Lofarl Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Lets face it if any of us lived in that shithole of a country we'd be packing AR15's too. This will be the safest way to walk the streets in the land of the free soon. But with actual guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 11 minutes ago, Priti priti priti Patel said: I can forgive him being a p***k because he was only 17 and we were all p***ks at that age Are you mental? "We were all p***ks at that age." By your logic, we were all out killing folk when we were teenagers. It's the equivalent of me getting a train to Dundee carrying a knife and then stabbing folk to death "because I was scared and it was self defence." He's not a p***k - he's a fucking murderer - and you're a weirdo for wishing him well in his future endeavours. Shame for the men he mindlessly killed who won't get to enjoy the rest of their lives. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 16 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: My verdict is a kid should never be armed with a rifle, never mind turning up 20 miles away at a flash point dressed as Rambo and out to own the Libtards. America is fucked. I've been predicting a civil war within ten years think when/if Trump gets back in it will go full tonto. IMO America was a bawhair off of civil war after the election, a few different decisions when the fascists stormed the capital could have easily blown things up beyond what had already happened. As for this case, outcome is expected, with the judge acting cunto throughout, the mental approach to guns and the overall political system. As a few have pointed out, turning up to a protest here with an assault rifle automatically makes you the aggressor and any actions against you being people trying to protect themselves/ the situation. For them you haven’t done anything wrong kicking about with a dangerous weapon is just day to day behavior and it’s the actions of others trying to stop you is the aggressive act. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 IMO America was a bawhair off of civil war after the election, a few different decisions when the fascists stormed the capital could have easily blown things up beyond what had already happened. As for this case, outcome is expected, with the judge acting cunto throughout, the mental approach to guns and the overall political system. As a few have pointed out, turning up to a protest here with an assault rifle automatically makes you the aggressor and any actions against you being people trying to protect themselves/ the situation. For them you haven’t done anything wrong kicking about with a dangerous weapon is just day to day behavior and it’s the actions of others trying to stop you is the aggressive act. I've just watched Four Hours at the Capitol on iPlayer. Felt really weird feeling sympathy towards US cops of any type, but Fūck me that was one messed up situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 33 minutes ago, dirty dingus said: I know that as I have no contact with my right wing christian family over there due to their mentalness and I'd rather hang out in downtown Kabul than visit the states these days. Oh and as an aside they are all armed. Exactly. The place is fucking mental by any measure that we understand, and its all within the confines of their laws. We ought to stop aligning ourselves with them or bdeluding oursleves that we share some sort of set of stanrds or morals. We dont. They are, from the ground up, completely differnet to us and watching trials like this expecting one outcome when it is more apparent as time goes on that their legal system will dwliver another really doesnt serve a purpose at all. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said: 15 minutes ago, parsforlife said: IMO America was a bawhair off of civil war after the election, a few different decisions when the fascists stormed the capital could have easily blown things up beyond what had already happened. As for this case, outcome is expected, with the judge acting cunto throughout, the mental approach to guns and the overall political system. As a few have pointed out, turning up to a protest here with an assault rifle automatically makes you the aggressor and any actions against you being people trying to protect themselves/ the situation. For them you haven’t done anything wrong kicking about with a dangerous weapon is just day to day behavior and it’s the actions of others trying to stop you is the aggressive act. I've just watched Four Hours at the Capitol on iPlayer. Felt really weird feeling sympathy towards US cops of any type, but Fūck me that was one messed up situation. The problem is a lot of these radical right wing groups contain serving law enforcers and military personnel. I'm not sure but didn't the police or national guard not delay their response and it was left to the kiddy on community cops/glorified tour guides to deal with it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said: Exactly. The place is fucking mental by any measure that we understand, and its all within the confines of their laws. We ought to stop aligning ourselves with them or bdeluding oursleves that we share some sort of set of stanrds or morals. We dont. They are, from the ground up, completely differnet to us and watching trials like this expecting one outcome when it is more apparent as time goes on that their legal system will dwliver another really doesnt serve a purpose at all. Exactly, if they spoke a different language our reaction to the differences in politics etc would be completely different. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 There was absolutely no chance of a civil war after January 6th lol even if Trump kept it up (which he wouldn't have because he's still fundamentally a shitebag). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Exactly, if they spoke a different language our reaction to the differences in politics etc would be completely different. The Tories under Bozo seem to be trying to adopt the Trump playbook so I don't think the political classes are that far apart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Just now, dirty dingus said: The Tories under Bozo seem to be trying to adopt the Trump playbook so I don't think the political classes are that far apart. We certainly are desperately trying to catch them up sadly. Chuck the democrats up against the torries tho and the torries somehow come out as the party of the left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 It's unfortunate that when politics are involved, facts are deliberately ignored. If America wants so bad to send Rittenhouse to jail, maybe they shouldn't defend the right to bear arms so much. The correct decision was made going by the letter of the law. The culture war in America is already fucked anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 33 minutes ago, NotThePars said: There was absolutely no chance of a civil war after January 6th lol even if Trump kept it up (which he wouldn't have because he's still fundamentally a shitebag). The big story about that was why the military and national guard did nothing to intervene. Who was stopping them and what were they waiting for? I think it was closer than it seemed. I usually go with the cock up theory but this seemed too orchestrated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Priti priti priti Patel said: Everyone thought it looked clear cut, but essentially the statute was written in a strange way which created a loophole for people aged 16-18. It looks like the statute was just drafted erroneously, but once the defence highlighted the actual wording to the judge, he couldn't do anything other than dismiss the charge. Expect to see the Wisconsin legislature amend the legislation asap, assuming they're not gun nuts. Edit: I am trying to load the Wisconsin legislature website to quote the legislation but it's not loading. I presume too many people are trying to access it. Ha, i think i caught some of that on the pbs youtube feed, have watched some of the trial out of curiousity. I think the prosecution argued the title of the ststute itself was worded clearly but the judge ruled that the title itself wasnt relevant, the actual clauses were which left enough of a gray area that rittenhouse couldnt be charged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: Ha, i think i caught some of that on the pbs youtube feed, have watched some of the trial out of curiousity. I think the prosecution argued the title of the ststute itself was worded clearly but the judge ruled that the title itself wasnt relevant, the actual clauses were which left enough of a gray area that rittenhouse couldnt be charged. There was something about the length of the barrel that made the gun legal for a minor to be carrying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clown Job Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Could have sat your arse in the house but instead decided to go patrolling the streets with a weapon of war, kill 3 people and walk God bless the US of A Seriously though, I full expect the “ANTIFA riot” you’ll have guys like the Proud Boys shooting at people, using an similar excuse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 hour ago, dirty dingus said: My verdict is a kid should never be armed with a rifle, never mind turning up 20 miles away at a flash point dressed as Rambo and out to own the Libtards. America is fucked. I've been predicting a civil war within ten years think when/if Trump gets back in it will go full tonto. Any most other countries we would have probably called the events in the last 12 months of Trump's presidency as close to civil war obviously culminating on the Capitol attacks I would say the chances have been quashed although if he stands again and fails to get elected then shit may hit the fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: Ha, i think i caught some of that on the pbs youtube feed, have watched some of the trial out of curiousity. I think the prosecution argued the title of the ststute itself was worded clearly but the judge ruled that the title itself wasnt relevant, the actual clauses were which left enough of a gray area that rittenhouse couldnt be charged. 40 minutes ago, welshbairn said: There was something about the length of the barrel that made the gun legal for a minor to be carrying. Aye, that was a big part of it. I have now been able to access the relevant legislation (my emphasis): Quote 948.60 (2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. (3)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. 941.28 (1)(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches. (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. So, basically, you're guilty of the offence if (i) you are under 18 years of age and (a) you have a rifle which does not meet the set lengths, and/or (b) you are not in compliance with ss.29.304 and 29.593. The latter sections are to do with hunting. They set out rules kids must comply with if they are hunting. Things like having a hunting license, an adult present, etc. However, those section say their rules only apply up to age 16. There are no hunting rules in those section for 16 - 18 year olds. So, under the legislation, if you are under 18, then you are committing an offence if you have a short barrelled rifle, or if you have any rifle at all unless you are hunting. The purpose of the legislation is to prevent kids from having guns, except certain types of long barrelled guns when they are out hunting. However, because the hunting rules only go up to age 16, then anyone aged from 16 - 18 only has to meet the length criteria. There are no hunting criteria they have to comply with. Since Rittenhouse was 17 and his rifle met the length criteria, there was no basis on which to charge him with an offence. The judge had no option but to dismiss. Edited November 19, 2021 by Priti priti priti Patel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Surely the law should be that any under 18 can only have a weapon if they have a hunting tag and are within the specific area where the tag id is allocated for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermik Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 Basically, their own rules have cleared him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priti priti priti Patel Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 1 hour ago, dirty dingus said: Surely the law should be that any under 18 can only have a weapon if they have a hunting tag and are within the specific area where the tag id is allocated for. Aye, surely... I suspect the Wisconsin legislature will amend it now. I think it was an oversight when the law was drafted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.