Rittenhouse trial

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#76 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 12084
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#77 Post by Beebs52 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:48 pm

No.
Well, then

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#78 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:05 pm

Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:48 pm
No.
Okay. I think you've been consistent on this issue.

But an awful lot of the people praising the Rittenhouse verdict also seem to think that action should be taken against the uniformed officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. So at a minimum, I think anyone who thinks the Rittenhouse verdict was just fine but has a problem with the officer's action is being pretty damned hypocritical. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 7405
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#79 Post by tlynn78 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#80 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:49 pm

tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Beebs52 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:28 pm
You're really an advocate for justice? Of course the result would be the same. You want laws to change because of your political bent? Or you just don't agree with the result?
Wow.
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.
(a) The last time I checked, the Constitution is a form of law, and one that can be changed, if necessary. Hell, it's happened four times in my lifetime, and if I'd been born a few months earlier, that number would be five.

(b) It's not necessary here. Even with the Supreme Court's Republican caucus firmly in control, there is a lot of room to change the law within the bounds of current doctrine that would cause people to think twice before they go out looking for trouble. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 7405
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#81 Post by tlynn78 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:04 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:49 pm
tlynn78 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:06 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:44 pm
Wanting laws to change because of a political bent is kind of the whole point of politics. Laws are often value choices. Here (and in many other respects), our laws make the choice to prioritize the right to gun ownership and gun possession over the right to life. That's a choice I disagree with. Of course I intend to take political action to change those choices.

But remember this conversation when it's an antifa shooter who kills right-wing demonstrators. See if you remain content with the laws then, or whether you might consider taking political action to change the laws so that the same actions lead to a different result in the future. --Bob
You're not talking about changing the law, you're talking about changing the Constitution. And if the set of facts is substantially similar (especially with video to back it up), then I'd expect the verdict to be similar.
(a) The last time I checked, the Constitution is a form of law, and one that can be changed, if necessary. Hell, it's happened four times in my lifetime, and if I'd been born a few months earlier, that number would be five.

(b) It's not necessary here. Even with the Supreme Court's Republican caucus firmly in control, there is a lot of room to change the law within the bounds of current doctrine that would cause people to think twice before they go out looking for trouble. --Bob
Good luck with that.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11440
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#82 Post by BackInTex » Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#83 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:18 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
We appear to have different definitions of "looking for trouble." --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11440
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#84 Post by BackInTex » Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:18 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
We appear to have different definitions of "looking for trouble." --Bob
As well as fact and truth.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#85 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11440
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#86 Post by BackInTex » Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:07 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie. --Bob
If we had the same definition of fact and truth the. I’d say you are lying. But you’re not, right? So we must have different definitions.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#87 Post by Estonut » Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am

Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#88 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am

Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:27 pm
As well as fact and truth.
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#89 Post by Estonut » Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:33 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:35 pm
Are you taking a disagreement between us and using it to call me a liar? If so, please specify what I said that you believe to be a lie.
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so.
Is this the other Bob?

As I said, he already answered your question:
BackInTex wrote:If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right? (Calls out your lie #1)

Second, it was not an assault weapon. (Calls out your lie #2) But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; (Calls out your lie #3) no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20144
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#90 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:51 pm

Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 7:33 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 3:32 am
Estonut wrote:
Wed Nov 24, 2021 1:45 am
He just did. 3 posts prior to the one I quoted here.
I think I'll let BiT speak for himself, especially when I'm asking whether he's calling me a liar. He's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, so I suggest you allow him to do so.
Is this the other Bob?

As I said, he already answered your question:
BackInTex wrote:If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right? (Calls out your lie #1)

Second, it was not an assault weapon. (Calls out your lie #2) But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; (Calls out your lie #3) no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
For someone who likes to nitpick at the language of others, you're being awfully cavalier about putting words in the mouths of others.

BiT unambiguously claimed that I was wrong about the facts. (I'll note that examples two and three are at least potentially differences in definition, rather than a challenge to my understanding of the facts.) He did not unambiguously call me a liar.

You, on the other hand, appear to be doing so. Why are you lying about BiT's intent? If you want to accuse me of deliberately misstating facts by calling me a liar, why don't you do so in your own name?

I think it's because you're more interested in trying (poorly) to play Internet bully behind the facade of a pseudonym than you are in trying to achieve a common understanding. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#91 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
Jack Lucas from Plymouth was awarded the MOH at age 17 for heroism on Iwo Jima
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
themanintheseersuckersuit
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#92 Post by themanintheseersuckersuit » Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:07 pm

Plymouth NC
Suitguy is not bitter.

feels he represents the many educated and rational onlookers who believe that the hysterical denouncement of lay scepticism is both unwarranted and counter-productive

The problem, then, is that such calls do not address an opposition audience so much as they signal virtue. They talk past those who need convincing. They ignore actual facts and counterargument. And they are irreparably smug.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 11440
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Rittenhouse trial

#93 Post by BackInTex » Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:56 am

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:06 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:01 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:07 pm
For those who are content with a legal regime that allows a situation like this to occur without consequence under the criminal law, remember that the same set of rules will apply if the demonstrators are right-wingers and the defendant is an avowed adherent of the philosophy of antifa.

I'm not saying that the jury got this wrong. I'm saying it's probably time to think about changing the law so that the next time this happens, the law points to a different result. It's probably a bad idea for it to be legal for a 17-year-old to obtain an assault weapon, cross a state line in order to go looking for trouble, find the trouble he was looking for, and kill a couple of people as a result. --Bob
If what you say was even close to the truth you might be taken seriously but you're not.

First, under your scenario would it matter if he didn't cross state lines? You'd be O.K. with what occurred if he were a Wisconsin resident? If not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.
[edit] Also, you do realize he did not have the AR-15 when he crossed state lines, right?

Second, it was not an assault weapon. But let's say it was, you'd be O.K. if he had used a pistol instead? In not, why include that piece of the story? If so, wow.

Third, where you're flat wrong, was he was not looking for trouble; no more than the 15 and 16 year-olds who lied about their age in order to join the Army during WWII. He had honorable intentions, as they did. Had he not, he would have shot other people well prior to having to defend himself. He didn't. He didn't shoot at anyone not attacking him first. The trial, the evidence, proved that. He wasn't looking for trouble, it found him. And that trouble was there to do what Kyle wanted to prevent.
Jack Lucas from Plymouth was awarded the MOH at age 17 for heroism on Iwo Jima
Thankfully Bob#s wasn't on the committee to determine the award. They don't give out MOH to folks looking for trouble.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply