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

Quin_Dub

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Not a lot he can do when the cities that are burning are run by democratic mayor's, some of whom are refusing federal assistance.

I never said that he had such little control but there are some things that he can't control such as the actions of Democratic mayor's in cities that are burning.

https://twitter.com/StreetVet100/status/1300064323449098242?s=09

How many actual "cities" in the US are Republican controlled though?

People living in cities don't vote Republican - Rural and some suburban do for the most part.

Carfacemandog

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.

If the best defense they can come up for him is that he went to a riot to "hunt", there's not much more that needs to be said.

gmisk

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Is it though?

And yes...we were hunting....

namloc1980

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Can you quote the specific statute that basically says "if the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me'" and that's grand?

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

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.

So you are defending him because you think he is right?

Really? You agree that he had no choice but to kill those people? That he had no choice but to turn up with a loaded weapon?

He had no business going there, he had no business bringing a gun.

I assume you would defend BLM or other protestors rights to assault police officers if they feel under threat? That is the logical conclusion of your position.

That pretty much anyone can do anything one they feel under threat.

I know you don't believe that, because you have said that the protestors are out of order. So what is the real reason you are out to defend this guy?

Eric Cartman

Carfacemandog wrote: »

If the best defense they can come up for him is that he went to a riot to "hunt", there's not much more that needs to be said.

thats the purpose of the rule not the text of it. I was trying to explain that there are legal ways for a 17 year old to open carry somebody elses gun there.

ofcourse his defence won't be hunting.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

So we can take from that that he was fully versed in weapons handling and had at least some education as to dealing with trouble makers.

Yet he took himself, with all his prior training, into the situation. When he must have known what the possible outcomes could be.

namloc1980

Just for the Trumpists who claim the lefties are gone mad and the perpetrators of domestic terrorism. This article might be of interest which argues that right-wing terrorist and extremists are far more common in the US and have been particularly emboldened under the Trump presidency. https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states

Carfacemandog

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He was working as a community lifeguard.

For whom? What city/state/federal government agency or department hired him (at 17 no less) for this role? Or was this a 'self appointed' role, aka entirely made up?

Eric Cartman

namloc1980 wrote: »

Can you quote the specific statute that basically says "if the guy who gave him the gun just has to say 'yeah I gave him the gun and he was with me'" and that's grand?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin

Possession of a dangerous weapon by anyone under 18 is a class A misdemeanor. Giving/loaning/selling a dangerous weapon to someone under 18 is a class I felony.

WI statute 948.60[38]

Defenses to prosecution under this statute:

Target practice under the supervision of an adult
Members of armed forces or police under 18 in the line of duty
Hunting (either with an adult or having passed hunter's safety)
The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.[39][40]

over 16, barrel over 16 inches long. Job done.

Leroy42

The line of duty is the bit you seem to be ignoring.

But hey I get it. You think it is reasonable for him to have gone there with a loaded weapon.

I assume that when BLM turn up with loaded weapons and start shooting you will be as understanding.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats the purpose of the rule not the text of it. I was trying to explain that there are legal ways for a 17 year old to open carry somebody elses gun there.

ofcourse his defence won't be hunting.

I which your claim that it is ok to carry such a weapon under 18 for this purposes of hunting has zero relevance. Literally the only way it wouk have relevance is if he went to that riot with that rifle to hunt.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

The line of duty is the bit you seem to be ignoring.

But hey I get it. You think it is reasonable for him to have gone there with a loaded weapon.

I assume that when BLM turn up with loaded weapons and start shooting you will be as understanding.

he was there to defend a building, not attack it. BLM have been showing up with weapons, including that felon who pointed a handgun at Kyle and was popped in the arm, that man was illegally carrying a weapon.

clubberlang12

It's almost as if people are forgetting there is numerous video footage of Rittenhouse being chased and attacked prior to both acts of dispersing of the firearm.

He clearly states in an interview prior to the incidents that he is there to assist in any medical capacity he can, to both sides of the protest, in his capacity as a trained EMT to some level(shows his medi-bag), as well as to help protect a local business that was attacked the night before.

So trying to perpetuate the idea that he was a gun-totting , right ring vigilante who was hell bent on going there to shoot some "lefties" might fly in the court-room of public opinion, but probably won't have a leg to stand on in a proper judicial setting. The fact he was charged really means very little, as yes there has been 2 people killed by a fire arm, so the due diligence unless completely certain that the deaths were death s by accident, would be to let a court of law decide upon the evidence brought forward.

There also seems to be a lot of experts here who seem to know the state laws regarding fire arms in Wisconsin, when it's obvious some don't have the foggiest notion. But i suppose that is the landscape in general when it comes to internet forums.

ohnonotgmail

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.

what was he hunting for?

Penn

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.

What was he hunting?

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what was he hunting for?

Penn wrote: »

What was he hunting?

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

he was there to defend a building, not attack it. BLM have been showing up with weapons, including that felon who pointed a handgun at Kyle and was popped in the arm, that man was illegally carrying a weapon.

Those BLM people are probably looking to defend their fellow protestors, isn't that reasonable?

And you can have no qualms with them having weapons, since you are perfectly fine in this case.

You see, I don't think BLM should have weapons any more than you do. The difference is that I can put aside my political views and bipartisanship and look at the reality rather than looking to defend him because he is on 'my team'.

If you accept a society that allows people to carry loaded weapons into already troubled areas, then you cannot decide that one side is right and the other wrong.

joeguevara

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

actually your exact words were: "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."

The only way that is applicable is if he went to the riot for hunting.

Quin_Dub

joeguevara wrote: »

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

The 2nd Amendment argument is a defence against the charges relating to possession of the gun , it cannot be a defence against the use of the gun.

As Leroy42 said though , the very idea that it's legal for people of any age or political persuasion to wander around the streets openly carrying a weapon is just utterly bizarre. That it is deemed ok in the middle of a riot is even more insane.

I'm not anti-gun per se , but the utter disregard that there seems to be in the US for basic common sense when it comes to guns will never cease to baffle me.

LessOutragePlz

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are defending him because you think he is right?

Really? You agree that he had no choice but to kill those people? That he had no choice but to turn up with a loaded weapon?

He had no business going there, he had no business bringing a gun.

I assume you would defend BLM or other protestors rights to assault police officers if they feel under threat? That is the logical conclusion of your position.

That pretty much anyone can do anything one they feel under threat.

I know you don't believe that, because you have said that the protestors are out of order. So what is the real reason you are out to defend this guy?

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified.

He had plenty of business going there as he was helping to defend a local business owners property.

He had to bring a gun to protect himself from the violent mob that had burned down businesses and buildings the previous night.

How else was he supposed to defend himself from the violent mob?

He acted in self defense, BLM protesters are the agitators in the confrontations with the police so they can't be acting in self defense if they initiated the conflict so your twisted logic doesn't apply here.

Igotadose

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

What training did he have? Under what law could murderer Rittenhouse be requested to defend property? What style of property defense includes jumping into an attacking mob?

Eric Cartman

joeguevara wrote: »

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

Was he an enlisted member of the cadet force?

Carfacemandog

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified..

Again, which city, state or federal body had hired hi ma's a "community lifeguard"? Or is this just a convenient job title his legal team have come up with that never formally existed/that he never actually held?

Leroy42

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified.

He had plenty of business going there as he was helping to defend a local business owners property.

He had to bring a gun to protect himself from the violent mob that had burned down businesses and buildings the previous night.

How else was he supposed to defend himself from the violent mob?

He acted in self defense, BLM protesters are the agitators in the confrontations with the police so they can't be acting in self defense if they initiated the conflict so your twisted logic doesn't apply here.

BLM would say that they are defending themselves against the aggression of the state. You see how easy it is to justify whatever position if you try hard enough.

There is no justification for him going to that, there was no justification of him bringing gun. Self-defence is fine when you find yourself in a situation. Knowingly going into said situation, and bringing a gun because he was well aware of the risks, cannot be classed as self-defence.

under that logic pretty much any murder can be excused.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

So are you now going back on your initial justification that: "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"?

LessOutragePlz

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Again, which city, state or federal body had hired hi ma's a "community lifeguard"? Or is this just a convenient job title his legal team have come up with that never formally existed/that he never actually held?

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

joeguevara

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment argument is a defence against the charges relating to possession of the gun , it cannot be a defence against the use of the gun.

As Leroy42 said though , the very idea that it's legal for people of any age or political persuasion to wander around the streets openly carrying a weapon is just utterly bizarre. That it is deemed ok in the middle of a riot is even more insane.

I'm not anti-gun per se , but the utter disregard that there seems to be in the US for basic common sense when it comes to guns will never cease to baffle me.

This is why I said it most likely will be a mixture of 2nd amendment right and self defence. Firstly he will need to prove that he was allowed to possess and then put forward a defence of why he used it. Based on known facts, self defence will fail but who knows. Common sense goes out the window in cases like this.