Donald Trump

[SebastianBlue]

Excuse me?

You were just trying to wind up the poster with your response.

Thus I have said stop being a WUM or be excluded from discussions in the thread.

It’s entirely up to you.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Are you regularly in the habit of routinely referring to criminals/murderers or alleged criminals/murderers by their first name only, as if they are your best mate?

Is the Yorkshire Ripper just 'Peter' to you?

He prefers ‘Pete’ these days.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Excuse me?

He said stop WUMing or stop participating.

 

[Silva_Spell]

You were just trying to wind up the poster with your response.

Thus I have said stop being a WUM or be excluded from discussions in the thread.

It’s entirely up to you.

Well, I know my intention and it wasn't that. There are different kinds of opinions eg. personal, informed, uninformed.
If I'm guilty of anything it's of being too efficient. I'll make sure to use more words in the future.

He said stop WUMing or stop participating.

Stop WUMing me

 

[Vic]

So Trump in Kenosha appears at Rode's burnt out camera store with the "owner" of the business. Turns out the real owner of the business bought it eight years ago and he wouldn't appear with Trump, although the former owner (Rode) still owned the building.

Kenosha business owner declines President Trump photo-op, former owner replaces him

A Kenosha business owner is accusing President Donald Trump of using his destroyed store for political gain.

www.tmj4.com

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Sadly, Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine:

Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.


Interesting question:

If someone illegally possesses a firearm in Wisconsin, then another person tries to dispossess him of that firearm, including by force, and he claims Castle Doctrine but uses that illegally owned firearm to kill them “in self-defence,” will it hold up in court?

Let’s hope not, otherwise there is absolutely no point in having ANY gun laws!

Perhaps more germane to the current Trump clusterfuck, an interesting article from Rolling Stone:

End of America

FWIW, when this article was presented for discussion with some supposedly highly edumicated people I know, the “discussion” quickly switched to “Fuck off home then and leave us to our American Exceptionalism!”

I shit you not...

 

[Vic]

Sadly, Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine:

Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.


Interesting question:

If someone illegally possesses a firearm in Wisconsin, then another person tries to dispossess him of that firearm, including by force, and he claims Castle Doctrine but uses that illegally owned firearm to kill them “in self-defence,” will it hold up in court?

Let’s hope not, otherwise there is absolutely no point in having ANY gun laws!

Perhaps more germane to the current Trump clusterfuck, an interesting article from Rolling Stone:

End of America

FWIW, when this article was presented for discussion with some supposedly highly edumicated people I know, the “discussion” quickly switched to “Fuck off home then and leave us to our American Exceptionalism!”

I shit you not...

A very good article that. I can't even tempt my American relatives to engage on Trump. I suspect it's just too divisive (one is a guy who left the police years ago to go into teaching).

 

[Dax777]

The only fact I can glean from everything I’ve seen on this and other events in America over the last few months is that if the kid was black he would now be dead.
He’d never have walked down the road with an assault rifle and be ignored by the police.

That's not a fact. That's an assumption. Facts in this scenario will only include things that already happened. An assumption is what you think would have happened. The above claim falls in the latter category.

What the hell is a seventeen year old doing walking towards a protest with a rifle?
Apparently driven there from out of state by his mother.

1. He wasn't walking towards a protest with a rifle. He was stationed at a Used Car Lot hoping to protect it from rioters ( not Protestors) who were looking to loot and burn businesses down. He was there being interviewed by a reporter when one of the protestors accosted him.

2. He wasn't driven there by his mom. Another false story. He works in Kenosha as a lifeguard and stayed after work to join the Militia guarding properties.

If that’s normal in America you are truly fucked.

I have to agree with your conclusion that we are fucked though. But I'd suggest thstd because more and more people care more about sides than they do about facts. And that I believe is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Dax777]

Sadly, Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine:

Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.


Interesting question:

If someone illegally possesses a firearm in Wisconsin, then another person tries to dispossess him of that firearm, including by force, and he claims Castle Doctrine but uses that illegally owned firearm to kill them “in self-defence,” will it hold up in court?

Let’s hope not, otherwise there is absolutely no point in having ANY gun laws!

Perhaps more germane to the current Trump clusterfuck, an interesting article from Rolling Stone:

End of America

FWIW, when this article was presented for discussion with some supposedly highly edumicated people I know, the “discussion” quickly switched to “Fuck off home then and leave us to our American Exceptionalism!”

I shit you not...

That seems like the argument the Prosecutors intend to try.

A sub question that may be relevant to the above would be whether the person trying to disposses him of the weapon is aware that he is illegally possessing the weapon.

It makes no sense to have a law that says if you illegally have a weapon you are barred from using it to defend yourself against bodily harm.

Now let me describe a hypothetical here: Suppose a 30 year-old with a club attacks a 15 year old and swings on him but misses his head. But in the process of swinging a gun falls from his pocket. The 15 year-old grabs the gun and shoots the guy.

Your conclusion above would suggest the 15 year old couldn't defend himself with the gun since it's illegal for him to possess it (on account that he is 15). I highly doubt that argument would work..
And thus unlikely to work in the Kenosha case either.

What Prosecutors seemingly would need to show is that it was unreasonable of the shooter to assume he was in danger of bodily harm or death simply because someone attempted to disposses him of an illegally held gun.

 

[mat]

Can't wait for his executive order classing tins if soup as a weapon...