(07-18-2022 03:26 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-18-2022 12:13 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  Guarantee there are some liberals out there who want to prosecute the hero in this case.

Just wait. There was a reason this guy probably wanted privacy

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government...022-07-18/

Quote:He broke the policy of Simon Property Group, the owner of the Greenwood Park Mall, which prohibits guns on its properties, according to its website.

He'll be ok.

Quote:According to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, private businesses may restrict gun owners from carrying a weapon on their property. Even so, it is generally not against the law to ignore a "no firearms" sign at a private business, he wrote in the state's Gun Owners' Bill of Rights before Sunday's shooting.

Rokita said the only consequence from ignoring a company's ban may come after someone carrying a firearm disregards a direct warning denying them entry or instructing them to leave.

Ironic that Simon Property Group which owns/manages malls across the country, is based in Indy. It's probably a wise choice for them to keep their mouth shut on their so-called weapons policy.

Quote:The law conflicts with the policy of Simon Property Group, owner of the Greenwood Park Mall, prohibiting guns on its properties, according to its website. The Indianapolis-based company was unavailable for comment on Monday.

Seeing how some blue states like CA want to hold gun manufacturers liable I think it'd be interesting for victims' families to sue business owners in the event of shootings on-site if the business has a no-weapons policy posted.

A few things in this video...

1. Notice the store in the background behind the reporter -- Dick's.
2. Notice the flag proudly flying on grandma's house.
3. Grandma asks for prayers for Eli.

(07-20-2022 06:57 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Seeing how some blue states like CA want to hold gun manufacturers liable I think it'd be interesting for victims' families to sue business owners in the event of shootings on-site if the business has a no-weapons policy posted.

That's a fascinating question

Hypothetically, if a loved one of mine died in a shooting and I didn't have my weapon to protect them because of a no weapons policy, you could argue the owner of the property would at least bare some minimal responsibility

My answer has been the same for some time. If you want to proclaim a "gun free zone," you must provide 1) restricted and controlled access, and 2) armed security to enforce the no guns policy. Any property owner that proclaimed a "gun free zone" without those things would be liable for damages if a shooter came onto the property.

If you can't keep it gun free, then you can't call it gun free.

(07-20-2022 12:33 AM)banker Wrote:  Just watched a news report. This guy fired from 40 yards and hit the suspect with 8 out of 10 rounds in under 10 seconds. I don’t care who you are, that is impressive for anyone, especially in a live fire fight. I would bet any amount that 95% of cops couldn’t hit 8 out of 10 at 40 yards even at target practice.

Thats a tough number to beat even if the target was stationary and not shooting back at you.

(07-20-2022 05:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:24 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:19 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:15 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:13 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  "... during his trial, Rittenhouse testified in court that he drove himself from his home in Illinois to Kenosha on August 24, 2020, the day before he fatally shot two men. The gun was already being stored at a friend's house in Kenosha, according to police records and court testimony."

yes yes.

That snippet says nothing about him "looking for trouble".

Would Rittenhous have gone there had there not been any trouble? No No and No. Other dude was going to the mall because the mall is what some people do. Not the same thing.

That's entirely different than what you said. You said he was going to look for trouble. That implies intent to participate in trouble. During the trial it was revealed he was going to "aid" people....which was proven through video after video....giving medical assistance (even to rioters), cleaning up damage, and yes to help protect a property. He was NOT looking for trouble. He was prepared to defend should something happen tho....as the mall good samaritan...he wasn't looking for trouble but was prepared to defend and protect.

Sums it up pretty good. Never go looking for trouble but when trouble finds you, be prepared.

A 17 year, a child, with no training is the only one who shoots anyone. He should not have been there. It is great that he was aiding all people but you will not convince me that this untrained kid being there armed is was a good idea or is a precedent we should set. He was the only person to kill some one that night.

(07-21-2022 04:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 05:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:24 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:19 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:15 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  That snippet says nothing about him "looking for trouble".

Would Rittenhous have gone there had there not been any trouble? No No and No. Other dude was going to the mall because the mall is what some people do. Not the same thing.

That's entirely different than what you said. You said he was going to look for trouble. That implies intent to participate in trouble. During the trial it was revealed he was going to "aid" people....which was proven through video after video....giving medical assistance (even to rioters), cleaning up damage, and yes to help protect a property. He was NOT looking for trouble. He was prepared to defend should something happen tho....as the mall good samaritan...he wasn't looking for trouble but was prepared to defend and protect.

Sums it up pretty good. Never go looking for trouble but when trouble finds you, be prepared.

A 17 year, a child, with no training is the only one who shoots anyone. He should not have been there. It is great that he was aiding all people but you will not convince me that this untrained kid being there armed is was a good idea or is a precedent we should set. He was the only person to kill some one that night.

If the police/national guard had done their job he wouldn't of had to be there

(07-21-2022 04:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A 17 year, a child, with no training is the only one who shoots anyone. He should not have been there. It is great that he was aiding all people but you will not convince me that this untrained kid being there armed is was a good idea or is a precedent we should set. He was the only person to kill some one that night.

Just WHO TF are you to determine if/when somebody is allowed to be somewhere?

So, a person has NO right to self defense? He was attacked. He should have allowed himself to be injured or killed just to satisfy YOU? GTFOH with that nonsense. If you want to be a victim, that is your right. You can insist that others be victims as well but nobody needs to listen to your insanity.

This has been adjudicated and your loopy beliefs were not shared by the jury.

(07-21-2022 04:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  A 17 year, a child, with no training is the only one who shoots anyone. He should not have been there. It is great that he was aiding all people but you will not convince me that this untrained kid being there armed is was a good idea or is a precedent we should set. He was the only person to kill some one that night.

So far, he's 1 for 1.

(07-21-2022 04:00 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 05:27 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:24 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:19 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(07-20-2022 04:15 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  That snippet says nothing about him "looking for trouble".

Would Rittenhous have gone there had there not been any trouble? No No and No. Other dude was going to the mall because the mall is what some people do. Not the same thing.

That's entirely different than what you said. You said he was going to look for trouble. That implies intent to participate in trouble. During the trial it was revealed he was going to "aid" people....which was proven through video after video....giving medical assistance (even to rioters), cleaning up damage, and yes to help protect a property. He was NOT looking for trouble. He was prepared to defend should something happen tho....as the mall good samaritan...he wasn't looking for trouble but was prepared to defend and protect.

Sums it up pretty good. Never go looking for trouble but when trouble finds you, be prepared.

A 17 year, a child, with no training is the only one who shoots anyone. He should not have been there. It is great that he was aiding all people but you will not convince me that this untrained kid being there armed is was a good idea or is a precedent we should set. He was the only person to kill some one that night.

Yeah, never mind that he stopped the bad guy from killing innocents. And where did you come up with him only being 17?? That "kid" was a 22 year old full grown man doing full grown man things. Get out of here with your disinformation.

Oh wait, you were talking about Rittenhouse. GTFO anyway.

Good guy shot the perp 8 times, from 40 yards, within 15 seconds.




And on this Friday I hope every marxist loser who posts here has a crappy day.

Lol

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

:)


Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(07-22-2022 06:55 AM)Kyle Mack Wrote:  Good guy shot the perp 8 times, from 40 yards, within 15 seconds.




And on this Friday I hope every marxist loser who posts here has a crappy day.

During one segment they displayed an image of the FBI seal. Underneath is a banner that reads:

• Fidelity
• Bravery
• Integrity

Definitions

• Fidelity - faithfulness to a person, cause, or belief, demonstrated by continuing loyalty and support.
• Bravery - courageous behavior or character
• Integrity - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness

I have to wonder...

He put 8 of 10 rapid fire rounds on target from 120 feet under duress with a 3 inch barrel striker fire?

Glock needs to pay him a boatload to be their worldwide spokesperson.

(07-22-2022 09:12 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He put 8 of 10 rapid fire rounds on target from 120 feet under duress with a 3 inch barrel striker fire?

Glock needs to pay him a boatload to be their worldwide spokesperson.

The police chief stated in one press conference it was actually 90 feet but still. I consider myself proficient and don't do well at 25 yard stationary targets with a compact. Youth has its advantages and at 22 he had plenty of time to train himself in things like grip, stance, trigger control, recoil control. We don't know where the other shooter was struck with each of the 8 rounds either.

Any way you look at it though it is an impressive feat.

(07-22-2022 10:04 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 09:12 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He put 8 of 10 rapid fire rounds on target from 120 feet under duress with a 3 inch barrel striker fire?

Glock needs to pay him a boatload to be their worldwide spokesperson.

The police chief stated in one press conference it was actually 90 feet but still. I consider myself proficient and don't do well at 25 yard stationary targets with a compact. Youth has its advantages and at 22 he had plenty of time to train himself in things like grip, stance, trigger control, recoil control. We don't know where the other shooter was struck with each of the 8 rounds either.

Any way you look at it though it is an impressive feat.

Most military and police can't hit 8-10 from 100 feet free hand in rapid fire with a compact no matter where on the silhouette steel gets placed on target.

I've been shooting revolvers, pistols and long guns since I was 5 and qualified marksman for Uncle Sam and I doubt very much I could do it with any of my striker fires, compact or full sized Performance Center.

That young man is likely very, very good.

(07-22-2022 10:44 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 10:04 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-22-2022 09:12 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  He put 8 of 10 rapid fire rounds on target from 120 feet under duress with a 3 inch barrel striker fire?

Glock needs to pay him a boatload to be their worldwide spokesperson.

The police chief stated in one press conference it was actually 90 feet but still. I consider myself proficient and don't do well at 25 yard stationary targets with a compact. Youth has its advantages and at 22 he had plenty of time to train himself in things like grip, stance, trigger control, recoil control. We don't know where the other shooter was struck with each of the 8 rounds either.

Any way you look at it though it is an impressive feat.

Most military and police can't hit 8-10 from 100 feet free hand in rapid fire with a compact no matter where on the silhouette steel gets placed on target.

I've been shooting revolvers, pistols and long guns since I was 5 and qualified marksman for Uncle Sam and I doubt very much I could do it with any of my striker fires, compact or full sized Performance Center.

That young man is likely very, very good.

No doubt.

Listening to podcasts (taped a few years ago) about Columbine at work. The big conclusion, something everyone agreed on, after Columbine was law enforcement should not wait, they should immediately seek out the active shooter & engage. The situation at Uvalde was almost exactly like Columbine: law enforcement just sits outside waiting & waiting & waiting while the shooter goes on a rampage. We've learned nothing in 20 years.

(07-22-2022 02:23 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Listening to podcasts (taped a few years ago) about Columbine at work. The big conclusion, something everyone agreed on, after Columbine was law enforcement should not wait, they should immediately seek out the active shooter & engage. The situation at Uvalde was almost exactly like Columbine: law enforcement just sits outside waiting & waiting & waiting while the shooter goes on a rampage. We've learned nothing in 20 years.

Well, WE'VE learned something. It's the people in charge who have no clue.