This guy has it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFhkcgdkrY8

I loved that!
Then police stated he may be charged. With what, saving lives?

Quote from: Solar on August 23, 2023, 08:05:39 AMI loved that!
Then police stated he may be charged. With what, saving lives?

They have to do an investigation, but I don't see how he'd be charged with anything.

There's probably a number of jokes in there about the fact that he was holding Miller lite, not Bud light.

Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 08:47:59 AMThey have to do an investigation, but I don't see how he'd be charged with anything.

Depends more on where the incident took place rather than the facts. If this occurred in a liberal run city, where feelings mean more than facts, he will probably be charged. Just ask Rittenhouse.

Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 09:17:29 AMDepends more on where the incident took place rather than the facts. If this occurred in a liberal run city, where feelings mean more than facts, he will probably be charged. Just ask Rittenhouse.

The Rittenhouse situation was so much more complex.  Rittenhouse wasn't just conceal-carrying and something happened. 

Yes. Three adult criminals who were performing terrorism tried to severely harm/kill one teen trying to help the neighborhood.

3 adult criminals on 1 teen. Go ahead and defend the criminals you sorry son of a bitch.

Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 10:15:42 AMThe Rittenhouse situation was so much more complex.  Rittenhouse wasn't just conceal-carrying and something happened. 

Really, or should you just admit your liberalism is in the way. I agree with the jury verdict, not guilty, in fact, I agreed not guilty as soon as I saw the tape.

Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 10:27:37 AMReally, or should you just admit your liberalism is in the way. I agree with the jury verdict, not guilty, in fact, I agreed not guilty as soon as I saw the tape.

No. I think they were different situations.  One, the guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time.  In the Rittenhouse situation, he didn't just "happen" to be somewhere, armed with an AR-15.  It's like the difference between the Neely/Subway situation and the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation.  Rittenhouse and Zimmerman didn't just find themselves in a situation - they put themselves there.  In both cases, the verdict was the same, because both people had a right to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean there aren't important differences.

Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 10:35:56 AMNo. I think they were different situations.

You're missing the point, again. If this latest shooting occurred in a liberal hell hole, he will be much more likely to face charges.

QuoteOne, the guy just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Agree

QuoteIn the Rittenhouse situation, he didn't just "happen" to be somewhere, armed with an AR-15.

Rittenhouse had every right to be where he was, every right. To say otherwise is a damn lie. Every citizen has the right to defend himself, his property, and the lives of others. Period. Rittenhouse, as the jury found, was totally justified.

QuoteIt's like the difference between the Neely/Subway situation and the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation.  Rittenhouse and Zimmerman didn't just find themselves in a situation - they put themselves there.

Again, Zimmerman had every right to be where he was! The verdict acknowledged that. What you are forgetting here, Rittenhouse and Zimmerman were not the criminals, they were in their right to do what they did. 

QuoteIn both cases, the verdict was the same, because both people had a right to defend themselves, but that doesn't mean there aren't important differences.

If I was posting with anyone else, I might agree as EVERY case has differences, but we see right through you. Your point is just to try to move the goalposts to your liberal point of view.



   

Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 11:00:27 AMYou're missing the point, again. If this latest shooting occurred in a liberal hell hole, he will be much more likely to face charges.

Agree

Rittenhouse had every right to be where he was, every right. To say otherwise is a damn lie. Every citizen has the right to defend himself, his property, and the lives of others. Period. Rittenhouse, as the jury found, was totally justified.


Again, Zimmerman had every right to be where he was! The verdict acknowledged that. What you are forgetting here, Rittenhouse and Zimmerman were not the criminals, they were in their right to do what they did. 

If I was posting with anyone else, I might agree as EVERY case has differences, but we see right through you. Your point is just to try to move the goalposts to your liberal point of view.



   

The right to be somewhere isn't the only thing in question.  If a guy is standing in front of me in line at the grocery story, I have every "right" to stand one inch from him and to continue to stand one inch from him as he moves.  There's a good chance that, if my actions resulted in some kind of confrontation, I would be viewed as partially to blame.

Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 11:04:13 AMThe right to be somewhere isn't the only thing in question.  If a guy is standing in front of me in line at the grocery story, I have every "right" to stand one inch from him and to continue to stand one inch from him as he moves.  There's a good chance that, if my actions resulted in some kind of confrontation, I would be viewed as partially to blame.

So, who was standing too close to who? Again, you are bringing in strawmen to support your argument. Neither case involved someone standing too close to someone. They did involve acts of violence and the justified action of defending one's own life. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse did not violate the law. Period! IMHO, the shooter in the case posted did not either, but the question posed, by you,

Quotebut I don't see how he'd be charged with anything.

will be answered more by WHERE the shooting occurred, than by the facts of the case. That has been my point.

Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 11:19:28 AMSo, who was standing too close to who? Again, you are bringing in strawmen to support your argument. Neither case involved someone standing too close to someone. They did involve acts of violence and the justified action of defending one's own life. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse did not violate the law. Period! IMHO, the shooter in the case posted did not either, but the question posed, by you,  will be answered more by WHERE the shooting occurred, than by the facts of the case. That has been my point.

You have no interest in nuance, only dogmatism. Most people can see a difference between somebody finding themselves in a situation and somebody putting themselves in a situation. You can't. That's your prerogative. I really don't care.

Quote from: ZenMode on August 25, 2023, 11:22:44 AMYou have no interest in nuance, only dogmatism. Most people can see a difference between somebody finding themselves in a situation and somebody putting themselves in a situation. You can't. That's your prerogative. I really don't care.

Right, and all neighborhood watch programs are evil in your world. People should never protect their neighbors. People who loot and steal have a right to not be harassed while they are doing so. See a crime, look the other way.  Only the good guys should have to obey the law. Just what in the sam hell are you trying to say? The one's who put themselves in THAT situation were those breaking the law!!!!!  They are the one's who went there WITH THE INTENT TO COMMENT CRIMES!! Once they started breaking the law, once they started their crimes, we the people have the right to stop them!! You are trying to associate guilt with their being there. They were not guilty, they were not the guilty ones, the jury agreed. You are wrong as usual.

Quote from: Possum on August 25, 2023, 11:35:42 AMRight, and all neighborhood watch programs are evil in your world. People should never protect their neighbors. People who loot and steal have a right to not be harassed while they are doing so. See a crime, look the other way.  Only the good guys should have to obey the law. Just what in the sam hell are you trying to say? The one's who put themselves in THAT situation were those breaking the law!!!!!  They are the one's who went there WITH THE INTENT TO COMMENT CRIMES!! Once they started breaking the law, once they started their crimes, we the people have the right to stop them!! You are trying to associate guilt with their being there. They were not guilty, they were not the guilty ones, the jury agreed. You are wrong as usual.

comparing neighborhood watch to what's writtenhouse did is only showing your dogmatism. The entire premise of neighborhood watch is that the neighbors take turns patrolling the neighborhood and reporting suspicious activity to the police. They are not supposed to take action themselves.

They are basically three types of situations here. One is the neighborhood watch type of situation where somebody sees something suspicious or sees a crime and reports it. The second kind of situation is where somebody is directly involved in a situation where a crime is being committed and has the authority to take action themselves. For example, the guy in the corner store that shot the person trying to rob the store. Another example is Jordan Neely. The third type of situation, which is not only rare, but also sets the person up to be charged with a crime, is the writtenhouse situation. He was not protecting his neighborhood. He was not minding his own business and witnessed, or was involved in, a crime. He armed himself, I believe he crossed state lines and put himself in a situation.