To Acquit or Not Acquit?

[hunterngather]

Some here might want consider thier own "benefit of the doubt "

Who deserves it?

It's pretty obvious for me in this forum who does.

Look within and ask questions to your own bias or throw it to the ditch. Up to you bro.

This link is from someone that not many of anyone here could ever relate to


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...-doubt-please/

[sns2]

Originally Posted by hunterngather

Some here might want consider thier own "benefit of the doubt "

Who deserves it?

It's pretty obvious for me in this forum who does.

Look within and ask questions to your own bias or throw it to the ditch. Up to you bro.

This link is from someone that not many of anyone here could ever relate to


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...-doubt-please/

I’d be happy to read, but the article is behind a pay wall. Cut and paste it.

[hunterngather]

Originally Posted by sns2

I’d be happy to read, but the article is behind a pay wall. Cut and paste it.

Think I fixed it?

[fishnguy]

Originally Posted by Dylan15

Crime, left unchecked, has resulted in thieves being more abrasive in California, for example, where it is a near free for all.

You are way off, mate:





California comes under number 31 on this list. Most of the “let’s grab guns and protect our stuff” states are way ahead. Hmm. Interesting. Here is the rest of the list:

Originally Posted by Dylan15

I’m sorry though, I must’ve read about the theft problems on Fox News,

You must have. And it shows.

P. S. Sorry, not sure why the images are all different sizes. Not that it really matters.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by hunterngather

Some here might want consider thier own "benefit of the doubt "

Who deserves it?

It's pretty obvious for me in this forum who does.

Look within and ask questions to your own bias or throw it to the ditch. Up to you bro.

This link is from someone that not many of anyone here could ever relate to


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the...-doubt-please/

What does that story have to do with the topic of this thread? Reads like a pamphlet that was handed out by a woke white person at a CRT Seminar.

[Jamie]

I think some of you guys are all having the wool pulled over your head.

I don't believe why he was there should have any play in this
I don't believe his age or his choice of defence weapons have any play in this..
I don't believe his choices or his family choice are on trial here..

The question is this.. Did he kill these people in self defence? Thats the question.
Why he was there was his business. He was legally entitled to be in the area and he was legally entitled to be carrying that gun.

Everything else is just a smoke show. To think otherwise is really off TBH..

[Mulehahn]

Originally Posted by fishnguy

You are way off, mate:





California comes under number 31 on this list. Most of the “let’s grab guns and protect our stuff” states are way ahead. Hmm. Interesting. Here is the rest of the list:




You must have. And it shows.

P. S. Sorry, not sure why the images are all different sizes. Not that it really matters.

Wonder if those charts are based on charges being laid or how are the stars accumulated. Seeing as you are now free to steal up, $900 I believe, at once in several cities and they will not pursue charges that might skew California's stats. Officially no crime was committed so how would it be counted. There is a reason so many stores have reduced hours or have closed there. But this has nothing to do with Rittenhouse.

As Jamie said, he didn't break any laws by being there with a loaded AR. The only question is can one come to the conclusion he feared for his life. If so it's self defence and must acquit. If he had other options it was murder. I think have rounds fired behind you while being chased, being dropped kicked and hit in the side of the head with skateboard, as well as having someone drawing a gun on you all create a situation in which one would fear for their life.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I think some of you guys are all having the wool pulled over your head.

I don't believe why he was there should have any play in this
I don't believe his age or his choice of defence weapons have any play in this..
I don't believe his choices or his family choice are on trial here..

The question is this.. Did he kill these people in self defence? Thats the question.
Why he was there was his business. He was legally entitled to be in the area and he was legally entitled to be carrying that gun.

Everything else is just a smoke show. To think otherwise is really off TBH..

Not me, its all and only about Self Defence period!

[hunterngather]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

What does that story have to do with the topic of this thread? Reads like a pamphlet that was handed out by a woke white person at a CRT Seminar.

If you dont see, never mind. Carry on.

[YYC338]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

Not me, its all and only about Self Defence period!

So by extension, does that mean the Capitol police and security should have shot and killed a lot more rioters on January 6th in Washington?

Even though the police were better armed, it's very obvious many of them were in a position to claim self defense as they were attacked by poles, clubs and numerous other weapons. Although I don't believe the ever dangerous skate board was one of them.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by YYC338

So by extension, does that mean the Capitol police and security should have shot and killed a lot more rioters on January 6th in Washington?

Even though the police were better armed, it's very obvious many of them were in a position to claim self defense as they were attacked by poles, clubs and numerous other weapons. Although I don't believe the ever dangerous skate board was one of them.

I am staying on this thread's topic, you are discussing an entirely different matter, maybe you should start a different thread?

After yesterdays debacle with MSNBC, the Judge has no option other than to dismiss this case with Prejudice, otherwise this case will be a farce.

[Freedom55]

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

To fine a point on it, the most interesting thing are the televised trials. First Derek Chauvin's murder trial, then the McMichaels and Roddy and now this poor waif from Indiana. I have watched every minute of every trial and I am fascinated with not only the difference between our country and their's but the reactions and statements made by these foreigners in their efforts to defend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pure gold.

Free

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

To fine a point on it, the most interesting thing are the televised trials. First Derek Chauvin's murder trial, then the McMichaels and Roddy and now this poor waif from Indiana. I have watched every minute of every trial and I am fascinated with not only the difference between our country and their's but the reactions and statements made by these foreigners in their efforts to defend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pure gold.

Free

Very interesting, I am not interested in any fight with anyone here or anywhere else for that matter. Frankly I have no idea what you are talking about, as far as I am concerned everyone has the right to their own opinion.

I do not believe I have insulted anyone, I don't even know what socio-economic constituency means! Nope I just bought a new home and I plan on staying in it until I need to move to an assisted living facility so moving is out of the question lol

"to insist that he's the only one making any sense" Incorrect and nonsense, obssessed1 makes way more sense then I do, in fact I have seen several posts in this thread that are vastly superior to anything I have written.

Cheers N40

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

To fine a point on it, the most interesting thing are the televised trials. First Derek Chauvin's murder trial, then the McMichaels and Roddy and now this poor waif from Indiana. I have watched every minute of every trial and I am fascinated with not only the difference between our country and their's but the reactions and statements made by these foreigners in their efforts to defend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pure gold.

Free

The differences between Americans and Canadians was made clear, way back when the Americans fought for independence. While the would be Americans took up arms to free themselves from British tyranny, the would be Canadians chose to continue to accept the British tyranny, and fight against the people that wanted freedom and independence. At the beginning of that war, the Americans were called traitors and rebels, while the Canadians were called loyalists. By the end of that war, people like Benedict Arnold were called traitors, and they are still referred to as traitors. When you think about it, you get an idea of which AO members would be on which side, if they had been around then.

[Talking moose]

^ if I could remain in my geographical location yet choose which countries set of rules to abide by, i would be following America.
Would be even better if I could take it one step further and choose which state laws I could follow.
30 years ago my answer most likely would be different.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/kyle-ri...-bid-1.5671452

'he is arguing self defense, but you do not get to argue self defense in a situation that you created'.

This is a good video to watch. Listen to what the Lawyer says.

The prosecutor in the courtroom committed more crimes than Kyle did, he Alec Baldwin’ed half the courtroom with the AR-15. I’ve been following a lawyers commentary on the trial and even he mentioned it. The quote about not getting to claim self-defense in a situation you created applies to aggressors, not those on the receiving end of attacks. Let’s re-write the story to explain how. In the pretend situation, Rosenbaum catches and disarms Rittenhouse, and shoots and kills Rittenhouse. He would not be able to claim self-defense because he was the aggressor and Rittenhouse was fleeing. Or we could re-write it where he just wrestled the gun away from Kyle and beat him to death, plenty of people have died from concussions when their head hits the ground even from one-punch knock-outs, it doesn’t have to be an extended assault to be lethal. In reality, it was not Rittenhouse who created the situation, that is 100% on Rosenbaum. To claim otherwise is a flat out fabrication. I can get how people [I]feel[I] about it, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

Re-examine the prosecutors claim put in another context: rape. Think the claim that self-defense is not OK after a victim was flirting with someone will fly? That could be argued as ‘creating the situation’. Being where he was wasn’t illegal, the firearm charge was dropped because the barrel length was 16”, so that wasn’t illegal either. Now start again knowing both those things were A-OK so far as the law goes. Being there was fine and having the rifle was fine.

Rittenhouse simply didn’t create the situation, (unless one wants to argue that his extinguishing the dumpster fire was ‘provocative’) and self-defense is always OK. Of course you can’t attack someone and then when they fight back and you wind up killing them in the melee, you can’t claim self-defense. That’s how that works and it’s clearly not the case here. Rittenhouse pursued exactly zero people & defense is not attack, at best it’s a counter-attack. Rittenhouse fled, and fled and fled, only when cornered and attacked did he do anything. That is not the act of an aggressor and anyone claiming otherwise is flat out wrong, period.

In the end, society is down one chronic pedophile and a repeat domestic abuser. Sounds like a win to me. Even Mr Missing Bicep had some conscience and admitted Kyle didn’t fire until he was posting his Glock at Kyle; to me, that’s excellent restraint and trigger discipline. He didn’t even put another round into him. I’m betting he was conserving ammo, probably something he learned from playing video games.

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

The prosecutor in the courtroom committed more crimes than Kyle did, he Alec Baldwin’ed half the courtroom with the AR-15. I’ve been following a lawyers commentary on the trial and even he mentioned it. The quote about not getting to claim self-defense in a situation you created applies to aggressors, not those on the receiving end of attacks. Let’s re-write the story to explain how. In the pretend situation, Rosenbaum catches and disarms Rittenhouse, and shoots and kills Rittenhouse. He would not be able to claim self-defense because he was the aggressor and Rittenhouse was fleeing. Or we could re-write it where he just wrestled the gun away from Kyle and beat him to death, plenty of people have died from concussions when their head hits the ground even from one-punch knock-outs, it doesn’t have to be an extended assault to be lethal. In reality, it was not Rittenhouse who created the situation, that is 100% on Rosenbaum. To claim otherwise is a flat out fabrication. I can get how people [I]feel[I] about it, but that doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

Re-examine the prosecutors claim put in another context: rape. Think the claim that self-defense is not OK after a victim was flirting with someone will fly? That could be argued as ‘creating the situation’. Being where he was wasn’t illegal, the firearm charge was dropped because the barrel length was 16”, so that wasn’t illegal either. Now start again knowing both those things were A-OK so far as the law goes. Being there was fine and having the rifle was fine.

Rittenhouse simply didn’t create the situation, (unless one wants to argue that his extinguishing the dumpster fire was ‘provocative’) and self-defense is always OK. Of course you can’t attack someone and then when they fight back and you wind up killing them in the melee, you can’t claim self-defense. That’s how that works and it’s clearly not the case here. Rittenhouse pursued exactly zero people & defense is not attack, at best it’s a counter-attack. Rittenhouse fled, and fled and fled, only when cornered and attacked did he do anything. That is not the act of an aggressor and anyone claiming otherwise is flat out wrong, period.

Well done. Succinct and focused.

[Smoky buck]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

To fine a point on it, the most interesting thing are the televised trials. First Derek Chauvin's murder trial, then the McMichaels and Roddy and now this poor waif from Indiana. I have watched every minute of every trial and I am fascinated with not only the difference between our country and their's but the reactions and statements made by these foreigners in their efforts to defend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pure gold.

Free

Says the guy from Saskatchewan who is often just here arguing on an Alberta forum

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Nayr

Was he breaking any laws walking down the street openly carrying, f I understand their laws I don’t think he was. Was he fearful for his life, maybe. If he was I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to use deadly force in self defence. If I was on the jury and understand their laws correctly I’d aquit, and recommend paying him restitution.

Except that he's not an adult, he's 17.

I may be mistaken, but he is not permitted to open carry at 17.

Putting a kid into that situation, who may not have all the experience, common sense and pragmatic thought of an adult certainly contributed to the outcome here.

Very unfortunate.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

To fine a point on it, the most interesting thing are the televised trials. First Derek Chauvin's murder trial, then the McMichaels and Roddy and now this poor waif from Indiana. I have watched every minute of every trial and I am fascinated with not only the difference between our country and their's but the reactions and statements made by these foreigners in their efforts to defend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pure gold.

Free

Nailed it. Always makes me wonder why some folks don't just pack up and move to the cesspool south of the 49th if they find it to be so perfect. I lived there when i was younger. Worked for an Amereekan company and spent a lot of time there when I was older. Not a liberal by any stretch but the thing that amazed me most about them as a whole was average Joe's complete lack of knowledge of pretty much anything that goes on in the world....Or, the next county over for that matter. Absolutely clueless, then add in that they really could care less about their lack of intellect. Totally self interested. It's quite astounding.

I thought we had our share of backwoods up here but man, it doesn't come remotely close to the excited states.

[Pathfinder76]

Originally Posted by EZM

Except that he's not an adult, he's 17.

I may be mistaken, but he is not permitted to open carry at 17.

Putting a kid into that situation, who may not have all the experience, common sense and pragmatic thought of an adult certainly contributed to the outcome here.

Very unfortunate.

My question is, where were all the adults in this?

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by Freedom55

I find it curious that some new guy can come on this forum and right away claim that firstly, as hunters/fishers that we shouldn't be of different minds than him and then secondly, to insist that he's the only one making any sense. Then this community has members that feel that the insults should move out of the U.S. and into our lives. This north of 40 guy should go back to south of 40 where he is a more likely candidate to join the Kansas outdoorsmen or the Georgia outdoorsmen (where there is another trial going on about gun toting social justice warriors) where his views may be more in line with the socio-economic constituency.

Free

I don’t think his handle is a reference to a point latitude. It would be slang used by country folk. Speaking of working in the south forty or north forty. I could be wrong but that is how I read it.

However, I find it funny that a fellow that lives east of the 4th meridian would rail against the geography of other members of this forum.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

Funny that you left out the Neilson Rating #'s midgetwaiter.

I am with the mainstream when it comes to viewing Real News and being informed. It does not appear that you are, nothing personal just an observation. You may want to consider switching channels, just like millions of others have

I think most intelligent and pragmatic people realize both CNN and FOX are biased. I try and not to take either of them too seriously and certainly fact check them against other more reliable sources (AP. Reuters. etc..)

The fact you think CNN is "bad" and FOX is the "truth" is humorous. FOX may mirror more of the people's political opinions on this site, agreed, but they are far from being a pillar of truth in news .... sorry bud.

In fact, they are probably worse than CNN. (at least are were rated worse for truth and bias).

Either way - don't want to derail .... just want to explain why you are getting these responses as you are clearly not aware of how what you say comes off to others reading your posts.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by chuck

My question is, where were all the adults in this?

They were all cowering under the covers of their beds, hoping someone else would handle the problem.

Reminds me of the movie High Plains Drifter, everyone stands around doing nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEjnCCgUc8I

Originally Posted by EZM

I think most intelligent and pragmatic people realize both CNN and FOX are biased. I try and not to take either of them too seriously and certainly fact check them against other more reliable sources (AP. Reuters. etc..)

The fact you think CNN is "bad" and FOX is the "truth" is humorous. FOX may mirror more of the people's political opinions on this site, agreed, but they are far from being a pillar of truth in news .... sorry bud.

In fact, they are probably worse than CNN. (at least are were rated worse for truth and bias).

Either way - don't want to derail .... just want to explain why you are getting these responses as you are clearly not aware of how what you say comes off to others reading your posts.

I never said that CNN was "bad" I said that they were fake news and propagandists. I am sticking to that.

I also brought up the fact that in the month of October Primetime viewers (Based On Nelson Ratings) was 661,000 for CNN vs FOX NEWS with 2.1 million, making them the mainstream news channels of the average viewer. CNN worked very hard to lose their credibility, which they have.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”

[urban rednek]

Originally Posted by bucksnbears

There are some on every forum that just don't get it.
They'd bitch if there ice cream was cold.
Not you Sask.

Originally Posted by Jamie

I think some of you guys are all having the wool pulled over your head.

I don't believe why he was there should have any play in this
I don't believe his age or his choice of defence weapons have any play in this..
I don't believe his choices or his family choice are on trial here..

The question is this.. Did he kill these people in self defence? Thats the question.
Why he was there was his business. He was legally entitled to be in the area and he was legally entitled to be carrying that gun.

Everything else is just a smoke show. To think otherwise is really off TBH..

You need to understand that what you are reading in some of the posts on this thread are good examples of the brainwashing that has occurred in Canuckistan over decades of social engineering by successive regimes of well meaning progressives.
Like the Stockholm Syndrome, they can no longer differentiate right from wrong; only their views are correct. Some version of you are not allowed to defend your self, your neighbours, your property, or your neighbours property from those who want to do harm. That is the express realm of law enforcement and the proper authorities. I'm waiting for them to chime in with the old Alan Rock "only the police and military should have guns in this country" schtick.
They strongly believe they are entitled to enforce their views on another country, and cannot understand why others do not believe as they do.

OT- As for the judgement? A violent mob attacking anyone meets the criteria of self defence in my books. Acquit.

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by EZM

Except that he's not an adult, he's 17.

I may be mistaken, but he is not permitted to open carry at 17.

Putting a kid into that situation, who may not have all the experience, common sense and pragmatic thought of an adult certainly contributed to the outcome here.

Very unfortunate.

He was allowed the gun.. But even if he wasn't, that has zero to do with self defence. Charge him with what you want.. But murder isn't one of them.

[tirebob]

A lot of posts are poking a toe across the line with insulting and trolling individual members. If it keeps up people will be tossed. Make your points about the topic and move on or get moved out.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Nope. Not since I was a kid in school.
I did have a knife to my throat at age 30ish. That ended with the same knife up against his throat.
I’m glad I snapped out of it when I did.

That's terrifying.

I can't even imagine looking back at something like that, someone holding your life in their hand, then reversing it.

You have more backbone than me, sitting at a keyboard I think I would have snapped and ended the threat, but I was not there. Good on you Sir.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Jamie

He was allowed the gun.. But even if he wasn't, that has zero to do with self defence. Charge him with what you want.. But murder isn't one of them.

I wasn't responding to a statement or question if this was self defense or not or if the kid is guilty or not ... I made my perspective clear on that - I was talking about him being 17 and being permitted to open carry.

Let's focus on what I asked/commented about ....

He's 17 and a minor and is somehow allowed to open carry? Open carry permits are not issued to minors in states were permits are required.

Does than mean any minor is permitted to carry an AR-15 in the street? How about a 14 year old, or a 6 year old?

That was my point really.

ALSO - I realize that minor are permitted to use firearms under the supervision of an Adult - but in his case there seems to be no responsible adult here.

That was my question - nothing more or less than that. I was (and am) quite confused how this seems to be "no big deal"

I certainly would not support minor walking around anywhere they want with AR15's until they are adults. Adults (assumingly) would/should be able to exercise better judgement.

This is more of a question for discussion from me - that part makes NO SENSE to me. I would NEVER support a child being allowed to carry without adult supervision in a situation like that.

This is WAY WAY different compared to handing you 13-14 year old (which you have properly safety trained) a 22 and letting him go out in the field and shoot a few gophers.

[ScottFitter]

Given the fact that the weapons charges were dropped, I'd say that it is perfectly legal for him to be carrying the rifle that he did.