Firearms Talk banner
321 - 340 of 394 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
People tend to group up in numbers for safety .
Mobs form to take actions on others .
Some are workers & some think they should have what the workers have without working .
Funny how happy people can be to elect people to screw us more .
Just the way people are .
Most want to read the news ...... not be part of the news .
No action is an action .
:)
Sometimes it just boils down to being part of the solution or part of the problem. Some people like to be THE problem. Jail is a good place for some of them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #323 · (Edited)
Some here did and still do set themselves up as wannabe police / vigilantes when they think the police are not up to the job, not a road you want to go down. They hand out their form of justice ...
Well, there is the distinction.

Handing out one's unconnected form of "justice" is a crime. That is vigilantism.

Coping with a situation within the laws we've all agreed to, however, is something else entirely. And that's what I'm speaking of. NOT vigilantism. Citizen's arrest. Citizens taking care of violent crime when it occurs before them. Citizens patrolling their own streets and communities and dealing with the violent miscreants as they find them IS NOT a crime, so long as working within the laws we've all agreed to. Some won't see such a distinction. But there it is.

Nice to be free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,796 Posts
Sometimes it just boils down to being part of the solution or part of the problem. Some people like to be THE problem. Jail is a good place for some of them.
Jails were designed to reform people ....... key word there is was .
Now you do wrong & do the time & get released .
Only problem is you now have a record so the punishment continues & few can live a good life . So the cycle continues . First timers with career criminals gets more criminals . Society gets worse back than they put away .
No easy answer to any of it .
Stupid & greed is at the core of most of it .
The smart have found ways to steal without breaking the laws .
Those same people wright the laws . :rolleyes:
Being not as bad as others doesn't make you good but some think it does .
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,485 Posts
I remember when states started opening up concealed carry and going to "shall issue." I also remember the howling of the anti's and how we were going to see blood baths in the streets with all the "John Wayne wannabes" gunning everyone down. Funny thing is, it never happened. What did happen, though, within the year, more than one "news" agency reported the "good news" that violent crimes had fallen,,,and even the left leaning ones surmised it was because of the increase in concealed carry permits.

What did go up, however, was non-violent crimes. Fraud, theft, scams all went up. Criminals might be dumb, but many aren't stupid. They don't want to get shot.

The one stigma that I think irritates me the most as a gun owner/shooter/2A rights advocate is that I'm somehow a blood thirsty vigilante just itching to "blow someone away." That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't want to have to shoot anyone, for any reason, but I am steadfast in that if I have to, if deadly force becomes necessary to protect myself or my family, make no mistake, I will. This isn't a video game where you can just hit the reset button and start over. There are no degrees of dead. You either are, or you're not, and once dead, it's permanent, as in forever. I'll do what I have to prevent my own death at the hands of a miscreant.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Well, there is the distinction.

Handing out one's unconnected form of "justice" is a crime. That is vigilantism.

Coping with a situation within the laws we've all agreed to, however, is something else entirely. And that's what I'm speaking of. NOT vigilantism. Citizen's arrest. Citizens taking care of violent crime when it occurs before them. Citizens patrolling their own streets and communities and dealing with the violent miscreants as they find them IS NOT a crime, so long as working within the laws we've all agreed to. Some won't see such a distinction. But there it is.

Nice to be free.
Free in what way ?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Manta everyone I know thinks Arbery was murdered by 3 guys. That case has zero to do with Rittenhouse or gun rights or anything regarding the ability to protect property. Arbery’s killer was simply a murderer who will be found guilty.
We will see, they would claim they were protecting their community and trying to make a citizens arrest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #328 · (Edited)
Here is an op-ed by CNN, their take on the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. Of course, true to form whenever the RKBA is concerned, their understanding is completely backwards and they get it utterly wrong.


After Rittenhouse verdict, it's time to question the law @ CNN, 11/20/21.

(CNN)Kyle Rittenhouse, on trial this month for killing two unarmed men and injuring another ...
Uh, no.

He fired on a man twice his age who'd publicly threatened to murder him. A man who chased him down, cornered him and then placed hands on him, attempting to steal his defensive weapon. Which all but certainly would have resulted in this would-be murderer completing his threatened task.

He fired on a man who made a flying kick to his head with his booted heel. Assault and battery with a deadly, right there, likely with intent to cripple or kill.

He fired on a man who'd aimed a gun at his head. Aggravated assault, right there.

He also was whacked across the back of the neck with a skateboard swung like a bat. Assault and battery with a deadly, right there, likely with intent to cripple or kill.

The trial came down to two dueling narratives. To the prosecutors, Rittenhouse was a vigilante with an AR-15-style weapon who went looking for trouble. To the defense, Rittenhouse was the sobbing teenager who testified that he found himself under attack and in those lightning-fast moments made a reasonable decision to protect himself.

The jury clearly believed the latter, which, given the facts, the law and other circumstances of the trial, is no surprise.
False, again.

It didn't come down to supposition and conjecture ... "narratives" as they put it.

It came down to facts. To proofs. To corroboration. The Defense had such. The Prosecution had none. Proofs or corroboration, that is.

The laws and applicable legal standards also created a tough road for prosecutors trying to win a conviction here. Our criminal justice system generally favors the defendant, because of our core belief that it is better to see a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one. Thus in criminal cases, prosecutors carry the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tough to accomplish when you don't actually bring any proofs whatsoever. Ya think?

Like in many other states, Wisconsin law is sympathetic to homicide defendants claiming self-defense. Once a defendant raises self-defense as an issue ...
"Sympathetic" to claims of self-defense, eh?

How about: demanding there be proofs shown, when accusations are flung about?

But then, Wisconsin people can be demanding that way.

Finally, Judge Bruce Schroeder, who presided over the case with a mercurial demeanor and frequent tongue-lashings, didn't make things easy for the prosecutors ...
He put a snotty, arrogant prosecuting attorney in his place for deliberately attempting to equate the accused's right to silence to guilt. WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED BY ACCUSING PROSECUTORS! The dumbass knew that. The judge didn't "tongue-lash" him. He ripped him a new one, for cause.

The judge's behavior seemed to some to betray a pro-Rittenhouse bias -- for example, when he ruled that prosecutors would not be allowed to refer to Rittenhouse's victims as "victims" ...
Wrong again. It's getting to be a habit, with them.

Applying a euphemism like "victim" to one party or another, in a case, necessarily depicts the other party as the criminal. It's an assumption.

Refer to the person as "a person who was shot / crushed / stabbed / whatever." But to declare one person a "victim" effectively brands the accused a criminal. WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED, GIVEN NO SUCH THING HAS BEEN PROVED PRIOR TO CONVICTION.

I'm sure their attempt to appreciate that simple fact would make their heads explode. But then, that'd really be news.

But it appears that with evidence supporting both narratives, the jurors concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its burden ...
Evidence supported the accusations of criminality? Really?

Surely by the time the Defense rested its case and evidence was closed the Prosecutor would have presented some. Actual proof of the supposition and conjecture, I mean. At that moment, however, the time was over for doing so. Surely, if they'd had anything, they'd have presented it by then.

All they did was accuse. And suppose. And spin. And imagine what might be. And attempt to place words in the accused's mouth about how he felt and what he thought. But nary a fact was brought out to support the claim he was the instigator, the aggressor, the one who caused it all in the first place.

Question for the CNN staff: If somebody took a skateboard or baseball bat and swung it at the base of your skull, how long do you think you'd should be legally required to wait before reasonably concluding your murder was intended by the attacker? Take your time. We'll wait.

If public concern about Rittenhouse's conduct and its results leads to a re-examination of Wisconsin's gun laws, that will be one positive thing to come out of this tragic episode.
Ah, yes.

Four violent felons caught in the act get stopped, one of whom had telegraphed his intent to murder, three of whom specifically attempted battery with a deadly weapon, not one of whom being somebody that the accused unlawfully provoked to attempt their crimes.

And, according to CNN, defense against attempts at murder isn't to be taken seriously. According to them, the thwarted must have been thwarted unjustly and without cause. (Probably because they hate guns and those who use them. A bias they've shown for a couple decades now.)

CNN should try this on for size: The idea that if unjustifiably and violently threatened a person has every right to say "no" to that and put an immediate halt to the act. Wisconsin's citizens, along with a couple hundred million others in states across the nation, already have tried that on. It fits. Because it's the one absolute every living being on the face of the earth knows: the right to defend oneself against aggressors.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Coping with a situation within the laws we've all agreed to, however, is something else entirely. And that's what I'm speaking of. NOT vigilantism. Citizen's arrest. Citizens taking care of violent crime when it occurs before them. Citizens patrolling their own streets and communities and dealing with the violent miscreants as they find them IS NOT a crime, so long as working within the laws we've all agreed to. Some won't see such a distinction.
Things have a habit of escalating, they started out lawfully here seeing themselves as helping the police within the law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,449 Posts
We will see, they would claim they were protecting their community and trying to make a citizens arrest.
They no doubt came up with some kind of defense but it’s not going to work . You can’t accost a person with a weapon and shoot them when they attempt to defend themselves. I think they are claiming that they were conducting a legal citizens arrest . Ironically the 3rd man filmed the scene and that film will likely be what hangs them. Yep these critters can’t hide behind the 2nd Amendment or any other law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #331 ·
Free in what way ?
Free to stand up for one's home, community, neighbors without being immediately branded criminal or vigilante for doing so. Thankfully, not everyplace is that way.


Things have a habit of escalating, they started out lawfully here seeing themselves as helping the police within the law.
Then, at such a point, if a person's actions "escalate" to criminality, then they're accountable as a criminal for those acts just like anybody else.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Really? I thought it was religion differences along with who NI was united with.
In the early days of the so called troubles it was mostly religious conflict, then and less so now communities were dived into catholic and protestant communities. There were instances of protestant's burning Catholics out of their houses and vice versa and sectarian murders, as i said you learned quickly what areas to avoid if possible. The police were hopelessly out numbered and unable to cope with the violence, that's when you seen groups / militias emerging to protect their areas, when going to school i had to go trough barricades maned by local people. They started with good intensions but soon attracted the wrong people, they then became paramilitary orgnishions that carried out murders extortion protection rackets etc. That's why i posted ( Things have a habit of escalating, they started out lawfully here seeing themselves as helping the police within the law ?

Quote ( As a result of the outbreak of what has become known as the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, some 45,000-60,000 suffered a similar fate, becoming what many refer to colloquially as “burnt out”. According to historical analysis conducted by researchers Sean Connolly and Gillian McIntosh, this was the largest movement of civilians in Europe since the outbreak of World War II. Those forced to leave their homes either crossed the border and became refugees, or stayed in Northern Ireland and became what we would now consider officially as “internally displaced persons )
Building Wood Brick Composite material Building material
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,025 Posts
Then, at such a point, if a person's actions "escalate" to criminality, then they're accountable as a criminal for those acts just like anybody else.
That will make Arberys family feel better, maybe it would be better leaving it to the police and not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #335 ·
That will make Arberys family feel better, maybe it would be better leaving it to the police and not encouraging people to take the law into their own hands.
Making a citizen's arrest is one thing. (Assuming one is in a place where that's lawful.) It presupposes one knows for a fact something is so; ie, that one has personally witnessed a crime go down and knows for a fact the perpetrator must be held now else is likely to get away and harm others ... or whatever the constraints are, in the jurisdiction where the person's attempting to make such an arrest.

Again, quite simply, you get it wrong then you're accountable for that. Like anybody else. But that a few people get it wrong doesn't justify disallowing any such thing as though we're all criminals-in-waiting. Not hardly.

Each situation's going to be different. The circumstances and actions in each instance aren't going to have much to do with any other case. And if in this other trial it turns out those two assumed much, based their actions on assumptions, took it much too far, used much too much force to gain containment/compliance on the part of the person being detained by them ... well, then they're on the hook for that. That's on them.

That's not on others who won't do any such thing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #336 ·
A few op-ed essays about the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial. From a more-conservative vantage point, of course, seeing as how these are all from writers at American Thinker.


Why The Left Keeps Talking About Kyle Rittenhouse Crossing A State Line @ American Thinker, 11/22/21.

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense @ American Thinker, 11/22/21.

Kyle Rittenhouse and our Liberal Friends @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

Yes, Kyle Rittenhouse is a Hero @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Kyle Rittenhouse is fascinating @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse: A Decade of Woke Misrule @ American Thinker, 11/19/21.

In Rittenhouse case, truth in the crosshairs, press objectivity be damned @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,698 Posts
A few op-ed essays about the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial. From a more-conservative vantage point, of course, seeing as how these are all from writers at American Thinker.


Why The Left Keeps Talking About Kyle Rittenhouse Crossing A State Line @ American Thinker, 11/22/21.

The Rittenhouse Trial Underscores the Left’s Determination to Eliminate the Natural Right of Self-Defense @ American Thinker, 11/22/21.

Kyle Rittenhouse and our Liberal Friends @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

Yes, Kyle Rittenhouse is a Hero @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

Tucker Carlson’s interview with Kyle Rittenhouse is fascinating @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.

From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse: A Decade of Woke Misrule @ American Thinker, 11/19/21.

In Rittenhouse case, truth in the crosshairs, press objectivity be damned @ American Thinker, 11/23/21.
The FBI was a democratic goon squad when Trump was in office. He had no influence over them. Crossing state lines is an issue because some people want a federal dictatorship....larger than it already is. It's making some people nervous that states are beginning to show their assertiveness which upsets some apple carts.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #338 ·
And the RKBA's chief media demon stands up to be counted, yet again. Accusing the Second Amendment of being an express threat to the First Amendment.

Dang, but they are desperate for a villain. Destruction of the RKBA ... or bust.


Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict gives protesters a new threat to worry about @ MSNBC, 11/23/21.

Rittenhouse verdict shows how the Second Amendment threatens the First.

During the civil rights movement, protesters had to fear fire hoses, dogs and tear gas. Now, with the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, not only will protesters continue to fear excessive police force, but because a Wisconsin jury found Rittenhouse not guilty in the killing of two protesters and the wounding of another, random gun-toting vigilantes with their idea of “law and order” also present another very present danger.

In this sobering moment for the American justice system, the Second Amendment has outweighed the First. Because of the unwillingness of politicians or the courts to deal with the proliferation of guns in America, despair, disdain and distrust continue to permeate our everyday lives. Vigilantism, not protesting, is the preferred form of dissent in America.

Rittenhouse’s acquittal is representative of the primacy of the Second Amendment. His killing of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber at a racial justice march in Kenosha and then his being found not guilty send a clear message: White lives who protest for Black lives matter don’t matter. Bringing a gun to a protest is OK, especially if you feel threatened by the protesters’ message. And if you say you feared for your life as you killed someone, you will be exonerated — if you are siding with the police and not those protesting the police.

The Rittenhouse case can’t be separated from race and racism. After Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty, he posed for a photo with the far-right group the Proud Boys. White evangelicals were among those raising money for his bail and his legal defense. Those groups’ support makes it pointedly clear that Rittenhouse is a hero in those circles. For the gun-toting, God-fearing masses, Rittenhouse’s tears on the stand were proof of his innocence.

The case also highlights how differently people who claim self-defense are treated ...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,698 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,458 Posts
Discussion Starter · #340 ·
What next.......??????
Yeah, those idjets at MSNBC imagine that the mere fact it's upheld that self-defense against violent crime is okay somehow threatens their precious "peaceful" protesters. As though, say, going armed somehow threatens the person walking nearby you on the same street. Of course, they get it wrong. No reason why they shouldn't. They haven't opened their minds to let actual thought to proceed unmolested.

Being armed against violent threat only should be concerning to those engaging in violent threat. Shouldn't be a difficult concept to appreciate, even if they only happen to be mental midgets at MSNBC. IOW: If you don't want to halted as expeditiously as possible if caught in the act of committing aggravated battery or attempted murder, well then ... don't do that.

There are tens of millions of people who flatly won't tolerate being victimized while they're still breathing. In any given gathering it's highly likely a few such exist in that gathering, people who won't tolerate being targeted by violent felons intent on death and destruction. Indeed, that should give such people pause. It's not hardly "a threat" leveled at anybody, however. Not unless and until such criminals lash out, at which point they're forfeiting any claim to being left alone to commit their heinous acts. Such people darned well should think twice before behaving like that.

Of course, MSNBC and the other anti-RKBA idiots won't ever see it that way. Except where their own necks are on the line, when they themselves find themselves targeted by some violent predator going sideways. At which point it'll be too late, for them. Bummer. But that doesn't hardly mean that everybody else has to be forced to tolerate the same incapable position of inability to halt violent crime if it finds us. Even at a gathering, or a protest; even walking down the street handling our normal business; whenever.

People like Rittenhouse get the distinction. As do millions of others.

People like those who generally populate the towers of vapid pontification known as "major media" can't imagine. Not even when their own necks are on the line, like as not.
 
321 - 340 of 394 Posts
Top