Which is ass backwards
No, I don’t think it is.
But I don’t have the whole gun fetish mindset, so I understand why we might differ on this.
Well…you’re wrong Mr. Hoplophobe
Well…you’re wrong Mr. Hoplophobe
![]()
Ah, yes. I was wondering when that term would come up.
I’m not scared of guns. I own a few, and enjoy them.
I just don’t have the fetish.
WuWei:
Well…you’re wrong Mr. Hoplophobe
Ah, yes. I was wondering when that term would come up.
I’m not scared of guns. I own a few, and enjoy them.
I just don’t have the fetish.
I’m not a fetishist.
I’m not a fetishist.
In your case, I can accept that your life experiences, rather than gun fetishism, may explain the mindset I refer to.
So I apologize. But it’s still garbage.
Samm:
So it’s not okay to defend yourself from being beaten … possibly to death … by a guy wielding a skateboard and a guy who has a pistol pointed at your head? Even if he were an “active shooter” he would still have the right to defend himself. What they may have thought was happening is immaterial to his right to defend himself.
Rittenhouse had his rifle pointed at Grosskreutz first. What if he shot Rittenhouse first? Self defense right?
If you ignore that Grosskreutz was tailing Rittenhouse instead of the other way around, that might be a good point.
WuWei:
I’m not a fetishist.
In your case, I can accept that your life experiences, rather than gun fetishism, may explain the mindset I refer to.
So I apologize. But it’s still garbage.
Your hoplophobia is garbage.
Your hoplophobia is garbage.
Again, you’re using the word wrong. I understand it’s reflexive at this point, but I thought I should mention it anyway.
Guns have little to nothing to do with why I don’t believe self-defense should be assumed in criminal trials.
No, it’s the correct word.
Guns have little to nothing to do with why I don’t believe self-defense should be assumed in criminal trials.
And nothing to do with why it should.
Axxowiz:
In Wisconsin from what I read you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm if you believe you could be killed or could receive great bodily harm.
I could be wrong but I think it will be hard for the prosecutors to prove he didn’t think he was about to get the crap kicked out of him by the mob considering the environment they were in.
For him to be prosecuted for murder they would have to ignore the Wisconsin law on defense with a firearm.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense.
It is not assumed. It’s the defendant’s burden to prove.
Well, when two people are chasing you and one starts beating you with his skateboard and the other pulls out a gun, it’s not much of a burden to prove it.
No, it’s the correct word.
![]()
If it helps you, sure.
And nothing to do with why it should.
Perhaps not for you.
Well, when two people are chasing you and one starts beating you with his skateboard and the other pulls out a gun, it’s not much of a burden to prove it.
Well, we shall see, won’t we?
That’s what the trial is for.
So now opinions aren’t acceptable? Then why are you still commenting?
So now opinions aren’t acceptable? Then why are you still commenting?
Context is important. This is the post I responded to:
In Wisconsin from what I read you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm if you believe you could be killed or could receive great bodily harm.
I could be wrong but I think it will be hard for the prosecutors to prove he didn’t think he was about to get the crap kicked out of him by the mob considering the environment they were in.
For him to be prosecuted for murder they would have to ignore the Wisconsin law on defense with a firearm.
Axxowiz:
In Wisconsin from what I read you have a right to defend yourself with a firearm if you believe you could be killed or could receive great bodily harm.
I could be wrong but I think it will be hard for the prosecutors to prove he didn’t think he was about to get the crap kicked out of him by the mob considering the environment they were in.
For him to be prosecuted for murder they would have to ignore the Wisconsin law on defense with a firearm.
Self-defense is an affirmative defense.
It is not assumed. It’s the defendant’s burden to prove.
Cop shot unarmed woman but claimed self defense. Was his life at immediate risk?
Apparently not his burden to prove.
Cop shot unarmed woman but claimed self defense. Was his life at immediate risk?
Apparently not his burden to prove.
Is it really news to you that police are held to a different standard, legally?
DougBH:
Cop shot unarmed woman but claimed self defense. Was his life at immediate risk?
Apparently not his burden to prove.Is it really news to you that police are held to a different standard, legally?
That is absolutely false. By law, the same rules apply to law enforcers as to everyone else. That prosecutors and courts often give them preference goes contrary to the letter of the law.
DougBH:
Cop shot unarmed woman but claimed self defense. Was his life at immediate risk?
Apparently not his burden to prove.Is it really news to you that police are held to a different standard, legally?
Actually, scratch the “legally”. Show me where they have greater legal rights to shoot anyone.