search results matching tag: Still Here

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.006 seconds

    Videos (21)     Sift Talk (11)     Blogs (5)     Comments (187)   

ant (Member Profile)

Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays / Season's Greetings ! (Sift Talk Post)

When Gas Prices Are Too High Even For Motorcycles

RITTENHOUSE, Law, Verdict

vil says...

Yes, that is what I meant, as soon as he was approaching with an openly carried gun, wild west rules as I understand them say the moment he attempts to aim at anyone he is open game for anyone who can draw faster.

If you desperately want to live in the wild west that is.

I am totally lost on whether I should be using the sarcasm button on these posts. I am being sarcastic. I believe some form of gun limiting federal law is the only way out of this mess. But then the sarcasm does not make my claim invalid.

I knew an american who came to Prague (turns out he is still here and is still a film producer) who would carry his gun around all the time and randomly pull it out and show it to people at business meetings and in pubs. I thought at the time (early 90s) dude this is SO embarassing. Regular manners in a civilized society since roman times dictate that people do not carry weapons unless danger is imminent. You only carry weapons if you are directly employed to be in dangerous situations, otherwise you are putting yourself and others in danger and appear to be a reckless fool.

So if the USofA consider themselves the wild west to this day, then it is understandable that Kyle was let go, and I say disarm him or shoot him before he shoots you.

Hit him with that skateboard, only harder!

JiggaJonson said:

But what if he was coming towards me with a gun?

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

JiggaJonson says...

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say



bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

LAST WEEK IN CULTURE

Liberal Redneck - Transgender Patriots and the GOP

Stormsinger says...

Neither do they want bigots and assholes hanging around...but look who's still here.

bobknight33 said:

American don't want freaks in the military or anywhere else.

If you want to be a freak -be like everyone else, Step out Friday/Saturday and get your freak on and show up Monday like the rest of , normal.

Scientist Blows Whistle on Trump Administration

newtboy says...

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

bobknight33 said:

I do believe that temperatures are changing but to say man is mostly at fault -- I don't buy it. Even those promoting man made warming concede that even the Paris accord will not truly change the doomsday course we are on.

Al Gore's Inconvenient truth movie has the planet basically dead today -- but we are all here. Kind of the boy crying woof.

I grew up in the Westboro Baptist Church.

bcglorf says...

Protestants and Catholics spent a long time trying to kill each other for myriad reasons. Can you find a Catholic or Protestant leader in your area, or even your country that takes your view of things as accurate?

Poolcleaner simply observed that he appreciated being able to agree to disagree with diverse groups of people. He added a throw away comment that atheists can be the worst for disrespecting each others beliefs though. You took umbrage with that, and are still here proceeding to not only condemn theists for their beliefs, but are going beyond that and ADDING beliefs they themselves REJECT to condemn for those too.

You have to see the problem/irony in this, no?

newtboy said:

Hit a nerve, did I?

The bible specifically tells you to murder them with your own hands, not to have society impose laws. No way out. If you don't murder them, you should also be murdered for failing to follow the commands. It's clear. That's pretty damn disrespectful in my eyes, murdering one for believing differently.

As for that Jesus guy changing things.....
17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18 For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…

nothing working (Sift Talk Post)

Patient Cop Gives Drunk Man Every Chance To Go Away

mxxcon says...

Yes, probably got deleted. But also if I remember correctly that video didn't have a description so it's possible it's still here but we just can't find it.

eric3579 (Member Profile)

chicchorea says...

Thank you my friend. Still here and looking forward to all.

Thank you, very much. Thank you for thinking of me.

I hope you are happy and well.

eric3579 said:

Happy Birthday, chicchorea! I hope this birthday sees you doing well.

Windows 10 Technical Support

Why can't white people stop the violence?

GenjiKilpatrick says...

And you should be banned for being consistently overtly racist..

but you're still here.

bobknight33 said:

Are you quoting me ?

"See, I always told you niggers are violent criminals"
"See what happens when you let LIB-TARDS run a city!"

or just making false words up to to hold your self up on the moral pedestal?

YEA - liar
Your are unworthy of using this site for this kind of shenanigans. You should be banned. Shameful.

'Do you hear that bass Mom?'

speechless says...

Did he downvote your comment?

Well, he banned my fucking account.

Because ummm, one of his sockpuppets was upset?

So, he gets to completely abuse his power here banning others and gets to create sock puppets, and the only downside is his sockpuppet gets banned?

http://i.imgur.com/StDTzLX.jpg

Why is he still here? Why are so many people not here anymore? I wonder if there's a connection.

lucky760 said:

Nice comment down-vote, @BoneRemake. I guess you're not familiar with the song, eh?



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon