The United States(!) of A
If someone wants to contradict facts established in a court of law just so they can defend a dead violently aggressive paedophile then they are pretty open about their love fo4 the paedophile.
Isn’t it funny how the dumb cunts like Vic Local don’t miss a beat when they bald faced lie and say ‘ that it’s “ criticising violent right wing extremism” when referring to an open court case where it’s been legally established that there was no “violent right wing extremism” ? These clowns just love the way it rolls off their tongue and so the fact that it’s completely untrue has no bearing on the matter.
Blowin wrote:If someone wants to contradict facts established in a court of law just so they can defend a dead violently aggressive paedophile then they are pretty open about their love fo4 the paedophile.
Isn’t it funny how the dumb cunts like Vic Local don’t miss a beat when they bald faced lie and say ‘ that it’s “ criticising violent right wing extremism” when referring to an open court case where it’s been legally established that there was no “violent right wing extremism” ? These clowns just love the way it rolls off their tongue and so the fact that it’s completely untrue has no baring on the matter.
Oh boy, pot kettle - overload.
Blowin wrote:If someone wants to contradict facts established in a court of law just so they can defend a dead violently aggressive paedophile then they are pretty open about their love fo4 the paedophile.
Who again defended the person who was shot? Who again defended his past? Nobody and nobody.
The case isn't about the person who got shot, it's about the actions of the shooter. The dead bloke isn't on trial champ except in the more deranged parts of alt-right media sphere.
I get the feeling you are more unhinged than normal blowin. Perhaps it's time for a surf and re-set. I'm sure the swellnet folk aren't too keen on you calling a bunch of their regular posters pedo-lovers. They must be getting pretty tired of your rubbish by now.
The trial hinges on the self defence of the accused. The actions of the dead paedophile are the central pillar to the court case….fuck you’re dense.
OK….here comes the proper dumb cunts. The just boring dumb cunts. At least Blind boy has the whole “demented old man angry at infidels vibe” …these blokes are beige dumb cunts.
I’m out.
Vic Local wrote:Who again defended the person who was shot? Who again defended his past? Nobody and nobody.
The case isn't about the person who got shot, it's about the actions of the shooter. The dead bloke isn't on trial champ except in the more deranged parts of alt-right media sphere.
I get the feeling you are more unhinged than normal blowin. Perhaps it's time for a surf and re-set. I'm sure the swellnet folk aren't too keen on you calling a bunch of their regular posters pedo-lovers. They must be getting pretty tired of your rubbish by now.
This is a classic strawman from Blowin, if wanted to he could criticise the posts without resorting to this ridiculous strawman. Never one for a half measure though.
Constance B Gibson wrote:Oh dear...
Oh dear, oh dear...
Constance B Gibson wrote:Hahahahahaha. FFS.
Triggered on Kool Aid or what, good ol' boys?
irs pretty clear who's actually triggered...
those being irrational and trying to tear people down instead of engaging in the issue
"This is a classic strawman from Blowin, if wanted to he could criticise the posts without resorting to this ridiculous strawman. Never one for a half measure though."
But far right gronks have two main tactics in a debate. 1. Straw-manning and 2. Calling their critics peadophiles or pedo lovers. Fuck me that's getting old. Stu. Craig and Ben. How much longer are you going to tolerate this type of crap on your forums?
""He is victim of politics."
You idiot blowin. This would have to be one of the stupidest things you've ever said.And it's up against some pretty stiff competition.
I hated Howard with a passion when he was PM and was thrilled when he lost his seat, but I honestly thank the turd for bringing in strong gun laws in Australia. Thanks god we don't have people like you being able to buy military style weapons like Shittenhouse did in the USA."
you are the idiot
Im sure we all appreciate howard's gun laws...
but none of that changes the reality in the US
it is what it is...
and this guy is plain as day... 'a victim of politics'
right from the get go, with the media portrayal and all the white supremacist bullshit
he was doomed from the start
but it seems his opposition is so guilty even the usual media industrial complex government wide bullshit campaign can't save their case...
Vic Local….You think you’re going to come out constantly labelling people as racist drug addict white supremacist …..and then try to whine to Swellnet about other people saying mean things?
Fucking deranged…..
Worse….whiny soft cock deranged.
"Isn’t it funny how the dumb cunts like Vic Local don’t miss a beat when they bald faced lie and say ‘ that it’s “ criticising violent right wing extremism” when referring to an open court case where it’s been legally established that there was no “violent right wing extremism” ? These clowns just love the way it rolls off their tongue and so the fact that it’s completely untrue has no bearing on the matter."
it's all in the training... the conditioning...
totally reactionary, void of thought, facts or truth just do not matter...
just a dog and his pavlova bell
sypkan wrote:it's all in the training... the conditioning...
totally reactionary, void of thought, facts or truth just do not matter...
just a dog and his pavlova bell
Are we talking about your take on the Russia investigation? I must have missed the change of topic.
Mind you, pavlova is pretty awesome, I'd hope we can all agree on that.
I do love pavlova, my second favourite desert... maybe third...
not sure how that relates to russia though... the pavlova or the pavlov... my position has changed as 'the evidence' has changed...
and boy has it changed!
I was referring to the fact that you continually refer to the whole thing as a 'hoax' when any objective, reasonable interpretation of the facts completely excludes that conclusion. My insinuation being that you are essentially regurgitating the conservative media position on the matter verbatim, purely because they attack those you perceive as enemies.
ie: You have been trained to jump at anything that attacks those you dislike, regardless of the available facts.
For some clarity, you could refer back to my post in this very thread several weeks ago on the matter.
freeride76 wrote:OK.
did we get a reason why the kid is there with a semi-automatic rifle in the first place?was he protecting a pal's business or just being a tough guy?
Helping protect a business this one in article.
But they still burnt it to the ground 2.5 million in damages
"On each of the next two nights, however, rioters set fire to cars in his lot. Khindri said the first night of mayhem caused $1.5 million in damages to the business; the second night finished off the rest of the cars, adding up to a total of $2.5 million in estimated damage costs.
"I don't think they had any political issues with our lot, our location," Khindri said. "The only problem is we were right by the courthouse."
"The police authorities, they let them out into the city and the first thing they found out is, 'there's a dealership here, let's burn it to the ground.'"
Khindri said he was hopeful at first the dealership's insurance provider would cover the damages. Instead, he said they entirely rejected the claim.
"They don't cover the riots. This is domestic terrorism, don't cover it," said Khindri. "I'm screwed. I'm bankrupt."
https://www.wkow.com/archive/owner-of-burnt-kenosha-car-lot-says-riots-c...
Does this concept carry any weight in this case?
“Contributory negligence. 8.1 In relation to claims for negligently-caused personal injury and death, contributory negligence is failure by a person (typically the plaintiff) to take reasonable care for his or her own safety, which contributes to the harm the person suffers.“
By choosing to a. Travel to Kenosha from out of state b. Carry a firearm against the laws of the state and c. Place himself directly in harm’s way, did Kyle R create the circumstances that lead to him shooting those people? If he hasn’t done a, b or c then there would be no trial.
You could argue the flip side too. Just a thought.
Not a Tump fan, imo he did more harm than good. Some feel that is reason enough to get him out of office by any means and he certainly was the gift that kept giving for detractors while President. But the Russian thing stinks and if true that there is a trail back to Clinton, the hypocrisy is off the scale.
"For most of the time that Donald Trump occupied the White House, his presidency was framed by the claim that he and his campaign team had colluded with Russia to fix his election. This was promulgated unceasingly by most of the mainstream media. For outlets such as The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the rest, the only question was how soon this scandal would see Trump rightly ejected from the Oval Office.
A dossier produced by the former British spy Christopher Steele served up “evidence” of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, and made salacious claims that Trump had cavorted with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel. This dossier prompted an FBI investigation of the Trump campaign that triggered an inquiry by special counsel Robert Mueller. Even when this found no evidence of a Trump conspiracy with Russia, none of those who had disseminated this false claim saw fit to inquire how it had been made.
Some people smelt a rat from the start. A number of commentators and Republican members of Congress viewed these baroque accusations as nothing other than a Democratic Party dirty trick which was being used by sympathetic elements in law enforcement and other administration circles to lever Trump out of office.
If true, this was one of the greatest political scandals in American history. Those making this claim, however, were deemed “right wing” and “Trump enablers”, and so could be disregarded by the media and associated legions of Trump foes.
Now, however, it looks as if these objectors were right all along. Special counsel John Durham, who was appointed in 2019 by the former US attorney-general William Barr to investigate the origins of the FBI’s probe, has started issuing indictments which may cause the whole story finally to implode.
The narrative web is tangled but the essence is this. During the 2016 presidential election, Steele was hired by the “opposition-research” firm Fusion GPS to dig up dirt about Trump. Fusion GPS was retained by the Washington-based law firm Perkins Coie on behalf of the Democratic National Committee.
Last week Igor Danchenko, a Russian citizen who worked at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, was arrested and charged with lying to the FBI. Danchenko, who had extensive ties to senior Russian officials, was the main source for Steele’s dossier whose claims have turned out to be fantasy.
Durham’s indictment claims that Danchenko’s repeated lies deprived the FBI of crucial information. More explosively, the Russian is said to have hidden the extent to which he was working with Charles Dolan, a Democratic Party public relations executive with ties to Hillary Clinton.
Dolan is revealed to have been behind several of the claims about Trump that Danchenko fed to Steele. A lawyer from Perkins Coie, Michael Sussman, has also been indicted. So there was indeed a Russian collusion plot — but it involved not an attempt by Trump to destroy Clinton, but an attempt by Clinton to destroy Trump.
John Ratcliffe, the former director of national intelligence, says he found no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but that he saw in intelligence documents “there was collusion involving the Clinton campaign and Russians to create a dossier”. Yet the mainstream media (with the exception of The Wall Street Journal) played an essential role in pumping up the false story while refusing to acknowledge the true one. Driven by wild fury that Trump had been elected, the media threw journalistic ethics to the winds as they tried to help bring him down.
So how will these outlets handle the fact that they are now also in the frame for colluding with an attempted coup? So far, reaction to the Durham indictments has been distinctly muted.
In May The New York Times, apparently aware that exposure of a “media debacle” now loomed, ran a piece by Barry Meier acknowledging coyly that many of the claims in the Steele dossier “have never materialised or have been proved false”. Meier managed to report the “troubling story” that “reporters and private investigators long have had a symbiotic relationship that is hidden from the public” — without actually acknowledging that his own paper had used precisely such a relationship to aid an attempted coup against a sitting president.
As for The Washington Post, its observation a few days ago that Durham’s allegations “cast new uncertainty on some past reporting on the dossier by news organisations, including The Washington Post” surely deserves to win the understatement of the year award.
This scandal has a long way to run. As The Wall Street Journal comments, while the indictments treat the FBI as the duped party, “the record shows former FBI director James Comey and his investigators knew from the summer of 2016 that Clinton campaign fingerprints were all over the dossier”.
Throughout the Trump years, anti-Trumpers kept up a barrage of overwrought accusations that the president was undermining western civilisation. These so-called tribunes of democracy never acknowledged what was obvious to some of us from the start — that whatever one might think of Trump, the onslaught upon him looked like a plot by state and political actors to sabotage an elected president through character assassination.
Soon after Trump was elected, The Washington Post added beneath its masthead the pointed strapline: “Democracy dies in darkness”. Yes it does — and it’s the media that turned out the lights."
Blowin wrote:Vic Local….You think you’re going to come out constantly labelling people as racist drug addict white supremacist …..and then try to whine to Swellnet about other people saying mean things?
Fucking deranged…..
.
No blowin, I just call you a racist because you clap and cheer Hanson / Trump / and Tucker "great replacement" Carson. I call you a racist because you endlessly bag immigrants, make up statistics about immigration, and blame them for everything in your shitty little life. And I call you a racist because you want South Koreans to be rounded up for immediate deportation.
And apparently you don't like that because you actually think you're not racist. Hey champ, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, IT'S A FUCKING DUCK no matter what you call it.
Upnorth, not completely true there. The dossier did not trigger the investigation, it was certainly part of the brief, but by no means the majority of it and the investigation would've proceeded without it.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/dossier-not-what-started-all-of-this/
Fair enough JQ
etarip wrote:Does this concept carry any weight in this case?
“Contributory negligence. 8.1 In relation to claims for negligently-caused personal injury and death, contributory negligence is failure by a person (typically the plaintiff) to take reasonable care for his or her own safety, which contributes to the harm the person suffers.“
By choosing to a. Travel to Kenosha from out of state b. Carry a firearm against the laws of the state and c. Place himself directly in harm’s way, did Kyle R create the circumstances that lead to him shooting those people? If he hasn’t done a, b or c then there would be no trial.
You could argue the flip side too. Just a thought.
You’ve just said “ If she A/ hadn’t been wearing that short skirt , B/ hadn’t been out after dark and C/ hadn’t been on her own she wouldn’t have gotten raped and murdered.”
Thats your flip side. That’s your thought.
If she hadn’t disobeyed the men and hadn’t gone to school, If she had stayed at home like she was told she wouldn’t have been in harm’s way.
Just a flip side. Just a thought.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-10/how-is-malala-yousafzai3f/5806212...
Three white guys - convicted child rapists, burglars and wife bashers out burning, looting, rioting and attacking people on the street ……and it’s not their responsibility when someone they attack with intent to kill defends himselfafter they attacked him unprovoked and they get hurt.
Because…..white supremacy? Because….black lives matter…..?
These are the uncontested facts of the matter but the media -without evidence- puts a different narrative on the story and people believe them? Even later when it’s obvious what happened they try to victim blame the bloke attacked by a violent mirderous paedohile rather than question the integrity of the media ….the same media who told them that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use on America.
Are people really getting this stupid that they believe this?
This is about way more than some scuffle in the USA , this is about the grip the corporate media has over the minds of otherwise normal people.
Yeah but nah. I can see what you’re trying to do there but it falls a little short. You’re victim blaming.
Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t the victim in this trial.
His actions, at least one criminal action (illegal carriage of a firearm), and intent (traveling somewhere armed to protect ‘property’) contributed to harm (death) of others.
My flip side was the actions of the people that got shot. Not a hypothetical young woman.
You can look at it both ways.
A. He shouldn't have been there with a firearm protecting the business. BTW. it should be noted he does have connections to the area through upbringing and family.
B. He wouldn't have been there if people weren't rioting on the streets, let's not forget the business still got burnt to the ground 2.5 million in damages .
To me A overrules one because if you take away B there is no need for A to happen.
Also if he wasn't attacked by a violent group of people, he wouldn't need to defend himself.
Blowin wrote:Three white guys - convicted child rapists, burglars and wife bashers out burning, looting, rioting and attacking people on the street ……and it’s not their responsibility when someone they attack with intent to kill defends himselfafter they attacked him unprovoked and they get hurt.
Because…..white supremacy? Because….black lives matter…..?
These are the uncontested facts of the matter but the media -without evidence- puts a different narrative on the story and people believe them? Even later when it’s obvious what happened they try to victim blame the bloke attacked by a violent mirderous paedohile rather than question the integrity of the media ….the same media who told them that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction he wanted to use on America.
Are people really getting this stupid that they believe this?
This is about way more than some scuffle in the USA , this is about the grip the corporate media has over the minds of otherwise normal people.
100%
Havent watched this as it very very long, but it appears to be pretty neutral professional source with many qualified legal opinions, so im sure would be an interesting listen if anyone could be bothered.
indo...facts: illegally obtained semiauto assault rifle, with preordained intent to use it in self defence if attacked, loaded cocked, safety on ready to roknrole, = vigilante.
imo guilty of manslaughter, imagine if one of those rounds hit an innocent bystander?
i looked at the tucker vid and read the comments, wow! definetly all nra, trump supporters who justify his actions.
allso how come his "mate" who supplied him the weapon knowing it was illegal has'nt been charged as well?
if she didn't...
if he didn't...
https://mobile.twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1458792879871213569?ref_s...
Isn't Tucker Carlson part of Fox News?
Fox News is part of the Corporate media.
so what we have are conflicting interpretations depending on what side of the corporate media you are on.
happyppl wrote:indo...facts: illegally obtained semiauto assault rifle, with preordained intent to use it in self defence if attacked, loaded cocked, safety on ready to roknrole, = vigilante.
imo guilty of manslaughter, imagine if one of those rounds hit an innocent bystander?
i looked at the tucker vid and read the comments, wow! definetly all nra, trump supporters who justify his actions.
allso how come his "mate" who supplied him the weapon knowing it was illegal has'nt been charged as well?
Same could be said about the rioters actions, imagine if people had died through their actions including being burnt to death through lighting everything on fire.
Take the rioters out of the equation or even if authority's had dealt with the rioters properly and people like kyle wouldnt need to be there.
One of the assumptions here is that law enforcement stood back requiring vigilantes like Rittenhouse to step up.
Anyone know how many people were charged/convicted in the USA during the 2020 riots?
"Take the rioters out of the equation or even if authority's had dealt with the rioters properly and people like kyle wouldnt need to be there."
exacrly what tulsi is saying
you encourage anarchy...
you get anarchy
funnily enough
...where self defence fits into that anarachy is now the argument...
the legal one
I wasn't watching any TV last year, but didn't they call in the National Guard etc etc for the riots?
kind of...
some states did, some states refused
...you guess where all the trouble was...
Wait: who’s saying that Kyle *needed* to be there? Was there a public call up, conscription? There’s this subtext that Kyle was performing a necessary public service. He wasn’t.
Your point about the rioters being legally culpable for death / injury is entirely irrelevant to this discussion which is about Rittenhouse.
National Guard was deployed to Wisconsin, the request of local authorities on the 24th. Rittenhouse shooting was on the 25th. NG numbers were doubled from the 26th.
To be clear, he is facing x 6 charges:
1) First-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
2) First-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
3) Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon
4) First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon
5) Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18
6) Failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government
This article explains what they all mean - https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-charges-kyle-rittenhouse-f...
In theory, he could be set free for all charges, charged on some (like 2 or 3), or found guilty on all charges. Being guilty of 1 charge doesn't automatically make him guilty of other charges. In theory, he wasn't even supposed to be there due to the curfew imposed by the local authorities after 8 PM during that time. If (I'm saying if because apparently, the prosecution was unable to prove this) he broke the curfew he will probably be found guilty of no 6 and be liable to pay the $200 fine. But does this automatically make him a murderer? No, the murder will have to be proven through other charges. Same with a weapon, there is an accusation that specifically deals with a minor carrying an assault rifle and it's punishable by up to 9 months in prison.
The point is, law at a certain point in time is one thing and emotions and rhetoric are something else. Although I'm not a lawyer and I'm fully open to being discredited for my statements, I can see that the prosecution struggled to prove some of these 6 charges. But like I said, that does not mean they will totally fail or totally win. I guess we will find out soon.
"Isn't Tucker Carlson part of Fox News?
Fox News is part of the Corporate media.
so what we have are conflicting interpretations depending on what side of the corporate media you are on."
watched various coverages of the trial last night... with various courtroom footage... not one of them showed that bit where the guy actually admitted pointing a gun at the head of rittenhouse...
includung my beloved abc
now to me that was a significant courtroom moment.
...the most significan courtroom moment,... where the defence probed the guy until he admitted what actually happened...
yet one only gets to see it on twitter and certain niche media...
'the narrative' holds
for now...
rittenhouse didn't need to be anywhere
he felt the need to be somewhere...
the rest is how the law applies amidst a maelstrom of anarchy
a media driven, media approved maelstrom
Niche media?
I took 30 seconds to look at the LA Times reporting.
"Rittenhouse testified Wednesday that he heard a gunshot directly behind him as he was being chased by Rosenbaum. Authorities said the shot was fired by someone else in the crowd.
The account Rittenhouse gave has largely been corroborated by a wealth of video and the prosecution’s witnesses: Rittenhouse said that Rosenbaum cornered him and put his hand on the barrel of his rifle, the second man hit him with a skateboard, and the third man came at him with a gun of his own.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, his lawyers angrily demanded the judge declare a mistrial and bar Rittenhouse from being retried — essentially asking that the whole case be thrown out. They accused the chief prosecutor of asking Rittenhouse out-of-bounds questions.
The judge lambasted the prosecutor but pressed on with the case".
Doesn't seem like a mainstream media pile on to me.
Nice analysis flollo.
It's actually hilarious that blowin and co think the past crimes of the victims is relevant in this case. It's not like the shooter did or had the opportunity to conduct a character assessment before he pulled the trigger. Imagine a situation where someone did a drive by and shot up a house killing three inside, and then saying, "well they had criminal records so that excuses my actions". That's pretty much blowin's warped argument.
The jury will be looking at the actions of all concerned on the night and also the actions of Shittenhouse in the lead up to the event. Illegally procuring a military grade weapon, making sure it was locked and loaded, travelling hundreds of kilometres to an area he wasn't allowed to be in, and opening fire isn't a good look. But hey, it's up to others to decide this flog's intentions and judge his actions.
etarip wrote:Wait: who’s saying that Kyle *needed* to be there? Was there a public call up, conscription? There’s this subtext that Kyle was performing a necessary public service. He wasn’t.
Your point about the rioters being legally culpable for death / injury is entirely irrelevant to this discussion which is about Rittenhouse.
National Guard was deployed to Wisconsin, the request of local authorities on the 24th. Rittenhouse shooting was on the 25th. NG numbers were doubled from the 26th.
Well the business he was trying to protect got burnt to the ground a business owned ironically by an Indian man, clearly authority's weren't doing their job very well, if there was more Kyles, maybe business could hsve been protected.
that's all been laid out freeride
and it all leaves a bit of ambiguity in the 'he said she said' to and fro...
no ambiguity in this little twitter tidbit...
indo-dreaming wrote:sypkan wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298
funny, running commentary of the trial
looks like game over... looking at the prosecuters reaction especially...
all that coaching... all that curating...
be interesting to see what happens from here
The prosecutors reaction is gold.
maybe tv news hasn't got to it yet...
but they all showed a lot of footage
and not one showed the most significant development of the day?
Indo when you justify people not only taking the law into their own hands but doing so with lethal weapons, that is not any part of the solution to a riot. It just moves the whole thing further towards complete anarchy. I have some sympathy for a teenager who has grown up in a gun soaked violent culture who goes on to do what he did.....but that doesn't make it right.
Syppo that is one case (the non-fatal shooting obv).
That testimony is accepted by the LA Times (ie mainstream media).
He shot three separate people (two fatally, who obviously won't be able to give evidence).
So self defence has to be determined on three occasions.
yeh i know freeride
I said way back that this one case appears indisputable self defence, ...whilst the rest looks more murky...
there's actually lots going on, as flollo points out
my point is, the media are holding to their narrative, be it to save face, or whatever... though their narrative is forever being toned down...
if you remember back, rittenhouse was painted as right wing extremeist, ...a 'white supremacist'... who went out to shoot you know what on some sort of hunting trip...
basically the same as vicvocal and his media endorsed propaganda message...
he's more boy scout than 'terrorist'
Indo, I don’t think the ‘defence of property’ angle holds up. Whatever the motivation, there was no ‘service’ need.
I actually feel for him. FWIW I don’t think he’s a white supremacist. He’s just straight fucked it up. 17 year old males have pretty poor decision-making skills. He got sucked into the maelstrom as much as the rioters on the other side. But he shot three people, in a situation where his presence and posture was entirely of his own volition. Madness. He’s facing the consequences.
etarip wrote:Indo, I don’t think the ‘defence of property’ angle holds up. Whatever the motivation, there was no ‘service’ need.
I actually feel for him. FWIW I don’t think he’s a white supremacist. He’s just straight fucked it up. 17 year old males have pretty poor decision-making skills. He got sucked into the maelstrom as much as the rioters on the other side. But he shot three people, in a situation where his presence and posture was entirely of his own volition. Madness. He’s facing the consequences.
Exactly. It's hard to see how this kid will be able to argue it was just a "spur of the moment" bad decision. It's not like he was strolling by the CI surf shop and thought, I might just duck in and grab myself a quiver and new wettie, and then regretting it the next day. You just don't accidentally end up in a locked down town hundreds of kilometres from your home carrying a fully loaded military assault rifle you'd procured the day before (even in America).
Septic Tanks are going to Septic Tank