Some of the aftermath of the "peaceful" protestors' destruction of Kenosha, WI.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eave-buildings
Printable View
Some of the aftermath of the "peaceful" protestors' destruction of Kenosha, WI.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...eave-buildings
This is almost like saying it's the girl's fault for wearing a skimpy outfit at the club. Is she really surprised at what happened. It must be her fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
The kid didn't make a very good choice, but he still didn't do anything illegal by taking the gun to the protest.
I thought the kid was 17, and you can't legally own a long gun unless 18.
(May be wrong about this)
There is purchasing and possession. To purchase, you must be at least 18 years old in most states. I think some states you have to be at least 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
But possessing is another issue I believe. Kids are given shotguns and rifles as gifts all the time. I let my girls (10 and 13) shoot my rifles and shotguns whenever they want (I'm always with them, not by themselves). I used to go hunting (13-14 yrs old) for small game as a kid by myself.
I'm not sure about all the laws and regulations though as it would pertain to this case.
However, anyone who has watched all of the clips, knows the kid was defending his life. He was justified in shooting all of those guys, or else we would be talking about him being the victim.
I don't know all the specifics of the laws, but it seems to be that supplying a minor with an AR 15 that he isn't old enough to buy or own, and then driving him thirty miles across the state line to go to a protest with said weapon, and then just dropping him off, is so grossly negligent that it has to be in violation of multiple laws. Doesn't it?? Yet, no one is demanding that his parents be charged with anything?
Wearing a skimpy outfit versus bringing something that kills someone to an already "heated" public place is not remotely close to the same thing but nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by MADXSTER
There are a lot of "facts" in your post that are straight up wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
But, he was charged with a Class A misdemeanor for possessing a weapon under the age of 18.
Also, the guy that almost got his arm blown off was a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, clearly a violation of the law.
Yes it is. If I go to a protest open carrying a rifle, and that is within my rights, I have every right to defend myself with said rifle. Just because I'm carrying a weapon doesn't give anyone the right to attack me, just because a woman is wearing a skimpy outfit doesn't give anyone the right to rape her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Rittenhouse did not provoke anyone. From all accounts, he wasn't shouting at anyone or threatening anyone. He became separated from his group and then chased by a group of Antifa guys. He ONLY fired his weapon after he was being chased and someone threw something at him. They caught up to him, he turned and fired his weapon.
He ONLY fired his weapon again after being knocked down to the ground and cracked over the head with a skateboard, and ONLY when another guy armed with a pistol ran up on him and was a second away from taking a bullet to the head.
Again, wearing an outfit versus bringing something that kills someone is not remotely the same thing. Just because he has rights to bring one, doesnt mean it's not effing stupid. Justifying him bringing a semi automatic gun to a protest is stupid and i hope the idiot goes to jail for awhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
Here are the actual and undisputed facts (of the arrest of Jacob Blake in Kenosha):
• The officers were dispatched to the location due to a complaint that Mr. Blake was attempting to steal the caller’s keys/vehicle.
• Officers were aware of Mr. Blake’s open warrant for felony sexual assault (3rd degree) before they arrived on scene.
• Mr. Blake was not breaking up a fight between two females when officers arrived on scene.
• The officers initially tried to speak with Mr. Blake, but he was uncooperative.
• The officers then began issuing verbal commands to Mr. Blake, but he was non-complaint.
• The officers next went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake, so as to gain compliance and control.
• Mr. Blake actively resisted the officers’ attempt to gain compliance.
• The officers then disengaged and drew their tasers, issuing commands to Mr. Blake that he would be tased if he did not comply.
• Based on his non-compliance, one officer tased Mr. Blake. The taser did not incapacitate Mr. Blake.
• The officers once more went “hands-on” with Mr. Blake; again, trying to gain control of the escalating situation.
• Mr. Blake forcefully fought with the officers, including putting one of the officers in a headlock.
• A second taser (from a different officer than had deployed the initial taser) was then deployed on Mr. Blake. It did not appear to have any impact on him.
• Based on the inability to gain compliance and control after using verbal, physical and less- lethal means, the officers drew their firearms.
• Mr. Blake continued to ignore the officers’ commands, even with the threat of lethal force now present.
https://rfangle.com/crime/official-p...now-the-truth/