- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Nor the enthusiastic support for a gun obsessed vigilante from some on this very forum - very odd behaviour
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
It is curious - from the videos it does look like the police were all down one end, after first talking to those protecting businesses and pushed protesters that direction - then waited for things to kick off before charging in like the cavalry. Obviously a lot of missing information as to what was really going on.
If they had stayed at home instead of being out destroying property and intimidating people they would still be alive.
If the elected officials of these democratic run cities allowed the police to do their job instead of allowing rioters to burn their cities down they'd still be alive.
If they possessed a modicum of intelligence and didn't chase an armed individual into a corner they'd still be alive.
Nor does it explain people defending a convicted pedo, a woman beater or a felon. Reap what you sow, a pedo and a woman beater are dead, net positive if you ask me.
Ah i see, the democrat mayors are doing it all on purpose to get votes, whilst at the same time the rioting is supposedly handing Trump the votes/the election.
Also, Trump has no responsibility for this at all, but as soon as Biden gets in it will be his responsibility and "his America".
Your arguments are ridiculous.
Also, as a reminder, here is list of all the campaign staff, lawyers, long time friends and associates of the "law and order" president that have been convicted of crimes or who are in jail.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...arrested-or-convicted-of-crimes-idUSKBN25G1YU
Welcome to reality.
How do you mean?
Defending him as in pointing out he’s acted in self defence?
I’m not sure what difference the country you live in needs make re: discussing the facts of this case or opinions on what might or should happened.
Soldato
It more about challenging/clarifying the status of a "militia" and how it's members are legally defined and if a new/clarified definition therefore covers the situation the shooter was in.
At the moment 246((b)(2) of Title 10 of the US Code sets out the classes of militia - organised (the National Guard/Naval Militia) and unorganised (everyone else) - where I believe the shooters lawyer is claiming he was part of an unorganised militia, and then 246(b)(1) which states who can be a member of an organised or unorganised militia and it says -
Law said:
So every single male US citizen between 17 and 45 (with a few exemptions) is automatically, under that law, considered to be a member of either an organised or unorganised militia which means that the shooter would be covered. However the "technicality" which needs challenging/clarifying is that the current general use of this law only considers an unorganised militia to be "active" IF they are called to serve under the military (which is not stated in the Law), which then discounts the lawyers claim.
It is this common understanding & application of the law which is being challenged by the lawyer.
Caporegime
That’s not all that ridiculous, the conflicting incentives re: local and national politics are obvious. Would be better to discuss in the Trump thread etc.. this thread is supposed to be about the incident itself.
Eh??? What are you on about? You haven’t addressed the point made. Not have you clarified anything re: what you’re referring to re: defending him?
It is ridiculous, and i'm fed up of the absurd hypocrisy prevalent in any attempt to support Trump.
Soldato
What a silly boy\girl.
You did know that the state governor has more power in each state then the president?
And it's up to the Governor of that state to make sure the states law's is followed.
Caporegime
What are you on about?
We all know being a vigilante is wrong.
We all know he should not have a gun.
We all know he should be at home.
We all know those are not his guns.
We all know he shot people.
We all know he is not law enforcement.
But its okay to do all that because it's "self defence".
Well you’ve merely made an assertion, if you’d like to attempt an argument then post one in the Trump thread.
So what you are saying is, is that crime is the governor of that state's fault?
That would mean Republicans are terrible with law and order as 7 out of the 10 governors for the states with the highest violent crime rates in the USA are Republicans...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...n-america-violent-crime-murder-rate/40968963/
Soldato
You did know that the state governor has more power in each state then the president?
And it's up to the Governor of that state to make sure the states law's is followed.
That's the USA law
Soldato
That isn’t the argument. We all know none of those people should have been there, fact is they were.
That they shouldn’t have been there doesn’t negate that one of the people who shouldn’t have been there shooting another person who shouldn’t have been there was self defence.
Yes, setting fire to things is wrong, being a vigilante is wrong etc...
If you’re going to argue that point then you need to actually address it not skirt around it by pointing out things that are also bad etc...
You did know that the state governor has more power in each state then the president?
And it's up to the Governor of that state to make sure the states law's is followed.
That's the USA law
That would mean Republicans are terrible with law and order as 7 out of the 10 governors for the states with the highest violent crime rates in the USA are Republicans...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...n-america-violent-crime-murder-rate/40968963/
Caporegime
Dowie is No. 28
Welcome to No. 28
So you have no argument then?
I’ve addresses the points raised, you’re just talking past people and aren’t presenting an argument nor clarifying what issue you have with the self defence claim.