Derec
Contributor
“Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Bad guy shoots good guy and claims self defense.
In what possible way are these three felonious Krauts "good guys"?
-
Features
Murderer's Mother Receives Standing Ovation from GOP
- Thread starter Elixir
- Start date
In what possible way are these three felonious Krauts "good guys"?
repoman
Contributor
The one on the left looks to be the opposite of a "kraut".
Rittenhouse's lawyers better hope that the guy on the left's fellow co-ethnics don't run a kangaroo court on Kyle.
Rittenhouse's lawyers better hope that the guy on the left's fellow co-ethnics don't run a kangaroo court on Kyle.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,543
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
The teen had no idea what he was getting himself into. He was even told to not go to the militia get together staging area, probably because of his age. And then he goes into the middle of everything and chokes like missing a 3 ft putt in a golf tournament.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
“Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Bad guy shoots good guy and claims self defense.
In what possible way are these three felonious Krauts "good guys"?
I was speaking more broadly. A commentary on the NRA’s suggestion that having more armed people, more guns in the mix, will improve the situation.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Only metaphorically?
laughing dog
Contributor
In the same sense Rittenhouse is a "good guy".
repoman
Contributor
I gave $25 to Rittenhouse.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,720
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Of course you did.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,720
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
You act like the kid is some innocent bystander that just got attacked out of the blue. Why with all these murderous protestors about from which he had to defend himself was he the only one they attacked? Seems he had a role in the escalation of the confrontation.
Legally carrying a gun in public does not protect you from the extensive liabilities involved in carrying a gun in public. If someone FEELS like the gun carrying person is being menacing in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, then deadly force is justified to neutralize the armed threat.
Anyone carrying a gun during a protest should be arrested for assault, because the muzzle of the gun inevitably may sort of look a little bit like it might have been slightly pointed in a person's direction, thus making the handler of that gun a felon, guilty of assault ,brandishing a weapon, and other crimes.
It's just a very stupid idea to carry in many instances... the showing of force of your "Side" is a threat.. one that warrants the neutralization of the threat.
I invite the boogymen or whatever asswipes to test this theory in colorado anywhere near ballot boxes... happy to show them what a good guy with a gun really looks like when dealing with an armed, menacing criminal. here's a hint: you don't get to see them until you wake up in the hospital.. and then they are the guys that handcuffed you to the bed.
Anyone carrying a gun during a protest should be arrested for assault, because the muzzle of the gun inevitably may sort of look a little bit like it might have been slightly pointed in a person's direction, thus making the handler of that gun a felon, guilty of assault ,brandishing a weapon, and other crimes.
It's just a very stupid idea to carry in many instances... the showing of force of your "Side" is a threat.. one that warrants the neutralization of the threat.
I invite the boogymen or whatever asswipes to test this theory in colorado anywhere near ballot boxes... happy to show them what a good guy with a gun really looks like when dealing with an armed, menacing criminal. here's a hint: you don't get to see them until you wake up in the hospital.. and then they are the guys that handcuffed you to the bed.
Elixir
Made in America
This is an obvious propaganda piece, showing lots of irrelevant stuff. Your link points to the shooting, not to what came before. Where do I look?
They are either all self-defense or none are. A third party intervening in such a situation has the same status as the party they are intervening on the behalf of. If you go after someone who engaged in legitimate self defense you are legally in the wrong and they are allowed to defend themselves against you, but actions you take against them will be considered criminal. A failure to properly understand the situation is not a defense, although it could get you manslaughter instead of murder.
You have to be very careful if you choose to intervene. That woman being tackled and screaming rape? Her "rapist" might be law enforcement arresting her.
Mod hat: On. Please, no blind links!
Mod hat: Off.
One of these is irrelevant, just trying to throw gas on the fire. The other, though, is quite relevant--it shows Rittenhouse didn't understand the legal position at all. It makes me even more think that he crossed the line in the time before the shootings and he was facing legitimate reaction to his previous actions.