Rittenhouse Defense Team Implodes

[Daddyo]

If you watched the trial, you ought to remember when Good recanted his initial statement.
Remember this post where I squashed your lies?

Apparently, you did.

Way past time for you to man up and acknowledge your lies.

* In order not to exceed the 5k character limit, I had to cut out all irrelevant comments by both of us, leaving your lies and the proof of your lies I had previously posted.

Lol ok last try.......good said Martin was on top raining down punches......then he recanted out of fear from threats..........so let's proceed to the physical evidence...........question for you

WHICH MAN HAD INJURIES CONSISTENT WITH BEING PUNCHED WITH YOUR HEAD OVER CONCRETE?

answer that or retract like an honorable man.

WHICH MAN HAD HOLES IN HIS CLOTHING THAT PROVED HIM IN A POSITION CONSISTENT WITH BEING ON TOP WHEN SHOT?

answer that or retract!

WHICH MAN HAD TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL THAT THEY WERE SPARED BEING PLACED INTO THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY A PROGRAM DESIGN TO KEEP YOUNG BLACK YOUTH FROM RUINING THEIR LIVES BY GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE SYSTEM AND GETTING A RECORD THAT FOLLOWS THEM FOREVER?

Ps same fella had the screwdriver and stolen loot lol.

answer of retract.

Now I provided proof and you still don't believe it. GOOD TOLD COPS WHO WAS ON TOP the day it happened. It matches the evidence. Changing it months later doesn't change the physical evidence. Most importantly the jury believed Good's first witness statement you know the real unencumbered one.

You lose. Watch the trial and educate yourself! You aren't looking to good right now.

 

[Wayne Jr]

What kind of man are you that you wish to put into action what you have practiced and prepared for when it means getting into a life and death struggle that if you lose you die and if you win you kill?

The kind of guy the joins the military.

if you want to get your teeth worked on by a dentist who's never actualy performed the job before, that's your choice. I prefer to go to people who actually have experience doing it for real, like John Lovel of War Poet Society, he's a former Ranger.

Any goober can get an NRA cert and show cops how to shoot at inanimate targets in the comfort and saftey of a controlled environmnet and the very fact that you tried puffing yourself up with bullshit credentials like the NRA only shows your need to feel like you've accomplished something.

Real pros don't act like that.

 

[Wayne Jr]

.

You're the guy to go to when we're talking about basic gun saftey, or shooting at the range. If you have any experience shooting competitively, we'll come to you for advice on competitive shooting as well.

Because you have actual experience doing that.

But when it comes to handling a lethal force encounter, you're not qualified on that topic.

 

[Daddyo]

So..you tell me. If an unarmed man is capable of killing a person..can you legitimately shoot anyone who walks up to you? Why not if there presence is a deadly threat? What if. Right?

What does it matter the percentage? Because it goes to reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Let's say I get in an argument in the parking lot over whether I parked in the right place or not.
The guy us yelling and screaming at me..telling me he should teach me a lesson .. he is my size.
Can I pull out my concealed .380 from my pocket and kill him?
The answer is no..I cannot legally because he he does not represent an i.minent deadly threat.
Same scenario..but this time the yelling guy pulls a knife as he moves toward me.
Am I legally allowed to now pull my firearm and shoot him?
Answer yes...because the knife clearly represents an imminent deadly threat.
That's the difference. The fact you don't understand this difference is why you should not be teaching anyone about lethal use of force.
On zimmermans case? We have really no idea what position he was in. We only have his testimony..and the ME testimony that he was not receiving any damage that was even close to life threatening.
Actually I have been in that position and I walked away from it. As did the other person.
He walked away in handcuffs but he walked away.

Wow.........not all unarmed men are capable. You must consider their ability. Are they capable of over powering you etc. Then they have to have intent so merely walking up to someone doesn't equate a deadly threat. Ability, opportunity, and intent.

In the rittenhouse case the unarmed attacker posed an additional level of danger from his decision to attack an armed man. The gun amplified the justification.

In your parking lot argument example.......if the guy makes threats of great bodily injury or death, attempts to gain the opportunity by closing the distance, and you are in fear of death or GBI, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. You aren't trying to kill you are trying to stop him from hurting or killing you. Hence as you produce your firearm if he ends the attack you can't shoot.

You knife example....yes unless he instantly complies at the draw and before reaching the point of no return.

Your problem is that you can't comprehend. You aren't shooting an unarmed man unless you fear that they can cause D or GBI. Get it? You agreed that an unarmed man is capable already! You are only justified if you fear they can. It's not hard man.

I have also been in the mount and been mounted. And I can tell you one thing only one man had injuries consistent with being one bottom. And only one man had a bullet hole consistent with being on top leaning forward.

And if I get the mount on someone I have some very heavy hands. Definitely capable of serious injury and eventually death. The times I've been mounted it was not fun. And it was light contact. Zimmerman had his nose flattened, at night making it harder to see them coming.

 

[jaeger19]

Wow.........not all unarmed men are capable. You must consider their ability. Are they capable of over powering you etc. Then they have to have intent so merely walking up to someone doesn't equate a deadly threat. Ability, opportunity, and intent.

In the rittenhouse case the unarmed attacker posed an additional level of danger from his decision to attack an armed man. The gun amplified the justification.

In your parking lot argument example.......if the guy makes threats of great bodily injury or death, attempts to gain the opportunity by closing the distance, and you are in fear of death or GBI, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. You aren't trying to kill you are trying to stop him from hurting or killing you. Hence as you produce your firearm if he ends the attack you can't shoot.

You knife example....yes unless he instantly complies at the draw and before reaching the point of no return.

Your problem is that you can't comprehend. You aren't shooting an unarmed man unless you fear that they can cause D or GBI. Get it?

I have also been in the mount and been mounted. And I can tell you one thing only one man had injuries consistent with being one bottom. And only one man had a bullet hole consistent with being on top leaning forward.

And if I get the mount on someone I have some very heavy hands. Definitely capable of serious injury and eventually death. The times I've been mounted it was not fun. And it was light contact. Zimmerman had his nose flattened, at night making it harder to see them coming.

Yeah ..you realize you contradict yourself right?

Then they have to have intent so merely walking up to someone doesn't equate a deadly threat. Ability, opportunity, and intent.

You agreed that an unarmed man is capable already! You are only justified if you fear they can. It's not hard man.

So on one hand..they must have intent ability and opportunity.
Then in the next breath all that goes out the window because "unarmed man" is already capable.

You just kind of make up crap as you go along

Dude face facts..you are a gravy seal and have no business teaching anyone on the concepts of self defense and use of deadly force.

You are going to get some shot and a student sent to jail if you persist.

 

[maxparrish]

So..you tell me. If an unarmed man is capable of killing a person..can you legitimately shoot anyone who walks up to you? Why not if there presence is a deadly threat? What if. Right?

What does it matter the percentage? Because it goes to reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
Let's say I get in an argument in the parking lot over whether I parked in the right place or not.
The guy us yelling and screaming at me..telling me he should teach me a lesson .. he is my size.
Can I pull out my concealed .380 from my pocket and kill him?
The answer is no..I cannot legally because he he does not represent an imminent deadly threat.
Same scenario..but this time the yelling guy pulls a knife as he moves toward me.
Am I legally allowed to now pull my firearm and shoot him?
Answer yes...because the knife clearly represents an imminent deadly threat.
That's the difference. The fact you don't understand this difference is why you should not be teaching anyone about lethal use of force.
On zimmermans case? We have really no idea what position he was in. We only have his testimony..and the ME testimony that he was not receiving any damage that was even close to life threatening.
Actually I have been in that position and I walked away from it. As did the other person.
He walked away in handcuffs but he walked away.

I am perplexed as to how 2,500 or more posts into a thread (105 pages) posters could still be arguing the basic requirements for self-defense.

Of course you can't shoot someone for just walking up to you. In most states you would have to have had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death before a use of deadly force is justified. So he only question is would or should a jury find that some guy, your size, yelling and promising to do great bodily harm or to kill you, creates a reasonable fear of such?

There are a number of factors used to determine reasonableness as well as actions on your part that would negate your right to using deadly force in self-defense; for example, if you also threatened to kill the other person, if the other person was not advancing on you but stopped and staying a safe distance away, if you provoked the other person by inviting him/her to attack you.

And in the case of Rittenhouse, who was attempting to flee from members of the crowd, one of whom was firing a gun, it seems very reasonable to turn and fire back before he is caught.

 

[jaeger19]

I am perplexed as to how 2,500 or more posts into a thread (105 pages) posters could still be arguing the basic requirements for self-defense.

Of course you can't shoot someone for just walking up to you. In most states you would have to have had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death before a use of deadly force is justified. So he only question is would or should a jury find that some guy, your size, yelling and promising to do great bodily harm or to kill you, creates a reasonable fear of such?

There are a number of factors used to determine reasonableness as well as actions on your part that would negate your right to using deadly force in self-defense; for example, if you also threatened to kill the other person, if the other person was not advancing on you but stopped and staying a safe distance away, if you provoked the other person by inviting him/her to attack you.

And in the case of Rittenhouse, who was attempting to flee from members of the crowd, one of whom was firing a gun, it seems very reasonable to turn and fire back before he is caught.

Well except your scenario didn't seem to happen.

 

[maxparrish]

Well except your scenario didn't seem to happen.

I'm sorry, you need to get a mirror. YOU setup the hypothetical scenario for illustration, now your carping that someone responded to it? If you wanted to talk about what happened its up to you to cease offering red herrings as reality - don't you think?

 

[jaeger19]

I'm sorry, you need to get a mirror. YOU setup the hypothetical scenario for illustration, now your carping that someone responded to it? If you wanted to talk about what happened its up to you to cease offering red herrings as reality - don't you think?

Umm yep..I set up a hypothetical..
You went into riitenhouse..fleeing from a crowd..he wasnt..
And one of the firing a gun..they weren't.
Rittenhouse got into an argument with rosenbaum.. there was no mob chasing him..merely Rosenbaum following him yelling and throwing a plastic bag. Rittenhouse then turns and kills Rosenbaum. Who was unarmed and did not represent a deadly threat.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Lol ok last try.......good said Martin was on top raining down punches......then he recanted out of fear from threats..........so let's proceed to the physical evidence...........question for you

Factually, you are guessing at Good’s reasoning for amending his original statement. Something that is not common among witnesses to a traumatic/violent event.

Until/unless you provide actual proof that Good changed amended his testimony out of fear of retaliation, your assertion is worthless.

WHICH MAN HAD INJURIES CONSISTENT WITH BEING PUNCHED WITH YOUR HEAD OVER CONCRETE?

To be clear, the problem with your assertion is that it’s just another of your unsupported opinions. Not a proven fact.

As I’ve already noted, Zimmerman’s injuries may have happened the way you have asserted. They could, just as possible, also have been a result of Zimmerman banging his own head on the concrete sidewalk after being punched in face and falling backwards, or from rolling around on the ground, fighting with Martin.

answer that or retract like an honorable man.

Says the guy that has been repeatedly proven dishonest.

WHICH MAN HAD HOLES IN HIS CLOTHING THAT PROVED HIM IN A POSITION CONSISTENT WITH BEING ON TOP WHEN SHOT?

Martin

answer that or retract!

I’ll retract when you can show where I argued who was on top when Zimmerman shot Martin.

WHICH MAN HAD TESTIMONY DURING THE TRIAL THAT THEY WERE SPARED BEING PLACED INTO THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY A PROGRAM DESIGN TO KEEP YOUNG BLACK YOUTH FROM RUINING THEIR LIVES BY GETTING CAUGHT UP IN THE SYSTEM AND GETTING A RECORD THAT FOLLOWS THEM FOREVER?

Who includes prejudicial and completely irrelevant information?

You.

Martin’s activities prior to his death matter no more than Zimmerman’s assault on his father-in-law a few months after being acquitted of murdering Martin.

George Zimmerman's Wife on 911 Tape: 'I Am Really, Really Scared'

George Zimmerman was released without charges after his wife called 911 to say he punched his father-in-law in the nose and threatened to shoot him and his wife.

www.google.com

Now I provided proof and you still don't believe it. GOOD TOLD COPS WHO WAS ON TOP the day it happened. It matches the evidence. Changing it months later doesn't change the physical evidence. Most importantly the jury believed Good's first witness statement you know the real unencumbered one.

Your word is very, very far from being “proof”.
Considering that several of your assertions have already been positively disproved by well known reliable sources and court documents, your “word” is better described as anti-truth.

Another stupid lie from Daddyo. “GOOD COPS” weren’t there when Zimmerman killed Martin, so they couldn’t testify one way or the other.

And yet another stupid Daddyo lie. You don’t know what the jury did or did not believe.

By the end of the trial, half of the jury believed Zimmerman was guilty of either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

“A member of the jury in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial spoke publicly for the first time Monday night, saying that only three of six jurors thought Zimmerman should be acquitted when deliberations began - and they all cried when it was over.Two members of the all-female jury believed Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, while one felt he was guilty of second-degree murder”

Zimmerman juror: He shouldn't have gotten out of that car

A member of the jury in George Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial spoke publicly for the first time Monday night, saying that only three of six jurors thought Zimmerman should be acquitted when deliberations began - and they all cried when it was over.Two members of the all-female jury...

www.nbcnews.com

You lose. Watch the trial and educate yourself! You aren't looking to good right now.

No.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Umm yep..I set up a hypothetical..
You went into riitenhouse..fleeing from a crowd..he wasnt..

Continuing to push the crap you just wrote conclusively removes you from the set of all people who should be taken seriously on this topic.

There is video of Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum for at least half a block. Then there's more video of many people chasing him after Rosenbaum is shot. He flees twice.

And one of the firing a gun..they weren't.

You are wrong. Someone did fire a gun behind Rittenhouse. This has been known for months and is not even a little bit disputed. There's video of it. We even know who did it. The shooter's name is Joshua Ziminski. He was arrested for it. He admitted to doing it.

Rittenhouse got into an argument with rosenbaum..

Maybe. But so what?

there was no mob chasing him..merely Rosenbaum following him yelling

Rittenhouse was running. Rosenbaum was running after him. To reduce that to "following" is to display either such ignorance of the subject or such willful dishonesty that your statements on this subject can be safely dismissed as not credible.

and throwing a plastic bag.

This wasn't the end of Rosenbaum's actions. Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the incident knows this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

Rittenhouse then turns and kills Rosenbaum.

...after hearing a gunshot behind him, and after Rosenbaum appears to lunge forward toward Rittenhouse.

Who was unarmed and did not represent a deadly threat.

If it is reasonable to believe someone is trying to take your deadly weapon from you by force, it is reasonable to use deadly force against them. That's why cops shoot people trying to take their gun.

 

[jaeger19]

Continuing to push the crap you just wrote conclusively removes you from the set of all people who should be taken seriously on this topic.

There is video of Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum for at least half a block. Then there's more video of many people chasing him after Rosenbaum is shot. He flees twice.


You are wrong. Someone did fire a gun behind Rittenhouse. This has been known for months and is not even a little bit disputed. There's video of it. We even know who did it. The shooter's name is Joshua Ziminski. He was arrested for it. He admitted to doing it.


Maybe. But so what?


Rittenhouse was running. Rosenbaum was running after him. To reduce that to "following" is to display either such ignorance of the subject or such willful dishonesty that your statements on this subject can be safely dismissed as not credible.


This wasn't the end of Rosenbaum's actions. Anyone with a shred of knowledge of the incident knows this. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.


...after hearing a gunshot behind him, and after Rosenbaum appears to lunge forward toward Rittenhouse.


If it is reasonable to believe someone is trying to take your deadly weapon from you by force, it is reasonable to use deadly force against them. That's why cops shoot people trying to take their gun.

Yep..Rosenbaum followed rittenhouse..and no they were not in dead out run. He followed him. No crowd followed them..and no crowd following him shot. The shot came from an unrelated group that wasn't even near Rittenhouse much less chasing him .
It's amazing just to what extent supporters of Rittenhouse will come up with..raging mobs intent on killing and all the other bs.

 

[Rich2018]

There is video of Rittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum for at least half a block. Then there's more video of many people chasing him after Rosenbaum is shot. He flees twice.

So why didn't Rittenhouse just keep on running ?

 

[justabubba]

So why didn't Rittenhouse just keep on running ?

I bet he is not a track star who runs for the fun of it

 

[Rich2018]

I bet he is not a track star who runs for the fun of it

But if he thought his life was in danger, like he falsely claimed, wouldn't that give him enough motivation to achieve a personal best ?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Yep..Rosenbaum followed rittenhouse..

Chased.

and no they were not in dead out run.

They had been running for at least half a block. Most people would start to slow down after that.

He followed him.

Chased. The defining element of a chase is pursuit to catch up with. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. He caught up to him. It was a chase. This is undeniable.

No crowd followed them..

There wasn't a crowd following Rittenhouse until after he shot Rosenbaum. Then there was a crowd following him. And there were others chasing him.

and no crowd following him shot. The shot came from an unrelated group that wasn't even near Rittenhouse much less chasing him .

The shot was perhaps fifty feet behind Rittenhouse. That Ziminski wasn't chasing Rittenhouse is evidence of what, exactly? Rittenhouse was fleeing Rosenbaum, a gun goes off behind him, then he turns (possibly to see if he's being shot at, we'll have to wait for his story) and Rosenbaum lunges at him.

It's amazing just to what extent supporters of Rittenhouse will come up with..raging mobs intent on killing and all the other bs.

I've never said anyone was "intent on killing." My position for months, since the day the videos surfaced, has been only that Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief that his assailants were deadly threats. The videos bear this out, even though some seem determined to misrepresent the events by minimizing the actions of some people ("Rosenbaum threw a bag and then got shot," for example).

 

[justabubba]

But if he thought his life was in danger, like he falsely claimed, wouldn't that give him enough motivation to achieve a personal best ?

Surprised that I have to explain this.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

So why didn't Rittenhouse just keep on running ?

Ask him. A plausible theory, as has been explained before, is that Rittenhouse heard Ziminski's gunshot behind him, then slowed and turned to try to see if someone was shooting at him.

Or maybe he got tired.

Or maybe he saw that he was running toward another group of people, whose identify as friend for possible foe was unknown to him.

Or maybe he stubbed his toe.

Or maybe he just felt like not running anymore.

Any of these are justifiable reasons to stop running.

I'm sure there are at least a dozen other plausible reasons.

None of them justify Rosenbaum's lunge toward Rittenhouse.

Certainly none of them justify the chase that preceded it.

 

[Rich2018]

Surprised that I have to explain this.

Rittenhouse or his lawyers will.

 

[Rich2018]

Ask him. A plausible theory, as has been explained before, is that Rittenhouse heard Ziminski's gunshot behind him, then slowed and turned to try to see if someone was shooting at him.

Slowing and turning round are the last responses I would expect from someone supposedly running for his life

Or maybe he got tired.

So you run slower

Or maybe he saw that he was running toward another group of people, whose identify as friend for possible foe was unknown to him.

So you run round that group

Or maybe he stubbed his toe.

See "tired" excuse above

Or maybe he just felt like not running anymore.

When supposedly he thought his life was in danger and was running in order to preserve it ?

Any of these are justifiable reasons to stop running.

Absolutely they are NOT

I'm sure there are at least a dozen other plausible reasons.

Go ahead an give one...you haven't done so yet

None of them justify Rosenbaum's lunge toward Rittenhouse.

But they contradict that Rittenhouse perceived a threat to his life

Certainly none of them justify the chase that preceded it.

See above.

 

[Daddyo]

The kind of guy the joins the military.

if you want to get your teeth worked on by a dentist who's never actualy performed the job before, that's your choice. I prefer to go to people who actually have experience doing it for real, like John Lovel of War Poet Society, he's a former Ranger.

Any goober can get an NRA cert and show cops how to shoot at inanimate targets in the comfort and saftey of a controlled environmnet and the very fact that you tried puffing yourself up with bullshit credentials like the NRA only shows your need to feel like you've accomplished something.

Real pros don't act like that.

Sound familiar? Kinda like the guy who puffs his chest because he joined the military! We already know that you believe only military can perform under pressure. Puff it with pride and thank you for your service but make no mistake my friend my training is far superior to basic military training, for civilian armed self defense. My training is not the fire and maneuver tactics that focus on the rifle and saw. Its CQC tactics in an environment filled with innocent people. So just saying you are ex military to puff yourself is extremely hypocritical unless you are gonna list any additional training beyond basic. I'm waiting.



There is a difference between wanting to be prepared an wanting to get into an armed conflict pal. Only a sicko wishes for the latter.

And to your tremendously ridiculous dentist comparison.........dentists are trained! Just as anyone can train for anything. You demand that your dentist have military dental training? That's whats amazingly ignorant about your belief that only the military can train you to survive an armed conflict lol.

Also surviving an actual DGU event proves nothing on its own. One could survive just by being lucky while another trained to the hilt dies despite the training. What I want are tactics and training methods proven in those successful dgu's to increase my chances of surviving. Thats what we know actually works other than being lucky. Thats what I've been doing for decade's. You want tips just ask pal.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Kinda like the guy who puffs his chest because he joined the military!

Answering a question is not bravado, but trying to blame someone for answering a question you asked is gaslighting.

 

[jaeger19]

Chased.


They had been running for at least half a block. Most people would start to slow down after that.


Chased. The defining element of a chase is pursuit to catch up with. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. He caught up to him. It was a chase. This is undeniable.


There wasn't a crowd following Rittenhouse until after he shot Rosenbaum. Then there was a crowd following him. And there were others chasing him.


The shot was perhaps fifty feet behind Rittenhouse. That Ziminski wasn't chasing Rittenhouse is evidence of what, exactly? Rittenhouse was fleeing Rosenbaum, a gun goes off behind him, then he turns (possibly to see if he's being shot at, we'll have to wait for his story) and Rosenbaum lunges at him.


I've never said anyone was "intent on killing." My position for months, since the day the videos surfaced, has been only that Rittenhouse had a reasonable belief that his assailants were deadly threats. The videos bear this out, even though some seem determined to misrepresent the events by minimizing the actions of some people ("Rosenbaum threw a bag and then got shot," for example).

Well. you believe he was "chasing rittenhouse". I see no such thing. I see him following him around and yelling at him. Not in a balls out chase...

Doesn;t matter though.

So he was chased? SO? Rosenbaum was still unarmed. Had he in any way hurt or attempted to hurt Rittenhouse? Doesn;t appear so.
Had Rittenhouse threatened him or others with deadly force.? It appears so since witnesses report that Rittenhouse was pointing his rifle at people.
I addressed the other poster who said that Rittenhouse was being chased by a crowd who shot a gun. No he wasn;t and you just confirmed that.
Rittenhouse did not have reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. The people AROUND rittenhouse had reasonable believe to believe that THEY were in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

 

[jaeger19]

Ask him. A plausible theory, as has been explained before, is that Rittenhouse heard Ziminski's gunshot behind him, then slowed and turned to try to see if someone was shooting at him.

Or maybe he got tired.

Or maybe he saw that he was running toward another group of people, whose identify as friend for possible foe was unknown to him.

Or maybe he stubbed his toe.

Or maybe he just felt like not running anymore.

Any of these are justifiable reasons to stop running.

I'm sure there are at least a dozen other plausible reasons.

None of them justify Rosenbaum's lunge toward Rittenhouse.

Certainly none of them justify the chase that preceded it.

Or maybe he got mad at what Rosenbaum was yelling at him and turned and then shot Rosenbaum out of anger.

You can speculate all you want.. but at the end of the day.. Rittenhouse did not have reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm from Rosenbaum... which is why he has been charged.

 

[Fishking]

The kind of guy the joins the military.

if you want to get your teeth worked on by a dentist who's never actualy performed the job before, that's your choice. I prefer to go to people who actually have experience doing it for real, like John Lovel of War Poet Society, he's a former Ranger.

Any goober can get an NRA cert and show cops how to shoot at inanimate targets in the comfort and saftey of a controlled environmnet and the very fact that you tried puffing yourself up with bullshit credentials like the NRA only shows your need to feel like you've accomplished something.

Real pros don't act like that.

You know what? Service Members have also shot people that shouldn't have been. How do I know this? 19 years of service and two deployments. When you get a brief saying, "Hey, you can't just shoot people on overpasses because you think they are a threat." that means innocent people were getting shot on overpasses. Just to name one story out of many.

Using your service as a shield of criticism to the point being made is not a dog that hunts here.