Ybr has it from his trusted source: Goebbel media>

And did <keypusher> also got it from what you call Goebbel media ?

1) brandenburg case expanded the interpretation of first amendment in favor of individual freedom and rights over the authority of state.

Is that a good thing ? I would say 'yes' because i see in india abuse of laws when activists are put in prison for speaking out . And we envy that america and other first world countries are such free societies.

2) so , should trump get benefit of brandenburg even though he clearly incited instead of waiving brandenburg because he government official ? I would say 'yes '.

But that 'yes ' is not very solid. As in maths , i would have to think of some counterexample which refutes - i need to think of some hypothetical scenario where it could be abused in order to justify that 'yes '

3) the question here is how mob was able to breach security ? Who is accountable/culpable for that ?

That seems more of the crux of the case to me

4) any inputs , guys , to broaden. , deepen my perspective/understanding?

This sort of direct democracy on policy is likely a big part of why CA is in such deep financial and social/societal trouble.>

Sorry to hear about your father-in-law, and the difficulties in seeing him. Must be tough.

Ålesund was my favorite town when I visited over a decade ago. Think it’s because of the jugenstil architecture here and there...

He's doing much better. A brush with mortality turned him from the grumpiest man imaginable, to almost pleasant.

<Ålesund was my favorite town when I visited over a decade ago. Think it’s because of the jugenstil architecture here and there.>

I see the comments were turned off. Must have been quite the flame war going on in the comments section...

Well, I had no idea about the rivalry until I read Zarg's comment some years ago ... Magnus Carlsen (kibitz #35775)

<nok: <KP: There seems to be this lurking notion that the fact that he was carrying a gun makes him fair game> Fair game to be disarmed, absolutely. Unless you think fascists repressing protests with rifles is A-OK> It is not about how law should be - though that would be a valid conversation.

However , i think present conversation is about what the law is , if i am understanding correctly.

Let me see :

1) protest by left wingers , a right winger there with gun apparently to protect business/people if the protestors become violent . Correct ?

2) this could generally be legal - allowed as per law. Correct ?

3) in this case , the gun that right winger was carrying was assault rifle , so not allowed legally . Correct ?

4) so , if not allowed to carry assault rifle , he could be charged for that. Correct ? However , that is a minor aspect of case . Crux of case is that...

5) .... left winger protestors apprehensive of right wing guy carrying firearm and they want to disarm him and they attack him for that purpose. Correct ?

Now , i gather that <nok> saying that should be ok legally and <keypusher> saying like <i am not talking about 'should ' part , that is a separate conversation. As the law stands presently , it was not ok to attack that right wing guy , generally , and if he justifiably feared grievous bodily harm , he was allowsd to shoot as per law>

Correct ?

Any inputs , <saffuna> , <nok> , <keypusher>?

Thank you

<al wazir : The shooter only has to *believe* he is endangered?>

That is not what <keypusher> said. The keyword that <keypusher> used was 'reasonable '.

His believing that he was in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm is not sufficient , he needs to show it was reasonable to believe that - that is , any sane person would believe so , generally speaking.

Correct , <keypusher> ?

<nok: <KP: Keep the dumb takes coming, please!> Look, idgaf being called "dumb" by a self avowed racist. This also to remind <saffuna> who he is arguing with.

Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #393333)>

Well, let us see this in perspective.

Iirc and understand correctly , <keypusher> was like <i think america is not yet ready for racial diversity and therefore i am not a fan of diversity. If that makes me a racist as per some definition of racism , so be it

However , i am talking about general population of america. Like , in general there is friction between left wingers and right wingers and similarly there is friction among different races, however many, many people including me are above that too and i never have 'us vs them ' attitude with regards to left wingers or people of different races , we all one humanity as far as i am concerned , if everyone/vast majority can be like me , then i would support diversity>

Correct , <keypusher> ?

Rittenhouse - did he act in self defense , was it justified ? In america , it is allowed to carry firearm in all the states , i believe.

So , when one is allowed to carry firearm then obviously one is allowed to use it too in self defense when needed/justified.

When is it justified , in general

A lazy google search corroborated what <keypusher> said (though for florida state , for my google search viz

< Justifiable use of deadly force is defined in Florida Statute Section 776.012(2):

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.>

So , does this fit the circumstances of rittenhouse case , is the crux ..

Ok , i have done my homework.

There seems to be some mistake/problem , <keypusher> , because when i click on this link , i am taken to page number 5859 for me (i don't have anyone on ignore) and i don't see any post from you either on that page or a page before/after that page.

Date on the page is sep/03/2020

The most noteworthy living member is probably Secretary General of NATO and former Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.