Kyle Rittenhouse to go free!!!

[The Prowler]

kApWnT!

Hahaha!!!

Most People

Young and Dumb--------time------passes----->Old and Wise

Admin

Young and Dumb--------time------passes----->Old and Dumb

Time to celebrate!!!!

Hahahahahaha!!!

 

[Dove]

kApWnT!

Stupid boomers thinking that Americans wouldnt ever form domestic terror groups and destroy communities and beat and murder innocent people trying to start a communist revolution.

 

[Dove]

kApWnT!

Hahaha!!!

Most People

Young and Dumb--------time------passes----->Old and Wise

Admin

Young and Dumb--------time------passes----->Old and Dumb

Time to celebrate!!!!

Hahahahahaha!!!

Old dumb and sociopathic.

 

[Joe]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

 

[The Prowler]

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

Yes it was.

The law is all right here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That defines what is illegal. Anything not mentioned is legal.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

Yeah, so they referred to the applicable statute.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

No, he did not. He followed the established law.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

He followed the established law.

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

What you believe does not affect The Truth.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

The side of the law.

and that's what I found sickening

Your ignorance is sickening.

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

This is a legal case. I wanted the law to be enforced.

And it has been.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

Who cares?

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

Who cares?

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I really do not care, Joe. That is all in your imagination.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

Who cares?

sorry.

What are you sorry for?

Ignoring my invitation to actually post some evidence that your claims are true?

You even offered to validate your claims about the AR 15 being classified as an "assault weapon" by the RCMP.

You have not done that, Joe.

You can still redeem yourself, Joe.

Post a link.

 

[Joe]

Prowler, Here's what Schroeder himself stated - that he was uncertain about the statute:

"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."

 

[Joe]

You even offered to validate your claims about the AR 15 being classified as an "assault weapon" by the RCMP.

You have not done that, Joe.

You can still redeem yourself, Joe.

Post a link.

The Rcmp site referred to the m16 as an assault rifle, but lumped the ar15 in the same category. It's now a prohibited firearm in Canada.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

 

[The Prowler]

Prowler, Here's what Schroeder himself stated - that he was uncertain about the statute:

"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."

So no link to the RCMP Web site?

No comment of the hunting rifle I posted?

No comment on your claim that the AR 15 is an automatic rifle?


But, Joe, I will address your post in hopes that you will learn something. Or choke on your own tongue. That would be cool too.


Here is a video of when the judge said that:



Start at 2:16.

Listen to what he says.

When he says that he has problems with the statute, he is referring to the statute that prevented him from dismissing the charge based on a motion made earlier by the defense, not the statute that defines what guns are illegal.

That statute he did not like is the one that did not allow him to dismiss the charge earlier because of a legal technicality about the type of defense that was going to be present and/or the content of the complaint by the defense. That statute is what prevented him from granting the motion earlier. I will concur that he does not make this crystal clear, but the lawyers there all know what he is talking about. And now that you know, you can re-listen to it with this understanding and grasp what he was saying.

At this point in the trial, he is now able to listen to the motion and grant it. That is why they can now proceed to check whether or not the firearm is legal.

Later, at about 4:10, he reads a bit from the statute that defines a "short-barreled rifle", which is an illegal firearm.

When they determine that the firearm is legal, then he throws the charge out.

He has never stated that he has a problem with the statute that defines what is an illegal rifle (barrel < 16 inches or overall length < 26 inches).

The reason the prosecution wanted this charge to go to the jury is because they wanted to appeal to the emotions of the jury by handling and talking about the gun as much as possible. They knew the gun would have to be handled and measured in front of them, which for some people would bring out some emotions. It is not because they thought the charge had legal merit.

It is the same reason the prosecution handled the rifle and pointed it at the jury during closing arguments. They wanted to scare people. They wanted people to associate the rifle with Rittenhouse and the fear that goes with it.

"
Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
...
“Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
...
No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
---
Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
"

 

[The Prowler]

You even offered to validate your claims about the AR 15 being classified as an "assault weapon" by the RCMP.

You have not done that, Joe.

You can still redeem yourself, Joe.

Post a link.

The Rcmp site referred to the m16 as an assault rifle, but lumped the ar15 in the same category. It's now a prohibited firearm in Canada.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

I know it is a prohibited firearm.

Way to move the goal posts, Joe.

Let me quote exactly what you posted: "AR-15 rifle"

Not "AR-15 assault rifle".

Not "AR-15 assault weapon".

They never called an AR 15 an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle".

The simply called it a "rifle". We all know it is a rifle, Joe.

Fuck, the M16 is a fully automatic rifle, Joe. Different beast. That is why they called the M16, not the AR 15, an assault rifle.

 

[Blurt]

What Joe doesn't get, seems to me, is that it scarcely matters how any jurisdiction outside the U.S,, including Joe's beloved Dudley Do-Rights, define an AR-15. It's a purely domestic issue.

And yet Blurt, it affects Canada too.

If the US becomes considerably more violent, our country does too.

Joe, please provide a link to the official stats that support this claim.

 

[Joe]

What Joe doesn't get, seems to me, is that it scarcely matters how any jurisdiction outside the U.S,, including Joe's beloved Dudley Do-Rights, define an AR-15. It's a purely domestic issue.

And yet Blurt, it affects Canada too.

If the US becomes considerably more violent, our country does too.

Joe, please provide a link to the official stats that support this claim.

Well Blurt, if the US blows up in a social Civil War, don't you think it will affect us?

I know last year watching the USA blow itself up socially, it was rather scary.

Vancouver seemed like nothing, but watch the news about across the border.

Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles.

It seems so far away, but in reality it's sooo close, just 150 miles south Seattle.

300 miles south Portland about 1000 miles is San Francisco 1300 miles is Los Angeles.

If they melt down, it does kinda affect me.

Doesn't it affect your sense of safety and well-being?

So...if 2024 becomes a bloodbath and riots in the streets with their next election.

Yes it is frightening to watch all this civil unrest down south.

We are not impervious to their social problems or unrest.

 

[DDT]

The Rcmp site referred to the m16 as an assault rifle, but lumped the ar15 in the same category. It's now a prohibited firearm in Canada.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

You have to understand what the RCMP is prohibiting here with your quote, and why. It's receiver blank that could be used to make an assault rifle. An assault rifle in this case meaning a select-fire rifle.

A select-fire rifle is one that has the ability to fire in a fully automatic fashion. An AR-15 can fire in a fully-automatic fashion, but those were typically only sold to the military.

Civilian AR-15 style rifles cannot fire in full auto mode (there are some exceptions, but that doesn't matter here), and as such are not assault rifles.

 

[DDT]

GIF below is an assault rifle. It can fire in a fully automatic fashion. If a rifle cannot do this, it is not an assault rifle.

 

[The Prowler]

Joe, I hope you are starting to understand that the narrative the MSM has been feeding you is wrong.

The AR 15 is a similar design to the M16, but it is a semi-automatic weapon.

To give you an idea of the significant difference between the two, an AR 15 can fire about 60 rounds in a minute. About 1 per second. As we've said, you would need to pull the trigger 60 times to fire 60 rounds. An M16, in full auto mode, depending on the model, will fire no less than 700 rounds per minute. Just squeeze the trigger once and hold on.

60 vs 700

Another thing you should understand is that hunting rifles can also be semi-automatic. The picture that I posted a few times is a Benelli R1 Pro. It is semi-automatic. It is a hunting rifle. It comes in different models that fire different caliber ammunition, all of which are more destructive than the .223 used in the AR 15.

All that being said, it is irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case. He did not break any law.

 

[Oerdin]

I don't want to accept it

How the fuck does this happen to people?

"Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals."

Not exactly. In fact,, it is rather far off. It depends on if we are talking about black or white Psyops. I say that as a guy who was a 37F and worked in that field for nine years in the US Army.

Trust me, the truth is a lot more boring than some conspiracy theorists want to make it out.

 

[X]

Killed with an AR15:

Killed with a baseball bat:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Those headlines aren't nearly as common in the US as headlines about individuals being murdered with firearms.

Woah!

Well thanks for that little tidbit of trivia!

Hahahaha!!!

What is should do is awaken you to your strawman argument.

Why are you interrupting Joe's execution?

You are clueless. Here, I will give you a chance to prove that you understand my argument: State my argument.

Sorry, not playing your game.

No, you just did.

And you lost.

To make it clear to anyone who might be scrolling through these posts quickly, The Leaker just suggested I was making a "strawman argument". Well, to determine that an argument is a straw man, one would need to know what the argument is.

So I invited The Leaker to state my argument and she backed-down immediately.

First Round KO.

:facepalm:

Right? LMAO

 

[LotusBud]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

How come none of the gun fondlers out playing Rambo that night were forced to shoot anyone?

Everyone wanted to kill Kyle for being a sweet person who was just there as a medic, of course! They didn't even notice his gun.

 

[X]

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

Yes it was.

The law is all right here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That defines what is illegal. Anything not mentioned is legal.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

Yeah, so they referred to the applicable statute.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

No, he did not. He followed the established law.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

He followed the established law.

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

What you believe does not affect The Truth.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

The side of the law.

and that's what I found sickening

Your ignorance is sickening.

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

This is a legal case. I wanted the law to be enforced.

And it has been.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

Who cares?

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

Who cares?

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I really do not care, Joe. That is all in your imagination.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

Who cares?

sorry.

What are you sorry for?

Ignoring my invitation to actually post some evidence that your claims are true?

You even offered to validate your claims about the AR 15 being classified as an "assault weapon" by the RCMP.

You have not done that, Joe.

You can still redeem yourself, Joe.

Post a link.

what in the world compelled you to answer every single one ??

No .... you're DEF not TRIGGERED !!

 

[Dove]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

 

[LotusBud]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

Wrong on all counts.

 

[Dove]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

Wrong on all counts.

Not one single bit.

Lotus even real lefties are defending Kyle. You are clinging to that establishment narrative and attack on the rights of regular people.

I cannot believe you are worried about whack jobs hurting people NOW. When whack jobs have been rioting and hurting/murdering people during the whole fucking thing. Rosenbuam was a dangerous wackjob trying to murder someone.....you are mad a regular person defended himself.

Its cowardly of you. And sociopathic. And for what? Just a shame.

 

[X]

whack jobs you say ....

 

[Joe]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

.....but don't you understand the long term consequences of such a ruling?

Put AR15s in the hands of untrained possibly mentally deranged 16 year olds in the future who have no formal weapons training. In the case of Wisconsin they don't even need a gun license for that.

Just to validate someone's political ideology or personal grudges. That's not just on the Right, but the Left too. And in so doing spawn thousands of more Kyle's and even more dangerous in the future.

The parallel example was a 2008 USSC ruling which allowed guns within Washington DC city limits. And since then what it helped do was the proliferation of open and carry gun policies in various states making the streets of America even more dangerous. In failing to place proper restrictions, those USSC justices enabled dangerous elements to own them and spread the problem.




The very problem which Conservative Republican & Vietnam vet Colin Powell warned you about....over 10 years ago. A man who held a rifle in Vietnam & wounded in combat there. He saw it coming back then & of course it's all come to fruition with the Kenosha incident.

That's why I'm pointing out is that rash judgements & poor rulings in pursuit of quick fixes have long term consequences for the Greater society. Just as it has for that 2008 USSC ruling.

And what happens in the USA isn't limited to your country, it often spills into our borders even if we have laws which prohibit assault weapons. They can find their way onto the streets of Toronto or Vancouver. We have mass shootings too.

 

[Dove]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

.....but don't you understand the long term consequences of such a ruling?

Joe.....we have been allowed to defend ourselves with guns since America was born.

The ONLY reason this even saw a court room was because of malicious politically motivated prosecution. Which is why lawyers are working to pass Kyle's law.....so these prosecutions cannot continue

I'm much MORE concerned about the long term impacts of our longstanding RIGHTS to self defense being stripped.

WHY do you think this ruling is something NEW? Its NOT. This has ALWAYS been legal.

The judge followed the LAW. You can easily see that if you stop ignore key bits of info that challange the conclusion you want to draw.

Im sorry you feel some kinda way about citizens not going to prison because they defended themselves against violent wackjobs.....but this isnt new, it's not a new precedent.

There are thousands and thousands of cases similar to this you havent seen blasted on the media for political purposes.

Self defense is a RIGHT. Always has been.

Did you read the Coffee case? He shot at cops in self defense, and won. How's that, Joe? Is that "dangerous" too?

Why are OUR rights the threat and not the violent people?

WHY are you acting like this is some new thing when it's not? You have the same self defense laws in your country.

 

[Dove]

whack jobs you say ....

I doubt he will be shooting black children too death though. Unlike BLM terrorists.



Or this



Or driving into parades and killing children.

But yeah...its those defending constitutional rights who are wack jobs.

The important thing is these people didnt hurt the savages. You know....cuz that would be "dangerous" and upsetting.

 

[Dove]

So do you guys think this was also a "new precedent"?

Since you know......somehow laws we have ALWAYS had are just NOW becoming a thing? Somehow. Even after actual centuries of legal self defense, some new magic precedent was set by Kyle.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And this wasnt even on video. And....he fired on police doing a swat. And his self defense case was solid.

Is that also a "right wing win"?(personally I would say so.....considering ALL it takes now to be right wing is to be on the side of the Constitutional rights of the people).

We have ALWAYS been able to defend ourselves. Always. Kyle being convicted would have been the NEW precedent. An actually real dangerous precedent telling the people our human rights are a joke.....and when state supported squad shows up to destroy and murder we must not harm them. FUCK that.

How about this

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Kenneth Walker also had a solid self defense case and walked.

HOW could that BE? And they are both BLACK and shot at police.....go figure.

Crazy huh? It's almost like Americans have rights to defend themselves.

That cant be though.....because Kyle Rittenhouse JUST set that "precedent". (I mean he didnt
.....we have always had that right. But I guess people dont know what our rights are and what the laws say so its news to them).

Boy when I said that the establishment shill party would literally fight against the very human and constitutional rights of the regular people in order to "beat rightie!!!" I was fucking right. This is partisanship on a level is way over the edge into hatred and absurdity.

And establishment cuck shills are only "worried" about guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. Not dangerous fucking criminals. Nope. They are scared of pictures of law abiding citizens with guns during 2A demonstrations. Not BLM psychopaths gunning down rando cars and murdering kids. Whole party of criminals and wackos who wanna be the only ones armed. Cowards. Pretending self defense is NEW.

 

[X]

whack jobs you say ....

I doubt he will be shooting black children too death though. Unlike BLM terrorists.



Or this



Or driving into parades and killing children.

But yeah...its those defending constitutional rights who are wack jobs.

The important thing is these people didnt hurt the savages. You know....cuz that would be "dangerous" and upsetting.

Nope ! just a bunch of cocksuckers intimidating the hardworking people who just want to carve out an honest life, yanno, the equivalent to this

 

[X]

However I did prove my point, that definition of a long range rifle prior
rittenhouse trial was not clearly defined under Wisconsin law.

You did not prove Jack Shit.

Post up the law, word for word, if you want to insinuate that it is or was not clearly defined.

well then why did Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky and that it was only determined at the trial itself?

Clearly there was confusion when the Prosecution and Defense did not agree on this point

"Judge Schroeder himself say that prior to the Kenosha trial that the definition of a long range rifle was murky "

Bullshit, Joe.

There is not any definition of "long range rifle" in Wisconsin State Legislature.

Then why was the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun at the Kenosha trial, Prowler?

That was a major point in the trial.

Weren't you watching?

"the Judge trying to determine whether the AR15 fit the definition of a long gun"

Wrong again, Joe.

He was determining if it fit the definition of a "short-barreled rifle".

It did not.

Watching and understanding are two different things, Joe.

Were you not understanding?

I'm just pointing out that the legality of Rittenhouse's legitimate possession of an AR15 was not established prior to this trial.

There was a dispute between the prosecution and the defense over this issue and it was an important one becaise it determine whether the charges would be included or thrown out.

it was the judge who set a precedent.

and he bent the rule in Rittenhouse's favor

so, I believe he exhibited judicial bias as opposed to impartiatliy.

And it was evident from the beginning whose side he was in.

and that's what I found sickening

But that's just like you...you only want absolutism favoring one group, not the greater society.

I repeat, I did find fault with protesters.

So just because I don't side with the pro Kyle crowd doesn't mean I'm some Leftist who sides with BLM either.

I'm just a moderate - but even any level of middle ground bothers you because all you believe in are absolutes and you want it to validate your POV.

I'm not here to validate you or anyone else here.

sorry.

And you are completely ignoring the part where they pulled out the gun, measured the barrel, realized it was within the legal definition of long gun and dropped the charge.

You are skipping over that whole critical part because you want a reason to criticize the judge. The judge was VERY fair here and he upheld the law. I'm not saying because of politics. It is what it is.....you cant weaponize the judicial system of a country and not destroy it.

You cant just do what lefties do and completely ignore the laws and how things work in order to claim its unfair. Its unreasonable and irrational.

That whole big post.....but you didnt touch when they dropped the charge and why. Funny.

You are bias here. The judge isnt. He just upheld the law.

.....but don't you understand the long term consequences of such a ruling?

Put AR15s in the hands of untrained possibly mentally deranged 16 year olds in the future who have no formal weapons training. In the case of Wisconsin they don't even need a gun license for that.

Just to validate someone's political ideology or personal grudges. That's not just on the Right, but the Left too. And in so doing spawn thousands of more Kyle's and even more dangerous in the future.

The parallel example was a 2008 USSC ruling which allowed guns within Washington DC city limits. And since then what it helped do was the proliferation of open and carry gun policies in various states making the streets of America even more dangerous. In failing to place proper restrictions, those USSC justices enabled dangerous elements to own them and spread the problem.




The very problem which Conservative Republican & Vietnam vet Colin Powell warned you about....over 10 years ago. A man who held a rifle in Vietnam & wounded in combat there. He saw it coming back then & of course it's all come to fruition with the Kenosha incident.

That's why I'm pointing out is that rash judgements & poor rulings in pursuit of quick fixes have long term consequences for the Greater society. Just as it has for that 2008 USSC ruling.

And what happens in the USA isn't limited to your country, it often spills into our borders even if we have laws which prohibit assault weapons. They can find their way onto the streets of Toronto or Vancouver. We have mass shootings too.

dude, they know NOTHING of common sense, why even bother ?

 

[Dove]

whack jobs you say ....

I doubt he will be shooting black children too death though. Unlike BLM terrorists.



Or this



Or driving into parades and killing children.

But yeah...its those defending constitutional rights who are wack jobs.

The important thing is these people didnt hurt the savages. You know....cuz that would be "dangerous" and upsetting.

Nope ! just a bunch of cocksuckers intimidating the hardworking people who just want to carve out an honest life, yanno, the equivalent to this

Those ARE the hardworking people. You are posting pictures of 2A demonstrators. Literally no one dies or gets hurt at 2A demonstrations. How many people have DIED by gun during fucking terrorist riots?

As far as jihadists.....its not 2A demonstrators driving Van's into crowds of families X, is it? No.

Again you guys are only afraid of law abiding citizens. Not fucking terrorist who set out to harm and murder people.

Gun control in action

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hey but at least law abiding citizens dont have guns, right? That would be scary if they like...
stood there with them and had a pic taken.

But yeah it's totally US lacking in common sense.

 

[X]

They BOTH have their fanatical views... no diff

talk all you want as I'm sure you will, but there is no diff