Or just recognize that a skateboard is a ####ty weapon. Here's an incident where 10 wannabe tough guys take their skateboards to guy. They paid a pretty good whoopin' on him, but he got out of this alive and with only a short hospital stay. The smart thing would have been to walk away, but like many morons out there, he pushed a bad situation too far and got into an altercation where he had no upper hand. Dumb move on his part. He didn't control the situation and ultimately made himself a victim.
Or, we could recognize the incident I linked to from a few months ago where a man died from injuries sustained from being attacked by a skateboard, and the perpetrator was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
After you claimed swinging a skateboard could never be a deadly weapon, after you claimed you couldn't convince a jury that a skateboard could possibly be a deadly weapon.
You're full of ####.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
Or, we could recognize the incident I linked to from a few months ago where a man died from injuries sustained from being attacked by a skateboard, and the perpetrator was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 8 years in prison.
After you claimed swinging a skateboard could never be a deadly weapon, after you claimed you couldn't convince a jury that a skateboard could possibly be a deadly weapon.
You're full of ####.
Full of ####? Here's exactly what I said.
"Against an individual who uses non-lethal force against you (a skateboard), you have no right to use lethal force. You would have to convince a jury of your peers that you honestly believed this was a life-or-death scenario, and an individual with a skateboard as a weapon is NOT a a life and death scenario. I really don't care who is wielding that deck, it's not a lethal weapon.
Dead? Unlikely. You're going to have to show the last individual killed with the use of a skateboard as a lethal weapon."
The story you posted was about a guy that was attacked and died THREE DAYS LATER because he REFUSED MEDICAL ATTENTION. He walked away from the attack and died only because he refused to get checked out by medical professionals, even after complaining to his family he felt like he had broken ribs. If they guy had just gone and got checked out, he would have lived.
So that's two attacks we've examined using a skateboard as a weapon where the victims both lived right after the events, and one succumbed to injuries because they were stupid and didn't get medical attention. Now compare that to the homicides by guns (13,600) or knives (1,700), where the victims never had a chance to walk away from the scene of the attack, and you should be able to see the pattern emerge. There are lethal weapons, and then there are non-lethal weapons. It's why the police have the option of using non-lethal force against people with various weapons. A victim in an assault dying three days later because they were stupid does not make a skateboard a lethal weapon. You really have to work with a skateboard (any blunt weapon) to make it lethal. The fact is that more people die from riding skateboards (147 between 2011 and 2015 - stay out of traffic kids) than from being attacked with one.
Now, speaking of full of ####, back to your claim of Jason Barnes going to jail for eight years because of the attack, he was actually only given four years, on the back of the third strike rule, not because of the severity of the attack itself. Because of jail time credit, he served less than a year. The reason for the light sentence?
"Barnes was represented by Deputy Public Defender David Celli, who last week lost a motion for a new trial. Celli argued the evidence presented during trial didn’t support the jury’s verdict of guilty.
There wasn’t conclusive evidence, Celli said, that the skateboard attack was the cause of Bertain’s death."
As ####ed up as that is, that is how the justice system works. The evidence did not support the charge and the judge ruled as such. If the judge viewed the skateboard as a deadly weapon as the police and DA charged Barnes, with the weight of the third strike rule behind him the judge would have dropped a safe on this guy's head. He didn't. Another blow to the fallacy of the skateboard being the weapon of choice for a murder about to go on rampage. Sorry, the AR-15 is still a much more effective killing machine regardless of who wields it.
If you dont think there are hundreds of examples of people getting brutally knocked out by skateboards in street fights, you haven't seen my Facebook feed.
Well he was certainly a threat to Huber once he started swinging a skateboard at him.
Considering Grosskreutz is within a few feet of Rittenhouse at this point and Huber is then shot right in front of him, less than 4 seconds before Grosskreutz is shot, then there’s your justification. It’s not “because the mob said so” like you’re pretending, it’d be a matter of witnessing someone get shot and then seeing the gun turned on himself.
But, I know you’re the expert here, what with how accurate you’ve been on the events, the court proceedings, and your understanding of the law. It’s not like you’ve repeatedly needed obvious things explained to you.
First off Lanny has already compared skateboards to baseball bats. Most people don't go out using a skateboard as a weapon, that's for sure. But let's just see what that old Google machine can bring us for news stories from this year (attacks didn't necessarily need to be this year) for baseball bats that Lanny would magically deflect:
The barrister for a man, who killed a 20-year-old with a single blow of a baseball bat, has suggested that the force with which he wielded the bat could be evidence that he’d lost control.
Hmm, I'm on page 2 of at least 24...It's almost like blunt force trauma to the head by a solid object can kill people. I wonder if my research will win a Nobel Prize.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OptimalTates For This Useful Post:
I don’t think Rittenhouse showed up with intent to harm anyone. He shows up thinking he can play hero and protect the property and that nobody will touch him while he is carrying his big F-off gun.
Rosenbaum looks like he is there to harm people, and doesn’t care if he is harmed himself. He really sets the whole thing off.
Huber and GG are trying to take down someone they think is an active shooter.
By law, there is just no way KR is guilty. Bigger picture though is that society places more value on a right to carry guns then they do on human life. It’s better to let a bunch of people die then have your gun taken away.
Really the whole thing is a miss-understanding, but because everyone has guns, people die. I have no idea why a society would want to have laws that enable a 17 year old kid to wander the streets with a huge gun trying to enforce laws, rather then have…law enforcement do that.
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to The Big Chill For This Useful Post:
First off Lanny has already compared skateboards to baseball bats. Most people don't go out using a skateboard as a weapon, that's for sure. But let's just see what that old Google machine can bring us for news stories from this year (attacks didn't necessarily need to be this year) for baseball bats that Lanny would magically deflect:
Don't be dense. Anything can be used as a weapon. I stated that a skateboard is no more dangerous than hockey stick or a baseball bat. The lethality of the weapon is what is the concern here, and what the expected response is. When you are carrying a lethal weapon as a means of protection, that is the decision you have to make. I suspect you clearly don't understand this because you've never gone through a weapons course or had the responsibility of a CCW. The response you take ultimately determines whether you go to jail. In the real world you don't get to pull your weapon any time you feel the slightest bit threatened, there is a measured response for each type of threat. Seeing as drawing a weapon can be seen as aggravated assault all the way up to assault with a deadly weapon, you must pick your sports carefully. Again, just by pulling the weapon you are subject to the same punishment if someone were to actually take a baseball bat or a skateboard and strike you with it. The lethality of the weapon matters.
To the stupidity of you hyperbole of magically deflecting an attack, no one ever said that. What I stated was if you are trained in self defense you can be prepared to deal with such an attack. If you can't run, or you can't hide from an assailant, then prepare to fight. Prepare for the engagement and do so where you assume control and limit the effect of the weapon. A blunt force weapon is much easier to defend against than an edged weapon. With a bat or skateboard you use the momentum of the attack to your advantage. You step into the attack and get inside the arc of the weapon and the sweet spot of the strike zone, gaining the upper hand and get into a grapple situation where you can leverage soft areas and inflict damage that can disorient or disable the attacker.
Quote:
Hmm, I'm on page 2 of at least 24...It's almost like blunt force trauma to the head by a solid object can kill people. I wonder if my research will win a Nobel Prize.
You couldn't take away Pepsi's participant ribbon.
No one suggested that blunt force trauma to the head is not dangerous or lethal. What has been stated is attacks like this are controllable in a number of ways. Run or hide first and foremost. Don't engage someone who has a weapon. Don't put yourself in a position to get hurt. But if you have to, know how to take an attacker down and give yourself a chance to escape. Pulling a gun is not the solution to most situations as they put you in as much legal peril as a potential attacker.
Buddy, is this like the Jacob Blake thing where you don't know what was happening but made up your mind and won't back down despite facts?
Rittenhouse was running when he was attacked. He got punched in the head, he took a step or two and fell down, and was on the ground when he shot the latter two people.
I'm totally in agreement with you if some guy picks up a skateboard and you're 60 feet away you can't shoot him. Duh. But when you're on the ground being smashed by one, shoot away.
The Following User Says Thank You to OptimalTates For This Useful Post:
Considering Grosskreutz is within a few feet of Rittenhouse at this point and Huber is then shot right in front of him, less than 4 seconds before Grosskreutz is shot, then there’s your justification. It’s not “because the mob said so” like you’re pretending, it’d be a matter of witnessing someone get shot and then seeing the gun turned on himself.
You're really not helping yourself with your own argument here.
GG pulled out his gun and ran with a mob after someone who was attempting to retreat. He then witnessed a self defense event from only a few feet away, while holding his gun in the open. Then he advanced on the victim of the attack and pointed his gun at him. Then was shot.
You're really not helping yourself with your own argument here.
GG pulled out his gun and ran with a mob after someone who was attempting to retreat. He then witnessed a self defense event from only a few feet away, while holding his gun in the open. Then he advanced on the victim of the attack and pointed his gun at him. Then was shot.
GG is not, and never was, a victim.
"Witnessed a self defence event" aka witnessed Huber getting shot as he was moving away from Rittenhouse. Witnessed Rittenhouse being a threat to another person, in your words. Witnessed, by any measure of logic and common sense, someone try to take down someone who may have been an active shooter, and get shot doing so.
I'm not making an argument. These are the facts. I can't help you if you don't know what happened and haven't even read the Wisconsin law covering self defence and defence of others. It's like a few paragraphs. We can't keep hand holding you through this conversation.
I'm sorry the possibility of there being more victims than Rittenhouse is at odds with the narrative that holds up your poorly structured reality, but talking to you is like talking to a child who can't grasp a concept at this point. As rewarding as I'm sure people find it, you're an adult, and I kind of expect better.
Don't be dense. Anything can be used as a weapon. I stated that a skateboard is no more dangerous than hockey stick or a baseball bat. The lethality of the weapon is what is the concern here, and what the expected response is. When you are carrying a lethal weapon as a means of protection, that is the decision you have to make. I suspect you clearly don't understand this because you've never gone through a weapons course or had the responsibility of a CCW. The response you take ultimately determines whether you go to jail. In the real world you don't get to pull your weapon any time you feel the slightest bit threatened, there is a measured response for each type of threat. Seeing as drawing a weapon can be seen as aggravated assault all the way up to assault with a deadly weapon, you must pick your sports carefully. Again, just by pulling the weapon you are subject to the same punishment if someone were to actually take a baseball bat or a skateboard and strike you with it. The lethality of the weapon matters.
To the stupidity of you hyperbole of magically deflecting an attack, no one ever said that. What I stated was if you are trained in self defense you can be prepared to deal with such an attack. If you can't run, or you can't hide from an assailant, then prepare to fight. Prepare for the engagement and do so where you assume control and limit the effect of the weapon. A blunt force weapon is much easier to defend against than an edged weapon. With a bat or skateboard you use the momentum of the attack to your advantage. You step into the attack and get inside the arc of the weapon and the sweet spot of the strike zone, gaining the upper hand and get into a grapple situation where you can leverage soft areas and inflict damage that can disorient or disable the attacker.
You couldn't take away Pepsi's participant ribbon.
No one suggested that blunt force trauma to the head is not dangerous or lethal. What has been stated is attacks like this are controllable in a number of ways. Run or hide first and foremost. Don't engage someone who has a weapon. Don't put yourself in a position to get hurt. But if you have to, know how to take an attacker down and give yourself a chance to escape. Pulling a gun is not the solution to most situations as they put you in as much legal peril as a potential attacker.
I think you're vastly underestimating the risk of head blows. KR had multiple people hitting him while he was on the ground. That's a very dangerous position to be in. One foot (or in this case skateboard) to the head could easily cause severe brain damage. And in this case someone was coming at KR with a handgun.
The issue once again is why is anyone allowed to open carry an assault rifle.
Buddy, is this like the Jacob Blake thing where you don't know what was happening but made up your mind and won't back down despite facts?
Rittenhouse was running when he was attacked. He got punched in the head, he took a step or two and fell down, and was on the ground when he shot the latter two people.
I'm totally in agreement with you if some guy picks up a skateboard and you're 60 feet away you can't shoot him. Duh. But when you're on the ground being smashed by one, shoot away.
This, like the court case, is an interpretation of what happened. You are only looking at what happened at the point where he considered himself in danger. Others are taking the events that led up to that moment in context and acknowledging that he placed himself in that situation. That's where the difference of opinion comes into play. It's also why people with various experiences have different opinions. It also raises questions that you continue to refuse to try and understand that would implicate him as a willing participant in his own situation and not a victim. The Chief of Police said that Rittenhouse should not have been there and had no reason to be there. That has to come into play.
If Rittenhouse was there to protect property, why was he roaming the streets? Shouldn't he have been manning the property he was supposedly protecting? Rittenhouse maybe could have run faster and been more evasive if he didn't have an eight pound AR-15 hanging around his neck? There is so much more to this than just the "he was on the pavement and had to shoot" narrative. How he got there, what he did to draw attention to himself, and what caused the engagements are also important.
I think the defense did a masterful job in creating the red herring. I think the prosecution were weak in building their case and made it easy for the defense to use the self defense argument. This is a bad legal precedent and I think we will look back at this as a mistake, with all parties to blame.
I think you're vastly underestimating the risk of head blows. KR had multiple people hitting him while he was on the ground. That's a very dangerous position to be in. One foot (or in this case skateboard) to the head could easily cause severe brain damage. And in this case someone was coming at KR with a handgun.
The issue once again is why is anyone allowed to open carry an assault rifle.
I think you’re vastly underestimating the average CP poster, who in that same position would’ve been able to fight off 4 or 5 attackers with nothing more than their bare hands.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to monkeyman For This Useful Post:
