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.And?
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.And?
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 658Lawyer 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 investigationTo 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.
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.Might mean the case doesn’t get picked up by the feds, which means the cops could sabotage the investigation
So explain something to me.You're right, they're full of dense, squishy, tough, and in the case of bone, hard things. They're also more than 3/4' thick.
Drywall, on the other hand, is merely hard, thin, and brittle.
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.Yeah, "reasonable". You point out that there is a line where it ceases to become reasonable by saying "Why stop there?"
"Why stop there?" Where is the line between how far one can go back to determine cause and effect?
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.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?
Not clear at all, if you have to ask "Why stop there?" apparently. Does this question have an answer?How much clearer can the line be?
Yeah, why stop just before we start thinking about the actions of the rioters?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?
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.I agree. Absolutely. This guy is the living embodiment of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
Right because he CLEARLY spent all of his ammo in the first murder, and was no further threat to anyone el-Charging after someone who is fleeing AFTER HAVING SHOT SOMEONE AND IT BEING A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION HE MIGHT KILL MORE PEOPLE IF HE IS NOT STOPPED is not defense, unless you have reason to believe that he's going to get more ammo and then come back.
You mean call the police that outright thanked the militia for showing up and said via megaphone that they REALLY appreciate them?If you have an issue with the militia, what you wanna do is call the police, not go out and fight them. This is obvious.
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.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?
I don't mind.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.
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?AFTER HAVING SHOT SOMEONE AND IT BEING A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION HE MIGHT KILL MORE PEOPLE IF HE IS NOT 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."Because the fact is three people were shot, two of which died, because another CIVILIAN took to the streets to play "cop."
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?and victimizing people like Rittenhouse validates, emboldens and empowers them.
Curfews are for losers.If everyone went home before the curfew this wouldn't have happened
"You killed a guy." True.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."
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."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?
Pretty sure a bunch of users got on the waiting list to be visited by 3 spirits.This thread: in which a forum laboriously attempts to explain to callous people why murder is bad.
Because violating curfew is totally as bad as murdering 2 people and fleeing the scene.If everyone went home before the curfew this wouldn't have happened
It wouldn't have happened thoughBecause 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.It wouldn't have happened though