2aHawaii
General Topics => Strategies and Tactics => Topic started by: hvybarrels on August 25, 2020, 10:50:59 PM
-
Kenosha edition.
Second Third person who got shot was armed.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298501182382473216
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgW-B8kU8AAyubF?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Kenosha edition. Second Third person who got shot was armed.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298501182382473216
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgW-B8kU8AAyubF?format=jpg&name=small)
Multiple domestic violence history. Oh well.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Should have had a bullet proof skateboard..... now that actually gives me an idea...
-
So bicep guy still wasn't charged with any kind of crime. Even though video shows him trying to assault Kyle, holding a glock, which he's a felon so not supposed to have, made a statement that he should have lit Kyle up.
Yet he's invited to speak at events and interviewed, all while Kyle sits in Jail. On a plus note, IL will not file any firearm charges on Kyle.
-
This bodes well for Kyle, adding facts to his claim he was in fear for his life.
Kenosha protester charged with firing gun right
before Kyle Rittenhouse began shooting
A Racine man has been charged with firing a pistol during unrest in Kenosha, a shot
Kyle Rittenhouse's defenders think was a factor in the 17-year-old fatally shooting a
man two seconds later.
Joshua Ziminski, 35, was charged last week with disorderly conduct - use of a dangerous
weapon, a misdemeanor, in the Aug. 25 incident.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/10/15/kenosha-protester-charged-firing-gun-prior-rittenhouse-shots/3667399001/
-
So bicep guy still wasn't charged with any kind of crime. Even though video shows him trying to assault Kyle, holding a glock, which he's a felon so not supposed to have, made a statement that he should have lit Kyle up.
Yet he's invited to speak at events and interviewed, all while Kyle sits in Jail. On a plus note, IL will not file any firearm charges on Kyle.
If they don't recover the firearm it would be a hard case to prove unless he admitted to having a firearm.
-
If they don't recover the firearm it would be a hard case to prove unless he admitted to having a firearm.
Really? Can't prove he had a gun?
Are you telling me the object in his RIGHT hand was picked up after his RIGHT BICEP was ... no longer a bicep?
(https://i.imgur.com/7spKwmF.jpg?1)
-
Gaige Grosskreutz was armed with a pistol when 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse blew his bicep apart
with a semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In a Facebook post that's gone viral, Grosskreutz
regrets not killing the teen.
Rittenhouse has been arrested and charged with murder after he shot three people during the rioting
in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Tuesday night. Two died, and a third, Grosskreutz, has had surgery to repair
a massive bullet wound to his bicep.
Grosskreutz was one of two men caught on video attacking Rittenhouse, who was apparently fleeing
the scene of the first shooting. As gunshots rang out from an unknown source, Grosskreutz moved in on
Rittenhouse, who at this point was lying on his back after shooting the second man. When Rittenhouse
aimed his rifle at Grosskreutz, the man backed off. However, when Grosskreutz moved in again, this
time apparently with a pistol drawn, Rittenhouse unloaded a round into his arm.
https://www.rt.com/usa/499259-kenosha-victim-facebook-killing-kid/
Who you going to believe .... the lawyer, or your lying eyes?
-
Really? Can't prove he had a gun?
Are you telling me the object in his RIGHT hand was picked up after his RIGHT BICEP was ... no longer a bicep?
(https://i.imgur.com/7spKwmF.jpg?1)
A prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun (for example)
-
A prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun (for example)
Really?
Suppose, hypothetically, that you're a Cop, and someone is charging you with a pistol drawn. Are you seriously telling all of us on this forum that the Cop should not use his weapon because IT MIGHT BE A REPLICA OR AIRSOFT PISTOL??
Please be very specific in your answer, because I need to have you clear up your "prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun" statement.
-
Dont forget the statement be made that he should have unloaded on kyle. Maybe he meant unload his plastic BBs
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Dont forget the statement be made that he should have unloaded on kyle. Maybe he meant unload his plastic BBs
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.
-
Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.
Maybe he meant "remove the magazine from the firearm?"
You know --- "unloaded". :crazy:
-
Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.
mostly peaceful
-
Suppose, hypothetically, that you're a Cop, and someone is charging you with a pistol drawn. Are you seriously telling all of us on this forum that the Cop should not use his weapon because IT MIGHT BE A REPLICA OR AIRSOFT PISTOL??
You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.
If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?
-
You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.
If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?
Do you have evidence or information that causes you to suspect the gun isn't an actual firearm?
If not, this is just more pointless, tangential BS.
-
You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.
If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?
I have to say eye has a point here. Though I would argue that enough pictures and what he said that would be a hard sell to the jury. Many convictions have happened without a murder weapon.
-
I have to say eye has a point here. Though I would argue that enough pictures and what he said that would be a hard sell to the jury. Many convictions have happened without a murder weapon.
:wtf:
-
Do you have evidence or information that causes you to suspect the gun isn't an actual firearm?
If not, this is just more pointless, tangential BS.
It isn't the accused victim to prove they didn't commit a crime, it is the prosecutor's job to prove he did. The prosecutor would have to prove he had a firearm.
-
It isn't the accused victim to prove they didn't commit a crime, it is the prosecutor's job to prove he did. The prosecutor would have to prove he had a firearm.
Another non-answer, full of generic, unrelated gobbledygook.
Accused victim? LOL! Victim of what? Self defense?
Your Liberal mindset is on full display.
-
If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?
So what if no white powder is found, but there is video of the person trying to sell it and pass it off as cocaine? Would that be enough for at least an arrest? Or would narcotics just say never mind, got no powder so no evidence.
Bicep guy has video of him holding a Glock in his hand. He stated on social media that he wish he unloaded into Kyle. Unloaded what, BBs? And after those 2 things, no charges or even the prosecutors office mentioning a hint of a charge or not charging. They are silent. Not even an arrest by local PD.
Lets compare this to the WA antifa neck tattoo guy who killed a Trump supporter walking in the street. No gun was recovered prior to the PD going on the hunt for him. How do we know that someone in a building didn't shoot the Trump supporter and the tattoo guy's gun was just an airsoft? And it was just coincidental timing.
Bicep guy is hailed a hero by the left and even did a few interviews and allowed to speak on stage.
-
Another non-answer, full of generic, unrelated gobbledygook.
Accused victim? LOL! Victim of what? Self defense?
Your Liberal mindset is on full display.
These are basic tenants of the justice system. The accused doesn't have to prove himself innocent, the prosecution has to prove they are guilty. I know you already know this.
-
So what if no white powder is found, but there is video of the person trying to sell it and pass it off as cocaine? Would that be enough for at least an arrest? Or would narcotics just say never mind, got no powder so no evidence.
Bicep guy has video of him holding a Glock in his hand. He stated on social media that he wish he unloaded into Kyle. Unloaded what, BBs? And after those 2 things, no charges or even the prosecutors office mentioning a hint of a charge or not charging. They are silent. Not even an arrest by local PD.
Lets compare this to the WA antifa neck tattoo guy who killed a Trump supporter walking in the street. No gun was recovered prior to the PD going on the hunt for him. How do we know that someone in a building didn't shoot the Trump supporter and the tattoo guy's gun was just an airsoft? And it was just coincidental timing.
Bicep guy is hailed a hero by the left and even did a few interviews and allowed to speak on stage.
Lets say the cops have a video of you sniffing a white powdery substance but they never recovered any of the substance. How would a prosecutor prove that you ingested or had cocaine and not some other substance? Some states have laws that cover fake drugs. So if you sold an undercover cop wheat flour and said it was cocaine they could arrest you for that.
As for bicep guy, we can all put two and two together and make a safe assumption that he had an actual gun in his hand but as the saying goes, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Can a prosecutor convince a jury of 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the bicep guy had a real firearm? The defense attorney would likely present the case that his client only had a BB gun and they could produce some Glock looking airsoft/bb gun and show it to the jury. Then make some sort of argument painting their client as the victim and ask how the jury can convict a man of a felony with no proof he was holding a real firearm. How would a prosecutor overcome that story to convince a jury that there is no reasonable way it was just a BB gun?
I don't know the details of the antifa guy that shot a Trump supporter but the fact that a bullet went through the guy's body is pretty strong proof that it was fired from a firearm. I would assume they have some sort of witness that they can say they saw a firearm or heard a bang and saw a flash of light consistent with a firearm. Again, just speculating since I don't know the details of the case.
-
Lets say the cops have a video of you sniffing a white powdery substance but they never recovered any of the substance. How would a prosecutor prove that you ingested or had cocaine and not some other substance? Some states have laws that cover fake drugs. So if you sold an undercover cop wheat flour and said it was cocaine they could arrest you for that.
As for bicep guy, we can all put two and two together and make a safe assumption that he had an actual gun in his hand but as the saying goes, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Can a prosecutor convince a jury of 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the bicep guy had a real firearm? The defense attorney would likely present the case that his client only had a BB gun and they could produce some Glock looking airsoft/bb gun and show it to the jury. Then make some sort of argument painting their client as the victim and ask how the jury can convict a man of a felony with no proof he was holding a real firearm. How would a prosecutor overcome that story to convince a jury that there is no reasonable way it was just a BB gun?
I don't know the details of the antifa guy that shot a Trump supporter but the fact that a bullet went through the guy's body is pretty strong proof that it was fired from a firearm. I would assume they have some sort of witness that they can say they saw a firearm or heard a bang and saw a flash of light consistent with a firearm. Again, just speculating since I don't know the details of the case.
Kyle is guilty of murder because the defense can't prove weather it was a real or fake gun?
Hahhahahah
-
These are basic tenants of the justice system. The accused doesn't have to prove himself innocent, the prosecution has to prove they are guilty. I know you already know this.
Except in BLM victim cases. Media and public opinion already passes a “death sentence”. I know you already know this...
-
Lets say the cops have a video of you sniffing a white powdery substance but they never recovered any of the substance. How would a prosecutor prove that you ingested or had cocaine and not some other substance? Some states have laws that cover fake drugs. So if you sold an undercover cop wheat flour and said it was cocaine they could arrest you for that.
As for bicep guy, we can all put two and two together and make a safe assumption that he had an actual gun in his hand but as the saying goes, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Can a prosecutor convince a jury of 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt that the bicep guy had a real firearm? The defense attorney would likely present the case that his client only had a BB gun and they could produce some Glock looking airsoft/bb gun and show it to the jury. Then make some sort of argument painting their client as the victim and ask how the jury can convict a man of a felony with no proof he was holding a real firearm. How would a prosecutor overcome that story to convince a jury that there is no reasonable way it was just a BB gun?
I don't know the details of the antifa guy that shot a Trump supporter but the fact that a bullet went through the guy's body is pretty strong proof that it was fired from a firearm. I would assume they have some sort of witness that they can say they saw a firearm or heard a bang and saw a flash of light consistent with a firearm. Again, just speculating since I don't know the details of the case.
That's not a saying. It's a line from a movie.
Training Day
Denzel Washington
-
Except in BLM victim cases. Media and public opinion already passes a “death sentence”. I know you already know this...
Oh heck yeah.
Looking at the toxicology reports, the 4 cops associated with George Floyd's death are going to get off of the murder charge but they will try to make something stick. Either way going to have riots after.
-
Kyle is guilty of murder because the defense can't prove weather it was a real or fake gun?
Hahhahahah
What?
I think you aren't following. It wasn't about Kyle at all, it was about the dude that kyle shot in the arm, the guy seen holding what looks like a handgun, who couldn't legally possess a gun.
-
What?
I think you aren't following. It wasn't about Kyle at all, it was about the dude that kyle shot in the arm, the guy seen holding what looks like a handgun, who couldn't legally possess a gun.
you aren't following...
-
Oh heck yeah.
Looking at the toxicology reports, the 4 cops associated with George Floyd's death are going to get off of the murder charge but they will try to make something stick. Either way going to have riots after.
Separate, but somewhat related topic. Have you seen the uncut/edited versions of the officers' body cam footage for Brionna Taylor? Both the officer outside and the SWAT/reaction team that first entered the apartment?
-
Sounds like there is a lot of confusion in this topic and it's confusing to go through. Need to break everything down into components and be specific on which one your talking about
1. Can bicep guy legally carry a gun?
2. Is bicep guy justified in attacking Kyle?
3. Is Kyle justified in shooting bicep guy?
Regarding an airsoft pistol:
For 1 - If the assumption is bicep guy couldn't posses a gun, then the prosecution would need to prove the gun was real as an element of a crime ie. Felon with a gun or something. The defense stating it was an airsoft could be reasonable doubt to win the case. If the prosecution had video of the gun shooting and wounding someone, then they could prove their case without having the gun.
For 2 - an example is an attempted murder charge on bicep guy. Let's assume all other elements are met, the prosecution would need to prove the gun is real as he would have the means to commit the crime, an element needed to convict. If the prosecutors didn't have the gun, the defense could say it was an airsoft therefore he did not have the means to murder Kyle.
For 3 - The prosecutors focus is on Kyle and they would need to prove his gun is real and that he shot bicep guy. Prosecutors can prove that with video, witnesses, and forensics without needing the rifle. On Kyle's side, they don't need to prove bicep guys handgun is real. For a self defense claim they need to state Kyle felt threatened by it, that he saw what appeared to be a gun and that he was afraid it would be used on him.
Bicep guy and skateboard guy actions could also be seen as self-defense of others. They see Kyle shooting baldy and are afraid Kyle will shoot others so they attempt to bring Kyle down.
-
SNIP
Bicep guy and skateboard guy actions could also be seen as self-defense of others. They see Kyle shooting baldy and are afraid Kyle will shoot others so they attempt to bring Kyle down.
That would be an interesting angle and for SJW to try that. . .
-
Bicep guy and skateboard guy actions could also be seen as self-defense of others. They see Kyle shooting baldy and are afraid Kyle will shoot others so they attempt to bring Kyle down.
That only holds water if Kyle was firing before they attacked him. In the video, he's not.
Kyle was retreating, not shooting at or attacking anyone before he was assaulted. The defense would be stupid to claim otherwise.
-
Separate, but somewhat related topic. Have you seen the uncut/edited versions of the officers' body cam footage for Brionna Taylor? Both the officer outside and the SWAT/reaction team that first entered the apartment?
I saw the video where they are putting on a tourniquet or some bandage on the officer who got shot in the leg. I am not aware of any other video of that incident. What does it show?
-
That would be an interesting angle and for SJW to try that. . .
Thats where his lawyer comes in, painting him as just some concerned citizen trying to stop a gun wielding crazy guy. Though I believe there is video of him earlier in the night doing or saying something that would show that to be not the case. I can't recall exactly what was contained in it though.
-
That only holds water if Kyle was firing before they attacked him. In the video, he's not.
Kyle was retreating, not shooting at or attacking anyone before he was assaulted. The defense would be stupid to claim otherwise.
On the grand scheme of things you correct but the standard is objective reasonableness. So, was bicep guy's actions reasonable given what he believed to be at the time he acted? We can't judge bicep guy's actions after we know everything. What did bicep guy know and when did he know it? When he attacked Kyle, did he know Kyle had just defended himself or did he have some reason to believe that Kyle was the aggressor and he was just trying to detain/stop Kyle.
-
On the grand scheme of things you correct but the standard is objective reasonableness. So, was bicep guy's actions reasonable given what he believed to be at the time he acted? We can't judge bicep guy's actions after we know everything. What did bicep guy know and when did he know it? When he attacked Kyle, did he know Kyle had just defended himself or did he have some reason to believe that Kyle was the aggressor and he was just trying to detain/stop Kyle.
Given that he and others were chasing Kyle, if he thought there was a threat (Kyle), he never once gave any indication that was the case. You can't chase someone down while holding a firearm and claim you were acting in self defense. At that point, you have no right to become a vigilante, chasing down who you say you believe is a bad guy. No authority, and in the final analysis, no justification.
The "I feared for my life" defense is for when you are actually defending yourself or others from a threat. Kyle was retreating. By definition, he was not a threat. Bicep guy was running after Kyle, not from him. He became AN ARMED AGGRESSOR from that point on.
Anybody can lie and say "I believed" whatever. But if he's carrying a firearm, his judgement has to be better than, "I was trying to stop/detain someone other people were yelling at and chasing."
Mob mentality was apparent. He has no logical or rational defense.
-
I saw the video where they are putting on a tourniquet or some bandage on the officer who got shot in the leg. I am not aware of any other video of that incident. What does it show?
Can’t find the videos now. But, both countered the MSM narrative that started riots.
First was officer outside when the BF came out. He was crying and he said he didn’t fire the shot. It was Brionna. He was clearly distraught, so maybe he was mistaken.
Second was the SWAT officer who first entered and Brionna’s body was found in the hallway. Not in her bed as the MSM reported as an innocent woman who was slaughtered sleeping quietly in her bed. Did MSM cover that? Sorta. The videos I’ve seen cut off or edit out both portions.
But yup, no media bias... (not at you EEF).
-
Given that he and others were chasing Kyle, if he thought there was a threat (Kyle), he never once gave any indication that was the case. You can't chase someone down while holding a firearm and claim you were acting in self defense. At that point, you have no right to become a vigilante, chasing down who you say you believe is a bad guy. No authority, and in the final analysis, no justification.
The "I feared for my life" defense is for when you are actually defending yourself or others from a threat. Kyle was retreating. By definition, he was not a threat. Bicep guy was running after Kyle, not from him. He became AN ARMED AGGRESSOR from that point on.
Anybody can lie and say "I believed" whatever. But if he's carrying a firearm, his judgement has to be better than, "I was trying to stop/detain someone other people were yelling at and chasing."
Mob mentality was apparent. He has no logical or rational defense.
Brave people can't chase down a crazy gunmen who killed someone? Think a little more like a defense attorney for bicep guy, see how the defense attorney would try to present the actions of bicep guy. The defense doesn't have to be right the defense just has to make a juror question whether bicep guy was really the aggressor or a good samaritan instead.
Running towards the threat doesn't prove one is not afraid by the way.
-
Can’t find the videos now. But, both countered the MSM narrative that started riots.
First was officer outside when the BF came out. He was crying and he said he didn’t fire the shot. It was Brionna. He was clearly distraught, so maybe he was mistaken.
Second was the SWAT officer who first entered and Brionna’s body was found in the hallway. Not in her bed as the MSM reported as an innocent woman who was slaughtered sleeping quietly in her bed. Did MSM cover that? Sorta. The videos I’ve seen cut off or edit out both portions.
But yup, no media bias... (not at you EEF).
Ok, good to know because I haven't seen all of that footage. I do know that the in bed narrative was false, that has been out for a little while but as we all know the first and worst narrative is the one everyone seems to believe and the corrected info never gets the traction. Sometimes it is the media's fault like how they edited the 911 call of the Treyvon Martin shooting, other times it is just a liar who said something to the news and it stuck in society like the "hands up don't shoot" story.
-
Brave people can't chase down a crazy gunmen who killed someone? Think a little more like a defense attorney for bicep guy, see how the defense attorney would try to present the actions of bicep guy. The defense doesn't have to be right the defense just has to make a juror question whether bicep guy was really the aggressor or a good samaritan instead.
Running towards the threat doesn't prove one is not afraid by the way.
Kyle hadn't just killed someone. He wasn't crazy. And no, you don't have the authority under any law to chase down a suspect if he's running away. That's clear letter law. You can't be the aggressor, claim self defense, AND claim you were in danger. Illogical to claim those facts can exist simultaneously.
I've seen nothing saying bicep guy was a Cop, a security guard or anything else that granted him law enforcement or public safety authority.
Unlike Cops, you have to wait until the assumed threat actually makes a move to harm you or someone else. Kyle was defending himself. He didn't initiate any attacks.
I never said he was afraid. Being "in fear for you life" means you think someone is about to try and end you. If he had that feeling, why did he attack Kyle and not just shoot him down? That's the #1 way to prove you were in fear for your life. If you don't shoot, or you fire a warning shot, you can't use that defense.
I was in fear for my life, so I ran after the guy carrying an AR-15 even though I never saw what people said he did. Then I tried to take his gun from him.
Doesn't present a compelling defense at all. He was part of the mob and armed. He was role playing, and it got real for him. He could have died. Making like he was a victim isn't defensible.
You sound like the Barrister on Patriot Games, when Jack Ryan got a terrorist (Sean Bean) arrested after killing his brother during an attack on the Royals. That lawyer also tried to claim Bean was like Ryan, an innocent passerby who was trying to help. Just ignore that he had a gun in a country where you can't carry, and was wearing a ski mask just like the other terrorists. He also happened to be the brother of a dead terrorist killed on the spot.
I'm sure the lawyer can claim anything they want. What I'm telling you is there are more facts than just the highlights. Details (and video) will show that bicep guy was not defending anyone, especially himself.
-
Ok, good to know because I haven't seen all of that footage. I do know that the in bed narrative was false, that has been out for a little while but as we all know the first and worst narrative is the one everyone seems to believe and the corrected info never gets the traction. Sometimes it is the media's fault like how they edited the 911 call of the Treyvon Martin shooting, other times it is just a liar who said something to the news and it stuck in society like the "hands up don't shoot" story.
That's precisely what I tell many who are "informed" about matters.
-
I've seen nothing saying bicep guy was a Cop, a security guard or anything else that granted him law enforcement or public safety authority.
He is a convicted felon, so can't be a cop. I do know of a security guard here who is a sex offender. I mean not personally, but I seen his pic online and then seen him in uniform standing guard.
Bicep guy also had a medic hat on. But yet no TQ on him because the guy who came to apply a TQ asked if anyone had one and he didn't. It could be he was in shock and didn't say he had 1 in his bag, but I'm gonna say he was wearing that hat so he can get thru the cops line and claim medic. I'm also gonna speculate he has no official medical training.
-
He is a convicted felon, so can't be a cop. I do know of a security guard here who is a sex offender. I mean not personally, but I seen his pic online and then seen him in uniform standing guard.
Bicep guy also had a medic hat on. But yet no TQ on him because the guy who came to apply a TQ asked if anyone had one and he didn't. It could be he was in shock and didn't say he had 1 in his bag, but I'm gonna say he was wearing that hat so he can get thru the cops line and claim medic. I'm also gonna speculate he has no official medical training.
I've been seeing more morale/bag patches with stuff like:
#notarealmedic
#kindofamedic
Stuff like that making light of the medic thing.
-
I've been seeing more morale/bag patches with stuff like:
#notarealmedic
#kindofamedic
Stuff like that making light of the medic thing.
someone holds market share of the #notarealdoctor patch
-
someone holds market share of the #notarealdoctor patch
#heads
-
I've been seeing more morale/bag patches with stuff like:
#notarealmedic
#kindofamedic
Stuff like that making light of the medic thing.
I think Mojo Dave has the bicep guy patch.
-
I think Mojo Dave has the bicep guy patch.
If they are going to trademark a patch, they need to make it "No Bicep Guy".
Just sayin.... :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
If they are going to trademark a patch, they need to make it "No Bicep Guy".
Just sayin.... :geekdanc: :thumbsup:
#50%offbicepguy
#halfflexing
-
#50%offbicepguy
#halfflexing
Bicep?
Nope. Unicep.
Bye-Bye-Cep?
-
Kyle hadn't just killed someone. He wasn't crazy. And no, you don't have the authority under any law to chase down a suspect if he's running away. That's clear letter law. You can't be the aggressor, claim self defense, AND claim you were in danger. Illogical to claim those facts can exist simultaneously.
I've seen nothing saying bicep guy was a Cop, a security guard or anything else that granted him law enforcement or public safety authority.
Unlike Cops, you have to wait until the assumed threat actually makes a move to harm you or someone else. Kyle was defending himself. He didn't initiate any attacks.
I never said he was afraid. Being "in fear for you life" means you think someone is about to try and end you. If he had that feeling, why did he attack Kyle and not just shoot him down? That's the #1 way to prove you were in fear for your life. If you don't shoot, or you fire a warning shot, you can't use that defense.
I was in fear for my life, so I ran after the guy carrying an AR-15 even though I never saw what people said he did. Then I tried to take his gun from him.
Doesn't present a compelling defense at all. He was part of the mob and armed. He was role playing, and it got real for him. He could have died. Making like he was a victim isn't defensible.
You sound like the Barrister on Patriot Games, when Jack Ryan got a terrorist (Sean Bean) arrested after killing his brother during an attack on the Royals. That lawyer also tried to claim Bean was like Ryan, an innocent passerby who was trying to help. Just ignore that he had a gun in a country where you can't carry, and was wearing a ski mask just like the other terrorists. He also happened to be the brother of a dead terrorist killed on the spot.
I'm sure the lawyer can claim anything they want. What I'm telling you is there are more facts than just the highlights. Details (and video) will show that bicep guy was not defending anyone, especially himself.
Kyle had just killed someone a minute or two earlier.
Are you familiar with a citizens arrest? Unless you are familiar with some law in that state that makes it illegal for a citizen to try and detain a suspect then your objection doesn't matter.
I am aware of many of the video angles and bicep guy was no angel. Note that I am not arguing he was a good samaritan. I am saying a good samaritan defense would probably be his best defense. He can claim he didn't know Kyle was shooting in self defense, thought kyle was an active shooter, and heroically chased him down trying to disarm him to stop the bloodshed. Just has to work on one juror.
-
Kyle had just killed someone a minute or two earlier.
Are you familiar with a citizens arrest? Unless you are familiar with some law in that state that makes it illegal for a citizen to try and detain a suspect then your objection doesn't matter.
I am aware of many of the video angles and bicep guy was no angel. Note that I am not arguing he was a good samaritan. I am saying a good samaritan defense would probably be his best defense. He can claim he didn't know Kyle was shooting in self defense, thought kyle was an active shooter, and heroically chased him down trying to disarm him to stop the bloodshed. Just has to work on one juror.
heh, heh you said bicep guy was trying to "disarm" kyle...
-
Kyle had just killed someone a minute or two earlier.
Are you familiar with a citizens arrest? Unless you are familiar with some law in that state that makes it illegal for a citizen to try and detain a suspect then your objection doesn't matter.
I am aware of many of the video angles and bicep guy was no angel. Note that I am not arguing he was a good samaritan. I am saying a good samaritan defense would probably be his best defense. He can claim he didn't know Kyle was shooting in self defense, thought kyle was an active shooter, and heroically chased him down trying to disarm him to stop the bloodshed. Just has to work on one juror.
I guess he'd be lucky to have someone who plays Devil's Advocate almost daily in his jury, huh?
No need to consider the evidence. Just listen to the defendant's story and ask, "What if he's telling the truth, and all the video and witness evidence is just wrong?"
Yeah. You convinced me. There's a sucker born every day.
-
I guess he'd be lucky to have someone who plays Devil's Advocate almost daily in his jury, huh?
No need to consider the evidence. Just listen to the defendant's story and ask, "What if he's telling the truth, and all the video and witness evidence is just wrong?"
Yeah. You convinced me. There's a sucker born every day.
I am not defending bicep guy and only pointing out how he may structure a hypothetical defense argument to a hypothetical weapons charge or other charge.
-
I am not defending bicep guy and only pointing out how he may structure a hypothetical defense argument to a hypothetical weapons charge or other charge.
Something tells me he's not going to be able to afford a defense lawyer with the talent and resources to tell such a fantastic-sounding story and have the jury believe it.
Nope. He's going to have a PD telling him to cut a deal rather than waste time in court getting a harsher sentence than a generous prosecutor could offer him.
Let's see who's right: trial w/inventive defense theories, or plea deal.
-
Kyle was released on bond today. This is awesome news. But money says the left will find where he lives and "protest" there. Hope he will be able to defend himself if he gets attacked again.
-
Something tells me he's not going to be able to afford a defense lawyer with the talent and resources to tell such a fantastic-sounding story and have the jury believe it.
Nope. He's going to have a PD telling him to cut a deal rather than waste time in court getting a harsher sentence than a generous prosecutor could offer him.
Let's see who's right: trial w/inventive defense theories, or plea deal.
It doesn't take a genius high paid defense attorney to cast doubt on the case. Remember, he doesn't have to convince anyone the guy is innocent, they just have to bring into question whether the prosecutor's case might be wrong. So imagine a prosecutor was trying to prove that you had cocaine because cops found a bag of white powder in your pocket but they never got the powder tested. Now a jury might all agree the powder is cocaine and that you are guilty but there could still be reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually cocaine.
-
Kyle was released on bond today. This is awesome news. But money says the left will find where he lives and "protest" there. Hope he will be able to defend himself if he gets attacked again.
I was glad to see that too. I was wanting to donate to his defense but many crowd sourcing websites took down donation pages
-
It doesn't take a genius high paid defense attorney to cast doubt on the case. Remember, he doesn't have to convince anyone the guy is innocent, they just have to bring into question whether the prosecutor's case might be wrong. So imagine a prosecutor was trying to prove that you had cocaine because cops found a bag of white powder in your pocket but they never got the powder tested. Now a jury might all agree the powder is cocaine and that you are guilty but there could still be reasonable doubt that it wasn't actually cocaine.
You're really reaching for this one. Here's what No-Bicep-Guy said on CNN:
Leave it to CNN to make Grosskreutz out to be the victim by calling him the “sole survivor.”
“I was shot point blank with a .223 round from the shooter,” Grosskreutz said. “And I am now
missing 90% of my bicep. This has not been easy emotionally, physically. I’m in constant pain,
like excruciating pain that just doesn’t go away — both in my arm, in my heart.”
Grosskreutz told CNN that he is not a felon and that he has a license to carry his firearm.
“I’m not a felon,” he said. “I have my concealed carry, I’ve had it for years.
That was my gun. My firearm.
I had a legal right to possess it and to possess it concealed.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/22-year-old-arm-partially-blown-off-pointing-pistol-17-year-old-kyle-rittenhouses-head-cries-victim-cnn/
Now will you stop with all the hypothetical "reasonable doubt", "doesn't take a genius high paid defense attorney to cast doubt on the case" bullshit? :wacko:
Or, you can keep on pretending the FACTS don't exist.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/22-year-old-arm-partially-blown-off-pointing-pistol-17-year-old-kyle-rittenhouses-head-cries-victim-cnn/
Now will you stop with all the hypothetical "reasonable doubt", "doesn't take a genius high paid defense attorney to cast doubt on the case" bullshit? :wacko:
Or, you can keep on pretending the FACTS don't exist.
I never pretended it didn't exist, I just didn't know he admitted to it.
-
I never pretended it didn't exist, I just didn't know he admitted to it.
And never cared enough to do a simple web search before spending time arguing.
Glad I could educate you.
-
And never cared enough to do a simple web search before spending time arguing.
Glad I could educate you.
Oh, so I should do google searches on every controversial case just incase someone stupidly incriminated themselves?
If you knew about it earlier why didn't you just mention it in the beginning. I think you are just in it for the fight, as usual. You couldn't help but nitpick a hypothetical prosecution question. Usually you are quick to point out about how the government has to prove a person committed a crime but in this case you were so ready abandon the burden of proof on the government. It seems your political bias has thoroughly worked it's way into your ideas about justice.
-
Oh, so I should do google searches on every controversial case just incase someone stupidly incriminated themselves?
If you knew about it earlier why didn't you just mention it in the beginning. I think you are just in it for the fight, as usual. You couldn't help but nitpick a hypothetical prosecution question. Usually you are quick to point out about how the government has to prove a person committed a crime but in this case you were so ready abandon the burden of proof on the government. It seems your political bias has thoroughly worked it's way into your ideas about justice.
Not my job to do your research. You began making the point about his defense strategy. It's on you to provide some sort of proof. Isn't that what you say to everyone all the time?
I gave you enough time to find it yourself, and enough chances to NOT paint yourself into a corner.
Don't blame me for your poor decisions. Next time you feel like playing devil's advocate, Internet lawyer, or courtroom strategist, maybe you'll look up the specifics of the case in question first. :geekdanc: :rofl:
-
Not my job to do your research. You began making the point about his defense strategy. It's on you to provide some sort of proof. Isn't that what you say to everyone all the time?
I gave you enough time to find it yourself, and enough chances to NOT paint yourself into a corner.
Don't blame me for your poor decisions. Next time you feel like playing devil's advocate, Internet lawyer, or courtroom strategist, maybe you'll look up the specifics of the case in question first. :geekdanc: :rofl:
Wrong wrong wrong. Like I pointed out your bias is showing through, The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You can't throw that out just because bicep guy was some lefty idiot.
-
Wrong wrong wrong. Like I pointed out your bias is showing through, The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. You can't throw that out just because bicep guy was some lefty idiot.
This is not a court of law, and I'm not the prosecution.
You made a legal argument from the defense point of view, and then continued posting over and over about "if just one juror has a reasonable doubt."
But, you failed to research the FACTS. Your whole argumentative dissertation was just hypothetical bullshit.
If I WERE the prosecution, I would have buried your client with his own statements. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
This is not a court of law, and I'm not the prosecution.
You made a legal argument from the defense point of view, and then continued posting over and over about "if just one juror has a reasonable doubt."
But, you failed to research the FACTS. Your whole argumentative dissertation was just hypothetical bullshit.
If I WERE the prosecution, I would have buried your client with his own statements. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
My points were all based in standards about burdens of proof.
You find some extra video where the guy incriminates himself? Congratulations, you made a much better case but still completely missed the point that its the job of the prosecution to prove he had a gun, not his job to prove he didn't. Try to stay focused please.
-
My points were all based in standards about burdens of proof.
You find some extra video where the guy incriminates himself? Congratulations, you made a much better case but still completely missed the point that its the job of the prosecution to prove he had a gun, not his job to prove he didn't. Try to stay focused please.
I never missed your point.
You missed the FACTS.
Your arguments concerning THIS CASE were proven wrong.
Go cry in a corner. :shake: :rofl:
-
I never missed your point.
You missed the FACTS.
Your arguments concerning THIS CASE were proven wrong.
Go cry in a corner. :shake: :rofl:
It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.
Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.
-
It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.
Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.
You never bothered to look at the facts.
Not my job to do your research.
Suck it! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
You never bothered to look at the facts.
Not my job to do your research.
When you are making the argument it is. Stop trying to weasel out of this, it is pretty sad.
-
When you are making the argument it is. Stop trying to weasel out of this, it is pretty sad.
Wait. I told you you were wrong ... statement of fact, not an opinion.
YOU argued with ME. Based on your rules: you made the argument -- you post the info.
Of course, that requires you to actually KNOW the info and not just pull arguments out of your ass. :rofl:
You're done here. First you lose your argument, then you argue about HOW you lost wasn't right somehow.
Suck it. I won. This is now settled, since I know you have nothing new to offer.
:stopjack:
-
It was never my arguments that were issue, it was a lack of your arguments, you were disregarding the burden of proof.
Only now after poking and prodding you finally presented proof to support your argument and you act like it was my shortcoming. I wish it didn't take so long for you to prove your argument, but at least we have gotten to the finish line. Next time try to set your bias aside ahead of time.
You come out creating your own fake scenarios of "what if", not including any of the actual facts about the case.
Then you get mad at everyone for watching you weave this intricate web of make believe and not telling you to shut the fuck up, here's the actual facts you never bothered to include?
Ahahahahahha
-
Wait. I told you you were wrong ... statement of fact, not an opinion.
YOU argued with ME. Based on your rules: you made the argument -- you post the info.
Of course, that requires you to actually KNOW the info and not just pull arguments out of your ass. :rofl:
You're done here. First you lose your argument, then you argue about HOW you lost wasn't right somehow.
Suck it. I won. This is now settled, since I know you have nothing new to offer.
:stopjack:
Hahaha, now that was even a little humorous with all the argument skills of a 4 year old. Keep digging yourself deeper if you want.
Bottom line, don't complain when someone asks you to support your argument. You were making the argument of the prosecution therefore it is your job to support it, not the defense's job to prove innocent.
-
You come out creating your own fake scenarios of "what if", not including any of the actual facts about the case.
Then you get mad at everyone for watching you weave this intricate web of make believe and not telling you to shut the fuck up, here's the actual facts you never bothered to include?
Ahahahahahha
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the debate but it wasn't a hypothetical what if. On page 1, changemyoil made a comment about prosecuting bicep guy for a weapons charge and my comment was pointing out a difficulty doing so. So no, it wasn't a hypothetical situation, the situation actually occurred. I didn't make up anything.
And I am not mad at all, I am only reminding flapp that the prosecution has to prove their case, not the other way around. That is a pretty basic tenant of our justice system.
-
Hahaha, now that was even a little humorous with all the argument skills of a 4 year old. Keep digging yourself deeper if you want.
Bottom line, don't complain when someone asks you to support your argument. You were making the argument of the prosecution therefore it is your job to support it, not the defense's job to prove innocent.
Ever notice how every time you're proven wrong, you only attack the other person?
Talk about "humorous". :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You don't get to set the rules of forum discussions. It's your job to know more about the topic than .... nothing.
-
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the debate but it wasn't a hypothetical what if. On page 1, changemyoil made a comment about prosecuting bicep guy for a weapons charge and my comment was pointing out a difficulty doing so. So no, it wasn't a hypothetical situation, the situation actually occurred. I didn't make up anything.
And I am not mad at all, I am only reminding flapp that the prosecution has to prove their case, not the other way around. That is a pretty basic tenant of our justice system.
This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud. Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there.
So don't feel bad
-
This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud. Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there.
So don't feel bad
LOL! Trying to gang up on ME? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Better people than you and EEF have tried and failed.
Go crawl back in your hole, and take your off topic post with you, Troll boy. :popcorn:
:stopjack:
-
This is the same flapp that believe just because there is no evidence of mass fraud doesn't mean there is no mass fraud. Even though thousands and maybe millions of people are looking for evidence, just cause they can't find it it must still be there.
So don't feel bad
What is your definition for "mass fraud"? 4,000 dead people voting? 2? 700,000 extra votes?
-
What is your definition for "mass fraud"? 4,000 dead people voting? 2? 700,000 extra votes?
Don't let him hijack this thread, too. It's about a self-defense shooting, not the election. He can't help himself, so it's up to us to stop enabling him.
Thanks!
:shaka:
-
Don't let him hijack this thread, too. It's about a self-defense shooting, not the election. He can't help himself, so it's up to us to stop enabling him.
Thanks!
:shaka:
My bad, I should have known better.
-
Ever notice how every time you're proven wrong, you only attack the other person?
Hypocrisy manifest right there.
You don't get to set the rules of forum discussions. It's your job to know more about the topic than .... nothing.
I am talking about the rules of justice. Ignore them if you like, doesn't look bad on me.
-
LOL! Trying to gang up on ME?
He is taking care of my leg work.
:geekdanc: