Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Great ANALyses of the Kenosha Fiasco
Comments
-
Laws get re-interpreted all too often. I haven't checked in a while but in Kali it was legal (in the penal code) to shoot people during the commission of rout/riot. You'll be charged with murder now even if it's still on the books.
-
The goal is to remove the right to self defense and the right to defend property. Even if it fails an example is being set that if you defend against this lawlessness your life will be ruined.
-
And if you can find folks that the pop culture mocks or don't care about like chubby pink shirt wearing rich guy from St Louis all the betterUW_Doog_Bot said:The goal is to remove the right to self defense and the right to defend property. Even if it fails an example is being set that if you defend against this lawlessness your life will be ruined.
If some felon resists arrest and gets shot you don't dare say anything bad about him. But a kid shoots in self defense and his social media and every thought is now fair game
It is the ultimate chilling effect on liberty and it is aided and abetted by the state -
"I won't even go into the second act because that is so obviously self defense even Ray Charles can see it." - @Swaye
@GrandpaSankey would like a word. If he can find you.
-
Who let this guy out of prison? Wow. FIVE kids?!?!
Biden’s type of voter. A dead convict.
-
Must be from Kali.NorthwestFresh said:Who let this guy out of prison? Wow. FIVE kids?!?!
Biden’s type of voter. A dead convict. -
The issue isn't if it is clear. The issue is whether Rittenhouse did not have beyond reasonable doubt that his life was in danger. If it isn't clear, then he is not guilty. Seems pretty reasonable to conclude that people were trying to kill him, since they told him that, chased him and tried to kill him.LebamDawg said:
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear. -
