2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Being charged with a crime does not make you guilty of a crime.

How is not supporting law enforcement he sent in the national guard to help the local police in Kenosha and the police chief was grateful for their help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXNs9neY4bU

You must believe Epstein died an innocent man so

Eric Cartman

gmisk wrote: »

Do you have a link to that? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.
He was still underage....carrying an assault rifle...so it is still illegal.

It also wasn't "work" no matter what way you spin it. He was a 17yo illegally carrying an assault rifle playing army basically, he boosted earlier about having a med kit....he should have stuck to sitting at home playing call of duty.

the AR15 is not an 'assault rifle', its not fully automatic, it fires no differently to any standard hunting rifle and is not illegal.

There are states where you do not need a licence at all for a rifle. You do need a licence for a pistol like the one pointed at Kyle everywhere though...

LessOutragePlz

gmisk wrote: »

Do you have a link to that? I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere.
He was still underage....carrying an assault rifle..which wasn't clearly licensed to him either....so it is still illegal.

It also wasn't "work" no matter what way you spin it. He was a 17yo illegally carrying an assault rifle playing army basically, he boosted earlier about having a med kit....he should have stuck to sitting at home playing call of duty.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyers-release-statement/amp/?taid=5f4bf7e546b85b0001c04acf&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

Statement from his lawyer detailing what happened.

gmisk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the AR15 is not an 'assault rifle', its not fully automatic, it fires no differently to any standard hunting rifle and is not illegal.

There are states where you do not need a licence at all for a rifle. You do need a licence for a pistol like the one pointed at Kyle everywhere though...

Ok...so he was illegally carrying a rifle.
In that state do you need a license?
Are you allowed to open carry?
Are you allowed to have a rifle on the streets when you are 17 in that state?

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, he did, you are claiming that he was working.

Which is it?

I was responding to another poster that claimed he went to Kenosha with the sole intention of causing trouble.

I pointed out that the reason he was in Kenosha that day was to work as a community lifeguard so he was indeed working in Kenosha that day as a lifeguard.

Do try keep up.

Kidchameleon

LOL I said straight off the bat that I had no evidence. Keep your panties on. I have heard it before because clients in the US have spoken of it. Again just to be clear, it may or may not be true & I cannot prove I have heard it before.

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You must believe Epstein died an innocent man so

Nope he was convicted of a crime so he was 100% guilty.

"Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

gmisk

Kidchameleon wrote: »

LOL I said straight off the bat that I had no evidence. Keep your panties on. I have heard it before because clients in the US have spoken of it. Again just to be clear, it may or may not be true & I cannot prove I have heard it before.

Straight out of the Donald Trump playbook
It's been said...
I have heard...
Many people say...

Absolute complete and utter rubbish.

Penn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I was responding to another poster that claimed he went to Kenosha with the sole intention of causing trouble.

I pointed out that the reason he was in Kenosha that day was to work as a community lifeguard so he was indeed working in Kenosha that day as a lifeguard.

Do try keep up.

It was illegal for him to carry the rifle outside. He was breaking the law. He chose to go out and defend that business (which he did not have to do) but chose to break the law in order to do so. He broke the law.

Do you agree?

LessOutragePlz

salmocab wrote: »

Most normal people wouldn’t expect children to arm themselves

I know I'd rather have an armed 17 year old defending my business rather than just letting it burn down.

Eric Cartman

gmisk wrote: »

Ok...so he was illegally carrying a rifle.
In that state do you need a license?
Are you allowed to open carry?
Are you allowed to have a rifle on the streets when you are 17 in that state?

Was it legal to carry a rifle at the protests?

If a person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is legal to carry any legal firearm openly in Wisconsin. Before Wisconsin passed a concealed carry law in 2011, gun rights advocates organized open-carry group outings and won acquittals or dismissals for several people arrested during the events. More recently, gun owners have been carrying assault-style rifles at demonstrations at state capitols against stay-at-home orders during the early months of the pandemic this spring.

Could the suspect carry the rifle legally?

Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

Rittenhouse could be in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Also, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but that is only available to someone 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

Rittenhouse did not own the gun, his lawyer said Friday.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

The gun didn't cross state lines
open carry is legal there
he could use a loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds carry for hunting
possession is a misdemeanour without the ID card.

on the balance of it , Kyle having and carrying the gun is less illegal than if he was carrying a bag of weed.

salmocab

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I know I'd rather have an armed 17 year old defending my business rather than just letting it burn down.

I’d rather not risk a child’s life over a business but there you go people priorities are different

namloc1980

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I know I'd rather have an armed 17 year old defending my business rather than just letting it burn down.

Really? An child who seemingly picked up a gun that day and gunned down 3 people, killing 2. Bit of a risk to take as a business owner.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

LOL I said straight off the bat that I had no evidence. Keep your panties on. I have heard it before because clients in the US have spoken of it. Again just to be clear, it may or may not be true & I cannot prove I have heard it before.

But you decide to repeat the lies anyway because........?

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://eu.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

The gun didn't cross state lines
open carry is legal there
he could use a loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds carry for hunting
possession is a misdemeanour without the ID card.

on the balance of it , Kyle having and carrying the gun is less illegal than if he was carrying a bag of weed.

But we've been told this wasn't his gun - apparently a friend gave it to him. The age for carrying a rifle openly in Wisconsin is 18. He's 17. So he was carrrying a gun not belonging to him underage.

LessOutragePlz

Penn wrote: »

It was illegal for him to carry the rifle outside. He was breaking the law. He chose to go out and defend that business (which he did not have to do) but chose to break the law in order to do so. He broke the law.

Do you agree?

Yes it was illegal under state law for him to carry the rifle but his lawyer is going to argue that he was allowed carry it under the 2nd amendment.

He says as much in 2:51 in the video below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2RJ-iv2VyQ

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Nope he was convicted of a crime so he was 100% guilty.

"Epstein pleaded guilty and was convicted in 2008 by a Florida state court of procuring an underage girl for prostitution and of soliciting a prostitute."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein

But he was innocent when he was in jail and died right? Previous convictions aside, or do previous convictions carry over and matter because if they do......

namloc1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But you decide to repeat the lies anyway because........?

He dare not displease the Dear Leader.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Really? An child who seemingly picked up a gun that day and gunned down 3 people, killing 2. Bit of a risk to take as a business owner.

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

But we've been told this wasn't his gun - apparently a friend gave it to him. The age for carrying a rifle openly in Wisconsin is 18. He's 17. So he was carrrying a gun not belonging to him underage.

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

Hang on a second, we were told above repeatedly this wasn't his gun and he picked it up that day. I never once mentioned he had no experience with a gun. You just made that up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The guy clearly has weapons training, he wasn't just some 17 year old without a clue.

8 hours a day on call of duty for 6 years.

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Hang on a second, we were told above repeatedly this wasn't his gun and he picked it up that day. I never once mentioned he had no experience with a gun. You just made that up.

you were phrasing that to imply that just handing a 17 year old a gun is a bad idea. Im explaining that this is handing a firearm to somebody experienced with firearms, id rather have had a gun handed to an enthusiast like Kyle with experience and training than a random person over the age of 21 with none of that.

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I was responding to another poster that claimed he went to Kenosha with the sole intention of causing trouble.

I pointed out that the reason he was in Kenosha that day was to work as a community lifeguard so he was indeed working in Kenosha that day as a lifeguard.

Do try keep up.

Right, so do you admit that at the time he wasn't working? He might have gone to Kenosha to do work, but he lef that job to carry out his militia task

You mentioned that he was working, not me. That you have been shown to be wrong is not my fault.

Since he was not working, then he went there as a private individual. A vigilante or militia you could class him as.

He might well have gone there with the best intentions, although bringing a loaded gun is hardly looking to de-escalate the situation.

I really cannot understand why you are going to bat for this guy. He went there to make a stand, and if that meant shooting people then so be it. It ended up exactly as one could have told him it would.

The only reason you are looking to defend him is because he is a Trump supporter. If he had a Biden hat on you would have no qualms in calling him out.

gmisk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

...that's a lot of ifs isn't it....was he hunting?

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

Yikes! Best not use that defense. "Yes your Honor he was carrying the gun for hunting".

Eric Cartman

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

8 hours a day on call of duty for 6 years.

greylake police department cadet training, which includes range based rifle and pistol training. Its more firearms training than most of the antifa nuts have popping round with pistols.

Eric Cartman

gmisk wrote: »

...that's a lot of ifs isn't it....was he hunting?

thats one if, the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me' and its over.

Carfacemandog

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is all very odd when compared to th shooting of Blake. The excuse is that there might have been a knife in the car and as such the officer was right to shoot him, in the back, 7 times.

Compare this to a white dude walking along with a gun and the cops did nothing at all.

Not unlike when they were arresting people that had laser pointers that they were pointing at them because they 'might' be used as dangerous weapons.

Or when police were aggressively arresting people providing food and while possibly or possibly not having merit over the people possessing fireworks (those arrested dispute this) and filling gas canisters (apparently for portable coolers), claimed that their facemasks were "shields". Mysteriously, these people were left free to go only a few days later.

Yet time and again during these protests and riots we have seen police chatting away with heavily armed far right groups, warning them in advance of any actions they might be taking so they won't get caught up in it, and in cases like Rittenhouse thanking them for their being there while giving water. Which shouldn't be that shocking, given that the FBI have been warning for years of far right infiltration of police departments, and as police have often been found having extremely inappropriate communications with leaders of these groups for some time.

The actions of police over the course of these protests have proven beyond any doubt that while there are many really good cosp out there, as an overall force they are absolutely not fit for purpose and need a considerable overhaul and vastly improved accountability, considerably less bloat, and responsibility for several items which police are ill suited to passed over to better suited agencies.

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so do you admit that at the time he wasn't working? He might have gone to Kenosha to do work, but he lef that job to carry out his militia task

You mentioned that he was working, not me. That you have been shown to be wrong is not my fault.

Since he was not working, then he went there as a private individual. A vigilante or militia you could class him as.

He might well have gone there with the best intentions, although bringing a loaded gun is hardly looking to de-escalate the situation.

I really cannot understand why you are going to bat for this guy. He went there to make a stand, and if that meant shooting people then so be it. It ended up exactly as one could have told him it would.

The only reason you are looking to defend him is because he is a Trump supporter. If he had a Biden hat on you would have no qualms in calling him out.

He did exactly what I would have done in the situation he was facing it's nothing to do with him being a Trump supporter he is an American first.