"Any civil rights lawsuit against Kyle Rittenhouse 'will fail,' legal analysts say"

[David Hartung]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/any-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-kyle-rittenhouse-will-fail-legal-analysts-say

[...]
Following the jury's acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse , the teenager who
beat felony homicide charges over the deaths of two protesters in
Kenosha, Wisconsin , legal analysts contend any follow-up civil rights
case "will fail" if prosecutors push for one.

The verdict prompted a condemning response from the likes of House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who tweeted Nov. 19 that the
full acquittal was a "miscarriage of justice" that "justifies federal
review" by the Department of Justice . However, legal analyst and
Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson told the Washington
Examiner the self-defense evidence in Rittenhouse's criminal case "will
be just as overwhelming in a civil case."

"There is no obvious basis for a civil rights prosecution against
Rittenhouse," said Jacobson, who is also the founder of the Legal
Insurrection blog and followed the trial daily.

"The videos are the videos, and the testimony already is under oath from
witnesses and alleged victim Gaige Grosskreutz. A civil case will fail
even by a preponderance of the evidence," Jacobson added.
[...]

There are those who disagree:

[...]
Some legal analysts say the burden of proof by a preponderance of
evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt could prove advantageous
to prosecution if a civil case was brought against Rittenhouse.
[...]

This is why civil suits after an acquittal should not be allowed, and
why the burden of proof for civil suites should be the same as for
criminal cases.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/29/2021 8:19 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/any-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-kyle-rittenhouse-will-fail-legal-analysts-say
>
>
> [...]
> Following the jury's acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse , the teenager who beat
> felony homicide charges over the deaths of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin
> , legal analysts contend any follow-up civil rights case "will fail" if
> prosecutors push for one.
>
> The verdict prompted a condemning response from the likes of House Judiciary
> Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who tweeted Nov. 19 that the full acquittal was
> a "miscarriage of justice" that "justifies federal review" by the Department of
> Justice .

Nadler is right.

> However, legal analyst and Cornell Law School professor William
> Jacobson told the Washington Examiner the self-defense evidence in Rittenhouse's
> criminal case "will be just as overwhelming in a civil case."

Jacobson is a right-wingnut hack. He has articulated numerous crackpot
right-wingnut beliefs, including "stolen election" bullshit.

>
> "There is no obvious basis for a civil rights prosecution against Rittenhouse,"
> said Jacobson, who is also the founder of the Legal Insurrection blog and
> followed the trial daily. >
> "The videos are the videos, and the testimony already is under oath from
> witnesses and alleged victim Gaige Grosskreutz. A civil case will fail even by a
> preponderance of the evidence," Jacobson added.
> [...]
>
> There are those who disagree:
>
> [...]
> Some legal analysts say the burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence
> instead of beyond a reasonable doubt could prove advantageous to prosecution if
> a civil case was brought against Rittenhouse.
> [...]
>
> This is why civil suits after an acquittal should not be allowed, and why the

> burden of proof for civil suites [sic] should be the same as for criminal cases.

"suites" — ha ha ha ha ha!

Civil suits *are* allowed, *should be* allowed, and *have* a different burden of
proof. Deal with it.

[ed...@post.com]

Still rooting for the villain, are you, phony pastor man of God?

[David Hartung]

The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense, along
with numerous other rioters. To allow a suit against a man who has been
acquitted of a crime is a gross miscarriage of justice.

[Rudy Canoza]

Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
self defense.

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.

Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
justifies self defense.
D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
11/25/2021 09:59am

Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
thing for them to do.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <54udndnOitYZYDn8...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Kenosha, Wisconsin , legal analysts contend any follow-up civil rights
> case "will fail" if prosecutors push for one.

Government prosecutors rarely do civil suits.

> review" by the Department of Justice . However, legal analyst and
> Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson told the Washington
> Examiner the self-defense evidence in Rittenhouse's criminal case "will
> be just as overwhelming in a civil case."

Since the evidence is used differently, Jacobson must be a poor
professor.

> "The videos are the videos, and the testimony already is under oath from
> witnesses and alleged victim Gaige Grosskreutz. A civil case will fail
> even by a preponderance of the evidence," Jacobson added.

Since the evidence is used to prove different points in a tort
than a crime, it might be applied differently.

> This is why civil suits after an acquittal should not be allowed, and

> why the burden of proof for civil suits should be the same as for
> criminal cases.

Fuck you. Torts and crimes are separate legal matters.

Plaintiffs in torts rarely have the power of government behind
them. They are between approximate legally equal parties which is
why the burden of proof is neutral rather than biassed for one
party.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Siri Cruise]

In article <15idnZ12-7SGnzj8...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Still rooting for the villain, are you, phony pastor man of God?
>
> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense, along
> with numerous other rioters. To allow a suit against a man who has been
> acquitted of a crime is a gross miscarriage of justice.

Jesus disagreed, fake christian.

Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and
there remember that your brother or sister has something
against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.
First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your
gift.

Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you
to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or
your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge
may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into
prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have
paid the last penny.

Also an acquittal of crime is not innocence. You're celebrating
the jury's approval of vigilante political murder, and you don't
want anything to perturb your celebration.

[David Hartung]

On 11/29/21 11:19 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <15idnZ12-7SGnzj8...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Still rooting for the villain, are you, phony pastor man of God?
>>
>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense, along
>> with numerous other rioters. To allow a suit against a man who has been
>> acquitted of a crime is a gross miscarriage of justice.
>
> Jesus disagreed, fake christian.
>
> Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and
> there remember that your brother or sister has something
> against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar.
> First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your
> gift.
>
> Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you
> to court. Do it while you are still together on the way, or
> your adversary may hand you over to the judge, and the judge
> may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into
> prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have
> paid the last penny.
>
> Also an acquittal of crime is not innocence. You're celebrating
> the jury's approval of vigilante political murder, and you don't
> want anything to perturb your celebration.

Interesting how those who are quick to declare that we are a secular
country, are the first to go back to scripture in a faulty attempt to
"prove" their point.

[Rudy Canoza]

Nothing to do with that. You claim to be a "Christian pastor." Why do you not
abide by Scripture?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/29/2021 10:15 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker
lied:

>> (2)?Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

>> (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
>> others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
>> entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
>> except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
>> engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
>> in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
>>
>> https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
>>
>> Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.
>>
>> Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
>> justifies self defense.
>> D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
>> 11/25/2021 09:59am
>>
>> Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
>> use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
>> thing for them to do.
>

> Actually is [sic] was stupid,

But it was justified to do it, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW
Pig-Fucker, because the 17-year-old punk as the aggressor, and the victims were
acting in self defense. As Hartung noted:

Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
justifies self defense.
D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
11/25/2021 09:59am

The 17-year-old punk was the aggressor. This is settled, Jack-Off Skeeter
Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:54udndnOitYZYDn8...@giganews.com:

> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/any-civil-rights-lawsui

So OJ should not have been sued civily?

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:I7WdncGfldxdkTj8...@giganews.com:

Interesting how those who claim we are a
Christian country are the first to demand
that water not be given to the thirsty, food
not be given to the hungry, and that forgiveness
not be extended to anyone who is not a fellow
Christian.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <I7WdncGfldxdkTj8...@giganews.com>,

Interesting how each time you are shown rejecting christianity
your response is how wrong it is to remove the log from your eye.

[Blue Lives Matter]

I don't see anyone demanding that you can't give that stuff. Go right
ahead, Loser...

[David Hartung]

No he should not have.

[David Hartung]

Oh really?

Prove it.

> and that forgiveness
> not be extended to anyone who is not a fellow
> Christian.

This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?

[David Hartung]

The usual claim from those who are ignorant on the matter.

In this case, exactly what conduct or position are you declaring to be
unchristian, and why?

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:Oa6dnW53wL5euDj8...@giganews.com:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-georgia-voting/georgia-bans-
giving-water-to-voters-in-line-under-sweeping-restrictions-idUSKBN2BH2TC


https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/fort-lauderdale-homeless-feeding-ban-
proposed-again-9483644


https://www.foxla.com/news/good-samaritan-sues-city-of-houston-over-ban-
on-feeding-homeless


https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-feed-criminalizing-homeless-america-
782861

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/2014/11/18/texas-faith-when-is-a-city-
ban-on-feeding-the-poor-an-infringement-on-religious-liberty/


https://account.miamiherald.com/paywall/subscriber-only?resume=243789187
&intcid=ab_archive


https://www.courthousenews.com/florida-activists-argue-for-second-chance-
to-challenge-ban-on-food-sharing-in-parks/

>
>> and that forgiveness
>> not be extended to anyone who is not a fellow
>> Christian.
>
> This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
> forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?
>

Where did Jesus make that distinction, pastor?

[Siri Cruise]

In article <Oa6dnW53wL5euDj8...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Interesting how those who claim we are a
> > Christian country are the first to demand
> > that water not be given to the thirsty, food
> > not be given to the hungry,
>
> Oh really?

Oh, fuck. Now you want to pretend you support
https://humaneborders.org/
giving food and water to 'illegal aliens'.

You're a hypocrite about your hypocrisy.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense,
>
>Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
>self defense.

He shot three people in self defense, dwarf.

It's no surprise that you're upset about the innocent verdict.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <Oa6dnWl3wL6nuzj8...@giganews.com>,

Interesting how you say I'm in error but you have never pointed
out what my error is.

> >>>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense, along
> >>>> with numerous other rioters. To allow a suit against a man who has been
> >>>> acquitted of a crime is a gross miscarriage of justice.
> >>>
> >>> Jesus disagreed, fake christian.

> In this case, exactly what conduct or position are you declaring to be
> unchristian, and why?

[Rudy Canoza]

The Goldman family had every right to sue the murderer Simpson. He was liable
for wrongful death.

Note that what we're talking about with the Kenosha killer is not necessarily
private civil suits against him for wrongful death or injury. There is also the
potential for the U.S. DoJ to pursue civil rights violations against the punk,
either criminally (as in the federal criminal civil rights prosecutions of the
cops who beat up Rodney King), or civilly.

[Blue Lives Matter]

It's not as though anyone cares about rudy's opinions. Remember that
he came to Usenet implying he was a fan of the Phil Henrie radio show.
Only losers and fools watched that stupid show.

[David Hartung]

The state couldn't prove to the jury that Simpson killed anyone,the
civil suit succeeded only because the burden of proof was lower.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/29/2021 12:16 PM, Blue Lives Matter wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:40:58 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense,
>>>
>>> Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
>>> self defense.
>>
>> He shot three people

As the aggressor. Yes.

>
>
> It's not as though anyone cares about rudy's opinions. Remember that
> he came to Usenet implying he was a fan of the Phil Henrie radio show.
> Only losers and fools watched that stupid show.

How do you watch a radio show, BlueGirl?

Hendrie is a comedy genius.

[David Hartung]

These are all involving government actions. Are you seriously trying to
claim that our civil government is in fact a theocracy?

>>> and that forgiveness
>>> not be extended to anyone who is not a fellow
>>> Christian.
>>
>> This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
>> forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?
>>
>
>
> Where did Jesus make that distinction, pastor?

You tell me.

[Rudy Canoza]

The state *did* show that Simpson murdered two people. It was a rogue, shitty
jury that ignored the evidence.

You just have to come to grips with the fact that the burden of proof is
different in criminal and civil cases. The civil suits (not "suites," LOL!)
have every reason to go forward.

Note that there is no comparison between the Kenosha punk case and the Simpson
case, other than both having had a shitty jury. With Simpson, the state had to
prove he killed Denise Brown and Ron Goldman. With the Kenosha punk, the state
didn't have that burden. It was never disputed that the punk killed two and
grievously injured a third.

[David Hartung]

On 11/29/21 1:42 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <Oa6dnWl3wL6nuzj8...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Interesting how those who are quick to declare that we are a secular
>>>> country, are the first to go back to scripture in a faulty attempt to
>>>> "prove" their point.
>>>
>>> Interesting how each time you are shown rejecting christianity
>>> your response is how wrong it is to remove the log from your eye.
>>
>> The usual claim from those who are ignorant on the matter.
>
> Interesting how you say I'm in error but you have never pointed
> out what my error is.

I am still waiting for you to support your accusation.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <v-udne5ey8yupTj8...@giganews.com>,

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

[David Hartung]

On 11/29/21 3:16 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <v-udne5ey8yupTj8...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/21 1:42 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <Oa6dnWl3wL6nuzj8...@giganews.com>,
>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Interesting how those who are quick to declare that we are a secular
>>>>>> country, are the first to go back to scripture in a faulty attempt to
>>>>>> "prove" their point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting how each time you are shown rejecting christianity
>>>>> your response is how wrong it is to remove the log from your eye.
>>>>
>>>> The usual claim from those who are ignorant on the matter.
>>>
>>> Interesting how you say I'm in error but you have never pointed
>>> out what my error is.
>>
>> I am still waiting for you to support your accusation.
>
> RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

And you fail to back up your accusation.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <v-udne9ey8xJqjj8...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
> >> forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Where did Jesus make that distinction, pastor?
>
> You tell me.

> These are all involving government actions. Are you seriously trying to
> claim that our civil government is in fact a theocracy?

Both Rome and Judea could be called theocracies. According to the
gospels that's why Jesus was given to the romans and crucified.

How many christians have you nailed to crosses?

[ed...@post.com]

And the phony pastor man strikes out again.

[David Hartung]

On 11/29/21 3:21 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <v-udne9ey8xJqjj8...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
>>>> forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Where did Jesus make that distinction, pastor?
>>
>> You tell me.
>
>> These are all involving government actions. Are you seriously trying to
>> claim that our civil government is in fact a theocracy?
>
> Both Rome and Judea could be called theocracies. According to the
> gospels that's why Jesus was given to the romans and crucified.
>
> How many christians have you nailed to crosses?

So you are claiming that the USA is a theocracy?

[AlleyCat]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:29:45 -0800 (PST), ed...@post.com says...

>
> Still rooting for the villain
>

It was self-defense, welfare queen, and NO Blacks were shot, racist.

============================================================================

Colonial Canada Had Slavery For More Than 200 Years. And Yes, It Still Matters
Today

More Canadians Say Racism Is A "Serious Problem" Today Than 1 Year Ago

Canada Urged To Open Its Eyes To Systemic Racism In Wake Of Police Violence

Racism In Canada Is Ever-Present, But We Have A Long History Of Denial

Majority (60%) See Racism as a Serious Problem in Canada Today, Up 13 points
Since Last Year

Nearly a Third of Canadians (28%) Say They Have Personally Experienced Racism
in the Past Year - 24 July 2020

https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/majority-60-see-racism-serious-problem-canada-
today-13-points-last-year

Canada's Enduring Legacy Of Power, Politics And Racism
https://theclarion.ca/politicslaw/canadians-no-less-racist-than-americans/

75 Per Cent of Canadians Polled, Say Royal Canadian Mounted Police Has Systemic
Racism Issue

Systemic Racism In The Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force
https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/07/11/study-canadians-agree-rcmp-systemic-
racism/

Racist Canada Kicks Indian Out of Parliament
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/18/world/canada-jagmeet-singh-opponent-racist-
scli-intl/index.html

Canada's Shameful, Modern-Day Slave Trade
https://torontosun.com/2012/02/10/canadas-shameful-modern-day-slave-
trade/wcm/2e410af6-9dc4-4ef7-bc3e-821a5970ed41

Black Enslavement in Canada
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-enslavement

Colonial Canada Had Slavery For More Than 200 Years. And Yes, It Still Matters
Today
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/17/slavery-canada-history_n_16806804.html

Canada's Slavery Secret: The Whitewashing Of 200 Years Of Enslavement
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/canada-s-slavery-secret-the-whitewashing-of-200-
years-of-enslavement-1.4726313

[AlleyCat]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza says...

> Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense.

Head over the head with a skateboard AND had a gun shoved in his face.

Self-defense, pussy psycho, who lives in an alternate reality.

============================================================================

Rudy's Denial of Reality

Many people, like Rudy deny truths even when presented with irrefutable
evidence.

There's an old (and corny) joke, which goes:

What is "denial?"

It's a river in Egypt."

There's another meaning of "denial" in psychoanalytic theory: A psychological
defense we all use at times to reduce our anxiety when something feels
particularly disturbing.

Finally, there is a particular type of "denial" we are witnessing nowadays:

When seemingly intelligent and sane adults vehemently deny truths despite a
body of irrefutable data.

(THAT'S our Rudy!)

This type of denial is akin to Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" in that these
deniers adamantly refuse to accept verified facts because they get in the way
of their own rigid ideas.

In psychiatry, the word "delusion" means a firm belief in some idea which is
known to be false, and it can be a symptom of paranoia or psychosis. While the
believers in untruths are mentally ill, they do strongly adhere to their false
credos in spite of clear evidence to the contrary which is presented to them,
especially if based on scientific findings.

These deniers are indeed "true believers" for whom there is only One Absolute
Truth.

The writings of their texts are taken literally or reinterpreted to suit their
prejudice and hate.

This kind of closed-mindedness is prevalent in every country of the world. Call
it zealotry, bigotry or fanaticism, these ultra-controlling beliefs are
dangerous to our civic morale. Worse, they give a quasi-intellectual rationale
for a momentum towards control, misanthropy, and hate.

=====

Narcissistic Rudy's Sociopathic Alternate Reality

The Narcissist's Reality - How It's SO Different From Yours

Wouldn't it be nice to live in the narcissist's reality? You're always right.
You're the best at everything. You're an expert at all things you do or haven't
even tried.

As Dr. Les Carter says, there's an alternate reality and always an agenda when
it comes to the narcissist. I thought it would be interesting to break down
the top six ways the narcissist lives in a different reality and how it's not
healthy for you and me.

1) The narcissist is always the victim.

The narcissist has a lot of pain from the past and is skilled at projecting
that pain on everyone else. If you call the narcissist out on a cruel or
inappropriate action or response, and he or she feels violated, criticized,
demeaned. The narcissist will become the victim because that keeps the
narcissist from having to look within. This is referred to as a narcissistic
injury. And the narcissist can play a very good victim. It takes the focus off
what the narcissist did wrong, and it puts you on the defensive as the
perpetrator.

For example, I remember catching a narcissist in my life stealing. I asked him
why. The response was, "I didn't grow up with a silver spook in my mouth like
you did, Laura." His reply hurt for two reasons: one, I grew up in a middle-
class family in Arkansas, and secondly, stealing is wrong. No matter how you
look at it, it's against the law.

2) It's always your fault.

If anything goes wrong it's your fault, no matter the offender. Remember,
narcissists believe they are perfect and everyone else is not. How could it be
his or her fault?

My ex-husband and I were driving south on Interstate 35 one Thanksgiving
morning. A car hit us from behind. He was driving. But guess who got blamed
for the accident? Me, even though I was sitting in the passenger seat. You got
it. It was my fault.

When we got into an argument one day, he called me white trash. It wasn't
about anything significant of course, but whatever it was turned out to be MY
fault. The narcissist is never to blame.

3) You walk on eggshells because the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

With the narcissist, the punishment never fits the crime. Usually there's not
even a crime to begin with. The narcissist may dole out harsh criticism, the
silent treatment or a combination of both to "punish" you and have you begging
for forgiveness. Remember, the narcissist is great at being the injured party,
even when the narcissist is actually the perpetrator.

There's no proportion. The drama doesn't end, no matter how much you tiptoe
around your home.

4) The narcissist is the greatest at everything

I remember being in church with the narcissist and listening to the criticism
fly. We were listening to a Doctor of Theology preach. But guess who knew more
than the pastor? You got it. The narcissist said he knew more. He also knew
how to dress better than the pastor, he said. It was difficult to focus on the
sermon and worshiping due to the barrage of criticism.

Narcissists also believe they are so good at life, that they shouldn't surround
themselves with anyone "less than" them. (If you'll notice they have few is any
good friends.) That's why the narcissist doesn't engage with anyone he feels
inferior or that can't do something for the narcissist.

5) The narcissist always has an agenda.

The narcissist almost does something with the end in mind. The narcissist must
get something from a situation or person, or the narcissist won't take part.
The narcissist looks at life like a Monopoly game. There's a strategy or
manipulative tactic put in place in order to gain money, people, and things,
regardless if it hurts the other person financially or emotionally. I've known
narcissists who leave an ex-wife and children homeless, while the narcissists
walk away free of guilt and trauma. If it works for the narcissist, then that's
how the narcissist believes the game should be played.

6) There is no peace with a narcissist.

The narcissist takes pride and pleasure in disrupting your world. Seeing you
in emotional pain is something the narcissist relishes. Why? The more pain you
carry, the easier it is for the narcissist to control you and those around you.
The narcissist also understands that if you are isolated due to your pain or
his control, then that's even better. He has you at his disposal, broken down,
ready to please.

Also, the narcissist likes for your home life, social life and professional
life to revolve around him or her. The narcissist does it by causing
disruption, then often fixing the problem he caused. For example, I can recall
numerous arguments the narcissist provoked, only to come back and give an empty
apology such as, "I'm sorry, but you push my buttons. Can you calm down and we
talk about this rationally?" The narcissist looks like the hero, and you're
left wondering what just happened.

Life with a narcissist is a rollercoaster. There are so many ups and downs,
all orchestrated to have high control. But there are ways to get off the roller
coaster. First of all, don't get on board in the first place. Focus on your
truth. Don't let the narcissist sway your beliefs of what you know to be true.
Journal or keep a notebook of incidents you know occurred.

Secondly, find some peace every day. Take the dog for a walk. Phone a trusted
friend. Get grounded in reality. There are good people out there who want you
to be healthy emotionally and physically.

Finally, live your best life. Avoid toxic people. If you can't avoid the
narcissist, put strong boundaries in place. The narcissist won't like it, but
you will become stronger. Time away from toxic people helps you heal and see
things clearly. You can more easily live your life. That's the best karma out
there. And you accelerate that karma by taking care of you.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

So Rudy must be a #1 fan, then.

[chuckle]

[Blue Lives Matter]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:04:32 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:16:07 -0500, Blue Lives Matter
><Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:40:58 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense,
>>>>
>>>>Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
>>>>self defense.
>>>
>>>He shot three people in self defense, dwarf.
>>>
>>>It's no surprise that you're upset about the innocent verdict.
>>
>>
>>It's not as though anyone cares about rudy's opinions. Remember that
>>he came to Usenet implying he was a fan of the Phil Henrie radio show.
>>Only losers and fools watched that stupid show.
>
>So Rudy must be a #1 fan, then.
>
>[chuckle]

That guy did exactly what 'rudy' does.... He pretended to be weird,
stupid loons calling into his late night radio show with outrageous
claims, and then he argued with himself on air. It was a ridiculous
one man show that anyone with half a wit could identify and tune out
after a couple of minutes listening to it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:34:53 -0500, Blue Lives Matter

<Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:04:32 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:16:07 -0500, Blue Lives Matter
>><Iron_White@Systemic_Patriotism.KMA> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:40:58 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klaus.schadenfreude.entfernen.@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense,
>>>>>
>>>>>Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
>>>>>self defense.
>>>>
>>>>He shot three people in self defense, dwarf.
>>>>
>>>>It's no surprise that you're upset about the innocent verdict.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not as though anyone cares about rudy's opinions. Remember that
>>>he came to Usenet implying he was a fan of the Phil Henrie radio show.
>>>Only losers and fools watched that stupid show.
>>
>>So Rudy must be a #1 fan, then.
>>
>>[chuckle]
>
>That guy did exactly what 'rudy' does.... He pretended to be weird,
>stupid loons calling into his late night radio show with outrageous
>claims, and then he argued with himself on air. It was a ridiculous
>one man show that anyone with half a wit could identify and tune out
>after a couple of minutes listening to it.

That's where Rudy got the idea for his Army of Socks.

Except- while Hendrie's listeners were stupid enough to believe it,
nobody here is.

[Rudy Canoza]

As always, when Hartung starts with "So...," what follows is a straw man. A
straw man is a kind of lie. Hartung is lying about what his opponent — his
superior — is saying and implying.

Hartung lies numerous times every day.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/29/2021 2:48 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:29:45 -0800 (PST), ed...@post.com says...
>
>>
>> Still rooting for the villain
>>
>
> It was self-defense,

No.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 11/29/2021 2:51 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza says...
>
>> Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense.
>

> ============================================================================
>
> AlleyPussyBitch's Denial of Reality
>
> Many people, like AlleyPussyBitch deny truths even when presented with irrefutable

> evidence.
>
> There's an old (and corny) joke, which goes:
>
> What is "denial?"
>
> It's a river in Egypt."
>
> There's another meaning of "denial" in psychoanalytic theory: A psychological
> defense we all use at times to reduce our anxiety when something feels
> particularly disturbing.
>
> Finally, there is a particular type of "denial" we are witnessing nowadays:
>
> When seemingly intelligent and sane adults vehemently deny truths despite a
> body of irrefutable data.
>

> (THAT'S our AlleyPussyBitch!)

>
> This type of denial is akin to Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" in that these
> deniers adamantly refuse to accept verified facts because they get in the way
> of their own rigid ideas.
>
> In psychiatry, the word "delusion" means a firm belief in some idea which is
> known to be false, and it can be a symptom of paranoia or psychosis. While the
> believers in untruths are mentally ill, they do strongly adhere to their false
> credos in spite of clear evidence to the contrary which is presented to them,
> especially if based on scientific findings.
>
> These deniers are indeed "true believers" for whom there is only One Absolute
> Truth.
>
> The writings of their texts are taken literally or reinterpreted to suit their
> prejudice and hate.
>
> This kind of closed-mindedness is prevalent in every country of the world. Call
> it zealotry, bigotry or fanaticism, these ultra-controlling beliefs are
> dangerous to our civic morale. Worse, they give a quasi-intellectual rationale
> for a momentum towards control, misanthropy, and hate.
>
> =====
>

> Narcissistic AlleyPussyBitch's Sociopathic Alternate Reality

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:joadnRR8hulI2jj8...@giganews.com:

"In God We Trust" on ALL our currency.

ALL presidents sworn into office on a Bible.

"One nation under God" in our pledge allegiance.

All presidents and all Supreme Court Justices
believe in a god.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:v-udne9ey8xJqjj8...@giganews.com:

Are you seriously claiming none of the
authors and supporters of these laws are
Christians?

>
>
>>>> and that forgiveness
>>>> not be extended to anyone who is not a fellow
>>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> This requires some clarification. Are yo speaking of temporal
>>> forgiveness, or eternal forgiveness?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Where did Jesus make that distinction, pastor?
>
> You tell me.

More proof you don't know your own Bible, pastor.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:DMydnfjYNJJR3jj8...@giganews.com:

Indeed, we are.




"However, President Obama's criminal actions
are still affecting the nation, and they need
to be corrected"
David Hartung, unproven accusation,Dec 20 2019
https://tinyurl.com/wgucfa3

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:E-SdneYLhv2Tqzj8...@giganews.com:

So you support civil suits against acquitted
defendants - OJ but not Rittenhosue - as long as
they are black.

Just so........

[David Hartung]

You really need to pay attention to what is posted.

[David Hartung]

So you do believe that the USA is a theocracy. Wow, you really need to
get an education.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:EOqdnZ-
EbMl7Bjj8nZ2...@giganews.com:

You really need to pay attention to your
famous double standards.

[David Hartung]

On 11/29/21 9:39 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

> It's not a theocracy, but religion has far too much influence.
So you say.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 5:07 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:53:40 -0800, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id
> <pA7pJ.45189$zF3....@fx03.iad> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2021 8:38 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 11/29/21 10:29 AM, ed...@post.com wrote:
>>>> On Monday, November 29, 2021 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/any-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-kyle-rittenhouse-will-fail-legal-analysts-say

>>>> Still rooting for the villain, are you, phony pastor man of God?
>>>
>>> The villains were the three men Rittenhouse shot in self defense,
>>

>> Rittenhouse shot no one in self defense. He did not have a legitimate claim to
>> self defense.
>

> That is a point to be determined by the court and it has
> done so.

The judge instructs the jury on the law, and the jury is supposed to follow the
law. The judge gave wrong instruction on the law, so the jury didn't follow the
law.


>
>>
>> (2)?Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
>> (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
>> others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
>> entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
>> except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
>> engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
>> in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
>>
>> https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
>>
>> Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.
>
> Not according to the court, and it's opinion is the only one
> that counts. Your opinion does not matter.
>
>>
>> Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
>> justifies self defense.
>> D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
>> 11/25/2021 09:59am
>>
>> Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
>> use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
>> thing for them to do.
>
> He is not a mind reader.

He doesn't have to be.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 7:55 AM, Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 07:15:29 -0800, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Not so,

Yes, it is so.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2)?Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
>>>> (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
>>>> others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
>>>> entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
>>>> except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
>>>> engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
>>>> in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
>>>>
>>>> Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.
>>>
>>> Not according to the court, and it's opinion is the only one
>>> that counts. Your opinion does not matter.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
>>>> justifies self defense.
>>>> D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
>>>> 11/25/2021 09:59am
>>>>
>>>> Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
>>>> use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
>>>> thing for them to do.
>>>
>>> He is not a mind reader.
>>
>> He doesn't have to be.
>

> Correct. He used observation.

No, he didn't. He wanted to kill "rioters," and he justified it after the fact.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 9:38 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker lied:

> Did he tell you that?

Yes, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, he did. He told
it to all of us, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. He
told it to us indirectly, when he testified. The prosecutor asked him why he
didn't just go home at 11:30pm, after the cops had moved past the car lot he was
"guarding" (ha ha ha!), and there were no more protesters. He paused nearly
*ten seconds* before mumbling some lame bullshit about wanting to be available
in order to provide "first aid" to anyone who might need it...even though there
was *no one* left who might need it.

The punk went looking for trouble, and he created some trouble so he could shoot
people.

No "book deal," no "lawsuits." This punk is going to die a pauper.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 9:57 AM, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker
admitted:

> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:55:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>

> So we know he wanted to shoot "rioters."

Yes, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker, we know that.

>>
>> The punk went looking for trouble, and he created some trouble so he could shoot
>> people.
>

> Not guilty,

He was found legally not guilty, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW
Pig-Fucker, but we know he is *factually* guilty.

>>
>> No "book deal," no "lawsuits." This punk is going to die a pauper.
>

> He's already got a ton of money from it

No, Jack-Off Skeeter Shit-4-Braincell Lamey FNVW Pig-Fucker. He has
crowd-sourced money from right-wingnut shitbags like you to pay his legal expenses.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 12:20 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 08:42:09 -0800, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> As I said in the part you removed

As you lied, that is.

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (2)?Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
>>>>>> (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
>>>>>> others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
>>>>>> entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
>>>>>> except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
>>>>>> engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
>>>>>> in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not according to the court, and it's opinion is the only one
>>>>> that counts. Your opinion does not matter.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
>>>>>> justifies self defense.
>>>>>> D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
>>>>>> 11/25/2021 09:59am
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
>>>>>> use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
>>>>>> thing for them to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is not a mind reader.
>>>>
>>>> He doesn't have to be.
>>>
>>> Correct. He used observation.
>>
>> No, he didn't. He wanted to kill "rioters," and he justified it after the fact.
>

> You know that of course

We all know it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 12:24 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 09:55:37 -0800, Rudy Canoza
> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.fucknozzles with message-id

> <uGOpJ.17178$Sl5....@fx27.iad> wrote:
>
>> No "book deal," no "lawsuits." This punk is going to die a pauper.
>

> Time will tell,

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/1/2021 1:14 PM, Attila wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:31:13 -0800, Rudy Canoza

> <notg...@gmail.com> in alt.atheism with message-id

> Jury nullification is legal according to the U.S. Supreme
> Court, but whether or not juries need to be instructed on
> this right is a different matter. ... Hence, once a jury
> finds a defendant not guilty, there is no mechanism for a
> prosecutor to bring the case against the same defendant
> again.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (2)?Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
>>>>>>>> (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke
>>>>>>>> others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not
>>>>>>>> entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack,
>>>>>>>> except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person
>>>>>>>> engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is
>>>>>>>> in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rittenhouse engaged in illegal conduct by pointing his gun at his victims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not according to the court, and it's opinion is the only one
>>>>>>> that counts. Your opinion does not matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just pointing a gun at another individual amounts to a death threat and
>>>>>>>> justifies self defense.
>>>>>>>> D. Hartung, J.D. [ha ha ha ha ha!]
>>>>>>>> 11/25/2021 09:59am
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rittenhouse did *not* have a reasonable belief that his victims were going to
>>>>>>>> use his gun against him. They were trying to disarm him. That was a reasonable
>>>>>>>> thing for them to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is not a mind reader.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He doesn't have to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. He used observation.
>>>>
>>>> No, he didn't. He wanted to kill "rioters," and he justified it after the fact.
>>>
>>> You know that of course
>>
>> We all know it.
>

> I don't

You do.

[Seymour Hare]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 12:31:13 -0800, Rudy Canoza <notg...@gmail.com>

wrote:

The only principal involved who was from Kenosha was the convicted
child molester. It was poetic justice that his killer was a male
minor. Rittenhouse was equipped with an assault rifle in case he was
targeted during the riot; which he was by two people who had the
misfortune of being armed with lesser weapons. He did nothing wrong.

[jane playne]

.

Minor correction: Rittenhouse did not have an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a military weapon that has a selectable *fully automatic* mode. Rittehouse's rifle was a civilian weapon that was SEMI-automatic.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<589aa0da-cec1-4552...@googlegroups.com>,
jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

> An assault rifle is

You don't decide what the definition is in legal proceedings.
California has by law defined an assault weapon within California
legal proceedings.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtm
l?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

[jane playne]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article
> <589aa0da-cec1-4552...@googlegroups.com>,
> jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An assault rifle is
>

.

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,

“assault rifles” are short, compact, selective-fire AUTOMATIC weapons that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

All assault rifles are capable of automatic fire.



Citations:

1: "US Army intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70, November 1970". Gunfax.com. Archived from the original on 2012-08-29. Retrieved 2012-08-26.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<1673c61d-af4a-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,

jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:27:55 PM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article
> > <589aa0da-cec1-4552...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > An assault rifle is
> >
> .
>
> According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,

which is used by the courts of which states?

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<1673c61d-af4a-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,

jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,

In article <soabr7$81f$3...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
wrote:

> The Rittenhouse case took place in CA???

Wisconsin uses the DIA definitions in its courts?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/2/2021 3:48 AM, Yak wrote:

> On 12/1/21 10:27 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article
>> <589aa0da-cec1-4552...@googlegroups.com>,
>>   jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> An assault rifle is
>>
>> You don't decide what the definition is in legal proceedings.
>> California has by law defined an assault weapon within California
>> legal proceedings.
>>
>> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtm
>> l?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN
>

> The Rittenhouse case took place in CA???
>

Fuck off, cocksucker. She didn't say that's where the case took place, nor did
she imply it. She was countering not-jane's cunt-brained definition of an
assault rifle, and you know it. Fuck off with your sophomoric bullshit.

[David Hartung]

Jayne's definition is rational and reasonable.

[Rudy Canoza]

> Jayne's [sic] definition is

complete bullshit. Yes.

not-jane spells his fake name "jane," not "jayne," you stupid shitbag.

[jane playne]

.

I am sorry I went off on this tangent, but Seymour Hare used the term Assault Rifle.

THAT term is already defined, SO California had to come up with their own term, "Assault Weapon", for the rifle that California wanted to ban. An "Assault Weapon" is NOT an Assault Rifle because an Assault Weapon does not have a selective mode.

NOW, about California's definition:

Here is a Ruger Mini Ranch rifle that is NOT an Assault Weapon and was actually specified as one of the "legal" rifles in California Assault Weapons ban. It has never been banned and was legally sold back when "Assault Weapons Bans" were in place. Women love this rifle because it is smaller and lighter weight.

https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

NOW, here is an "Assault Weapon" that WAS banned by California's law.

https://media.mwstatic.com/product-images/880x660/Primary/948/948821.jpg

NOW, here is the difference between those two rifles, a legal Ruger Mini 14 and an illegal Assault Weapon.
(I queue the video to the significant part. Go back and watch the first portion afterwards.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLziZdMrX8U&t=100s

[Siri Cruise]

In article <l9KdncxUu4L_dDX8...@giganews.com>,

What courts use its definition? I know no California court does
since it is California law that defines assault weapon for the
state courts. Anyone familar with Wisconsin law can look up what
terms they use.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_UTbf9gGVE
Jayne Cobb talking about Vera

[Siri Cruise]

In article <soamb1$loi$1...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
wrote:

> On 12/2/21 9:37 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article
> > <1673c61d-af4a-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,
> >
> >
> > In article <soabr7$81f$3...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The Rittenhouse case took place in CA???
> >
> > Wisconsin uses the DIA definitions in its courts?
>

> Huh????

And you're still an idiot.

[Siri Cruise]

In article
<059c7926-baf7-4dd2...@googlegroups.com>,

jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:38:01 AM UTC-5, Siri Cruise wrote:
> > In article
> > <1673c61d-af4a-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,
> > In article <soabr7$81f$3...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The Rittenhouse case took place in CA???
> > Wisconsin uses the DIA definitions in its courts?
> > --
> > :-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
> > 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
> > Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
> > I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed
> .
>
> I am sorry I went off on this tangent, but Seymour Hare used the term Assault
> Rifle.
>
> THAT term is already defined, SO California had to come up with their own
> term, "Assault Weapon", for the rifle that California wanted to ban. An
> "Assault Weapon" is NOT an Assault Rifle because an Assault Weapon does not
> have a selective mode.

Assault weapons include shotguns and sidearms. It is a superset
that includes rifled longarms. Under normal english usage rifled
longarm assault weapons could be abbreviated to assault rifles.

> NOW, about California's definition:

It is a definition that has legal signficance. I don't Wisconsin
law which is why I refer to California law. I expect Wisconsin
doesn't require your permission.

If you don't like the law, you can become registerred voter and
do an initiative to amend law. As an added bonus you reside here
and register without owning or renting a home.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/2/2021 9:48 AM, Yak wrote:

> On 12/2/21 12:19 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <soamb1$loi$1...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/2/21 9:37 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <1673c61d-af4a-4b93...@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>    jane playne <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In article <soabr7$81f$3...@dont-email.me>, Yak <y...@inbox.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Rittenhouse case took place in CA???
>>>>
>>>> Wisconsin uses the DIA definitions in its courts?
>>>
>>> Huh????
>>
>> And you're still an idiot.
>

> Uh huh, yet it was you who inexplicably refers to CA law

It was 100% appropriate. She made the reference to illustrate that not-jane,
the mackerel-reeking cunt, is an idiot for trying to define assault weapons.

You're a priest-fucked idiot for not seeing it.

[jane playne]

.

Wisconsin does not have an Assault Weapons ban. CA created a definition ages ago. When the feds created an assault weapons ban in 1994, they copied the CA definition. The Federal code expired after 10 years. Wisconsin does not have a ban.

From Wisconsin State code[1]
The term “assault weapon” does not currently appear in the Wisconsin Statutes, nor is it a
defined term in United States Code. ...These types of firearms may be obtained in Wisconsin
in the same manner as any other firearm.

It's not a matter of whether or not I like the law; it's a matter of the law being absurd. Did you watch the video that illustrated the distinction between a LEGAL "Ruger Mini 14 Ranch" rifle and an ILLEGAL Assault Weapon (an AR15 style rifle) ???


The legal Mini 14 Ranch:
https://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLziZdMrX8U&t=100s



citations:
1. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2018/im_2018_02

[jane playne]

.

Siri,

There are 7 states that have 7 definitions of an "Assault weapon". An assault weapon in one state may not be an assault weapon in another one of those 7.

Did you watch the video I gave you at Dec 2, 2021, 3:38:59 PM, that illustrates the difference between a legal rifle and an assault weapon in all 7 states?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLziZdMrX8U&t=100s