11-03-2021, 06:21 PM
(11-03-2021, 06:03 PM)Dill Wrote: This seems pretty helter skelter, ad hoc, and desperate, relying too much on adjectives and ad hominem--that's my "feel" statement for today. I'll try and fish out other points to respond to.
If you saw this point by point dissection of your inaccuracies as described above I don't think I can put much stock in your opinion on this matter. Also, I'd like you to kindly point out what is an ad hominem in the post you quoted. I'll wait.
Quote:Sounds like you are saying that, because our ears point forward, we can't distinguish whether a shot fired 40 yards behind us was fired 40 yards away or right behind us. Even if you can put 17 rounds in the 9-10 ring, I don't agree.
I have friends who know a hell of a lot more about firearms than I do. I can confidently say that I know light years more about firearms than you. You are 100%, indisputably, incorrect here.
Quote:I agree that handguns are deadly beyond 40 yards. Perhaps you'll agree that people without handguns aren't aren't a handgun threat.
Yes, no handgun means no "handgun" threat. Of course there are myriad deadly threats that don't involve a handgun, such as a person attacking you and attempting to rob you of your own firearm.
Quote:Also, R was fleeing one man, not a "mob" when he turned and shot the unarmed Rosenbaum.
At this point I honestly have to question your eyesight. The guy you already mentioned, among others, was also chasing him, you know the one who shot a handgun.
Quote:Read carefully. I did not say that R shot Rosenbaum in the back initially. I said the kill shot followed him falling forward because of shots to his "extremities," according to the prosecutor.
I did read carefully, apparently you did not because what you actually said was the following;
Quote:Did he fear for his life when he shot the already downed Rosenbaum in the back?
Note the words "already downed". That doesn't even imply, it states that Rittenhouse shot him in the back while he was "down". This is demonstrably false by the admission of the prosecution who noted that the bullet that entered his back did so as he was in the process of falling forward. You position also notably omits just how rapidly the four shots followed each other. A rather key piece of fact.
Quote:Also, Rosenbaum looked to be facing Rittenhouse when initially shot. He can't get shot in the back without some change in the angle of the barrel.
Uhhh, or a change in the angle of his body.
Quote:By "generate mayhem" I mean bring a gun to a riot intending to "run toward danger," argue with protestors, and shoot one when he tries to disarm. You keep referring to this then minor's "right" to open carry during a riot, even apparently during the curfew he was violating, when he did not even have a right to be on the street.
Except you used it to describe his actions while running away. In any event, your position as stated is just silly. Being out after curfew is not "generating mayhem". Open carrying in a state in which that is legal is not "generating mayhem". "Running towards danger" is not "generating mayhem". Although you actually help his case by stating he "ran to danger". Running to danger does not give anyone carte blanche to physically attack you, nor does either of your other two "generating mayhem" activities.
Quote:Certainly the people R shot made "bad decisions," but theirs theirs did not lead to homicide charges.
Thankfully for Kyle, as he was the one they were trying to kill.
Your arguments are normally much, much better than this, Dill. Even when I find them overly verbose they are usually grounded in some fact and logic. I think this topic is too emotional for you because all of that has gone out the window in your responses in this thread. I know you'll discount this appraisal, which is fine, but I have to say, you're making this one extremely easy for me.
Lastly, I noticed you ignored the extremely relevant point about the prosecution admitting that Rosenbaum initiated the physical attack after a verbal altercation. Why is that?
