Would it have been self defence?
Nov 16, 2021 10:20:37 #
Have you seen the photo of the prosecuting attorney in the Rittenhouse trial pointing an AR15 in his closing arguement? I assume he is pointing it at someone in the courtroom. Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that you MUST assume any gun that is aimed at anything is fully loaded. So if that person in the room was armed would he have a right of self defense to shoot the prosecutor?
Nov 16, 2021 10:48:03 #
Nov 16, 2021 11:06:13 #
lbrande wrote:
The DA also had his finger on the trigger. He violated all 4 rules of gun safety.
My question still applies. If that gun was aimed at me would I have had the right to shoot him??
Nov 16, 2021 11:18:56 #
boberic wrote:
My question still applies. If that gun was aimed at me would I have had the right to shoot him??
I doubt you'll find a criminal trial courtroom anywhere in North America which allows anyone other that LEO to have a weapon in the court. Every court building I've seen has a metal detector and xray right at the door.
Nov 16, 2021 14:26:57 #
Nov 16, 2021 14:33:52 #
boberic wrote:
My question still applies. If that gun was aimed at me would I have had the right to shoot him??
I don't think so, although he broke gun safety rules there was a very public display of the gun being checked to insure that there was ammunition in the gun and that the chamber was empty. Don't think that you would be able to make an argument any further than the fact that the prosecutor is an i***t.
Nov 16, 2021 14:44:00 #
tramsey wrote:
In answer to your question; I would say yes and rid the country of another i***t
You would say wrong and would be tried, convicted and sent to the slammer. Two i***ts don't make a right.
Nov 16, 2021 14:49:09 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
I don't think so, although he broke gun safety rules there was a very public display of the gun being checked to insure that there was ammunition in the gun and that the chamber was empty. Don't think that you would be able to make an argument any further than the fact that the prosecutor is an i***t.
Correct, Blurry--you would not have the right to shoot him in that situation. Even in stand your ground states, the use of a deadly weapon for self defense can occur only where you have a reasonable fear that your life is being threatened. You would not have any such reasonable fear in that situation; it would not be reasonable to believe that the attorney was aiming a loaded gun at you with the intent of shooting you, or even that the gun is loaded, as it no doubt would have been carefully inspected by firearms experts long before it was allowed in the courtroom.
Nov 16, 2021 21:57:16 #
National Park wrote:
Correct, Blurry--you would not have the right to s... (show quote)
If a gun is pointed at you, you can not have the slightest idea what the pointer is thinking. An innocent movie maker was just k**led with an "unloaded" hand gun. EVERY gun instructor teaches every student, EVERY TIME. to regard every gun as loaded if he points the gun at anything. Thousands of people, every year, are k**led by unloaded guns. Just for your safety, regardless of the location, situation. or anything else, you must regard ANY gun pointed at you, at any time as fully loaded. Even if you are holding ALL the bullets
Nov 17, 2021 03:31:14 #
The judge bears full responsibility for allowing the gun to be pointed at anyone.
Nov 17, 2021 06:52:24 #
Texcaster wrote:
The judge bears full responsibility for allowing the gun to be pointed at anyone.
Only partial responsibility. He can’t stop an i***t from doing that. Many of us who were on a military range saw at least one dumwit sweeping people after being briefed on gun and range safety
Nov 17, 2021 06:57:48 #
Rose42 wrote:
Only partial responsibility. He can’t stop an i***t from doing that. Many of us who were on a military range saw at least one dumwit sweeping people after being briefed on gun and range safety
If a judge can't control his court he needs replacing.
Nov 17, 2021 06:59:39 #
boberic wrote:
Have you seen the photo of the prosecuting attorney in the Rittenhouse trial pointing an AR15 in his closing arguement? I assume he is pointing it at someone in the courtroom. Anyone who knows anything about guns knows that you MUST assume any gun that is aimed at anything is fully loaded. So if that person in the room was armed would he have a right of self defense to shoot the prosecutor?
Go for your life. Anything goes in vigilante MAGAstan now.
Nov 17, 2021 07:50:00 #
Texcaster wrote:
If a judge can't control his court he needs replacing.
How would you have prevented it? A judge doesn’t have the ability to see if a lawyer is going to be stupid.
Nov 17, 2021 08:03:42 #
Texcaster wrote:
The judge bears full responsibility for allowing the gun to be pointed at anyone.
No he doesn't. The individual holding the weapon has that responsibility. That's why a lot of folks get shot; they pointed a gun at someone. By any measure, the prosecutor is an i***t.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.