Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

 

[Turtlesoup]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

There isn't ONE case fool......its standard procedure for cops. They are trained to multishoot and it is under the cops bill of rights to USE DEADLY FORCE. Notice I said COPS bill of rights from the police union. I just posted article explaining why the law is this way and the reasoning why the cops ARE TRAINED to multishoot as well. Google supreme court cops use of Deadly force and stop trying to waste everyone's time.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Where, EXACTLY, does the law state he must be hunting? Cite the statute.

Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

No, but defending yourself from a pack of feral thugs (at least three with serious criminal records) is self-defense!

Sad, a boy takes a loaded assault rifle to a riot and has the intent to use it. Is that self-defense? Putting yourself in a situation where you must kill people to escape? Claiming, you are there to protect people? Is that still self-defense, or is it vigilantism.

The kid is in jail facing two murder charges and one attempted murder charges.

Even if the kid gets off, he is suffering, even if he wins, he loses. I would never hire him for a job, certainly not one in law enforcement. I have to wonder if the kid is all there mentally.

Most kids who get sucked into the police/military mentality aren't. They're usually maladjusted and looking for revenge.

Dblack, you're an idiot who has obviously never served in the military. No, the reason most of the people I knew in the military joined was because they were patriots, because their family had a history of service, or, like me, they wanted to travel and figured that the military was the best way to accomplish that. Over the 20 years I was in the Navy, I've been to 26 different countries and 49 different states, only missing Alaska. And yes, there are screenings that a person has to pass in order to enlist. Dunno about the police, but the military checks their people.

 

[playtime]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

LOL!!!!

if donny isn't lying about his wealth, he makes more than a prez's salary in interest alone ... so he wouldn't miss it. i do give to charity...

lots of them. & the ones i give to, have never been shut down due to fraud.

oh & i pay my taxes, have never been audited, & am not under investigation for bank & insurance fraud either.

And you are clueless-----being audited is not a sign of wrong doing. In fact, it very common in businesses especially in ones that don't pay off the right politicians----like the dems Bezos Buffet and others.

uh-huh ... alrighty then - after nearly 4 years of 'auditing' ... why hasn't donny given his taxes up for review, then? nixon did.

donny won't.

but we know why & sooner or later they will be made public; since new york has 'em & deutche bank is cooperating.

Here is a video of the "hero", Kyle Rittenhouse sucker-punching a girl. What a guy, huh? Although it is pretty funny to watch him crawling away from the guys who intervened in Kyle's punching the girl from behind.

No, it doesn't show anything from the riots. But I think it shows plenty about Kyle.

Why are two these foul mouth black guys hiding in a car recording a video and focusing in on minor kyle calling the supposed kyle by his name? And fyi, the video does not show what you or they claim.

They are the schools resident bullies and terrorists who were harassing and attacking kyle so much that a restraining was requested to be put against them

ok............. which has nothing to do with him being in wisconsin.

is it illegal to be in Wisconsin? why?

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

 

[Faun]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

There isn't ONE case fool......its standard procedure for cops. They are trained to multishoot and it is under the cops bill of rights to USE DEADLY FORCE. Notice I said COPS bill of rights from the police union. I just posted article explaining why the law is this way and the reasoning why the cops ARE TRAINED to multishoot as well. Google supreme court cops use of Deadly force and stop trying to waste everyone's time.

Again, dumbfuck, the little RW terrorist is not a cop. Standards that apply to cops do not apply to him.

It's not even a question that you're insane. Just exactly how insane?

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

flagging it that you disagree doesnt show I'm wrong,,,

how about you show me where I'm wrong,,,

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

 

[playtime]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line and in violation of a curfew order.

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

Omg, you have been told repeatedly and you still post lies. He did not bring a gun across state lines and I know that you know this you lying propagandist.

Facebook posts
stated on August 27, 2020 in a post:

“At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

If Your Time is short

• Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, Ill., has been arrested on five felony charges related to the shooting of three people at a protest in Kenosha, Wis. Two of the victims died.
• In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.
• Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”

See the sources for this fact-check

The 17-year-old accused of shooting three people during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., faces several charges — including first-degree intentional homicide. But some widely shared Facebook posts say he should be cleared of at least some of them.

In an Aug. 27 post, one Facebook user said it was "perfectly legal" for Kyle Rittenhouse — who was arrested in Antioch, Ill., after fleeing Wisconsin — to brandish an assault-style rifle on the streets of Kenosha.

"Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal," the poster said. "Based on the laws I can find of this area at 17 years old Kyle was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

On Aug. 25, two protesters were killed and one injured after police say someone opened fire on them. The violence occurred on the third night of protests over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer in Kenosha. Blake survived, but he is partially paralyzed from a bullet that severed his spinal cord.

Rittenhouse stands accused of shooting the protesters. Since his lawyer has said that Rittenhouse obtained the assault-style rifle from a friend in Wisconsin (meaning that he didn’t transport it with him from Illinois), we’re going to focus on the second half of the claim — that it was "perfectly legal" for the teenager to carry a firearm in Kenosha.

Is that true? State laws suggest not.


The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
PolitiFact - Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

The age is 16 to carry that rifle, and it’s a open carry state.

since he had no permit - from illinois OR wisconsin - he broke the law right there, jr. the rest was a horrific domino effect that ended up with 2 people killed & a 3rd maimed.

 

[Turtlesoup]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.






To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

Are you really that dense Faun?





They shoot multiple times for the same reason with the same exact intention----to immobilize the attacker

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a fucking moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.

Dumbfuck, you prove again you're insane.

From your link about a Supreme Court ruling....

A 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court set guidelines for when deadly police force is justified...​

That applies to police, ya flaming moron. The teen murderer is not a cop.

You are nasty and ignorant Faun...its a bad bad combination.

Rules of engagement for self defense for cops is about the same as rules of engagement for the military which are far more striker than rules for engagement for civilians........


Once I explained to you why multiple shots are used by cops to take down a suspect with the other article-----a little common sense should have popped up for you and you should have been able to extrapolate that information and apply it to the civilian world realizing that civilians would also need to take down and make sure an attacker was down and not able to hurt them. But nope I was wrong, you are really really ignorant aren't you. Completely incapable of forming an independent thought on your own.

So here you go, I will treat you like the baby that you are. Brown verses the United States 1921 (don't confuse this case with the board of education Brown ruling)....it established basic rules for killing an attacker justifying if the one being attacked was in fear of their life. The person using the right to self defense in this case shot his attacker who had a knife 4 times killing him (and even though probably one shot would have likely be sufficient to kill him back in those days)......

Brown v. United States (1921) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person is attacked, and that person reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily injury, he has no duty to retreat and may stand his ground and, if he kills his attacker, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense.


Background[edit]
Brown, the petitioner, and Hermes, the individual killed, had a previous history. Evidence indicated that Hermes had used a knife to assault Brown on two prior occasions and that Hermes threatened that the next time one of them would be taken away in a black box. Given this history, Brown took a handgun with him while supervising excavation work for a post office and put it nearby. Hermes arrived and, according to Brown, came at him with a knife. Brown retreated approximately twenty to twenty-five feet to where he left the pistol and, with Hermes striking at Brown, fired four shots, killing Hermes.[1][2]

A jury convicted Brown of second degree murder after being instructed by the court that, when considering self-defense, the individual assaulted has a duty to retreat as long as retreat is open to him and would not be dangerous to his person.[3]

Decision[edit]
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the lower court's conviction holding “that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not exceed the bounds of lawful self-defense.” In writing the opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.” [2]

In reviewing the lower court's decision, Justice Holmes noted that there was evidence that Brown fired his last shot after Hermes went down. Brown testified in the lower court that this was an accidental discharge. The Court determined that a person need not lose a self-defense claim if a last shot followed closely to the others during the heat of conflict and if a person believed that he was fighting for his life.[2]

Justices Clarke and Pitney dissented without writing an opinion.[4]"

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

 

[jc456]

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

dude, you couldn't even answer that one. is there anything you ever do answer? other than letting everyone know you're a dick? Peckerwood.

 

[jc456]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

they still don't get that. 600,000 people died in that battle. and we were just, yep here they are now let the south just take over by voting. can't make it up just how stupid a demofk really is.

 

[playtime]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

 

[playtime]

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

dude, you couldn't even answer that one. is there anything you ever do answer? other than letting everyone know you're a dick? Peckerwood.

i've had enough b/f with you to know you're not worth the time. i don't bother going deeper with you even when i've given you 100% factual sources, you spew pablum. i've written you off long ago as anyone to have a serious discussion with.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians


June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil


Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56

The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.

But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.

Until now.

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."



Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52

The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.

But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.

Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.

The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

CASE CLOSED,,,

the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.

why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.

uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.

case blown wide open.

There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

i answered you several times. you don't like the answers.

assault weapons weren't around when the constitution was written - therefore your question/statement is moot. the constitution is a living document. do you understand what that means?

' well regulated ' means what then? that anyone can own anything at any time?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! there was a legal ban on assault rifles at one time, & it can happen again.

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns,,nor does it say you have to be in a militia,,if I'm wrong dont tell me show me,,,

sorry its not a living document,,again if im wrong show me where it says that,,,

it sure is a living document. that's why we have amendments.

at the time it was written, white men were able to own people & black people were only considered 3/5 of a person.

only white men had the right to vote.

has that changed?

you failed to link the amendment that repealed the 2nd A,,
and where does it say youre required to be in a militia???

and you need to educate yourself on the 3/5 clause cause its what set the stage to end slavery,,,not to mention slavery wasnt a protected right like arms are,,,

LOL!!!!!!!!! did i say an amendment repealed the 2nd amendment no ... did i say one must be in a militia? no. i said restrictions & regs can certainly be placed on gun ownership.

<psssst> it's been done & can be done in the future.

no. so whatever point you are trying to make - you're failing.

the whole 3/5 person who is not free had more to do with representation in slave states than anything else.

so its you that has the reading comprehension problem,,,

cause the 2nd clearly says no restrictions or regs,,,,and you did say you have to be in a militia,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

you flunked reading comp, didn't you?

dude, you couldn't even answer that one. is there anything you ever do answer? other than letting everyone know you're a dick? Peckerwood.

i've had enough b/f with you to know you're not worth the time. i don't bother going deeper with you even when i've given you 100% factual sources, you spew pablum. i've written you off long ago as anyone to have a serious discussion with.

in otherwords youre saying you got nothing and youre going for more cookies and milk,,,

 

[lantern2814]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line and in violation of a curfew order.

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

You just enjoy showing your stupidity don’t you? Already shown the gun was NOT taken across state lines. Owned by a friend of his in Wisconsin. But your pea brain can’t seem to digest that little fact. STFU moron.

 

[lantern2814]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

the only thing 'right' about you in what side of the aisle you're on.

and yet you still haven't presented an argument that will find the kid guilty. so there is that. And, it is the intended discussion point in this thread. you chose to wander off off topic. Because I was kicking ass in here. So feverishly that an insult was required by you.

it's not for me to decide - but a trial & jury ... i believe i read some insane posters on this here thread say it was even him.

the rest of yer reply is delusional pablum.

You mean someone said it wasn't him? What are you babbling about---no one has claimed that Kyle didn't shoot all of the attackers--------what you are trying to spin is the 4th bullet to the back which the MEDICaL EXAMINER has questions about coming from the same kyle since shots 1,2, and 3 went through the front. I concur with the ME's logic on a ballistics test done given that other shots were also heard and that means a high possibility that the kill shot was another weapon and another shooter-but have not said that the 4 shot absolutely didn't come from kyle as you try to spin. I am smart enough to stick to facts and the ballistic test to state where 4th shot came from.

I’ve seen reports stating that about a dozen shells were found there that did NOT come from Kyle’s gun. Just more holes blown in the left’s already non-existent case.