Ah, nothing, I just wanted to add that, from personal experience. Like, if you shoot at the open expanse, the bullet arches down and hits the ground, it doesn't stop from the air resistance.
Armed civilian, 17, shoots 2 dead during Kenosha happening
- Thread starter Iron
- Start date
- Status
To be fair though, the only thing that changes is who gets the charge for knowingle giving an underaged (and for that matter, someone they knew to be underage) a firearm they shouldn't be handling. At least if he had gotten it from home, a case could be argued that the parents gave him permission, some random friend in Wisconsin makes it seem worse.I saw a tweet from his lawyer that said he was with a friend from Wisconsin who also owned the guns. What I don't understand is HOW he got to be all by himself and away from his group. You may forgot but this was still a kid.
View attachment 658
Lawyer for accused Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse demands ‘justice’
The lawyer for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenage vigilante accused of killing two Black Lives Matter protestors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, issued a statement Thursday demanding “justice for Kyle…nypost.com
I hate following through tweets so much.
Might mean the case doesn’t get picked up by the feds, which means the cops could sabotage the investigation
Wouldn't go that far I think, fairly certain the whole 'fled the state after killing 2 people and wounding a third' will probably still count him for a fed investigation, especially if the cops on scene did let him walk away after.
So explain something to me.
If a 9mm bullet, with 300 m/s of muzzle velocity can pass through 4 layers of drywall and insulation, but a .223 rifle round with nearly 1000 m/s of muzzle velocity and carrying three times as much kinetic energy can only reliably pass through 2 and then typically misses the third target because its deviated so far but on the rare occasion it hits sometimes fails to penetrate because it hits side-on, do you actually think that this translates to the pistol round being better able to penetrate a human body?
Or do you think perhaps some other ballistic effect is occurring here? Like, for example, tumbling, which again is a thing .223 rounds are designed to do.
Take a look at that guy who was shot in the elbow. Note in particular the giant hole in his elbow left by the bullet passing through. Do you think that pistol would have penetrated his elbow more effectively and posed a greater danger to anyone standing behind him, because it can penetrate 4 layers of drywall?
I know that the answer doesn't actually matter. I know that you will desperately cling to whatever justifies your belief that this white child should be allowed to shoot people indiscriminately with his toy gun. But try, just try for a second to think of this in physical terms.
Last edited:
How much clearer can the line be? What is there to question? "Reasonable" starts where culpability begins. It was Rittenhouse's decisions that lead to everything afterwards. We'll never know what would have happened had he not gone vigilante, but we DO know what happened because he DID.
The argument otherwise is that had the protesters not been there, they'd not have been shot, but do you want to go down that path? Because last I heard, while protesting can be done poorly and rioting is illegal, neither is a capital offence, much less would that or any sentence be executed by an civilian teenager.
I dunno anything about guns or bullets, but that gun website says that .223 is "safer for home defense", compared to pistols and shotguns, so says the FBI. Pistol calibers penetrate the most, followed by shotguns, followed by rifles, in that order.
You wanna disagree with the FBI Mr."desperately cling"? Go for it.
Not clear at all, if you have to ask "Why stop there?" apparently. Does this question have an answer?
Yeah, why stop just before we start thinking about the actions of the rioters?
What would have changed if the other guy hadn't fired first?
What would have changed if people didn't try to attack him?
Why focus just on what Rittenhouse did and ignore all these other people? Why stop there?
You know, you joked earlier about preferring to be called a sociopath....But when you say extremely callous things like this, it's hard not to think that about you.
Right because he CLEARLY spent all of his ammo in the first murder, and was no further threat to anyone el-
Oh woops, nope, he had enough ammo in the current magazine to proceed to kill one more person and horrifically maim a second one, and it's not impossible he had at least a second mag somewhere on his person.
CLEARLY, he was still a threat to them and many others around them.
You mean call the police that outright thanked the militia for showing up and said via megaphone that they REALLY appreciate them?
The police that some militia people told them would "push the protestors towards them because they knew they (the militia) could handle them"?
The police that let a militia guy walk away after he opened fire on the protestors instead of, you know, arresting him for being involved in a shooting, until an investigation is done?
Oh, and let's not forget, the police the protesters are currently protesting against because once of theirs shot a guy in the back 7 times earlier that same week?
THOSE police?
^ Yes, I'm sure that the police would ABSOLUTELY take any issues the protestors have with the militia completely seriously and would tell the militia people who have no authority to "patrol" there to kindly move along and not cause issues! ^ /ExtremeSarcasmSnowboarding2020
Because the fact is three people were shot, two of which died, because another CIVILIAN took to the streets to play "cop." The day we excuse or explain away this kind of behavior, we set a dangerous precedent, one that, given the state of a nation already rending itself apart at the sociopolitical level, could very literally set our nation back 150 years with open hatred and violence.
Do you know how many gun-toting psychos are just waiting for the day they can take their arsenal to the streets with impunity? Trump has been tacitly, hell ,not even "tacitly," BASICALLY calling these people to arms since he took office, and victimizing people like Rittenhouse validates, emboldens and empowers them. You want "the facts," well, the FACT is that people like Rittenhouse need to be held accountable for their actions and not expunged because at some point during said actions, they caught up to him at the expense of other's lives..
I don't mind.
So, you keep saying this, but what makes you think that it's a reasonable assumption that he might kill more people? Let's pretend that you're the skateboard guy. What about this situation would make you think that he's going to attack someone else and needs to be stopped?
Is he firing indiscriminately into the crowd?
Is it looking and aiming at you? Is he aiming at anyone?
Is he heading into an orphanage?
Walk me through the thought process that would cause you, the skateboard guy, to believe that he's going to kill more people and needs to be stopped.
If all we needed to do is to look at the aftermath, we wouldn't need the justice system at all. There'd be no such thing as concepts like self-defense. "Oh, you killed a guy? The reasons are irrelevant. Guilty. No it doesn't matter that the other guy shot at you first. He's alive and you're not."
Oh, so we need to make an example out of him "for the greater good" and so "Trump-lovers don't take over"? Is that what this is about? It's not about whether or not this person's actions were self-defense or not, it's just preventing Trump 2020?
This thread: in which a forum laboriously attempts to explain to callous people why murder is bad.
“Listen, he shot a guy in the head then fled the scene still armed, clearly he wasn’t gonna shoot anybody else, nobody who kills a guy ever kills another guy until they kill another guy but who can tell when that’s gonna happen? Causality is a fiction, nothing is real, that’s why we should find my client not guilty. I rest my case.”
“If the tiny demon that controls my senses is not to be trusted then you must acquit!”
"You killed a guy." True.
"The reasons are irrelevant." Never said that.
"Guilty." Yes. I already conceded this might be a case for manslaughter; his recklessness led to him "self-defending" with fatal consequences.
He had no training, no authority. What was he doing there? Answer me this directly: why did he leave his house with a rifle and go into the thick of the violence? What was he thinking? What was his intent? Of course you'll say we [as participants in an discussion over a developing situation] can't know, but rationally, why would someone arm themselves and go towards violence? What's the most logical answer to that direct question? Just saying, I've never grabbed a rifle to run to the grocery store or post office.
Nope, I never said just make an example of him or suggested this had anything to do with my thoughts on the upcoming election; I said he needs to be held accountable for his part in this and suggested he is an example of the extreme, entitled people who think this is "their" country and they can do within it what they please, up to and including societal cleansing thinly veiled as "justice."
Pretty sure a bunch of users got on the waiting list to be visited by 3 spirits.
Because violating curfew is totally as bad as murdering 2 people and fleeing the scene.
And if the police weren't a bunch of violent, amoral thugs there wouldn't be something to protest. We can keep kicking the can down the road, all it does is distract from the fact that 2 people were murdered by a stupid kid who wanted to play vigilante with an illegal firearm.
- Status