JUDGE: Those Allegedly Shot By Rittenhouse Can’t Be Called ‘Victims’ During Trial, ‘Rioters’ And ‘Arsonists’ Both More Accurate

[Donald H]

How is self defense against the law in Canada?

It isn't and we're much safer than Americans because you'll always be safer when there aren't as many guns involved. That's true even in home invasions by armed robbers where the homeowner doesn't have a gun.
You know that don't you.

 

[Donald H]

So then, is rioting, looting, burning and destroying property a "performance"? If so, how does Rittenhouse's performance make him a racist but not the rioters? And what does race have to do with it anyway?

Some of the rioters would have most likely been avid racists too. It flows both ways.

I think he understands the slogan just fine. But the BLM slogan is irrelevant in any case because he was there to help stop further destruction of property which had already reached over a million dollars

.


I have a hunch it is irrelevant and makes no difference because it was white people he shot.

And give the white-supremacist-racist crap a rest. You're trying to make this about race but there were no blacks involved in the shootings incidents.

Most of the trouble in America can be traced back to racism. Trump promoted it for his political ends. That's the primary reason why it's nearly back to 1960's levels now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It isn't and we're much safer than Americans because you'll always be safer when there aren't as many guns involved. That's true even in home invasions by armed robbers where the homeowner doesn't have a gun.
You know that don't you.

I'll tell you what.

You can be an unarmed meat-target and die with the greatest of easy if you so choose.

I will choose to shoot back and die fighting.

 

[YoursTruly]

It isn't and we're much safer than Americans because you'll always be safer when there aren't as many guns involved. That's true even in home invasions by armed robbers where the homeowner doesn't have a gun.
You know that don't you.

Yes, that's a definite. More guns, more gun violence. No guns means no protection. (when a gun is required)
I suspect there's just not near the percentage of thug up there. Sure, you have them, just not as many. And those don't have as easy access to guns.
I don't mind having to go through a few more steps to get guns. But those steps would have to be meaningful. Hunting is a big thing in Canada. And there's a lot of hunters up there. So what ever restrictions y'all have, aren't enough to keep people from owning a gun.
But I'm not sure about your laws that allow decent folks to open/conceal carry. That's important to us here. And honestly, there's not enough "decent" people doing it.

When you get right down to it, it's a "chicken or the egg" thing. The bad guys are always gonna have guns. So it's common sense that the good guys should have them as well. Otherwise we end up with even more innocent victims.

What I don't get is why the left here is so protective of thugs with guns, and so against decent folks with guns. At least that's the way the come off, like when they're protesting for some thug with a weapon, getting shot by a cop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It isn't and we're much safer than Americans because you'll always be safer when there aren't as many guns involved.

If the bad guy has one and you don't you aren't safe.
If the bad guy has one and you do too, you're safer.
More guns involved = you safer
Thus, you're wrong.

You know that don't you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I don't get is why the left here is so protective of thugs with guns, and so against decent folks with guns.

They're protecting their voter base.

 

[Donald H]

If the bad guy has one and you don't you aren't safe.

No, and statistics in the US support my claim.

If the bad guy has one and you do too, you're safer.

No, you're more likely to be shot.

More guns involved = you safer
Thus, you're wrong.

Same answer. Canada's experience serves to prove my point.

You know that don't you.

warning!

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you're more likely to be shot.

It is - far - more likely you will not be harmed than if you do not have a gun.
Further, if you have a gun and the bad guy does not, you are safer than if neither of you have a gun.
Thus: more guns involved = you safer
You claimed:
"you'll always be safer when there aren't as many guns involved. "
"Always"
Your statement, proven false

 

[M14 Shooter]

warning!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You know that don't you.

warning!

 

[Donald H]

Yes, that's a definite. More guns, more gun violence.

Agreed.

No guns means no protection. (when a gun is required)

True in a sense but it doesn't mean you will be safer with a gun.

I suspect there's just not near the percentage of thug up there. Sure, you have them, just not as many. And those don't have as easy access to guns.

I don't know if we have fewer thugs. Canadians don't have easy access to 'some' types of guns. Of particular importance are handguns.

I don't mind having to go through a few more steps to get guns. But those steps would have to be meaningful.

'Meaningful' is the key. I suspect that you wouldn't accept any limitations as being meaningful. You can elaborate if you like?

Hunting is a big thing in Canada. And there's a lot of hunters up there. So what ever restrictions y'all have, aren't enough to keep people from owning a gun.
But I'm not sure about your laws that allow decent folks to open/conceal carry. That's important to us here. And honestly, there's not enough "decent" people doing it.

If concealed carry only applies to handguns then there are very few exceptions to our laws that prohibit that. Some plain clothed police officers perhaps?

When you get right down to it, it's a "chicken or the egg" thing. The bad guys are always gonna have guns. So it's common sense that the good guys should have them as well. Otherwise we end up with even more innocent victims.

Experience in America doesn't agree. You've ended up with more innocent victims.

What I don't get is why the left here is so protective of thugs with guns, and so against decent folks with guns.

I think that's your wrong perception. I can speak for myself in Canada and say that's not true here. Most Canadians by far are tolerant of the proper use of guns.
For me the word 'proper' is the operative word. For example, a gun owner shooting at human silouette targets should perhaps be subject to questioning of his/her motive.

At least that's the way the come off, like when they're protesting for some thug with a weapon, getting shot by a cop.

I don't recall having done that. But I would admit there could be exceptions. 'Thug' is the operative word again. And police bullets in a citizen's back would also pose more questions.
My object is not to inflame, it's to express a very different attitude in Canada.

 

[M14 Shooter]

YoursTruly said:
Yes, that's a definite. More guns, more gun violence.

Agreed.

And yet, there is proof to the contrary..
Gun-related vuilence as well as violnce in general, in the US fell more than 50% from 192 to 2017, while the number of guns increased by ~26%
More guns, and yet less violence.
If you were right, this would not be the case.

True in a sense but it doesn't mean you will be safer with a gun.

It also does not mean you will be less safe, contrary to your claim.

I don't know if we have fewer thugs.

So you have no way of knowing his claim is false.

'Meaningful' is the key. I suspect that you wouldn't accept any limitations as being meaningful.

There's no reason for anyone to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights.
Indeed, there's no reason for anyone to -suggest- unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of others.
For a restriction to be "meaningful" it must be demonstrably necessary and effective.
Let us know when you have an example of a meaningful restriction.

Experience in America doesn't agree. You've ended up with more innocent victims.

You cannot demonstrate either statement, as a function of people having firearms for self-defense, to be true.

 

[westwall]

Feel sorry for the kid, But why was a 17 year old out at night at a protest with a firearm?

He was protecting his friends business.

How about asking why the assholes he killed were out burning down the city!

 

[westwall]

I don't get why the left is so dead set on taking up for felons. Especially the POS child molester. The guy they was all protesting for had been also charged with some sort of sex crime as well.

WTF is wrong with the left. They'll take up for the scum of the earth. But will bash any decent person. Hell, they even bash the victims of the thugs they support.

I don't get it.

One was a child rapist who had been in prison for over a decade, the other had raped and tortured his prior girlfriend over a weekend.

The last is a member of the communist partt and a scumbag.

Amazing who these progressives like, isn't it

 

[JohnDB]

I don't get why the left is so dead set on taking up for felons. Especially the POS child molester. The guy they was all protesting for had been also charged with some sort of sex crime as well.

WTF is wrong with the left. They'll take up for the scum of the earth. But will bash any decent person. Hell, they even bash the victims of the thugs they support.

I don't get it.

They have created this false narrative of all those people who Kyle shot were peacefully protesting...doing nothing worse than shouting and carrying signs until Kyle started acting like Billy Badass and inciting them to violence.

But the truth is very different than that.
These men were all violent thugs...child rapists, felony assault, and etc. They started the violence and Kyle stopped it to save his own life.

 

[JohnDB]

Most of the trouble in America can be traced back to racism.

Trump didn't promote racism....that can be linked straight back to George Soros (democrat supporter) who put up money and paid protesters to protest about racial inequality...it wasn't their idea.

 

[JohnDB]

I would really like to see George Soros convicted for his crimes of paying protesters...it is illegal. I don't care if he is a Hungarian immigrant.
He did it knowingly to support his own personal agenda. He is the one responsible for the riots....not the idiot rioters. They couldn't have an original idea to save their own life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trump didn't promote racism....

Indeed.

Racism:
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
: a belief that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.

Trump has yet to make -any- racist statement or take -any- racist position.

 

[Donald H]

Trump didn't promote racism....that can be linked straight back to George Soros (democrat supporter) who put up money and paid protesters to protest about racial inequality...it wasn't their idea.

Soros may bear some guilt too. Racism isn't relative to political preferences in America. It's America's problem.
But there's no way I'll ever be convinced that Trump didn't lead the charge. We can discuss the question further if you can do so politely and civilly.

 

[Meathead]

At one point, the judge rebuked Binger for nonchalantly referring to acts of arson. “All we’re talking about is arson, we’re talking about being loud and disorderly,” Binger said of Rosenbaum’s conduct on the night of the rioting.

“I can’t believe some of the things you’re saying,” the judge interjected. “All we’re talking about is arson? Come on.”

JUDGE: Those Allegedly Shot By Rittenhouse Can't Be Called 'Victims' During Trial, 'Rioters' And 'Arsonists' Both More Accurate

Wisconsin Judge Bruce Schroeder laid out the final ground rules on evidence for the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in a pretrial hearing on Monday. Schroeder ruled on several motions from both the prosecution and defense relating to terminology, evidence and use of force experts. The prosecution had...

nationalfile.com

One of them should be called a pedophile, which is even lower than the other two terms.