Impropper rifle usage: In the trial The prosecutor is holding the rifle in a way that would gaurantee his severe injury if he fired it. Quite obviose he never fired a rifle. He has the...

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

In the trial The prosecutor is holding the rifle in a way that would gaurantee his severe injury if he fired it. Quite obviose he never fired a rifle. He has the stock pressed so tightly against his right cheek the skin is folded over the stock. Even a slight recoil might break his jaw. The stock is also not properly positioned against his shoulder. Again a slight recoil would injure his shoulder. He is a textbook example of improper rifle usage

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

boberic wrote:

In the trial The prosecutor is holding the rifle in a way that would gaurantee his severe injury if he fired it. Quite obviose he never fired a rifle. He has the stock pressed so tightly against his right cheek the skin is folded over the stock. Even a slight recoil might break his jaw. The stock is also not properly positioned against his shoulder. Again a slight recoil would injure his shoulder. He is a textbook example of improper rifle usage

Will you agree that school massacres and shooting protesters are also 'improper rifle usage' or all bets are off in vigilante MAGAstan?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Texcaster wrote:

Will you agree that school massacres and shooting protesters are also 'improper rifle usage' or all bets are off in vigilante MAGAstan?

There is something seriously wrong with you.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

He was trying to get the jury to see how it felt to have a gun aimed at them

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

boberic wrote:

In the trial The prosecutor is holding the rifle in a way that would gaurantee his severe injury if he fired it. Quite obviose he never fired a rifle. He has the stock pressed so tightly against his right cheek the skin is folded over the stock. Even a slight recoil might break his jaw. The stock is also not properly positioned against his shoulder. Again a slight recoil would injure his shoulder. He is a textbook example of improper rifle usage

His handling of the rifle has no bearing on the point he was trying to make.

But I am surprised that he was allowed to do what he did.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

Racmanaz wrote:

There is something seriously wrong with you.

lol.

You want to enshrine vigilantism as a state sacrament in MAGAstan and then ... you 'Ratzone maze' people disloyal to your King?

If you were more cluey ... and knew Bannon ... maybe ... you could have been a backroom J** 6 influencer.

Just as well ... no chance of a pardon now.

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

JohnFrim wrote:

His handling of the rifle has no bearing on the point he was trying to make.

But I am surprised that he was allowed to do what he did.

Too right! Supposed firearm experts. Right after the Baldwin movie tragedy?!?!?

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

boberic wrote:

In the trial The prosecutor is holding the rifle in a way that would gaurantee his severe injury if he fired it. Quite obviose he never fired a rifle. He has the stock pressed so tightly against his right cheek the skin is folded over the stock. Even a slight recoil might break his jaw. The stock is also not properly positioned against his shoulder. Again a slight recoil would injure his shoulder. He is a textbook example of improper rifle usage

Congratulations. You've won the prize for the most asinine post of 2021.
Don't get cocky. Remember it's only November and you've got some right-wingers out there who are sure to beat you.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Frank T wrote:

Congratulations. You've won the prize for the most asinine post of 2021.
Don't get cocky. Remember it's only November and you've got some right-wingers out there who are sure to beat you.

From Which planrt do you hail. On this one a person who does not react when a deadly weapon is aimed at him, the next person he meets is often the coroner. The situation does not matter, thye location does not matter, the person aiming the weapon does not matter. EVERY FIREARM, EVERY FIREARM must be regarded as fully loaded. There are too many dead people who did not heed this "LAW". Don't believe me, speak to any firearm instructor. And ask him what rule number this rule is

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

If I were a juror and he pointed a firearm at me I'd file assault charges. Dumbass.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

LDB415 wrote:

If I were a juror and he pointed a firearm at me I'd file assault charges. Dumbass.

And you would lose. At least one state, California, defines assault as: An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

In the case of the district attorney pointing the rifle at the jury, the rifle was not loaded so there was no present ability to commit the crime.

Dennis

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

LDB415 wrote:

If I were a juror and he pointed a firearm at me I'd file assault charges. Dumbass.

Based on the post just prior, I would agree with you. I also suspect that this cowboy of a judge allowed this action because he probably has a loaded gun at the ready under his desk… just in case!

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

LDB415 wrote:

If I were a juror and he pointed a firearm at me I'd file assault charges. Dumbass.

If I were any where in that courtroom and that rifle was pointed at me, I would stand up and shout, as loudly as I could "POINT that weapon somewhere else" and gladly take any punishment

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

dennis2146 wrote:

And you would lose. At least one state, California, defines assault as: An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

In the case of the district attorney pointing the rifle at the jury, the rifle was not loaded so there was no present ability to commit the crime.

Dennis

That might be. Then I'd sue him in civil court for mental anguish and terrorizing acts against another citizen.