The COVID19 SCAMdemic... California Nears $8 Gallon Gas - Biden Sends Zelenskyyy $61 Billion

[jimlloyd40]

Maybe there will still be gun possession laws that Rittenhouse will be charged with but those are separate from the self defense charge.

 

[MagicMK]

I lived in the USA (Ohio) & from what I remember of the laws.

In Short:- Driving to another state (fully armed) to where there is a known disturbance when your personal & financial stake (i.e. did he own property there, or was he protecting his grandmas house) is next to zero...

Not the actions of somebody with their "back against the wall", but of a person with premeditation looking for trouble....basically "come at me bro"..

You really had to watch the trial -- and even then, you don't get everything the jury gets. There was a big issue over the long arm and state laws in WI. Apparently, in WI, a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun with a barrel length over a certain size... and Kyle's S&W M&P AR15 met that criteria. Also, it was stated that he did not transport it across state lines. His father lived in or near Kenosha. The gun was in Kenosha when he picked it up. So, he can't legally PURCHASE an AR15 as a 17 yr old, but he was allowed to open carry it in Wisconsin at 17 due to Wisconsin's laws.

The above said, and I say this as a gun-owning Democrat that also believe there should be more regulations on firearm purchases and possession... and I also think there are racist and politically motivated reasons why Kyle was there in Kenosha that day.... all of that said, I still agreed it was self defense on all counts. One guy that attacked him was a felon in possession of an unregistered Glock pistol that chased after Kyle when he was on the ground and pointed the pistol at him. One of the persons killed (Rosenbaum) had threated to kill Kyle earlier in the day.... and he just happens to be one of the people going after him when he was on the ground. One person swung a skateboard at Kyle's head. This was a riot that had turned violent. They were acting like a mob... yelling "get him." Rocks were being thrown at Kyle, and there was at least one gunshot that Kyle may have heard prior to shooting. You have to look at the totality of circumstances, but in the end, the jury made the right decision IMO.

 

[Escape Hatch]

I lived in the USA (Ohio) & from what I remember of the laws.

In Short:- Driving to another state (fully armed) to where there is a known disturbance when your personal & financial stake (i.e. did he own property there, or was he protecting his grandmas house) is next to zero...

Not the actions of somebody with their "back against the wall", but of a person with premeditation looking for trouble....basically "come at me bro"..

You can open cary and if you are attacked and fear for your life you are free to defend. Whether the open carry is a pistol or a long barrel it does not matter.

 

[MagicMK]

Maybe there will still be gun possession laws that Rittenhouse will be charged with but those are separate from the self defense charge.

Nope, nothing - the gun charge was dropped before case went to jury. It turns out he was legally carrying that rifle in Wisconsin if you can believe.

 

[jay745]

Is he legally authorized at that age to cary a weapon?

Nope.


Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

 

[golfdave]

You really had to watch the trial -- and even then, you don't get everything the jury gets. There was a big issue over the long arm and state laws in WI. Apparently, in WI, a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun with a barrel length over a certain size... and Kyle's S&W M&P AR15 met that criteria. Also, it was stated that he did not transport it across state lines. His father lived in or near Kenosha. The gun was in Kenosha when he picked it up. So, he can't legally PURCHASE an AR15 as a 17 yr old, but he was allowed to open carry it in Wisconsin at 17 due to Wisconsin's laws.

The above said, and I say this as a gun-owning Democrat that also believe there should be more regulations on firearm purchases and possession... and I also think there are racist and politically motivated reasons why Kyle was there in Kenosha that day.... all of that said, I still agreed it was self defense on all counts. One guy that attacked him was a felon in possession of an unregistered Glock pistol that chased after Kyle when he was on the ground and pointed the pistol at him. One of the persons killed (Rosenbaum) had threated to kill Kyle earlier in the day.... and he just happens to be one of the people going after him when he was on the ground. One person swung a skateboard at Kyle's head. This was a riot that had turned violent. They were acting like a mob... yelling "get him." Rocks were being thrown at Kyle, and there was at least one gunshot that Kyle may have heard prior to shooting. You have to look at the totality of circumstances, but in the end, the jury made the right decision IMO.

You can open cary and if you are attacked and fear for your life you are free to defend. Whether the open carry is a pistol or a long barrel it does not matter.

You're both asking the wrong questions:- Why the feck was he there in the first place?...Why did he put himself into that situation???

Its not as if he was walking home from work when he was set upon by a mob & used a concealed carry 9mm to gun them down...

Its also not as if his parents house was being attacked by a mob & he stood behind the front door & shot them....


He basically wanted an excuse to shoot somebody.

 

[Escape Hatch]

You really had to watch the trial -- and even then, you don't get everything the jury gets. There was a big issue over the long arm and state laws in WI. Apparently, in WI, a 17 yr old can legally carry a long gun with a barrel length over a certain size... and Kyle's S&W M&P AR15 met that criteria. Also, it was stated that he did not transport it across state lines. His father lived in or near Kenosha. The gun was in Kenosha when he picked it up. So, he can't legally PURCHASE an AR15 as a 17 yr old, but he was allowed to open carry it in Wisconsin at 17 due to Wisconsin's laws.

The above said, and I say this as a gun-owning Democrat that also believe there should be more regulations on firearm purchases and possession... and I also think there are racist and politically motivated reasons why Kyle was there in Kenosha that day.... all of that said, I still agreed it was self defense on all counts. One guy that attacked him was a felon in possession of an unregistered Glock pistol that chased after Kyle when he was on the ground and pointed the pistol at him. One of the persons killed (Rosenbaum) had threated to kill Kyle earlier in the day.... and he just happens to be one of the people going after him when he was on the ground. One person swung a skateboard at Kyle's head. This was a riot that had turned violent. They were acting like a mob... yelling "get him." Rocks were being thrown at Kyle, and there was at least one gunshot that Kyle may have heard prior to shooting. You have to look at the totality of circumstances, but in the end, the jury made the right decision IMO.

How was it racially motivated for him to be there?

 

[Escape Hatch]

Nope.


Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

So you are telling me he was tried for the law and then found not guilty? For arguments sake let's say you are right, this does not negate him having the right to defend himself.

 

[Escape Hatch]

You're both asking the wrong questions:- Why the feck was he there in the first place?...Why did he put himself into that situation???

Its not as if he was walking home from work when he was set upon by a mob & used a concealed carry 9mm to gun them down...

Its also not as if his parents house was being attacked by a mob & he stood behind the front door & shot them....


He basically wanted an excuse to shoot somebody.

You must not have watched any of the trial. Do I believe it was inflammatory? Sure. Did he still act within the law to open cart and then defend himself? Yes. Assumed intent means nothing, acts within the law do.

 

[jay745]

So you are telling me he was tried for the law and then found not guilty? For arguments sake let's say you are right, this does not negate him having the right to defend himself.

That wasn't self defense. He left the house that night hoping to shoot someone and did.

 

[MagicMK]

You're both asking the wrong questions:- Why the feck was he there in the first place?...Why did he put himself into that situation???

Its not as if he was walking home from work when he was set upon by a mob & used a concealed carry 9mm to gun them down...

Its also not as if his parents house was being attacked by a mob & he stood behind the front door & shot them....


He basically wanted an excuse to shoot somebody.

Nooo... I've already answered that question. I don't think Kyle should have been there, but that's my opinion. That jackasses that were rioting and burning buildings and damaging property shouldn't have been there, either.

As somebody who lived in America, you know that firearms are legal, open carrying long arms is mostly legal. You can't say that Kyle was wrong if he is doing something he had a constitutional right to do. Now, where Kyle was at, the roads were shut down and there was a curfew. So, yes, Kyle was effectively violating curfew and could have been charged with a misdemeanor such as "Disorderly Conduct," but that's like arguing somebody was using self defense while jaywalking. You're missing the point.

The point is that Kyle, under the law, was not provoking anyone (legally), and was not committing any serious crimes (beyond a minor curfew violation), and in Wisconsin, even as a 17 yr old, it was not illegal for him to carry a long rifle.

So, I think I have this exactly right. I agree Kyle was an idiot for doing what he did and should have never been there - my opinion. I also agree he had at min a fear of great bodily harm, and, as such, had a right to use lethal self defense. Not guilty. The jury agreed with me.

 

[golfdave]

You must not have watched any of the trial. Do I believe it was inflammatory? Sure. Did he still act within the law to open cart and then defend himself? Yes. Assumed intent means nothing, acts within the law do.

Thankfully, intent, over here carries in a court of law...

Just glad I'm no longer living in the USA....where you can now legally provoke & then murder people..

 

[brat_burner]

 

[anotero]

Please stay away from getting all your info from the History Channel, as they "dumb down" & concentrate on the headlines..


Regarding the airplanes of the UK & German air forces:-


The role & prowess of the Spitfire is overstated & is a myth...yes is was a damn good plane, but costly & difficult to repair...so it took longer to "turn-around" if it had been shot up, compared to the other fighters e.g. the Hurricane.

The Supermarine Spitfire, specifically Mk 1A, entered service in August 1938, & had a max speed of 362mph & ceiling height of 31,900ft, range 395miles. ..By comparison the Germans had the Messerschmitt Bf 109D-1 in circa 1936 max speed of 298mph at sea level & ceiling height of 32,810ft, range 348miles.

By the time of the "Battle of Britain" in July to October 1940 there was the Supermarine Spitfire Mk II, which was similar in performance to the Mk1... By comparison the Germans had the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 (& other variants) with a max speed of 290mph at sea level & 348mph at 14,560ft & a max ceiling height of 34,450ft, range 410miles.

So although the Spitfire was marginally faster the Messerschmitt could fly above the Spitfire which is a big tactical advantage.....& in the Battle of Britain air campaign only 610 Messerschmitt's were lost compared to 1,043 Spitfires & Hurricanes............the UK only just won that battle...

One other main disadvantage of the Spitfire was the float type carburettors for the fuel injection. Whereas the Mess’ had direct injection..which was better in higher G manoeuvres. The later (after feb 1941) Spitfires e.g. MkV to MkXIV ended up with speeds upto 448mph, ceiling of 43,000ft, range of 980miles.


Air dog fights were few & far between in WWII, the main air traffic was big heavy bombers...so Blenheims, Stirlings, Lancaster's, Halifax's, Wellingtons, etc....These had fighters for escort duties & mainly the Hurricanes, & Typhoons & yes some of the Spitfires.

One of the best & most versatile UK airplanes was the "wooden wonder" the de Havilland Mosquito fighter bomber…, operational in May 1942. Depending on the variant:- Max speed 408mph, 37,000ft ceiling, 1,885 mile range, & was heavily armed with four 20mm cannons , four .303guns, numerous bombs & could carry a 4,000lb bomb!


As a side note the jet engine was being invented by Frank Whittle in the late 20’s/ early 1930’s However due to various factors he ended up being part of “Power Jets Ltd” in 1936. Unfortunately, due to more difficulties mainly in the lack of interest from the Air Ministry (Gov’) funding was lacking & the war got in the way. It wasn’t until the Germans who started in 1935 on their own jet engine which was then flying in 1939, that the UK Air Ministry decided the UK jet engine was worth while & invested in 1940. This eventually lead to operational UK jet powered aircraft being flown in the war from August 1944 in the shape of the Gloster Meteor..the only Allied jet to fly in the WWII.

By contrast, the Germans who started in 1935 (later than the UK) got their first operational Jet aircraft in July 1944 with the Arado Ar 234B-2 Blitz....then the Messerschmitt Me 262A-1a by August 1944.

If Whittle had the funding & interest from the Air Ministry before the war then the UK would have had jet powered airplanes before the Germans…& better dominance in the air & earlier on in the war. This would have stopped many of the air raids over the UK by the Germans, & thus less damage to UK factories, towns, ports, etc.. This could have lead to the UK completing its research on the atomic bomb, & the UK could have dropped the first atomic bomb from a jet powered plane! ALL UK built & invented!


Another side note:- The main tool which the UK relied upon was the Radar system it invented & started building in 1936 (Chain Home). This was later expanded & improved. By 1939 one system could detect a plane flying at 500ft at a range of 25miles away. Without RADAR the air war would have been very different!!

Chain Home - Wikipedia

Lots of good info, mate. Thanks.

The spitfire is hyped up in part due to its elliptical lift distribution. I bet that's one of the reasons it had good range -- reduced induced drag. Pretty good looking fighter, but yeah, blindly calling it superior and saying the UK would have won with it alone is silly.

+1 on saying History Channel waters everything down. Magic is testament to that.

 

[jimlloyd40]

Nope, nothing - the gun charge was dropped before case went to jury. It turns out he was legally carrying that rifle in Wisconsin if you can believe.

Nope.


Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

Which one of you is correct?