Rittenhouse trial

[JackLadd]

1 minute ago, Sertse said:

Define 'assault weapon'

 

Why do you think the AR15 is America's biggest seller and favourite mass shooter rifle? Is it maybe the high velocity (three times that of a 9mm pistol) and killing power matched to its 30 round magazine capacity? 

[Sertse]

Just now, JackLadd said:

 

Why do you think the AR15 is America's biggest seller and favourite mass shooter rifle? Is it maybe the high velocity (three times that of a 9mm pistol) and killing power matched to its 30 round magazine capacity? 

You're avoiding the question, what is an 'assault weapon'?

[Sertse]

4 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Why do you think the AR15 is America's biggest seller and favourite mass shooter rifle? Is it maybe the high velocity (three times that of a 9mm pistol) and killing power matched to its 30 round magazine capacity? 

I'll also point out that the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings in the US are pistols. Do you think higher velocity means more likely to kill? What is 'killing power'? Can pistols not take 30 round magazines?

Looking forward to your definition of 'assault weapon'

[JackLadd]

3 minutes ago, Sertse said:

You're avoiding the question, what is an 'assault weapon'?

 You tell me.

[Sertse]

Just now, JackLadd said:

 You tell me.

No come on, you said he used an 'assault weapon', tell me what an assault weapon is?

Or do you not know?

[JackLadd]

Just now, Sertse said:

I'll also point out that the most commonly used weapon in mass shootings in the US are pistols. Do you think higher velocity means more likely to kill? What is 'killing power'? Can pistols not take 30 round magazines?

Looking forward to your definition of 'assault weapon'

 

The much higher kinetic energy of an ar151 round means a bullet with full metal jacket goes straight through the target and can kill multiple times unlike a handgun. It has vastly more killing potential. Hunting rifles do not have 30 round magazines. Not sure what your point is caller.

[Felix Lighter]

10 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Well is he at that point not facing  in the other direction from the assailant?

 

No, he was lunging forward. His upper torso was almost horizontal when he was struck in the back. The round entered his upper back, travelled down through his lung and diaphragm and ruptured his liver.

[Sertse]

Just now, JackLadd said:

 

The much higher kinetic energy of an ar151 round means a bullet with full metal jacket goes straight through the target and can kill multiple times unlike a handgun. It has vastly more killing potential. Hunting rifles do not have 30 round magazines. Not sure what your point is caller.

That's completely untrue though. A .223 round is designed to ricochet within the body. The actual bullet is the exact same size as a .22 round. It's designed for accuracy. The actual casing of the round is irrelevant, FMJ is the standard for any type of cartridge. The idea it can go through multiple targets and is designed that way is absolute nonsense. A handgun can't kill multiple people despite having the exact same mechanism and usually larger rounds?

I get that your argument is politically charged etc but the things you're saying about firearms are just plain wrong.

 

[Sharpie]

12 minutes ago, Sertse said:

No come on, you said he used an 'assault weapon', tell me what an assault weapon is?

Or do you not know?

In some cases it is defined as any weapon with a rapid fire capability, I suspect the subject weapon would come under this part of the definitions. Not being argumentative just offering the definition.

[Sertse]

2 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

In some cases it is defined as any weapon with a rapid fire capability, I suspect the subject weapon would come under this part of the definitions. Not being argumentative just offering the definition.

AR15's are semi automatic and don't meet the criteria for an 'assault rifle'.

An assault rifle is defined as a rifle chambered in an intermediate calibre capable of BOTH semi automatic and automatic or burst fire.

Anti gun people think 'assault rifle' means 'gun that looks scary'.

An AR15 can't fire 5.56 ammunition either (military grade), it can only fire .223 which is less powerful.

[Riccarton3]

12 minutes ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

No, he was lunging forward. His upper torso was almost horizontal when he was struck in the back. The round entered his upper back, travelled down through his lung and diaphragm and ruptured his liver.

Thanks for the explanation. The nature of the confrontation, the man seems  tragically out of his depth,  acting out policing manoeuvres with no authority  that require years of training.

[Felix Lighter]

3 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

Thanks for the explanation. The nature of the confrontation, the man seems  tragically out of his depth,  acting out policing manoeuvres with no authority  that require years of training.

 

No problem.  Agreed, he was out of his depth, I said earlier that his attackers likely thought the same and viewed him as an easy touch. 

[JackLadd]

30 minutes ago, Sertse said:

That's completely untrue though. A .223 round is designed to ricochet within the body. The actual bullet is the exact same size as a .22 round. It's designed for accuracy. The actual casing of the round is irrelevant, FMJ is the standard for any type of cartridge. The idea it can go through multiple targets and is designed that way is absolute nonsense. A handgun can't kill multiple people despite having the exact same mechanism and usually larger rounds?

I get that your argument is politically charged etc but the things you're saying about firearms are just plain wrong.

 

 

Nothing I said was wrong. If the weapon wasn't highly effective at killing humans quickly it wouldn't be the notorious choice of the mass shooter. 

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

No problem.  Agreed, he was out of his depth, I said earlier that his attackers likely thought the same and viewed him as an easy touch. 

They're not trained either. The Police are, though.

[Felix Lighter]

1 minute ago, Riccarton3 said:

They're not trained either. The Police are, though.

 

Indeed, but the police weren't there. 

[Sertse]

5 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Nothing I said was wrong. If the weapon wasn't highly effective at killing humans quickly it wouldn't be the notorious choice of the mass shooter. 

But it's not though.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

Handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings. 78% of mass shootings the shooter uses a handgun.

Since 1985 just 49 mass shootings involved rifles, even less involved semi automatic rifles, even less were AR15 pattern rifles.

[Riccarton3]

5 minutes ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

Indeed, but the police weren't there. 

He walks past military vehicles with the hands raised in surrender. Yet no one, apparently, paid any notice.

[Felix Lighter]

Just now, Riccarton3 said:

He walks past military vehicles with the hands raised in surrender. Yet no one, apparently, paid any notice.

 

Yeah I know, they were hundreds of yards away holding a line whilst rioters were doing their thing. Rittenhouse approached a squad car, told them he'd been involved in a shooting, they pepper sprayed him and told him to eff off.  

[JackLadd]

17 minutes ago, Sertse said:

But it's not though.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

 

Handguns are the most commonly used weapons in mass shootings. 78% of mass shootings the shooter uses a handgun.

Since 1985 just 49 mass shootings involved rifles, even less involved semi automatic rifles, even less were AR15 pattern rifles.

 

Many of the recent most notorious mass shootings incidents have been committed with ar15s. Sandy Hook, 28 dead. Vegas, 58 dead. There is no question it is more effective than any pistol having more range and velocity, round capacity and above all accuracy by your own admission. The Port Arthur incident in Australia was committed by an ar15 weapon, 35 dead. Rittenhouse killed Huber with one shot, blew off a big chunk of Grosskreutz arm with one shot, shattered Rosenbaums pelvis with one shot. It is a highly effective at killing. Handguns are easily concealed so of course they are more prevalent. Still not sure what your point is.

Edited November 19, 2021 by JackLadd

[Sertse]

9 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

Many of the recent most notorious mass shootings incidents have been committed with ar15s. Sandy Hook, 28 dead. Vegas, 58 dead. There is no question it is more effective than any pistol having more range and velocity, round capacity and above all accuracy by your own admission. The Port Arthur incident in Australia was committed by an ar15 weapon, 35 dead. Rittenhouse killed Huber with one shot, blew off a big chunk of Grosskreutz arm with one shot, shattered Rosenbaums pelvis with one shot. It is a highly effective at killing. Handguns are easily concealed so of course they are more prevalent. Still not sure what your point is.

You've talked about high profile shootings and omitted all the others. My point is you don't really know what you're talking about.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, JackLadd said:

 

Why do you think the AR15 is America's biggest seller and favourite mass shooter rifle? Is it maybe the high velocity (three times that of a 9mm pistol) and killing power matched to its 30 round magazine capacity? 

 

Most gun murders in the USA are committed using a handgun. 

[Sertse]

10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Most gun murders in the USA are committed using a handgun. 

Not just gun murders, mass shooters as well. As one poster is finding out facts don't match up with his feelings.

[Der Kaiser]

2 hours ago, Sertse said:

AR15's are semi automatic and don't meet the criteria for an 'assault rifle'.

An assault rifle is defined as a rifle chambered in an intermediate calibre capable of BOTH semi automatic and automatic or burst fire.

Anti gun people think 'assault rifle' means 'gun that looks scary'.

An AR15 can't fire 5.56 ammunition either (military grade), it can only fire .223 which is less powerful.

 

I'm not sure why there was a debate about bullet calibre. Ultimately an AR15 is a very deadly weapon hence its popularity in the states. Its a bad joke a 17 year old laddie can wander around a town thinking he's some sort of peacekeeper and while no-one should really chase down someone with a gun, his decision to go there added to just god awful gun laws meant he should be facing some sort of punishment IMHO. 

 

Worryingly some states want the ban on bump stocks reversed...then America can get back to even more horrific gun massacres. 

 

[JFK-1]

There are facets to what you might call the American gun holocaust which don't get mentioned. Or rarely. For example the US has a suicide rate twice that of the UK and most of those suicides are by gun.

When the annual death by gun stats are published typically comfortably more than half the total is suicide by gun.
 

Quote

In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide.
 

The rate of firearm deaths per 100,000 people rose from 10.3 per 100,000 in 1999 to 12 per 100,000 in 2017, with 109 people dying per day or about 14,542 homicides in total.

 
If you were to say UK has one fifth the US population then divide that 24,432 gun suicide deaths a year by 5 you get a little over 13 a day, let's call it 13.

So if the UK were comparable you would be looking at 4,735 dead a year by gun and that's at least 6 times the average total UK murders per year. UK gun mirders are barely wirth mentioning as such. Around 40 or so a year, while the US has around 40 gun murders a day. 

The gun advocates will point out that suicides are the largest part of gun deaths as if that means it's good to have guns around. It isn't for many reasons but regarding suicide it most definitely isn't a good idea to have guns around.

Guns are over 90% efficient when it comes to a method of suicide. Less than one in 10 chance of surviving it because it's typically a head shot. It will also be claimed that they would just find another way to do it if no gun were around, while research has proven that's not true.

Suicide is an impulsive action, we know this from survivors and I will give you just one example of it I read about. This guy went to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco which is the worlds busiest suicide spot. Jumping from that bridge is almost certain death, as efficient as a shot to the head.

He survived and he later reported that even as he fell he wished he hadn't done it. But even he had to actually get out and go to the bridge to accomplish this. Time to think.

I would bet there have been countless who drove to that bridge with suicidal thoughts but changed their mind on the way. Not the case for people sitting alone in a room and impulsively picking up a gun.

It's the convenience and relative lethality and there is an analogy from the UK we could apply to it. Back in the days before natural gas the favoured method of suicide in the UK was stick yer heid in the gas oven. This accounted for the  majority of suicides, something like guns in the US.

It's convenient and it's lethal. Actually even more lethal than a gun, pretty much 100% lethal. You inhale that gas you will be unconscious inside 20 seconds and dead in less than a minute, guaranteed.

Between 1968 and 1976 the UK switched over from this poisonous coal gas as domestic fuel to natural gas which is not poisonous. And during that period as the suicide by gas deaths dropped to eventually zero the overall suicide rate fell by one half. And stayed like that ever since.

[Herbert.]

2 hours ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

I'm not sure why there was a debate about bullet calibre. Ultimately an AR15 is a very deadly weapon hence its popularity in the states. Its a bad joke a 17 year old laddie can wander around a town thinking he's some sort of peacekeeper and while no-one should really chase down someone with a gun, his decision to go there added to just god awful gun laws meant he should be facing some sort of punishment IMHO. 

 

Worryingly some states want the ban on bump stocks reversed...then America can get back to even more horrific gun massacres. 

 

 

 

Anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is deadly, he could have had a bolt action rifle and killed those people. The boy defended himself he done what he needed to do to survive.

[JackLadd]

3 hours ago, Sertse said:

Not just gun murders, mass shooters as well. As one poster is finding out facts don't match up with his feelings.

 

Yet it's you who can't get his head around the fact an AR-15 style weapon is high velocity and more potent than a handgun.

[JFK-1]

 

[Sertse]

4 hours ago, JackLadd said:

 

Yet it's you who can't get his head around the fact an AR-15 style weapon is high velocity and more potent than a handgun.

You're trying to make technical arguments with emotional language.

I guess the argument you're trying to make is an AR15 is more deadly than a handgun. Nonsense. An AR15 has more range. Most handguns are chambered in larger calibers than an AR15. 

Any firearm has the ability to kill.

[kila]

A bigger gun worn like that is there for visibility and intimidation in my view.

 

America is full of gun nuts who want to feel that power. Their laws make this acceptable which I think is backwards. 

[AlphonseCapone]

I've not followed this trial but remember about the situation going down. So I don't have any view about guilt as I don't know the facts. 

 

But what has been extremely interesting and terrifying in terms of the jury method for trials, is reading this thread and the polar opposite opinions people have come to. There's been prosecution slamdunk to prosecution going out their way for an acquittal. We all see things differently so that's to be expected to an extent but what terrifies me is how easily people's biases and politics come into it and colour their judgements. Maybe it's different for me because of my job but surely folk can seperate out this stuff and be impartial? 

 

I've sat on a jury in this country. It was a terrible experience. If your face does or doesn't fit, is a big part of your verdict.

[Longbaws]

Riots in Portland as a result of the verdict. No matter the result, there was always going to be riots. 

 

Such a shame that the 2 sides have much more in common with each other than they think.

 

I've been fortunate enough to live in some amazing countries but the US gives me the absolute fear. It is on my blacklist, along with England, Albania and North Korea.

 

**** guns.

 

 

[Der Kaiser]

5 hours ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Anything that goes bang when you pull the trigger is deadly, he could have had a bolt action rifle and killed those people. The boy defended himself he done what he needed to do to survive.

 

There is no doubt he defended himself. (Although he'd never have fired as quickly with a bolt action so there would definitely have been a different outcome....probably including serious injury to himself)

He simply should not have been there and he escalated a situation by doing so. Just my opinion that he should face some sort of punishment.

 

Can you imagine if Scotland had a law where a 6th year high school pupil could turn up at a protest march with a semi automatic rifle? Their laws are ludicrous. 

 

 

[Captain Sausage]

1 hour ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

There is no doubt he defended himself. (Although he'd never have fired as quickly with a bolt action so there would definitely have been a different outcome....probably including serious injury to himself)

He simply should not have been there and he escalated a situation by doing so. Just my opinion that he should face some sort of punishment.

 

Can you imagine if Scotland had a law where a 6th year high school pupil could turn up at a protest march with a semi automatic rifle? Their laws are ludicrous. 

 

 

So he should be punished for putting himself into a volatile situation? Assume you’d agree that the same punishment should be doled out to everyone else there that night?

 

AC’s post 2 above is spot on. It’s bizarre that people are letting political leanings colour their opinion on this. As I see it, it’s a pretty simple case legally.

 

Should he have been there? Morally and practically speaking, no. Legally, no reason why not. 
 

Was he carrying an illegal weapon? Legally no. 
 

Did he murder anyone? Legally no. 
 

I’m not sure I get all the outrage. Dipshit idiot goes looking for trouble amongst a wave of other dipshit idiots. Gets attacked, reacts in self defence and a bunch of people died. Everything about that night was avoidable, but laying sole responsibility one one kid because it fits your political narrative is pathetic. 

[Der Kaiser]

9 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

So he should be punished for putting himself into a volatile situation? Assume you’d agree that the same punishment should be doled out to everyone else there that night?

 

AC’s post 2 above is spot on. It’s bizarre that people are letting political leanings colour their opinion on this. As I see it, it’s a pretty simple case legally.

 

Should he have been there? Morally and practically speaking, no. Legally, no reason why not. 
 

Was he carrying an illegal weapon? Legally no. 
 

Did he murder anyone? Legally no. 
 

I’m not sure I get all the outrage. Dipshit idiot goes looking for trouble amongst a wave of other dipshit idiots. Gets attacked, reacts in self defence and a bunch of people died. Everything about that night was avoidable, but laying sole responsibility one one kid because it fits your political narrative is pathetic. 

 

It was only my opinion. As I've said he escalated a situation when he should not have been there. So yes, there should be a punishment. Take his guns off him might be a good start. He's clearly not mature enough.

 

I dont recall "laying sole responsibility one one kid because it fits your political narrative".....I've already said you shouldn't chase folk with guns.

 

And as for punishment to everyone else out that night. I presume you mean the other feckwit urban warriors who stood outside shops with guns? Yeah....punish them as well. That's not their job. Were they really prepared to shoot someone who might have smashed a window? The guns on them suggest they were. 

 

Ultimately the laws governing gun ownership and use are the real villains. They'll never change and people will continue to needlessly die.

 

 

 

 

 

[Captain Sausage]

21 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

It was only my opinion. As I've said he escalated a situation when he should not have been there. So yes, there should be a punishment. Take his guns off him might be a good start. He's clearly not mature enough.

 

I dont recall "laying sole responsibility one one kid because it fits your political narrative".....I've already said you shouldn't chase folk with guns.

 

And as for punishment to everyone else out that night. I presume you mean the other feckwit urban warriors who stood outside shops with guns? Yeah....punish them as well. That's not their job. Were they really prepared to shoot someone who might have smashed a window? The guns on them suggest they were. 

 

Ultimately the laws governing gun ownership and use are the real villains. They'll never change and people will continue to needlessly die.

 

 

 

 

 

Completely agree with your last point btw

 

Punishment for everyone else to include the BLM protestors, many of whom were also armed. 

[indianajones]

Sleepy Joe waking up to give his views leaving himself wide open for a defamation claim. 

 

 

[Der Kaiser]

9 minutes ago, Captain Sausage said:

Completely agree with your last point btw

 

Punishment for everyone else to include the BLM protestors, many of whom were also armed. 

 

Absolutely. I've always been a believer, certainly in this country, if you carry a knife then by taking it out your house with you,  you've shown an intent to use it, otherwise why bring it. Therefore you should expect to be punished for that.

 

Take a gun to a protest march. Exactly the same in my eyes. Idiots.

[hughesie27]

15 hours ago, AndyNic said:

The judge has been an embarrassment.

 

Check them out waiting for the verdict

 

 

Well thats not an accurate caption.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, Longbaws said:

Riots in Portland as a result of the verdict. No matter the result, there was always going to be riots. 

 

Such a shame that the 2 sides have much more in common with each other than they think.

 

I've been fortunate enough to live in some amazing countries but the US gives me the absolute fear. It is on my blacklist, along with England, Albania and North Korea.

 

**** guns.

 

 

Equating England with those countries ????

[Longbaws]

15 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Equating England with those countries ????

My humblest apologies to the North Koreans and Albanians. 

 

In fairness Newcastle is pretty decent though.

[Taffin]

Interesting read this thread.

 

People seem to have difficulty separating what they'd like the law to be versus what the laws actually are when stating what they believe should happen.

 

My take:

 

Should the laws in America allow for what happened to be legal? No.

 

Do they? Evidently, yes and as such he shouldn't be punished.

 

Very sad state of affairs all round.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Longbaws said:

My humblest apologies to the North Koreans and Albanians. 

 

In fairness Newcastle is pretty decent though.

Yes Newcastle is a great toon. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

Interesting read this thread.

 

People seem to have difficulty separating what they'd like the law to be versus what the laws actually are when stating what they believe should happen.

 

My take:

 

Should the laws in America allow for what happened to be legal? No.

 

Do they? Evidently, yes and as such he shouldn't be punished.

 

Very sad state of affairs all round.

 

Been reading more up on it all. Rittenhouse is basically a junior version of Trump. Hes dangerous and sadly is now the poster boy for the far right. I see a future for him as a political agitator.  

[indianajones]

On 11/11/2021 at 10:24, Cade said:

Far-right judge.

Far-right killer.

Black victims.

 

Only one way this is ending.

 

16 hours ago, Cade said:

Breaks curfew and travels to another city with an assault rifle in order to confront protestors.

 

Confronts protestors. Shoots three, killing two. Claims self defence.

 

Acquitted.

 

America is a total joke nation.

All the wee militias now have carte blanche to kill anyone they want as long as they claim self defence.

 

The wee shitebag shouldn't even have been there. He put himself in the situation then played the victim.

 

 

 

Did you ever address your original horror OP? 

 

The BLM protesters were armed as well. Would you react the same if it was one of the protesters that shot someone in similar circumstances? 

 

The place is a nuthouse but we are far away from it thankfully. Dont know why so many people take intense interest. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

37 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Sleepy Joe waking up to give his views leaving himself wide open for a defamation claim. 

 

 

 

As he is nowPresident I think he avoids things like that. But when it first happened he was only campaigning  and accused him of being a "white supremacist" which I think he can be sued for. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

13 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Been reading more up on it all. Rittenhouse is basically a junior version of Trump. Hes dangerous and sadly is now the poster boy for the far right. I see a future for him as a political agitator.  

 

Where from MSNBC? 

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Where from MSNBC? 

Various sources. I have come to the conclusion he's a wee ^^^^ 

[hughesie27]

 

25 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Interesting read this thread.

 

People seem to have difficulty separating what they'd like the law to be versus what the laws actually are when stating what they believe should happen.

 

My take:

 

Should the laws in America allow for what happened to be legal? No.

 

Do they? Evidently, yes and as such he shouldn't be punished.

 

Very sad state of affairs all round.

 

Exactly. Some in here would make terrible jurors.

[Jeffros Furios]

From the initial incident where the Police allowed Blake to walk round his car and open the door which resulted in the shooting and all the way through to this just shows what a car crash American society is .

[JackLadd]

5 hours ago, Sertse said:

You're trying to make technical arguments with emotional language.

I guess the argument you're trying to make is an AR15 is more deadly than a handgun. Nonsense. An AR15 has more range. Most handguns are chambered in larger calibers than an AR15. 

Any firearm has the ability to kill.

 

You are the one getting emotional and clearly a crank.