Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

Drainy said:
Ask the judge if you can enter it into evidence with acknowledgement of the limitations before the jury gets to see it and not lie about it being like using a magnifying glass.
Click to expand...
The only lie here is your previous point about some estimate based on algorithm. It’s pure garbage.
 
Achilles McCool said:
Not to sidetrack the conversation, but do you mean by “killing weapon”??

I’ve read in this thread that the AR-15 has been described as “machine gun”, “military assault rifle” and “killing weapon”. I believe that using correct terminology is needed, and if you don’t know about the specific weapons used in certain cases, then either research it for yourself, or refrain from mentioning it. Calling it a “killing weapon” is strange to me.
Click to expand...

womp womp
 
Achilles McCool said:
Not to sidetrack the conversation, but do you mean by “killing weapon”??

I’ve read in this thread that the AR-15 has been described as “machine gun”, “military assault rifle” and “killing weapon”. I believe that using correct terminology is needed, and if you don’t know about the specific weapons used in certain cases, then either research it for yourself, or refrain from mentioning it. Calling it a “killing weapon” is strange to me.
Click to expand...

The best description of the AR-15 I've come across is a semi-automatic weapon for infantry to kill individuals or group active objects. The rifle is characterized by its light weight, high accuracy, high cyclic firing rate, easy operation and high cartridge capacity enabling the operator to enjoy a better annihilating firepower within 460m..*

*this is slightly paraphrased from the user manual for the Chinese manufactured AR-15 variant that I own (one of three of this type).
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
The best description of the AR-15 I've come across is a semi-automatic weapon for infantry to kill individuals or group active objects. The rifle is characterized by its light weight, high accuracy, high cyclic firing rate, easy operation and high cartridge capacity enabling the operator to enjoy a better annihilating firepower within 460m..*

*this is slightly paraphrased from the user manual for the Chinese manufactured AR-15 variant that I own (one of three of this type).
Click to expand...

Side Note:

You know, if you were to tell your beloved Kelly that you were an AR-15 toting guy who roots for the team in red she just might jump at the chance.
 
Achilles McCool said:
Not to sidetrack the conversation, but do you mean by “killing weapon”??

I’ve read in this thread that the AR-15 has been described as “machine gun”, “military assault rifle” and “killing weapon”. I believe that using correct terminology is needed, and if you don’t know about the specific weapons used in certain cases, then either research it for yourself, or refrain from mentioning it. Calling it a “killing weapon” is strange to me.
Click to expand...
‘Military assault rifle’ sounds spot on.
 
If I only watched his testimony I would have some sympathy but he is going to get off and pull crap like this (hero to the gun nutters):
963d9e6b-69be-4254-b890-a064b2fa92af-kyle_at_bar.png
 
calodo2003 said:
Do you know the history of the AR platform?
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not trying to sidetrack the thread.
Yes, I’m fairly familiar to the history of Armalite, and the predecessor, the Colt AR.
All I was pointing out was that Rittenhouse’s AR-15 wouldn’t be used in the military, mainly because it’s a semi-auto. So when I hear “machine gun” in this thread, I cringe.
Also, what weapon couldn’t be classified as a “killing weapon”?
 
Achilles McCool said:
Again, I’m not trying to sidetrack the thread.
Yes, I’m fairly familiar to the history of Armalite, and the predecessor, the Colt AR.
All I was pointing out was that Rittenhouse’s AR-15 wouldn’t be used in the military, mainly because it’s a semi-auto. So when I hear “machine gun” in this thread, I cringe.
Also, what weapon couldn’t be classified as a “killing weapon”?
Click to expand...
I agree about the ‘machine gun’ & ‘killing weapon’ usage, but, again, the term ‘military assault rifle’ is spot on, the full auto v. semi auto quibble aside, as the platform was developed for the military & the firing rate change happening after the contract wasn’t consummated & AR selling it to Colt. It’s a slightly modified military assault weapon system.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Here you're talking about three things:

1) What happened that day.
2) Rosenbaum as a person.
3) Rittenhouse as a person.

When talking about Rosenbaum, you're talking about his crimes and you're tying that into what happened that day. When talking about Rittenhouse, you're describing his affiliating with a terrorist organization and use of a white supremacist symbol as "may have some shitty affiliations", and you're following it up with a but about how that doesn't impact what happened that day. You're downplaying Ritterhouse's cozying up with fascist terrorists, and you're treating the two people's personal lives outside of the incident in two completely different ways.

Combined with these particular comments:






As someone said, this "doesn't look good". However, over several days we have all the context we need. Your approach to this is really fecked up. You can try to do your spiel about how people can't handle looking at the evidence objectively, that it hurts their feelings, but I'm not talking about the evidence or the trial. I'm talking about you.
Click to expand...
Peter van der Gea said:
Thanks Soph, you put that well

People don't think they are heroes, they think they were murdered

You mean the man dressed as an agitator, with the gun, in ready position, following them, increasing in pace, shouting something that may or may not have been heard as medical. Whether he has a fire extinguisher or not is irrelevant, because as you say, if a skateboard can be a lethal weapon, so can a fire extinguisher, in fact probably more so as it can be wielded one handed.

There's no doubt he had "shitty" affiliations, there is photographic evidence, which you seem to be minimising. The Proud Boys are a well known white supremacist group, and have been known for many years. He didn't have to take their money and he didn't have to allow them to make him their hero. You say "may have", despite solid evidence that he "does have"

And as a 17 year old, I'm assuming he was computer savvy, so he will have known what the a ok sign means, my daughter does and she's 9 living in the UK.

You say that there is clear evidence that he committed murder in self defence. And it is "murder in self defence", not just "self defence", because at 17, there is no way he had been vetted to kill unlike a soldier or executioner. And you have refuted the one main point that countless posters have asked you, why was he following them and why did he accelerate towards them if he was scared of them?

And to your point about his genial attitude to aggression directed towards him earlier, you make a point of saying it happened on numerous occasions. I think you're either trolling or you are a white supremacist. Now, if numerous people call you mother fecking white supremacist scum, how long would it take you to get angry?
Click to expand...

Great posts.

Solius said:
Click to expand...


:lol:
 
Conor said:
Illegal by 3 months :lol:. Sorry officer, I know you've caught me drink driving, but if you stopped me in 5 hours I would have been sober.
Click to expand...

You’d be surprised how often people say something stupid like that. That, and I can’t be drunk because I slept, are two of my favourites.
 
Drainy said:
That doesn't deal with the comment 'let's get him' immediately before that.

It also is at odds with way he was behaving with other protesters who were abusive to him earlier. Not saying that proves anything definitely but you can draw an inference on both points and that creates reasonable doubt.

He also flees after that point so any right to self defence fo Ziminski in your reading would end from the point Rittenhouse's back is turned.
Click to expand...
Even assuming they were planning to "get him", Rittenhouse's response to hearing that is to rush forward and engage with them? Hardly an act of self defence. That to me looks like an act of someone who thinks his gun will protect him and expecting them to flee from him if anything. The fact that they didn't meant Rittenhouse then had to escalate to actually using the weapon, as he was confronted with people who were happy to engage with him. For me, that is him likely creating the situation.
 
Achilles McCool said:
Not to sidetrack the conversation, but do you mean by “killing weapon”??

I’ve read in this thread that the AR-15 has been described as “machine gun”, “military assault rifle” and “killing weapon”. I believe that using correct terminology is needed, and if you don’t know about the specific weapons used in certain cases, then either research it for yourself, or refrain from mentioning it. Calling it a “killing weapon” is strange to me.
Click to expand...

He killed with the gun, it's a killing weapon for me. I don't care if you passed pH.d in gun history, it is what I'm going to use. Thank you
 
fishfingers15 said:
He killed with the gun, it's a killing weapon for me. I don't care if you passed pH.d in gun history, it is what I'm going to use. Thank you
Click to expand...
Every feckin’ weapon is a “killing weapon”
Definition: The term weapon includes numerous items that can cause death or injury, including firearms, explosives, chemicals, and nuclear material.

FFS!
 
Achilles McCool said:
Every feckin’ weapon is a “killing weapon”
Definition: The term weapon includes numerous items that can cause death or injury, including firearms, explosives, chemicals, and nuclear material.

FFS!
Click to expand...

And if he went in there with bombs and napalm he would be going in there with killing weapons.

Obviously, obviously, what @fishfingers15 is saying is that Rittenhouse went to the protest with a weapon designed for killing people. Not unarmed, not pepper spray, not even a bat. A gun, designed to kill people at a distance.

It's not complicated, and it's really weird to argue about it. You said correct terminology is important to you, this is correct terminology. It might not be as specific terminology as you want it to be, but my guess is that no one cares about what you want. You can use other terminology when you're the one speaking, and the words you will choose won't be the most specific either.
 
Insulting another member
NotThatSoph said:
And if he went in there with bombs and napalm he would be going in there with killing weapons.

Obviously, obviously, what @fishfingers15 is saying is that Rittenhouse went to the protest with a weapon designed for killing people. Not unarmed, not pepper spray, not even a bat. A gun, designed to kill people at a distance.

It's not complicated, and it's really weird to argue about it. You said correct terminology is important to you, this is correct terminology. It might not be as specific terminology as you want it to be, but my guess is that no one cares about what you want. You can use other terminology when you're the one speaking, and the words you will choose won't be the most specific either.
Click to expand...
Tool
 
You must log in or register to reply here.