Rittenhouse Prosecutor points AR at Jury ...

[dogtag]

with his finger on trigger. He must be related to Alec Baldwin.
His firearm skill seems to match his prosecutorial skills

https://www.infowars.com/posts/wtf-r...-in-courtroom/

[Vern Humphrey]

Surprised a juror didn't call him on that -- I would have!

[togor]

Did he pull the trigger? To some, that "click" is the Sound of Freedom.

[lyman]

doubt he knew which end was which,

[dogtag]

That "click" was the hammer falling on an empty chamber.
The next one will go boom and you will experience everlasting freedom

[togor]

That "click" was the hammer falling on an empty chamber.
The next one will go boom and you will experience everlasting freedom

Get used to laxity in firearms handling becoming the norm, to go along with all of the other examples of laxity that you see and dislike.

[one shot]

He called it an AR 14 so that's it we're done here .

[lyman]

Get used to laxity in firearms handling becoming the norm, to go along with all of the other examples of laxity that you see and dislike.

you giving firearms safety training now?

[barretcreek]

May be hoping a juror says 'I'm voting not guilty because that fool pointed the gun at me'. Not evidence, not relevant to the case. Verdict gets tossed.

[dogtag]

He called it an AR 14 so that's it we're done here .

Who's HE ?

[togor]

Vern asked in a PM if the prosecution pointing the weapon at the jury and pulling the trigger is okay or not. Told him I'd answer here:

The homicides already occurred. Providing the weapon is demonstrably cleared to the satisfaction of everyone in the courtroom, then it becomes fair game as a prop for prosecutors to use before the jury. Up to and including a "click". Acting out the actual incident with the actual weapon in front of the actual jury.

It has to be this way, as much as our safety training dislikes it. Do we not oppose gun control on the grounds that it's the person not the implement where the danger lies? If so then we have to accept that in controlled courtroom conditions, the firearm is not dangerous.

Otherwise, we are arguing that guns are intrinsically too dangerous for vigorous prosecution of gun homicides, which makes no sense at all. And if that is our line of thinking then we are agreeing with the gun control people on a critical point.

[lyman]

Vern asked in a PM if the prosecution pointing the weapon at the jury and pulling the trigger is okay or not. Told him I'd answer here:

The homicides already occurred. Providing the weapon is demonstrably cleared to the satisfaction of everyone in the courtroom, then it becomes fair game as a prop for prosecutors to use before the jury. Up to and including a "click". Acting out the actual incident with the actual weapon in front of the actual jury.

It has to be this way, as much as our safety training dislikes it. Do we not oppose gun control on the grounds that it's the person not the implement where the danger lies? If so then we have to accept that in controlled courtroom conditions, the firearm is not dangerous.

Otherwise, we are arguing that guns are intrinsically too dangerous for vigorous prosecution of gun homicides, which makes no sense at all. And if that is our line of thinking then we are agreeing with the gun control people on a critical point.

pardon if I don't trust your gun safety skills,

is rule #1 to not point any firearm at anything you don't want to shoot?

didn't we have a big name actor shoot a woman with an unloaded gun?

[Vern Humphrey]

Never point a gun at someone or something you don't intend to shoot.

If the prosecutor is so stupid as to not understand that, he's too stupid to know if the gun is unloaded.

What we're seeing here is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "Defining deviancy down" -- just redefine it, and no matter how serious it is, it suddenly becomes trivial.

[lyman]

Never point a gun at someone or something you don't intend to shoot.

If the prosecutor is so stupid as to not understand that, he's too stupid to know if the gun is unloaded.

What we're seeing here is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "Defining deviancy down" -- just redefine it, and no matter how serious it is, it suddenly becomes trivial.

a flaw,


from togor,

It has to be this way, as much as our safety training dislikes it. Do we not oppose gun control on the grounds that it's the person not the implement where the danger lies? If so then we have to accept that in controlled courtroom conditions, the firearm is not dangerous.


forgetting something,

who had the firearm?


firearms are tools, that should be respected, (just like a sharp knife, or fork, or pencil)



second time you have failed at rule #1

[togor]

Sheesh, it's a Court of Law.

If they can't figure out how to make the damn gun safe there, then gun control everywhere, right?

Lawyers need to reenact actions in front of a jury. The accused stood like this, held the gun like this, aimed it like so. Members of the jury, picture yourselves starting down the barrel of this gun. That kind of thing. And lawyers get theatric at times.

The homicides have already happened. The reenactment is for the jury to choose guilty or innocent.

That's hard to understand?

Sheesh.

If they take out the firing pin before court....feel better? So many possibilities. Solvable problem so that the lawyers can do their thing.

Sheesh.