with the gun running away from what he perceived as the danger?

Yes or no please.
 
ultramanhyata said:
Answer the questions. Let's have the conversation. My threads can only be as good as the contributors are willing to make them.
Click to expand...

Posters tend to rise to the level of whatever thread they post in. So if all of your threads receive insincere and stupid responses, it should explain a lot to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,265,072
Messages
57,320,091
Members
175,637
Latest member
Schizo

Share this page

Back
Top