Originally Posted by spence (Post 1217908)

The judge didn’t find that the possession was legal. The defense found a contradictory statute buried in the books and successfully argued the charge should be dropped. The prosecution should have been prepared to appeal but they were not and the judge made the call literally minutes before closing arguments were set to begin. The law wasn’t clear and that usually favors the defense.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1217886)

you obviously have not read anything Jim has written on the subject...that is what is amazing

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1217911)

Oh I have.. and he has completely ignored all the evidence presented

According to Jim the kid is not responsible for his actions nothing he’s just a poor victim. And did nothing wrong..

Who should be seen as a law enforcement officer who has experience and trained in these situations

And was justified because he thought he was going to be killed or he thought they were going to take his gun and use it on Him .. Bla bla bla

Like I’ve said you start a fight and start losing . You cannot decide to suddenly claim self defense

The kid thought the Ar 15 gave him the power of intimidation. Why else would a 17 year we walking around solo in that environment

Being Immature didn’t help.

And I am not saying this kid went with a plan to shoot 3 people

but he went with the mindset he was willing to use his weapon and show those s people what’s what ..

It had nothing to do with with his desire to carry out some civic duty

As some have suggested
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217909)

the law was clear to those who aren’t hellbent in dissecting the law to find a way to say Rittenhouse broke it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217913)

again.................

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1217911)

Oh I have.. and he has completely ignored all the evidence presented

Jim has not ignored the evidence presented in the trial. Your opinions are not evidence.

According to Jim the kid is not responsible for his actions nothing he’s just a poor victim. And did nothing wrong..

Jim will probably correct your misrepresentation or lie or willful blindness or whatever it is, but, unless I'm as blind as you, I have not seen Jim say any of that.

Who should be seen as a law enforcement officer who has experience and trained in these situations

??

And was justified because he thought he was going to be killed or he thought they were going to take his gun and use it on Him .. Bla bla bla

The evidence presented in the trial backs up what he thought. Unlike your repeated bla bla bla opinionated comments.

Like I’ve said you start a fight and start losing . You cannot decide to suddenly claim self defense

What fight did he start? Is this more of your bla bla blaisms?

The kid thought the Ar 15 gave him the power of intimidation. Why else would a 17 year we walking around solo in that environment

Of course, there is no way, according to you, that he could have considered it was a means of protecting himself in a riotous situation. It could only mean, in your "why else" frame of opinionated bla blaismatic way of thinking that he wanted to walk around solo to intimidate.

Being Immature didn’t help.

True, but not a crime.

And I am not saying this kid went with a plan to shoot 3 people

That's a relief.

but he went with the mindset he was willing to use his weapon and show those s people what’s what ..

In the vast majority of times people carry a weapon they have a mindset of willingness to use it. That's what it's for.
Such a mindset is normal, not criminal.

It had nothing to do with with his desire to carry out some civic duty

As some have suggested
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1217915)

it's pretty remarkable...do you think he turns on the cold tap and yells that he's not getting any hot water?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217917)

no, that’s what happens at the Holiday Imm Express, so we are the ones who yell that.

if you EVER derive any clue what he was getting at there, let me know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1217919)

It's a reference to an old marketing campaign by Holiday Inn Express

"I didn't know you were a surgeon"
"I'm not, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

it was his attempt at Humor and Sarcasm but it fell flat because the delivery was terrible, he really should stick to his nonsensical ramblings and let the professionals handle the Sarcasm

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217925)

Now that driving to another state to shoot people has basically been legalized I feel as though the opportunities are just endless.
Except you can’t drive to HI. 49 ain’t bad, thou.
Just gives everyone a whole new way to look at road hunting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217927)

I'm thinking any woman seeking an abortion as she flees Texas is well-advised to grab a gun and let her reflexes rule. You know how easily a person of delicate sensibilities can feel threatened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217921)

wow!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1217929)

I'll bet you don't remember Joe Isuzu either :eek5:

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217933)

According to the right - Ashli Babbitt should not have been killed as a rioter while breaking into the Speakers' Lobby at the Capitol

Yet, Kyle Rittenhouse is hailed as a hero for killing rioters

Question: If Rittenhouse were at the Capitol on 1/6, would he have shot Babbitt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217933)

According to the right - Ashli Babbitt should not have been killed as a rioter while breaking into the Speakers' Lobby at the Capitol

Yet, Kyle Rittenhouse is hailed as a hero for killing rioters

Question: If Rittenhouse were at the Capitol on 1/6, would he have shot Babbitt?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1217934)

If Babbitt chased you, and while you were down, she lifted a gun and pointed it at your head, would you shoot her?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217940)

If I saw an active shooter who had killed two people and I was armed and he was in front of me I would have shot Kyle.
That guy who had the guns mistake was he failed to pull the trigger.
It would have been self defense, the kid had already killed two other people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217935)

"Ashli Babbitt should not have been killed as a rioter while breaking into the Speakers' Lobby at the Capitol"

Whose life did Ashley Babbitt put in imminent danger?

"Kyle Rittenhouse is hailed as a hero for killing rioters "

Who said this?

Loosen the straps on the tin foil hat, buddy.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1217942)

I don’t think killing comes natural to most people. Had he shot Rittenhouse he would likely have been heralded as a hero for stopping suck a reckless teenager. So sad all around.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217940)

If I saw an active shooter who had killed two people and I was armed and he was in front of me I would have shot Kyle.
That guy who had the guns mistake was he failed to pull the trigger.
It would have been self defense, the kid had already killed two other people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217940)

If I saw an active shooter who had killed two people and I was armed and he was in front of me I would have shot Kyle.
That guy who had the guns mistake was he failed to pull the trigger.
It would have been self defense, the kid had already killed two other people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1217946)

So, without knowing why he was being chased, nor why he defended himself from the attackers, you would have shot him? Judge, jury, and executioner? From the prejudicial, biased, and often hateful comments you make, that's not surprising.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1217942)

I don’t think killing comes natural to most people. Had he shot Rittenhouse he would likely have been heralded as a hero for stopping suck a reckless teenager. So sad all around.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217947)

sure you would Pete. sure you would.

what you described is retaliation, not self defense. not unless you had a reason to believe you were next.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217950)

Just saving the next victim.
Kyle will likely try to kill again
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1217948)

Why else would you bring a gun?
To administer first aid?
Isn’t a gun the NRA way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1217951)

no such thing as pre-emptive self defense. the threat to you
must be imminent.

sorry if that’s going too fast for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device