White Man left in coma, nigger served 72 hrs.

[jaekel]

https://www.ladbible.com/news/news-a...lysed-20191109

Used to be they used robbery as a motive. Now they don't even go that far. They claim the fall crushed his skull, and it only hit the human once. Since there was no malevolent intent, the nigger was only charged with a misdemeanor.

[Crowe]

Shouldn't the White man also be charged with a hate crime for provoking the nigger to attack him? Why was he let off with no charges? I'm being facetious, but this is where we're headed.

[jaekel]

Yeah, like his head got in the way of the niggers baseball bat.

Clarification:
When I stated no malevolent intent by the nigger, it's what the authorities said, which we know is BS.

[joeylowsac]

I hope they remember that logic if one of his sons end up in court saying 'It wasn't me that killed that nigger, it was the bullet'.

[jaekel]

Originally Posted by joeylowsac

I hope they remember that logic if one of his sons end up in court saying 'It wasn't me that killed that nigger, it was the bullet'.

I just heard there's another case where victims can sue the firearms mfr for a death by one of their weapons.

[Erik T. White]

Originally Posted by jaekel

I just heard there's another case where victims can sue the firearms mfr for a death by one of their weapons.

Supreme Court Allows Families Of Sandy Hook Victims To Sue Gun Manufacturer

Today, the United States Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to the gun industry. It let stand a decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court that allows families of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary school shootings to sue the manufacturer and distributor of the gun used by the perpetrator, Adam Lanza.

The manufacturer, Bushmaster (which is owned by Remington), and other defendants unsuccessfully argued that they are protected by NRA-backed federal legislation that immunizes gun manufacturers from liability for crimes committed with their guns. However, that federal legislation, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has an exception that allows gun manufacturers and distributors to be sued for wrongful marketing of a weapon. The plaintiffs sued under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA), alleging that the defendants marketed their AR-15 style rifle as a weapon suitable for criminal purposes.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled: “that PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S [the AR-15 style rifle used by Lanza] to civilians for criminal purposes and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre.”

The United States Supreme Court has now said that that it will not hear the case. So the Connecticut decision stands and the plaintiffs can proceed with their lawsuit and argue that Bushmaster and others essentially egged Lanza on through the marketing of their assault rifle.

To be clear, the issue in the lawsuit will not be about the inherent lethality of assault rifles. There is no single accepted definition of an assault rifle. Some of the ways that it is defined refer to essentially irrelevant aesthetic features, but the term generally refers to semi-automatic weapons that can handle large capacity clips and have very high muzzle velocities. The weapon used in Sandy Hook certainly fits this description. As described by the Connecticut Supreme Court, it is a frightening weapon indeed: “The rifle is capable of rapid semiautomatic fire, accommodates large-capacity magazines, and bullets fired therefrom travel at such a high velocity that they cause a shockwave while passing through a human body, often resulting in catastrophic injuries, even in areas remote to the direct bullet wound.”

Nevertheless, the lawsuit does not threaten the ability to manufacture or sell such weapons. If successful, it will merely constrain the ability to market them in certain ways. According to the court, the plaintiffs “allege that the defendants knowingly marketed, advertised, and promoted the XM15-E2S for civilians to use to carry out offensive, military style combat missions against their perceived enemies.” For example, one advertisement mentioned by the court, “depict[s] a close-up of an AR-15 with the following slogan: ‘Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered’.’’

There is a vigorous debate about whether banning assault rifles, however defined, would help bring down gun deaths. Most gun deaths are caused by handguns and plenty of mass shootings have been perpetrated by people using multiple handguns rather than high capacity weapons. Nonetheless, when disturbed people use assault rifles, the results can be tragic in the extreme. As the court wrote: “In total, the attack lasted less than four and one-half minutes, during which Lanza fired at least 154 rounds from the XM15-E2S, killing twenty-six and wounding two others.”

This lawsuit won’t put an end to these weapons, but, if successful, it can discourage Bushmaster and others from marketing them in a way that plays to the violent fantasies of the next potential mass shooter. That would be a small but welcome step in the right direction.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evanger.../#6251584625e3

Written by:
Evan Gerstmann
Contributor
Education
I am a professor and publish on constitutional and educational issues.

The goddamned jews are trying to do everything possible to keep Whites unable to defend themselves. I do not now own, nor have ever owned, an AR-15 style rifle.

However, IF I owned one,

MOLON LABE.

End.

[Erik T. White]

Let's look at the joo Evan Gerstmann, shall we??

About Evan Gerstmann
I graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 1986. After five years practicing law, I pursued a Ph.D. in Political Science at the University of Wisconsin. As a professor and researcher, my work focuses on the interaction between law and politics. I have published three books on constitutional law, including The Constitutional Class: Gays, Lesbians and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection (University of Chicago Press, 1999), Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2017), and Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Fairness (Cambridge University Press, 2019). I also teach undergraduate courses on constitutional law, and have written law review and journal articles on subjects ranging from freedom of speech to how criminal law affects victims of domestic violence. My goal is to apply a consistent analytical and legal lens to issues that have traditionally been subject to emotional, and at times divisive, debate.

https://www.amazon.com/Evan-Gerstman...rwt_scns_share

Here's where it teaches:

https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/Sho...jsp?tid=317002

Here's its photo:

Source of photo: http://www.laloyolan.com/news/bq-wit...f2633cbeb.html