How many others had an AR-15 'like' weapon hanging around their neck in a "
Edit: Also if your pal had just been murdered by some nut job from out of town wielding an AR-15 'like' weapon I'd hope you'd try and stop the murderer.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Edit: Also if your pal had just been murdered by some nut job from out of town wielding an AR-15 'like' weapon I'd hope you'd try and stop the murderer.
How am i changing the claim?
My original claim literally said that no one fired AT him. That is literally what i said. Which is true.
Have you lost the plot?
Have you lost the plot? I've literally quoted what I took issue with, go ahead and show me where I took issue with a claim of the gun being fired at him - you can't because I didn't. I've literally quoted you above:
You've seen the posts, you're just not paying any attention to detail, those claims are BS, I've shown why they're BS and you now deflect and pretend I've been arguing some other point... classic dishonest Jono8
Soldato
How many others had an AR-15 'like' weapon hanging around their neck in a "benevolent" belligerent way?
Edit: Also if your pal had just been murdered by some nut job from out of town wielding an AR-15 'like' weapon I'd hope you'd try and stop the murderer.
None of my pals would attack someone just walking past them, (armed or not) but then I also don't have any friends that molest children or have long rap sheets of domestic violence.
Lol. You are completely ignoring the very first post that kicked this all off.
I think you are flailing badly to cover up your little whoopsie here:
to which you said:
It wasn't false. No one fired at Kyle.
None of what i said after was false either. The gunshot was fired in a different place to where the chase had got to at that time. Zaminski was off in a different direction at that point and fired his gun in the air. The video YOU quoted shows the same still i posted and shows the gunshot quite a decent distance from Kyle at the time.
Ah he must be a good judge of character to determine that all whilst defending himself.
That no one fired at /kyle doesn't mean this statement isn't false, disputing it is by no means a whoopsie! FFS, that is a reach even for you
your claim:
"Were any of them likely to have killed/seriously injured Kyle? No."
So a mental case chases him down and lunges at him/tries to grab is gun, after one guy threatened him with a gun and then fired it behind him... and then another hits him with a skateboard, someone tried to stomp his head, someone tried to hit him with a skateboard again then also tried to take his rifle and then finally someone feigns a surrender and then moves to point a pistol at him...
And you're claiming none of them were likely to have killed or seriously injured him - you don't think stomping someone or hitting them twice with a skateboard or a psycho trying to grab his gun risks serious injury... you're in denial on that point too in that case.
You also claim to see the self-defence claim, which seems at odds with your claim that non of them were likely to have seriously injured or killed Kyle, how do you justify the self-defence claim then? You're reluctant to provide any arguments to support your assertions there though, liking to keep it vague and non-specific as usual.
That's just dumb at this point tbh... there is clear video evidence showing it is utterly false, you're in denial now. Zaminski was not "off in a different direction" at that point, he's literally walking across the same lot Kyle just ran across seconds earlier.
You can scream into the blue ether of the OCUK forum all you want but it won't make it true.
Nothing I said in that post was false.
You also need to watch the video and view the stills again clearly.
Clearly was, and has been shown to be further up the page.
There is literally video evidence of it, you can see the location where the gunshot occurred quite clearly, it's in the same lot, he's less than 50 meters away and had only just threatened Kyle.
And sure enough, you can't now resolve the simultaneous position you hold that none of them was likely to have seriously injured or killed Kyle vs also supporting that there was a self-defence claim... and likewise still missing your explanation on how you also hold that position re: self-defence but also think it was excessive?
There is nothing to resolve
I dont doubt Kyle likely thought they would.
You can still act in self defense but go beyond what was necessary in terms of reasonable force (hence the reckless charges he faces).
Soldato
That's what I find amazing, out of hundreds of people at the riot, the 3 people he shot all had criminal records, it's as if he was surrounded by ass holes.
There is nothing to resolve
I dont doubt Kyle likely thought they would.
You can still act in self defense but go beyond what was necessary in terms of reasonable force.
Sure, but that's still vague... you've been asked already about this and you just ignore it or go into deflection mode - do you think he could have got into a fistfight with the muscly little mental case in the first instance after his rifle was grabbed? (keep in mind there is another psycho with a pistol who had just fired it behind them too and allegedly had just threatened him).
Or what about when the pistol was suddenly pointed at him in the final incident? If he (quite reasonably) believes he's about to be shot then how is shooting someone an excessive reaction?
And the third case, the guy didn't just attack him twice but had grabbed hold of his rifle, his only means of defence against this mob chasing him...
Last edited:
That's quite clearly my opinion because it simply isn't possible to know for sure. It can't be true or false.
So you don't think being kicked in the head has a high risk of serious injury or death? You don't think being hit in the head with a skateboard runs the risk of serious injury or death? amazing
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,613
It's easy to see, and entirely predictable, who's on the side of chaos and degeneracy. All the weak men that make bad times.
Or indeed potentially being shot with a pistol or having your rifle taken off you by a guy who'd made explicit death threats to you earlier.
Well this comes back to my point earlier in the thread as to where the line is drawn in terms of when it becomes reasonable to just shoot and kill someone if you find yourself in a fight/altercation.
Anything anyone does to you has the risk of causing death. You could be simply pushed and it could lead to your death if you fell awkwardly/hit your head.
The question is, where do you draw line on the use of deadly force?
Indeed, there's a debatable element to that though. But apparently being kicked in the head or battered with a skateboard around the head is like being tickled with a feather.
No it doesn't come back to your earlier point, you've quite simply stated that kicking someone in the head or belting someone round the head with a block of wood doesn't run the risk of serious injury.