Printable View
[QUOTE=IAmGib1;5634085]Shill or Pimp for FitVietMilf?[/QUOTE]This is why I don't like posting about my experience. HX and other sites give reviews and it's cool. But when you try to report a great encounter, yes sometimes twice in one week your subjected to BS comments. Guess because your a senior member that give you the right to be a moron.
[QUOTE=ManUp;5634885]This is why I don't like posting about my experience. HX and other sites give reviews and it's cool. But when you try to report a great encounter, yes sometimes twice in one week your subjected to BS comments. Guess because your a senior member that give you the right to be a moron.[/QUOTE]When you spam threads like you did its a little obvious that you're could be a booker, pimp, possible stalker in the making, white knight in the making.
[QUOTE=ManUp;5634885]This is why I don't like posting about my experience. HX and other sites give reviews and it's cool. But when you try to report a great encounter, yes sometimes twice in one week your subjected to BS comments. Guess because your a senior member that give you the right to be a moron.[/QUOTE]It's fine man. Don't sweat it. I appreciate your post. Maybe just don't copy it between so many threads. If they're looking for FVM info they'll be able to search it and find your review.
[QUOTE=ManUp;5634885]This is why I don't like posting about my experience. HX and other sites give reviews and it's cool. But when you try to report a great encounter, yes sometimes twice in one week your subjected to BS comments. Guess because your a senior member that give you the right to be a moron.[/QUOTE]It's a question. Don't get why you are so hurt by it.
Why post in 5-6 different threads between LA and OC Forums? Assorted threads include; Escorts, MILF / GILF, BBBJ and many others?
When I looked up your forum posts the last 10 are all about your GF FVM. Common sense indicates an interest in her booking by others that exceeds the norm. So are you bragging or advertising?
It has admittedly been a few decades since fish-mongering school, but how could young Kyle get away with self-defense? I don't remember much from crim law, but I remember something about having to respond with like force. If a dude comes up to punch you, you can't cap him in the head with your gat. But isn't that what the lad Kyle did? I heard protesters chased him with a bag and a skateboard.
Is the equivalent force rule for self-defense different in WI? Or did young Kyle think the first mental guy was throwing a bag full of grenades at him, or something?
[QUOTE=TempletonRat;5643557]It has admittedly been a few decades since fish-mongering school, but how could young Kyle get away with self-defense? I don't remember much from crim law, but I remember something about having to respond with like force. If a dude comes up to punch you, you can't cap him in the head with your gat. But isn't that what the lad Kyle did? I heard protesters chased him with a bag and a skateboard.
Is the equivalent force rule for self-defense different in WI? Or did young Kyle think the first mental guy was throwing a bag full of grenades at him, or
something?[/QUOTE]He took out a convicted, multiple offense child rapist. I'm cool with that.
[QUOTE=TempletonRat;5643557]It has admittedly been a few decades since fish-mongering school, but how could young Kyle get away with self-defense? I don't remember much from crim law, but I remember something about having to respond with like force. If a dude comes up to punch you, you can't cap him in the head with your gat. But isn't that what the lad Kyle did? I heard protesters chased him with a bag and a skateboard.
Is the equivalent force rule for self-defense different in WI? Or did young Kyle think the first mental guy was throwing a bag full of grenades at him, or something?[/QUOTE]I am not sure what fish mongering school you went to, but the only professor of any value I had was professor fleming who wrote a book called the law of torts. He was a WW2 veteran and taught something in law school that is hardly ever taught anymore, namely, the law. Not women and the law, race and the law, gays and the law. No, the law.
For many, his class was uncomfortable. There was no opinionating on a person's background, the victim's race, or any other such matters. I felt comfortable in this milieu as I had learned the talmud in the method of the brisker dynasty.
So, to look at the case of young kyle, you cannot just say, well, he had a rifle and someone through a bag at him, oh, and we do not like trump, so he is guilty. NO. Just as in a shaved cooter is anathema to all that is holy, and you never decline a table shower, you must state the distinction in the law that provides for justified homicide. Namely - self defense. Only then can you opine.
Now, it is complicated because Kyle was lawfully carrying this gun, which was a charge that was brought to mislead the jury. Plus Kyle was in fact allowed to protect the pooon JAW bee car lot. The owners kids posed with him and knew why kyle was there. They benefited from his services. They did not kick him off the lot. He was not violating curfew. So, he had a right to be where he was with his gun, which was of legal length.
As for his attackers, he is certainly lucky they were not melanin enhanced or he would likely have been found guilty, but the criminal background of the persons shot is irrelevant. And their race is too, but I will not begin to deny 2020 reality. You did not see any of the leading black leaders in the court, etc. This was white on white crime.
Self defense applies as follows in Wisconsin:
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.
The last sentence is crucial because it is clear that the second sentence make no sense given that we are talking about deadly force. There is no way, despite what old joe says, to use a gun without it being deadly force.
So, one asks, did Kyle reasonably believe he needed to shoot people to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?
Well, with the two assholes using a skateboard and a. 22, it is not a close call. Skater boy and bicep boy presented a clear threat of death or mongo bongo (pm me for the mongo bongo joke). I don't give a shit what your cause is, kyle was done shooting the first guy, he stopped shooting. If those two mental giants were truly afraid of a mass shooter, they would either call the police or take cover. They saw a chance to overcome the guy and strike a blow for their cause.
As for the first victim, it is closer and requires much more clinical and perhaps some results oriented reasoning. As you know, what is reasonable depends on all the facts and circumstances that apply to determine if Kyle acted reasonably. The video shows he was being chased. The "man" chasing him grabbed his gun (sounds like the dude who posted here about viet MILF), a particular act of gormlessness. Shots had rung out, the cops were engaged in political retreat so as to allow for rioters to burn the city until it was in ashes. The legal term for the situation is a shit show. So, yes, political incompetence and correctness has consequences, namely, people who like to engage in idiocy are not going to be protected by the rule of law just as they have driven out the rule of law.
So, asking myself, if I was lawfully carrying a gun and was in a place that I was protecting property at and some guy runs after me, the police are taking talk therapy lessons, there are shots and the guy grabbed my gun, well, this is not going to end in a hitchens style debate. Someone is going to die. If you were kyle, would you have acted the same way? I am not asking you if you support trump, or if you would be at home reading white fragility. No, you are there, what do you do? I know the answer, I would shoot until the danger to me was over.
Next post on the three inbreds who killed that guy who was jogging.
First guy who got shot is a pedophile (anally raped multiple boys) that apparently just got out of a mental hospital and was off his meds; he knocked Kyle down twice and tried to stomp kyle's head with lethal force while attempting to take his weapon. Pedo got shot and killed. Second guy was a habitual woman beater and whacked Kyle in the head 2 times with a skateboard trying to kill him. The woman beater got shot and killed. Third guy was a burglar / felon illegally carrying a gun which he attempted to use to try to murder Kyle first but got his biceps blown off before he can. This guy admitted this in trial. All three guys were chasing after Kyle and initiated the altercations. Its all on video. I'm happy with the outcome of the trial as well.
[QUOTE=TheAcorn;5644938]First guy who got shot is a pedophile (anally raped multiple boys) that apparently just got out of a mental hospital and was off his meds; he knocked Kyle down twice and tried to stomp kyle's head with lethal force while attempting to take his weapon. Pedo got shot and killed. Second guy was a habitual woman beater and whacked Kyle in the head 2 times with a skateboard trying to kill him. The woman beater got shot and killed. Third guy was a burglar / felon illegally carrying a gun which he attempted to use to try to murder Kyle first but got his biceps blown off before he can. This guy admitted this in trial. All three guys were chasing after Kyle and initiated the altercations. Its all on video. I'm happy with the outcome of the trial as well.[/QUOTE]Honestly, that's a stretch. He does not have the criminal records of all 3 at the ready; he could have just as easily shot 3 church deacons having a bad day or were off their meds. But if he knew that they were all "bad people" before pulling the trigger, then he's just a regular Paul Kersey! Give him a black leather jacket and a. 44 revolver!
[QUOTE=SFVsag;5645206]Honestly, that's a stretch. He does not have the criminal records of all 3 at the ready; he could have just as easily shot 3 church deacons having a bad day or were off their meds. But if he knew that they were all "bad people" before pulling the trigger, then he's just a regular Paul Kersey! Give him a black leather jacket and a. 44 revolver![/QUOTE]In the end, it doesn't matter that the people he shot had records, or if he knew they had records or not. There was video definitively proving that he acted in self-defense. That's why he was cleared. It's just a perk that the people he shot were absolute scum.
[QUOTE=PriscillaM;5644706]Next post on the three inbreds who killed that guy who was jogging.[/QUOTE]Thank you for your analysis.
Where is this promised next post of which you speak?
[QUOTE=TempletonRat;5643557]It has admittedly been a few decades since fish-mongering school, but how could young Kyle get away with self-defense? I don't remember much from crim law, but I remember something about having to respond with like force. If a dude comes up to punch you, you can't cap him in the head with your gat. But isn't that what the lad Kyle did? I heard protesters chased him with a bag and a skateboard.
Is the equivalent force rule for self-defense different in WI? Or did young Kyle think the first mental guy was throwing a bag full of grenades at him, or something?[/QUOTE]There was a mob of people chasing after him. One had a skateboard. Another had a gun, literally pointed at him. He was running away. Don't you think it's stupid to chase after a kid with a gun? Even if people didn't have a gun, he could still have had a legitimate fear of losing his life. It's unfortunate, but he shot them to protect himself. It's probably what kept other people from bull rushing him. He has a right, even duty, to protect himself. The sad thing is, people think he's getting off easy. He may have saved his life, but this 17 year old kid will live with this PTSD for the rest of his life. It is partially his fault for bringing a gun to a protest. But I can't say that his heart wasn't in the right place for wanting to protect American businesses / livelihoods. As for bringing his gun, Wisconsin evidently has very convoluted laws regarding minors and open carry, which was why the misdemeanour gun charge was dropped.
I consider myself a moderate liberal. But the media coverage of this has been disgusting. I don't understand how it wouldn't be considered inciting a riot.
You all suck. Defending KR? You all know what the fuck he was there for. All you Trump fucks LOL
[QUOTE=FiatVoluptas;5645550]In the end, it doesn't matter that the people he shot had records, or if he knew they had records or not. There was video definitively proving that he acted in self-defense.[/QUOTE].
[QUOTE=SFVsag;5645206]Honestly, that's a stretch. He does not have the criminal records of all 3 at the ready; he could have just as easily shot 3 church deacons having a bad day or were off their meds. But if he knew that they were all "bad people" before pulling the trigger, then he's just a regular Paul Kersey! Give him a black leather jacket and a. 44 revolver![/QUOTE]Never said they got shot because of their history; only gave out the facts of who they are and what led up to them getting shot. Regardless, the judge didn't permit their criminal record to be revealed to the jury anyway because like you said, Kyle didn't know about their criminal history so it had no effect on the verdict. I only mention it because I've seen many people trying to glorify the criminals as victims or heroes when they're garbage human beings that initiated the altercation. As for if Kyle knew they were bad people, I would say people trying to murder a minor running away qualify as bad people.
[QUOTE=JrueArtist;5646851]You all suck. Defending KR? You all know what the fuck he was there for. All you Trump fucks LOL..[/QUOTE]Thank you for your contribution.