Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:02 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Defending his rights to shoot those people? I've stated that the shootings to me looked like they were in self-defense. I've also stated that it may not matter since Rittenhouse may have been committing a crime before the shootings. In fact, I believe I was the first person in this thread to bring up the felony murder rule and apply it to Rittenhouse. There is a huge legal gray area, which is why this case is so interesting to me. Indeed, if he is charged with a crime, the only reason he would likely be charged at all would be because of his age. It is crazy to me to think that if Rittenhouse were a few months older he'd either be a free kid right now or he'd have a much easier trial, but the law is the law. Should be interesting to follow.

Either way, his self defense is going to be mired by the fact that he himself fell to the ground. He put himself into a defenseless position, and those coming after him were trying to disarm him after he shot another person. He made himself judge,jury and executioner, after flouting the law to bring the gun across state lines under age.


He fell to the ground as he was fleeing. Not sure how that can be held against him. Also not sure how much the other protesters who were shot can be faulted if they reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was a threat. It is very possible that this could be a case where no one ends up going to jail. Rittenhouse thought he was defending himself, protesters thought they were defending themselves, and each side was reasonable to believe as such.


And the parents get sued to bankruptcy.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13518
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:24 pm

seb146 wrote:
Like "do not point guns at people" and "do not pull the trigger while pointing guns at people"


Things i probably will remember for the remainder of my life at least in spirit from my Shootings range instructer way back when:

- there is no auch thing as an unloaded gun
- don't ever put a finger near the trigger unless you have the target in sight and want to shoot.
- the only place the muzzle ever points at other than a target is the floor.

Teenage boy level rules when I was a teenage boy .... no "go and point a gun at people that might feel threatened."

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13518
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:27 pm

N583JB wrote:
Also not sure how much the other protesters who were shot can be faulted if they reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was a threat.


Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18209
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm

N583JB wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
N583JB wrote:

So just to be clear, you are advocating physically assaulting anyone who carries a gun?

JuSt To bE clEaR here's a red herring that is nowhere in what I wrote. If people are having trouble trusting cops' motives, why would anyone sane trust random wannabe cops with guns milling about? And how do you tell the nefarious ones from the well intentioned ones--if there is such a thing?



It is called common sense and using your brain. There are more guns than people in the United States. Chances are, wherever you go, someone is armed there. People legally have the right to carry firearms in most places. You can't just attack them because of the color of their skin.

In the middle of a riot or protest? How you gonna know which ones have come to harm others? Cops can't even get that right with *unarmed* people, let alone when there is an armed threat, in a crowd of armed people. What brain trick you gonna use then?
I don't take responsibility at all
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: White House occupant defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:51 pm

seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

Let me add to that:

Too young to legally carry a weapon, he crossed state lines to engage in his infantile vigilante fantasies. He shot to death two people who were trying to keep him from shooting other people, and showed no emotion or consideration when he did so. He was not allowed to carry that weapon under the laws of Illinois, his home state, or Wisconsin, where he decided to pull the trigger. When even the other right-wing gun nuts around him were able to avoid killing anyone, his overcompensation for his social inadequacies took the lives of two peaceful protesters, and seriously injured a third. There is no question that he came to make himself noticed, and his lack of maturity, thought process, and ethos started the action which evolved into twin murders. There were armed people all around him who knew better. He got the "15 minutes of fame" he wanted - by ending the lives of two other human beings, maiming a third, and destroying his own future. He may have become a cause celebre to the ammosexuals and the strident white nationalists, but he will always be a pariah in civilized society.

Let us hope the Justice system works.


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... tes/948/60

>"Furthermore, minors that are 16 years of age or older can openly carry long guns, provided they are not considered "short-barreled rifles" or "short-barreled shotguns" and are not otherwise prohibited from possession of firearms. A license is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property."

Even IF it was illegal, that doesn't mean his rights to self defense are thrown into the trash.

1. Crossing state lines is irrelevant. Why do you bring this up? You say "state lines" to make it seem as if he went to great lengths to do this, even though he lived like 25 minutes away. Stop shilling it.
2. "he crossed state lines to engage in his infantile vigilante fantasies". That seems rather assumptions, isn't it? We already have facts on this too - go look at the twitter of the lawyer representing him, it tells you why he went there.
3. "He shot to death two people who prevented him from shooting others" - HAHAHAHAHA. Maybe you are blind, if you are I am sorry about that. Or maybe you didn't watch the video?
4. "When even the other right-wing gun nuts around him were able to avoid killing anyone, his overcompensation for his social inadequacies took the lives of two peaceful protesters, and seriously injured a third." you're trying to exacerbate him by saying "ahyuk, this guy probably did this and that. He's so bad." This adds nothing to your point, it just makes you seem immature.
5. "There is no question that he came to make himself noticed, " Refer to what I said in #2

The rest of what you said is more exacerbated sensationalist nonsense so I will not address it.


This 17 year old man was not crossing state lines to go deer hunting or to attend a gun show. He went for the sole purpose of "defending" Kenosha from "rioters" like his dear leader said. He should be labeled a domestic terrorist. He had no other reason to be there other than intimidating and, eventually, shooting protesters. Republicans are so quick to call BLM protesters "violent" but when one of theirs actually kills people, it is crickets.


It is not against the law to go to Kenosha to "defend" from "rioters." He was certainly guilty of gun possession infractions, and apparently a curfew violation. But nothing else is certain. It depends who started the violent exchange. That's what determines who was guilty of assault or murder. As was said above.. if he threatened to attack people, then attacking him first was sensible and legal. It's not a clear case at all. It depends who threatened and/or attacked whom first.

I think a lot of the hard feelings about police relations relate to not knowing the rules of the game. You CANNOT make erratic or threatening gestures around cops, because they can reasonably fear for their lives and shoot you as a result. You also cannot go around threatening to, or actually assaulting people. That can get you killed in an instant, lawfully. Trayvon Martin case hinged on that question (and we don't know the true answer beyond doubt, hence the acquittal).
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:07 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Also not sure how much the other protesters who were shot can be faulted if they reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was a threat.


Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.

Best regards
Thomas


You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?
Last edited by N583JB on Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:09 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
JuSt To bE clEaR here's a red herring that is nowhere in what I wrote. If people are having trouble trusting cops' motives, why would anyone sane trust random wannabe cops with guns milling about? And how do you tell the nefarious ones from the well intentioned ones--if there is such a thing?



It is called common sense and using your brain. There are more guns than people in the United States. Chances are, wherever you go, someone is armed there. People legally have the right to carry firearms in most places. You can't just attack them because of the color of their skin.

In the middle of a riot or protest? How you gonna know which ones have come to harm others? Cops can't even get that right with *unarmed* people, let alone when there is an armed threat, in a crowd of armed people. What brain trick you gonna use then?


It is not uncommon to see armed people at protests. Indeed, there were many armed people protesting alongside Rittenhouse. Unless that person is clearly showing that they are a threat, you just ignore them and move on.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3670
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:13 pm

N583JB wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Also not sure how much the other protesters who were shot can be faulted if they reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was a threat.

Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.


You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?


You have to be either the densest or the most dishonest person in attendance. Rittenhourse had just shot a man in the head; he was an active shooter. Two bystanders sought to take a deadly weapon from an active shooter.

How much simpler do you need this to be?
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
continental004
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2014 11:53 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:32 pm

I would rather live under Communism than under another four years of Trump.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:26 pm

alfa164 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.


You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?


You have to be either the densest or the most dishonest person in attendance. Rittenhourse had just shot a man in the head; he was an active shooter. Two bystanders sought to take a deadly weapon from an active shooter.

How much simpler do you need this to be?


That's not what "active shooter" means in most senses. "Active shooter" is typically used to describe someone who is shooting people at random and at will. So, if a wife murders her husband because of a love triangle gone wrong, she's not an active shooter. If a gang member shoots another gang member due to a street beef, he's not an active shooter. If a kid shoots a pedophile because he's being chased down by him, he's not an active shooter. And so on...
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Topic Author
Posts: 14194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:37 am

N583JB wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
N583JB wrote:

You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?


You have to be either the densest or the most dishonest person in attendance. Rittenhourse had just shot a man in the head; he was an active shooter. Two bystanders sought to take a deadly weapon from an active shooter.

How much simpler do you need this to be?


That's not what "active shooter" means in most senses. "Active shooter" is typically used to describe someone who is shooting people at random and at will. So, if a wife murders her husband because of a love triangle gone wrong, she's not an active shooter. If a gang member shoots another gang member due to a street beef, he's not an active shooter. If a kid shoots a pedophile because he's being chased down by him, he's not an active shooter. And so on...


Come on, that is plain dumb, the kid was an active shooter, he had already shot someone. What are you people drinking, stupid water????
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13518
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:33 am

N583JB wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Also not sure how much the other protesters who were shot can be faulted if they reasonably believed that Rittenhouse was a threat.


Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.

Best regards
Thomas


You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?


how come i need to provide evidence for your claim? You wrote:

N583JB wrote:
the other protesters who were shot


best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13518
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:37 am

N583JB wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
N583JB wrote:

It is called common sense and using your brain. There are more guns than people in the United States. Chances are, wherever you go, someone is armed there. People legally have the right to carry firearms in most places. You can't just attack them because of the color of their skin.

In the middle of a riot or protest? How you gonna know which ones have come to harm others? Cops can't even get that right with *unarmed* people, let alone when there is an armed threat, in a crowd of armed people. What brain trick you gonna use then?


It is not uncommon to see armed people at protests. Indeed, there were many armed people protesting alongside Rittenhouse. Unless that person is clearly showing that they are a threat, you just ignore them and move on.


It is absolutely uncommon to see armed people at protests anywhere else then in the homeland of the Gunliban. In plenty of places the police in shows up to protests, in part or in whole, without firearms.

Bringing a gun ...heck.. a weapon of any kind to a protest usually disqualifies people from having weapons, period.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13518
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:38 am

alfa164 wrote:
How much simpler do you need this to be?


oh that is easy. Guy with a gun shooting people against Trump = Good, anyone else = bad. Simple enough.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:03 am

WarRI1 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

You have to be either the densest or the most dishonest person in attendance. Rittenhourse had just shot a man in the head; he was an active shooter. Two bystanders sought to take a deadly weapon from an active shooter.

How much simpler do you need this to be?


That's not what "active shooter" means in most senses. "Active shooter" is typically used to describe someone who is shooting people at random and at will. So, if a wife murders her husband because of a love triangle gone wrong, she's not an active shooter. If a gang member shoots another gang member due to a street beef, he's not an active shooter. If a kid shoots a pedophile because he's being chased down by him, he's not an active shooter. And so on...


Come on, that is plain dumb, the kid was an active shooter, he had already shot someone. What are you people drinking, stupid water????


Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 10:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
N583JB wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

Really, you think people having been shot at may actually be reasonable when they consider the shooter a threat? Dang, that is generous.

Best regards
Thomas


You have evidence that the two people who attacked Rittenhouse after the first shooting were shot at before chasing him down? Link? More importantly, have you shared this information with the local authorities?


how come i need to provide evidence for your claim? You wrote:

N583JB wrote:
the other protesters who were shot


best regards
Thomas


Ah, I see. You never actually watched the videos to see what happened that night. That explains why you are so confused.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 429
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:41 am

N583JB wrote:

Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.


How were the people at the scene to know if the guy was a rampage killer or not? Having bullets flying past you isn't exactly the time to take a good look and think whether or not a guy with an AR-15 is committing a mass shooting or simply "defending himself". As far as they can see a person with an AR15 (who had protesters chasing after him so there's a good chance something he did prior provoked them) had shot an unarmed man. So to those protesters this shooter had just committed a crime and was running away, and they were of the mindset this criminal had to be stopped before he potentially killed more.

Examples of Far Right Trump supporting active shooters include the Parkland murderer, 17 dead, Santa Fe school shooter, 10 dead, El Paso Walmart killer, 23 dead, Christchurch murderer, 50 dead, Quebec City Mosque killer, 6 dead. So the protesters in Kenosha had a lot of concern to suspect a mass killer when one of their unarmed own was shot by a gunman holding a weapon that has been constantly used in mass shootings, by a perpetrator who is of the ideology that has committed these acts in the past.

The actions of the protesters in trying to catch the shooter were justified. I suspect if the shooter had done the same thing but had been brown skinned with a beard and had shouted something in a foreign language then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19182
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:48 am

N583JB wrote:
Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.


The FBI's definition is:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources
"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

Seems to me that Rittenhouse ticks all the FBI's boxes.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:32 pm

scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.


The FBI's definition is:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources
"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

Seems to me that Rittenhouse ticks all the FBI's boxes.


Why did you leave out the rest of the definition? I have a hunch...
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 12:38 pm

sierrakilo44 wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.


How were the people at the scene to know if the guy was a rampage killer or not? Having bullets flying past you isn't exactly the time to take a good look and think whether or not a guy with an AR-15 is committing a mass shooting or simply "defending himself". As far as they can see a person with an AR15 (who had protesters chasing after him so there's a good chance something he did prior provoked them) had shot an unarmed man. So to those protesters this shooter had just committed a crime and was running away, and they were of the mindset this criminal had to be stopped before he potentially killed more.

Examples of Far Right Trump supporting active shooters include the Parkland murderer, 17 dead, Santa Fe school shooter, 10 dead, El Paso Walmart killer, 23 dead, Christchurch murderer, 50 dead, Quebec City Mosque killer, 6 dead. So the protesters in Kenosha had a lot of concern to suspect a mass killer when one of their unarmed own was shot by a gunman holding a weapon that has been constantly used in mass shootings, by a perpetrator who is of the ideology that has committed these acts in the past.

The actions of the protesters in trying to catch the shooter were justified. I suspect if the shooter had done the same thing but had been brown skinned with a beard and had shouted something in a foreign language then we wouldn't be having this conversation.


What kind of "active shooter" stops and runs after shooting one person? Rittenhouse wasn't an "active shooter"; he shot one man who was coming after him as he was running away. He immediately tried to flee and didn't fire again until he fell down and was smacked on the head with a skateboard and then approached by another guy with a gun.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 1:53 pm

scbriml wrote:
The FBI's definition is:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources
"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

Seems to me that Rittenhouse ticks all the FBI's boxes.
N583JB wrote:
Why did you leave out the rest of the definition?

Why did YOU leave out the rest of the definition?
If it supports your case, let's see it!

N583JB wrote:
I have a hunch...
I suggest you see a good chiropractor. :rotfl:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:18 pm

sierrakilo44 wrote:
How were the people at the scene to know if the guy was a rampage killer or not? Having bullets flying past you isn't exactly the time to take a good look and think whether or not a guy with an AR-15 is committing a mass shooting or simply "defending himself".

So to those protesters this shooter had just committed a crime and was running away, and they were of the mindset this criminal had to be stopped before he potentially killed more.

The actions of the protesters in trying to catch the shooter were justified.
N583JB wrote:
What kind of "active shooter" stops and runs after shooting one person?
What part of "...isn't exactly the time to take a good look and think whether or not a guy with an AR-15 is...", do you not understand?

Meanwhile to answer your question; maybe this "active shooter" stopped to reload. Or clear a jam. Or to select his next (random) target, not just spray the whole area and hit some of his own crew by mistake?
Here's a great idea; let's just all stand around and wait until he kills another dozen people, eh? :banghead:

N583JB wrote:
Rittenhouse wasn't an "active shooter"; he shot one man who was coming after him as he was running away.
And everybody could see that clearly? Police regularly shoot people for a lot less than that. In fact..... :roll:

N583JB wrote:
... and didn't fire again until he fell down and was smacked on the head with a skateboard and then approached by another guy with a gun.
Which Rittenhouse knew about because it was clearly visible. Er....Um.....
No, wait, it was Rittenhouse that had the clearly visible AR-15, whilst the other guy might have had a phone in his hand. Or nothing at all. Are there any pics or witnesses who saw him brandishing a weapon? Did Rittenhouse see all this as he was falling and being hit on the head with a skateboard? Really?

Or are you crediting Rittenhouse with X-ray vision?

It seems that victims #2 & #3 should have shown incredible patience after the first shots, and waited until a potential active shooter had killed another dozen people.
Whilst Rittenhouse (whilst carrying an AR-15) is excused from doing the same.

Yeah, that seems about right.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19182
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:40 pm

N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Once again, that may be your definition of "active shooter", but that is not the commonly accepted definition.


The FBI's definition is:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources
"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

Seems to me that Rittenhouse ticks all the FBI's boxes.


Why did you leave out the rest of the definition? I have a hunch...


That's where the definition part ends. But I'll play your game...

What does ", and recent active shooter incidents have underscored the need for a coordinated response by law enforcement and others to save lives. The FBI is committed to working with its partners to protect schools, workplaces, houses of worship, transportation centers, other public gathering sites, and communities. " add to the definition that means Rittenhouse doesn't fit the category? Nothing.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 2:47 pm

scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
scbriml wrote:

The FBI's definition is:

https://www.fbi.gov/about/partnerships/ ... -resources
"An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area"

Seems to me that Rittenhouse ticks all the FBI's boxes.


Why did you leave out the rest of the definition? I have a hunch...


That's where the definition part ends. But I'll play your game...

What does ", and recent active shooter incidents have underscored the need for a coordinated response by law enforcement and others to save lives. The FBI is committed to working with its partners to protect schools, workplaces, houses of worship, transportation centers, other public gathering sites, and communities. " add to the definition that means Rittenhouse doesn't fit the category? Nothing.


Posting from my phone, so can't share the link right now. The DHS definition uses the exact verbiage but elaborates that "there is no method or pattern between selection of victims". Note that victims is plural and there was definitely a pattern...Rittenhouse only shot people who were attacking him.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3942
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:09 pm

If i were to shoot someone, how long would the famous “good guy with a gun” (or a skateboard) have to kill me, before I stop being an active shooter? A second? Ten seconds? A minute?

At what point did Rittenhouse stop being a legitimate threat, and did his “right” to murder in self defence become valid again?
Attamottamotta!
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:18 pm

petertenthije wrote:
If i were to shoot someone, how long would the famous “good guy with a gun” (or a skateboard) have to kill me, before I stop being an active shooter? A second? Ten seconds? A minute?

At what point did Rittenhouse stop being a legitimate threat, and did his “right” to murder in self defence become valid again?


That's for the courts to decide. As I said earlier, it is plausible that Rittenhouse was acting in valid fear for his life and that the final two people shot were also acting in self-defense if they legitimately thought that Rittenhouse was an active threat.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:23 pm

petertenthije wrote:
If i were to shoot someone, how long would the famous “good guy with a gun” (or a skateboard) have to kill me, before I stop being an active shooter? A second? Ten seconds? A minute?

At what point did Rittenhouse stop being a legitimate threat, and did his “right” to murder in self defence become valid again?


It didn't.
He was illegally possessing a gun, and intimidating people. Shots were fired and people ran to disarm the threat. He may have felt threatened, but those that went after him were already threatened by a dangerous shooter. How different were the ones that went after him then those folks that go after active shooters in other locations such as Charlotte, or Texas, They didn't come with guns. They sacrificed themselves to save others, and that is where Ritttenhouses defense will fall apart. Even if he could claim self defense after shooting the first person, he became the threat.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:28 pm

casinterest wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
If i were to shoot someone, how long would the famous “good guy with a gun” (or a skateboard) have to kill me, before I stop being an active shooter? A second? Ten seconds? A minute?

At what point did Rittenhouse stop being a legitimate threat, and did his “right” to murder in self defence become valid again?


It didn't.
He was illegally possessing a gun, and intimidating people. Shots were fired and people ran to disarm the threat. He may have felt threatened, but those that went after him were already threatened by a dangerous shooter. How different were the ones that went after him then those folks that go after active shooters in other locations such as Charlotte, or Texas, They didn't come with guns. They sacrificed themselves to save others, and that is where Ritttenhouses defense will fall apart. Even if he could claim self defense after shooting the first person, he became the threat.


Hard to claim self-defense when the "threat" is fleeing and running towards heavily armed police officers and you still decide to chase him down. Perhaps they didn't want him to turn himself in because they had vengeance rather than safety on their mind?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19182
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:31 pm

N583JB wrote:
Posting from my phone, so can't share the link right now. The DHS definition uses the exact verbiage but elaborates that "there is no method or pattern between selection of victims". Note that victims is plural and there was definitely a pattern...Rittenhouse only shot people who were attacking him.


OK, so now we're agreed that I didn't actually leave anything out from the FBI's definition? Your only problem being it isn't a definition from which you can defend Rittenhouse.

Right, so law enforcement will have a debate about whether someone shooting multiple people exactly meets your preferred definition of "active shooter" before deciding whether he is or isn't and what action to take? He was actively shooting multiple people and fully met the FBI's definition.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2288
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:33 pm

N583JB wrote:
Why did you leave out the rest of the definition? I have a hunch...

scbriml wrote:
That's where the definition part ends...

N583JB wrote:
The DHS definition uses the exact verbiage but elaborates that "there is no method or pattern between selection of victims". Note that victims is plural and there was definitely a pattern...Rittenhouse only shot people who were attacking him.

That is just soooooo hair-splittingly funny. In a sad way.

Let me help you out;
The DHS definition uses the exact verbiage but elaborates that "in most cases....(there is no method or pattern...)"

N583JB wrote:
Why did you leave out the rest of the definition?
Yes, why did you leave out those three little words? :scratchchin:

And would you like some mayo to go with your hunch? :lol:

(sorry Steve, I just couldn't let his elephant-sized hypocrisy go without comment)


However, in the spirit of conciliation and fairness, you also said the following
N583JB wrote:
...it is plausible that Rittenhouse was acting in valid fear for his life and that the final two people shot were also acting in self-defense if they legitimately thought that Rittenhouse was an active threat.
And as you also said, it will be for the courts to decide if it was legitimate self-defense, although as others have pointed out, for Rittenhouse that ship has already sailed.
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:36 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
If i were to shoot someone, how long would the famous “good guy with a gun” (or a skateboard) have to kill me, before I stop being an active shooter? A second? Ten seconds? A minute?

At what point did Rittenhouse stop being a legitimate threat, and did his “right” to murder in self defence become valid again?


It didn't.
He was illegally possessing a gun, and intimidating people. Shots were fired and people ran to disarm the threat. He may have felt threatened, but those that went after him were already threatened by a dangerous shooter. How different were the ones that went after him then those folks that go after active shooters in other locations such as Charlotte, or Texas, They didn't come with guns. They sacrificed themselves to save others, and that is where Ritttenhouses defense will fall apart. Even if he could claim self defense after shooting the first person, he became the threat.


Hard to claim self-defense when the "threat" is fleeing and running towards heavily armed police officers and you still decide to chase him down. Perhaps they didn't want him to turn himself in because they had vengeance rather than safety on their mind?


They weren't the ones that showed up illegally with a semi-automatic rifle.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:56 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:

It didn't.
He was illegally possessing a gun, and intimidating people. Shots were fired and people ran to disarm the threat. He may have felt threatened, but those that went after him were already threatened by a dangerous shooter. How different were the ones that went after him then those folks that go after active shooters in other locations such as Charlotte, or Texas, They didn't come with guns. They sacrificed themselves to save others, and that is where Ritttenhouses defense will fall apart. Even if he could claim self defense after shooting the first person, he became the threat.


Hard to claim self-defense when the "threat" is fleeing and running towards heavily armed police officers and you still decide to chase him down. Perhaps they didn't want him to turn himself in because they had vengeance rather than safety on their mind?


They weren't the ones that showed up illegally with a semi-automatic rifle.


Just, potentially, an illegal semi-automatic handgun.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:58 pm

scbriml wrote:
N583JB wrote:
Posting from my phone, so can't share the link right now. The DHS definition uses the exact verbiage but elaborates that "there is no method or pattern between selection of victims". Note that victims is plural and there was definitely a pattern...Rittenhouse only shot people who were attacking him.


OK, so now we're agreed that I didn't actually leave anything out from the FBI's definition? Your only problem being it isn't a definition from which you can defend Rittenhouse.

Right, so law enforcement will have a debate about whether someone shooting multiple people exactly meets your preferred definition of "active shooter" before deciding whether he is or isn't and what action to take? He was actively shooting multiple people and fully met the FBI's definition.


He wasn't actively shooting multiple people when he was chased down by skateboard guy and handgun guy though. That's the exact point. He was there for hours uneventfully and shot one person only after that person chased him down as he was fleeing. He stopped shooting as soon as the person who was chasing him was hit and immediately fled, running towards the police.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:10 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Hard to claim self-defense when the "threat" is fleeing and running towards heavily armed police officers and you still decide to chase him down. Perhaps they didn't want him to turn himself in because they had vengeance rather than safety on their mind?


They weren't the ones that showed up illegally with a semi-automatic rifle.


Just, potentially, an illegal semi-automatic handgun.


No, that was a rifle he was carrying and firing, and an illegal one for him.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:14 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:

They weren't the ones that showed up illegally with a semi-automatic rifle.


Just, potentially, an illegal semi-automatic handgun.


No, that was a rifle he was carrying and firing, and an illegal one for him.


I'm referring to the protester with a handgun who was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:18 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

Just, potentially, an illegal semi-automatic handgun.


No, that was a rifle he was carrying and firing, and an illegal one for him.


I'm referring to the protester with a handgun who was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse.


That was a plastic bag, and there was no gun per any report.

And Rittenhouse shot 4 times.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:23 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:

No, that was a rifle he was carrying and firing, and an illegal one for him.


I'm referring to the protester with a handgun who was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse.


That was a plastic bag, and there was no gun per any report.

And Rittenhouse shot 4 times.


No, it was very clearly a handgun.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/alleged-k ... new-video/
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:28 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

I'm referring to the protester with a handgun who was shot in the arm by Rittenhouse.


That was a plastic bag, and there was no gun per any report.

And Rittenhouse shot 4 times.


No, it was very clearly a handgun.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/alleged-k ... new-video/



That is the third guy shot. That guy has the full self defense good guy with a gun defense. He even put his hands up.
Please keep your timeline intact.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:33 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:

That was a plastic bag, and there was no gun per any report.

And Rittenhouse shot 4 times.


No, it was very clearly a handgun.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/alleged-k ... new-video/



That is the third guy shot. That guy has the full self defense good guy with a gun defense. He even put his hands up.
Please keep your timeline intact.


I never claimed that the man with the handgun was the first one shot. Please go back and reread, particularly because you have a history of misrepresenting what I say.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:36 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:



That is the third guy shot. That guy has the full self defense good guy with a gun defense. He even put his hands up.
Please keep your timeline intact.


I never claimed that the man with the handgun was the first one shot. Please go back and reread, particularly because you have a history of misrepresenting what I say.


Nope we were talking about Rittenhouse and then you went off on another misdirecting tangent that we have finally caught up to.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:42 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:


That is the third guy shot. That guy has the full self defense good guy with a gun defense. He even put his hands up.
Please keep your timeline intact.


I never claimed that the man with the handgun was the first one shot. Please go back and reread, particularly because you have a history of misrepresenting what I say.


Nope we were talking about Rittenhouse and then you went off on another misdirecting tangent that we have finally caught up to.


I think you simply got confused. No worries.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22651
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: White House occupant defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:45 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Veigar wrote:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statut ... tes/948/60

>"Furthermore, minors that are 16 years of age or older can openly carry long guns, provided they are not considered "short-barreled rifles" or "short-barreled shotguns" and are not otherwise prohibited from possession of firearms. A license is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property."

Even IF it was illegal, that doesn't mean his rights to self defense are thrown into the trash.

1. Crossing state lines is irrelevant. Why do you bring this up? You say "state lines" to make it seem as if he went to great lengths to do this, even though he lived like 25 minutes away. Stop shilling it.
2. "he crossed state lines to engage in his infantile vigilante fantasies". That seems rather assumptions, isn't it? We already have facts on this too - go look at the twitter of the lawyer representing him, it tells you why he went there.
3. "He shot to death two people who prevented him from shooting others" - HAHAHAHAHA. Maybe you are blind, if you are I am sorry about that. Or maybe you didn't watch the video?
4. "When even the other right-wing gun nuts around him were able to avoid killing anyone, his overcompensation for his social inadequacies took the lives of two peaceful protesters, and seriously injured a third." you're trying to exacerbate him by saying "ahyuk, this guy probably did this and that. He's so bad." This adds nothing to your point, it just makes you seem immature.
5. "There is no question that he came to make himself noticed, " Refer to what I said in #2

The rest of what you said is more exacerbated sensationalist nonsense so I will not address it.


This 17 year old man was not crossing state lines to go deer hunting or to attend a gun show. He went for the sole purpose of "defending" Kenosha from "rioters" like his dear leader said. He should be labeled a domestic terrorist. He had no other reason to be there other than intimidating and, eventually, shooting protesters. Republicans are so quick to call BLM protesters "violent" but when one of theirs actually kills people, it is crickets.


It is not against the law to go to Kenosha to "defend" from "rioters." He was certainly guilty of gun possession infractions, and apparently a curfew violation. But nothing else is certain. It depends who started the violent exchange. That's what determines who was guilty of assault or murder. As was said above.. if he threatened to attack people, then attacking him first was sensible and legal. It's not a clear case at all. It depends who threatened and/or attacked whom first.

I think a lot of the hard feelings about police relations relate to not knowing the rules of the game. You CANNOT make erratic or threatening gestures around cops, because they can reasonably fear for their lives and shoot you as a result. You also cannot go around threatening to, or actually assaulting people. That can get you killed in an instant, lawfully. Trayvon Martin case hinged on that question (and we don't know the true answer beyond doubt, hence the acquittal).


So it does not matter that two people were shot and many people saw him do it. Let's just wait and see to pass judgement. Like police do with minorities all the time, right? We can not rush to judgement with this white man but police must be allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner with minorities.

See the problem and why people are protesting and angry?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
slider
Posts: 7617
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:48 pm

continental004 wrote:
I would rather live under Communism than under another four years of Trump.


And people wonder why we can't even try to engage in civil discourse these days....

:rotfl: :banghead:
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:52 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

I never claimed that the man with the handgun was the first one shot. Please go back and reread, particularly because you have a history of misrepresenting what I say.


Nope we were talking about Rittenhouse and then you went off on another misdirecting tangent that we have finally caught up to.


I think you simply got confused. No worries.



Nah, we have just established that Rittenhouse went completely nuts and shot innocent people trying to disarm him.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:54 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Nope we were talking about Rittenhouse and then you went off on another misdirecting tangent that we have finally caught up to.


I think you simply got confused. No worries.



Nah, we have just established that Rittenhouse went completely nuts and shot innocent people trying to disarm him.


That may be your fantasy. However, the videos show that Rittenhouse only opened fire after being attacked by a convicted pedophile, the same pedophile who was filmed being very antagonistic and calling people the N word earlier that night. Rittenhouse then ran where he was attacked by another convicted criminal with a skateboard and a third man with a handgun.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:58 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

I think you simply got confused. No worries.



Nah, we have just established that Rittenhouse went completely nuts and shot innocent people trying to disarm him.


That may be your fantasy. However, the videos show that Rittenhouse only opened fire after being attacked by a convicted pedophile, the same pedophile who was filmed being very antagonistic and calling people the N word earlier that night. Rittenhouse then ran where he was attacked by another convicted criminal with a skateboard and a third man with a handgun.



if your defense is bringing up the criminal history of the dead, when the attacker had none of that information, then you have already lost your argument.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:59 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:


Nah, we have just established that Rittenhouse went completely nuts and shot innocent people trying to disarm him.


That may be your fantasy. However, the videos show that Rittenhouse only opened fire after being attacked by a convicted pedophile, the same pedophile who was filmed being very antagonistic and calling people the N word earlier that night. Rittenhouse then ran where he was attacked by another convicted criminal with a skateboard and a third man with a handgun.



if your defense is bringing up the criminal history of the dead, when the attacker had none of that information, then you have already lost your argument.


If your defense is bringing up the age of Rittenhouse, when the pedophile had none of that information (probably a good thing, given his history) then you have already lost your argument.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:03 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

That may be your fantasy. However, the videos show that Rittenhouse only opened fire after being attacked by a convicted pedophile, the same pedophile who was filmed being very antagonistic and calling people the N word earlier that night. Rittenhouse then ran where he was attacked by another convicted criminal with a skateboard and a third man with a handgun.



if your defense is bringing up the criminal history of the dead, when the attacker had none of that information, then you have already lost your argument.


If your defense is bringing up the age of Rittenhouse, when the pedophile had none of that information (probably a good thing, given his history) then you have already lost your argument.


The age of Rittenhouse is valid. He committed a crime that night involved with the weapon used to kill people. Your assault on the victims for their past crimes shows that you have no regard for the facts of the case.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
N583JB
Posts: 926
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2019 9:58 pm

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:04 pm

casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:


if your defense is bringing up the criminal history of the dead, when the attacker had none of that information, then you have already lost your argument.


If your defense is bringing up the age of Rittenhouse, when the pedophile had none of that information (probably a good thing, given his history) then you have already lost your argument.


The age of Rittenhouse is valid. He committed a crime that night involved with the weapon used to kill people. Your assault on the victims for their past crimes shows that you have no regard for the facts of the case.


The pedophile had no way of knowing Rittenhouse's age. Yet he attacked Rittenhouse anyways.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11850
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Trump defends Rittenhouse who killed two people.

Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:06 pm

N583JB wrote:
casinterest wrote:
N583JB wrote:

If your defense is bringing up the age of Rittenhouse, when the pedophile had none of that information (probably a good thing, given his history) then you have already lost your argument.


The age of Rittenhouse is valid. He committed a crime that night involved with the weapon used to kill people. Your assault on the victims for their past crimes shows that you have no regard for the facts of the case.


The pedophile had no way of knowing Rittenhouse's age. Yet he attacked Rittenhouse anyways.


How was he a pedophile? why wasn't he in jail? Perhaps you don't understand the law?
That video shows people trying to disarm Rittenhouse, not attack him.
Where ever you go, there you are.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron747, B717fan, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], FGITD, Francoflier, sierrakilo44 and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos