There's always idiots out there. I go to OfficeMax or whatever, look online at Amazon, and HP printers *look* very competitive and good.
You have to dig into off-site reviews and look up the company to find out the horrors of long term ownership, over the people reviewing who are still on their first ream of paper.
I'm also ex-military, and I'm not arguing. The use of "ex military/police" is what "Protector", the "uber for armed guards" in the article is listing as their training standard.
Thus my saying "more than". Military/police can be a start, but it's nothing more than a start, unless you get a very specific sort of military/police veteran.
Meanwhile, I'm remembering the attention whore v-tuber "prankster" who got shot after getting into the face of a delivery driver and not backing off when the driver told him to.
It's actually happened.
I tend to take it less as a 24x7 service, and more something like making a special appearance. I personally think this "service" is more about show than protection.
The CEO, for example, might have considered the protective measures on his house (in a gated community) and such enough for day to day, it's only the high-profile appearance at the stockholder's meeting that needs more security. That kind of thing.
Loyalty to the paycheck is a known thing. See Pinkertons. Heck, see the police, where principal can have them protecting some very bad people from other very bad people, such as witness protection.
You need more personal loyalty if it's going to be more than a day or so.
Yeah, if you need armed guards on a semi-regular basis, there's many companies that will arrange everything, including using trained (more than just "ex police/military") and background checked guards, armored vehicles, and more.
I'm thinking black rock, pinktertons, etc...
A quick search turned up no less than 50 national companies.
Now, you call up with a sudden need for bodyguards *today*, it's going to get pricy. Not only do they need to find the guards and get them to you quickly, they have to figure that it's less "celebrity protection" where there's always the risk of a crazy stalker, and more that you have specific intel raising the risk you'll be attacked.
If some female music star needs to make a court appearance and wants somebody with her, that's one thing. She probably has an account with them. Joe blow calling them up? Alarm bells.
Those militia types fantasize about using their guns for real. It's no coincidence that he's gone on to be a Conservative celebrity [wikipedia.org].
Let's see. Trial concluded November 2021.
Last media appearance according to your link, July 2022, 8 months later.
That's less celebrity and more flash in the pan.
Let's see: Interview with Tucker Carlson (where he shot down the far right). Met Trump the same day.
"Several" events by Turning Point, including a panel.
He's had relatively few roles since then.
At that point he was letting his emotions take over.
As I said, high pressure situation. I actually approve of it going to trial. The prosecution didn't make their case though. I hold police to a higher standard.
Some level of taxes is not, especially if they actually go towards maintaining the transportation network.
However, 2nd highest in the nation gives room to wonder. As does the special gasoline blends that I have read are actually ineffective in modern vehicles with O2 sensors and such, because the cars just retune to render the blend ineffective.
And I'm betting a lot of them were jealous of Rittenhouse.
Why the hell would they be?
He ended up arrested, spending a bunch of time in jail, needing to spend a lot of money on his defense, getting a politically motivated incompetent lawyer at first, and his name is still mud nationwide.
A conflict being foreseeable doesn't mean it was likely to happen, but he knew it was more likely.
That isn't enough to disallow self defense though.
The military meant he apparently had some kind of training with unarmed combat, but either way, you don't need to be trained to realize the dude is unconscious. And there's a difference between holding the (now inert) person's arm down and chocking an unconscious person.
I'm retired military. My nonlethal unarmed combat? Effectively zero. I got more of that from Karate and Taekwondo as a teenager.
The people who get non-lethal takedown training are more the MPs. Military Police.
As for noticing unconscious? That's also part of training. A high stress situation.
Is a line from the Big Lebowski then I've won the argument.
And if all you can do is deflect and make fallacious arguments, I've won.
Nobody travels to another state to protect random people's property with a gun. You do that so you can show up with the gun hoping to kill somebody and get away with it. Which he did.
Argument from incredulity. I can easily see it. Rittenhouse traveled there quite regularly. The people weren't random to him. He used to work in the area. His father lived there. He lived right on the border.
People travel all the way to Washington DC to protest various things all the time. This was in Rittenhouse's backyard.
Long-term it's basically ruined the kids life. He's too fat-faced and pasty to make a useful political pundit. They tried but he's just so damn unlikable at a base level that even the right wing finds him insufferable.
It's actually because he shot them down once he was found not guilty and didn't need their money for his defense/freedom anymore.
And yes, it's basically ruined him. So much for "getting away with it".
All of you fuckers are just hoping someday you can use that gun you bought while you were scared shitless of Obama coming for you.
And now it's Ad Hominin. For this kind of stuff, I like to accuse the people of projecting.
So, tell me, why are you so subject to murderous thoughts? Ever thought to get some counseling for that?
I'm not supporting Rittenhouse because I like him or such, I'm supporting the truth. Rittenhouse, when you examine the actual evidence, had a very good self-defense claim. I'd much rather go after officers who shot unarmed black men, women, and children for no good reason. Or even not black people.
I mean, have I thought about killing people? Yes. I'm retired military and deployed six times (3 times during Obama's terms). It would have been stupid for me to NOT think about that stuff.
But no, I've never felt any particular desire to kill somebody.
He went to play hero / authority figure. A conflict was foreseeable.
I'd argue differently. Plenty of other armed people at that protest and others, who didn't see conflict.
As for the victim who was chasing him down, taking out an active shooter is more "self defence" than what Daniel Penny did,
Problems with this:
1. Rittenhouse hadn't fired a shot yet when Rosenbaum chased him down, making Rittenhouse NOT an active shooter.
2. Rosenbaum was a disallowed person, a felon. He wasn't legally allowed to touch the rifle.
3. Rosenbaum verbally threatened Rittenhouse and others with death.
Basically, none of the elements of self-defense were satisfied by Rosenbaum.
Now, if Anthony Huber had made an exceptional strike with his skateboard and killed Rittenhouse, he'd probably have a valid self-defense argument, though I think it'd end up the same as Rittenhouse - a tense court battle. Same deal if Gaige had successfully shot Rittenhouse instead, with the complication that he was also disallowed firearm possession from earlier convictions.
I'm glad to hear that. I still can't believe there's not more outcry over that.
I have very limited amounts of outcry to give, and sadly I keep being given more reasons. It's not healthy to try to express outrage at everything.
Right now I'm concentrating more on civil asset forfeiture.
Planned no, and maybe not even intentional in the moment, but once the victim was unconscious and restrained by multiple people he was definitely doing something other than just restraining him.
That's the problem, I think, did Daniel Penny realize that? Some talked about murder, apparently, even as others were helping him restrain, and nobody actually tried to stop him. He did release when the police showed up.
While I can see arguing manslaughter for this, this is where I separate police and non-police. Police are supposed to be professionally trained in restraining people. So I hold them to a higher standard.
Daniel Penny killing Neely via chokehold was negligent - but was it the sort of gross negligence justifying manslaughter charges or conviction? That's what the trial is for, I'd argue. Was what he did "reasonable" to a "reasonable person" standard, as judged by the jury, using the information available at the time? It's like giving somebody CPR, but "non-ideally" because it's been 2 years since their training.
Now, Daniel Perry, that would be a much better one for ihavesaxwithcollies to have used as an example. Which is what I originally stated - Rittenhouse and Penny are bad examples, because "self defense" can be justified with them.
Perry, on the other hand, instigated the incident in question. Which normally disallows self defense...
Note: I double checked that I got all Penny/Perry names correct, but still, both being Daniel made it annoying.
From reading the reports, Jordan Neely at the time was threatening other passengers. Now, not everybody understands this, and I failed to mention it before, but "self defense" covers defending others as well. For example, if somebody is attacking a woman and her husband shoots him, that still comes under "self defense". You are allowed to defend strangers as well, but keep in mind that you won't have anywhere near the protection that a police officer would have.
So, take a hypothetical where a man is threatening a woman with a knife, and a 3rd person comes up and cold-cocks the man by surprise - that still counts as "self defense".
Going by the wiki page.
Other witnesses reported fearing death from Neely's actions,
The standard necessary to at least restrain Neely was met. Both prosecution and defense admitted this.
It was never prosecuted as murder, but manslaughter - death by recklessness, basically.
The problem with prosecuting this would be that the defense would get to point out the incidents where fully trained police officers did basically the same thing in much less pressing circumstances, with more police around, more restraint options, for longer periods.
Police are professionals. Penny was not a professional.
Charging him with manslaughter was probably the correct call, but the prosecution didn't make their case well enough.
Okay, so you post that a military veteran heard Rosenbaum threatening people, but didn't consider him a threat to himself?
If you were the prosecution, guess what, you just shot your prosecution in the foot. Because a military vet isn't a teen. Rosenbaum was a known child sex offender. It makes sense that he'd ramp things up against the younger.
Yes, somebody unarmed can still be a threat to somebody armed, unless the armed person is willing to shoot.
Grosskretuz shouldn't have had his firearm, he was a disallowed person. Also, no source on Rittenhouse being a "domestic terrorist murderer". "Terrorist" has specific meanings, and shooting somebody in self-defense doesn't qualify.
It's also not terrorism when you run away trying to NOT shoot somebody.
They lived out your dreams and now you're defending them with terrible, awful lies.
Stop lying, or at least, you know, look up the actual details of the case. I mean, they have drone footage of Rittenhouse running away from Rosenbaum.
Also, Grosskreutz sunk himself when he admitted to lowering his gun, Rittenhouse lowering his, then raising up his gun again before being shot by Rittenhouse.
As for Gaige wanting revenge against Rittenhouse, why the heck wouldn't he? Rittenhouse shot him! He's suffered permanent injury from that. It means about as much as the mother of a serial carjacker going on about how her son is a "good boy at heart!"
It's ok to admit that you want to kill liberal protesters and black people.
You're the MAGAT obsessed with political positions and race. Not me. I don't actually want to kill people. Maybe you're reflecting your own views? Want to kill people regularly? Maybe you should seek help.
Truth is free, but information costs.
