Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head

[katsteve2012]

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Bringing up cultural differences in people and describing their collective culture as "inferior" are not the same. A persons culture is often a reflection of the values that they were taught.


I would be quite confident in stating that the "culture" within my family and household are just as positive as anyome else's that is here, as would the majority of other black people that I know.

Furthermore, there is another poster here who took the time recently to compile a list of posts/statements made by some (qute a few ) who post here which certainly brought to light the fact that numerous posters here do NOT believe all of us to be equal.

As far as your belief that you can "identify" with the sentiments of black people, you might be able to do so with those who are in your geographical proximity.


And you might even be able to work side by side with them due to it being a condition of employment, or even live near them due to the law enforcing a persons right to live where they choose regardless of race.

My point was simply that it appeared on my end that you were applying your belief of what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" to the majority, if not all.
Outside of that, I have had no interest in this thread.

, , .

This is the point.

Lyslader was talking the type of shit that encourages men to get themselves killed.


I called her out on her behavior, and the possible consequences.


You did not like that, and you tried to dismiss my valid criticism of her bad behavior, by saying "race" and with an hint of "wace".


And that is all you've got.

Frankly, with you I don't need much. You generalized and

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Bringing up cultural differences in people and describing their collective culture as "inferior" are not the same. A persons culture is often a reflection of the values that they were taught.


I would be quite confident in stating that the "culture" within my family and household are just as positive as anyome else's that is here, as would the majority of other black people that I know.

Furthermore, there is another poster here who took the time recently to compile a list of posts/statements made by some (qute a few ) who post here which certainly brought to light the fact that numerous posters here do NOT believe all of us to be equal.

As far as your belief that you can "identify" with the sentiments of black people, you might be able to do so with those who are in your geographical proximity.


And you might even be able to work side by side with them due to it being a condition of employment, or even live near them due to the law enforcing a persons right to live where they choose regardless of race.

My point was simply that it appeared on my end that you were applying your belief of what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" to the majority, if not all.
Outside of that, I have had no interest in this thread.

, , .

This is the point.

Lyslader was talking the type of shit that encourages men to get themselves killed.


I called her out on her behavior, and the possible consequences.


You did not like that, and you tried to dismiss my valid criticism of her bad behavior, by saying "race" and with an hint of "wace".


And that is all you've got.

"All that I've got"? ROFLMAO! As if I need that much to hold any kind of conversation with you.

First of all, I do not even know who the fuck "Lyslader" is, so I couldn't care less about your criticism of her. You generalized, as if you actually know what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" and I pointed it out, which YOU didn't "like", and thinking back, this is actually even more hilarious than I initially thought.

The very idea of you having a shred of concern for black men being killed under any circumstance is equivalent to an adult believing that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are actually real people.

As far as the rest of this vague nonsense that you are talking about, while making up silly, childish words like "wace', I acknowledged the fact that you MIGHT know something about black people who are within your immediate proximity....as in a co worker, or a neighbor.

OUTSIDE of your proximity, is an entirely different story.

Now, it's time for the ignore feature

 

[Dale Smith]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Care to make a wager on that, lil faun, the perv????

I don't bet with conservatives because I've seen them refuse to pay up when the lose 100% of the time. Even worse, you're a crazed, maniacal lunatic who would absolutely not pay up. Shit, you even bailed on starting a thread in the bullring on a topic of my choosing after challenging me on exactly that. Sadly for you, you're dickless.

Really? Like how you bookmarked a post of a Trump supporter that declared he would win and you posted "Bookmarked" because you had hoped to rub a Trump defeat in his face........that "bookmark" of yours never caused you to admit that you were wrong and admit error. It's akin as to how you kept defending Pocahontas Warren's claim that she had enough indigenous lineage to make a claim that she was a minority....you kept the shit up even after she admitted that she had erred.You are akin to that Monty Python skit where a soldier has no legs or arms and says "Tis only a flesh wound!". I replied to you about lil David Hogg and you bailed on the thread. You want to talk about the anomalies of the Parkland shooting? I am down with that. What you think you can "trap" me on is the "David Hogg is a crisis actor which is something you cannot prove one way or the other.

What I see playing out on this forum is a creepy little perv like yourself that doesn't have the nads to back his words with action. You are one creepy little commie fuck-wad., lil faun. Your absence wouldn't be missed in the slightest. Your fool-fueled creepy little rants would leave no void here. Your anger is going to consume you and I can't find it within myself to have sympathy for you. 66,000 plus posts of nothing but angst. Sucks to be a leftard perv....

(snicker)

LOLOL

You're such a fucking retard, dickless delusional dale.

"that "bookmark" of yours never caused you to admit that you were wrong and admit error."

Nope, I admitted I was wrong with my Hillary predictions...

So? I was wrong.

"It's akin as to how you kept defending Pocahontas Warren's claim that she had enough indigenous lineage to make a claim that she was a minority..."

Nope, I said Warren was wrong for using that to claim a minority status...

Warren, a Democrat, lied about being a Native American Indian on a registration and that was wrong.

"I replied to you about lil David Hogg and you bailed on the thread."

Nope, I made fun of you for running away from your own challenge to debate it in the bullring. Then you admitted defeat by abandoning your earlier claims that Hogg wasn't in the school during the shooting.
As always, you get everything wrong as you dance like you've won in your crazed mind.

You lie like a rug, faun, the pervert. My reply was more than adequate and totally destroyed your lies. You waited to respond until my post was buried and then you lamely attempt to "gaslight". The conclusion that I have come to is that you are just a time-wasting, creepy pervert that lamely tries to compensate for your inadequacies with angry, fool-fueled rants. I would bet that you have some really creepy secrets you wish to keep hidden based on your disgusting avatar. I have this sneaking suspicion that some day your home will be raided and your laptop will be confiscated and what officers will find will make them sick to their stomach.

 

[katsteve2012]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

OJ walked because the trial wasn’t held in the Beverly Hills courthouse where it should have been and Judge Ito was a star struck idiot who let OJs “dream team” run amok in his courtroom with their theatrics and inadmissible testimony. Also the quality of the jurors was horrible. I saw one of the jurors after the trial saying “I don’t know no DNA, DNA just means OJ gots blood”.

Nah. OJ walked because there was reasonable doubt, which prevented a conviction. Between the glove not fitting and Fuhrman taking the 5th instead of denying he planted the glove, the prosecution blew it.

Bullshit.

Who knows what you think is bullshit? He did try on the gloves in front of the jury and they did appear to be too small; and Fuhrman, who said he found the glove on OJ's property, took the fifth when asked if he had planted the glove there. That was reasonable doubt, which the jury was instructed to acquit if there was reasonable doubt.

Anybody can make a glove appear to not fit. There wasn't any reasonable doubt. In any other courthouse or with any other jury OJ would have been toast.

Had it been an all white jury you are correct.

If it had been a jury with education and half a brain split between the members OJ would have been convicted.

Really, is that why so many INNOCENT black men have gone to prison because the members of the jury has so much education and brains. Smfh.in

Like this guy. The lawmakers of the state that he was wrongly imprisoned in for 44 YEARS after being convicted by an ALL WHITE jury using questionable evidence had to be be put on blast in the media for him to get "fairness". He was just released a few weeks ago.

Ronnie Long Spent 44 Years In Prison Because Of Racist Policing. Here's Why He's Finally Free.

When he was 20-years-old, Long was charged with the rape of 54-year-old Sarah Bost in North Carolina alongside burglary charges connected to the case; he was notably convicted by an all-white jury. Despite the scene of the crime containing hair and fingerprints not matching Long’s own DNA, he...

www.refinery29.com

 

[Faun]

Espe

^^^ just another brain fart.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

OJ walked because the trial wasn’t held in the Beverly Hills courthouse where it should have been and Judge Ito was a star struck idiot who let OJs “dream team” run amok in his courtroom with their theatrics and inadmissible testimony. Also the quality of the jurors was horrible. I saw one of the jurors after the trial saying “I don’t know no DNA, DNA just means OJ gots blood”.

Nah. OJ walked because there was reasonable doubt, which prevented a conviction. Between the glove not fitting and Fuhrman taking the 5th instead of denying he planted the glove, the prosecution blew it.

Bullshit.

Who knows what you think is bullshit? He did try on the gloves in front of the jury and they did appear to be too small; and Fuhrman, who said he found the glove on OJ's property, took the fifth when asked if he had planted the glove there. That was reasonable doubt, which the jury was instructed to acquit if there was reasonable doubt.

Anybody can make a glove appear to not fit. There wasn't any reasonable doubt. In any other courthouse or with any other jury OJ would have been toast.

Your beyond brain-dead if you think the lead detective, who said he found the glove on OJ's property, who refused to deny planting it there, is not reasonable doubt. Even worse, he hid behind his 5th Amendment rights that denying he planted the glove would incriminate him. And the glove not fitting was huge in that case because it was a visual right in front of the jury that they could not casually dismiss. Even the prosecution would later confess that was their biggest blunder. The jury came back with the only verdict they could given the judges instructions on reasonable doubt.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Care to make a wager on that, lil faun, the perv????

I don't bet with conservatives because I've seen them refuse to pay up when the lose 100% of the time. Even worse, you're a crazed, maniacal lunatic who would absolutely not pay up. Shit, you even bailed on starting a thread in the bullring on a topic of my choosing after challenging me on exactly that. Sadly for you, you're dickless.

Really? Like how you bookmarked a post of a Trump supporter that declared he would win and you posted "Bookmarked" because you had hoped to rub a Trump defeat in his face........that "bookmark" of yours never caused you to admit that you were wrong and admit error. It's akin as to how you kept defending Pocahontas Warren's claim that she had enough indigenous lineage to make a claim that she was a minority....you kept the shit up even after she admitted that she had erred.You are akin to that Monty Python skit where a soldier has no legs or arms and says "Tis only a flesh wound!". I replied to you about lil David Hogg and you bailed on the thread. You want to talk about the anomalies of the Parkland shooting? I am down with that. What you think you can "trap" me on is the "David Hogg is a crisis actor which is something you cannot prove one way or the other.

What I see playing out on this forum is a creepy little perv like yourself that doesn't have the nads to back his words with action. You are one creepy little commie fuck-wad., lil faun. Your absence wouldn't be missed in the slightest. Your fool-fueled creepy little rants would leave no void here. Your anger is going to consume you and I can't find it within myself to have sympathy for you. 66,000 plus posts of nothing but angst. Sucks to be a leftard perv....

(snicker)

LOLOL

You're such a fucking retard, dickless delusional dale.

"that "bookmark" of yours never caused you to admit that you were wrong and admit error."

Nope, I admitted I was wrong with my Hillary predictions...

So? I was wrong.

"It's akin as to how you kept defending Pocahontas Warren's claim that she had enough indigenous lineage to make a claim that she was a minority..."

Nope, I said Warren was wrong for using that to claim a minority status...

Warren, a Democrat, lied about being a Native American Indian on a registration and that was wrong.

"I replied to you about lil David Hogg and you bailed on the thread."

Nope, I made fun of you for running away from your own challenge to debate it in the bullring. Then you admitted defeat by abandoning your earlier claims that Hogg wasn't in the school during the shooting.
As always, you get everything wrong as you dance like you've won in your crazed mind.

You lie like a rug, faun, the pervert. My reply was more than adequate and totally destroyed your lies. You waited to respond until my post was buried and then you lamely attempt to "gaslight". The conclusion that I have come to is that you are just a time-wasting, creepy pervert that lamely tries to compensate for your inadequacies with angry, fool-fueled rants. I would bet that you have some really creepy secrets you wish to keep hidden based on your disgusting avatar. I have this sneaking suspicion that some day your home will be raided and your laptop will be confiscated and what officers will find will make them sick to their stomach.

LOLOL

Poor, dickless delusional dale. I proved my post with links to the claims I made. You spitting, nuh-uh is an embarrassingly week retort.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Bringing up cultural differences in people and describing their collective culture as "inferior" are not the same. A persons culture is often a reflection of the values that they were taught.


I would be quite confident in stating that the "culture" within my family and household are just as positive as anyome else's that is here, as would the majority of other black people that I know.

Furthermore, there is another poster here who took the time recently to compile a list of posts/statements made by some (qute a few ) who post here which certainly brought to light the fact that numerous posters here do NOT believe all of us to be equal.

As far as your belief that you can "identify" with the sentiments of black people, you might be able to do so with those who are in your geographical proximity.


And you might even be able to work side by side with them due to it being a condition of employment, or even live near them due to the law enforcing a persons right to live where they choose regardless of race.

My point was simply that it appeared on my end that you were applying your belief of what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" to the majority, if not all.
Outside of that, I have had no interest in this thread.

, , .

This is the point.

Lyslader was talking the type of shit that encourages men to get themselves killed.


I called her out on her behavior, and the possible consequences.


You did not like that, and you tried to dismiss my valid criticism of her bad behavior, by saying "race" and with an hint of "wace".


And that is all you've got.

Frankly, with you I don't need much. You generalized and

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

Bringing up cultural differences in people and describing their collective culture as "inferior" are not the same. A persons culture is often a reflection of the values that they were taught.


I would be quite confident in stating that the "culture" within my family and household are just as positive as anyome else's that is here, as would the majority of other black people that I know.

Furthermore, there is another poster here who took the time recently to compile a list of posts/statements made by some (qute a few ) who post here which certainly brought to light the fact that numerous posters here do NOT believe all of us to be equal.

As far as your belief that you can "identify" with the sentiments of black people, you might be able to do so with those who are in your geographical proximity.


And you might even be able to work side by side with them due to it being a condition of employment, or even live near them due to the law enforcing a persons right to live where they choose regardless of race.

My point was simply that it appeared on my end that you were applying your belief of what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" to the majority, if not all.
Outside of that, I have had no interest in this thread.

, , .

This is the point.

Lyslader was talking the type of shit that encourages men to get themselves killed.


I called her out on her behavior, and the possible consequences.


You did not like that, and you tried to dismiss my valid criticism of her bad behavior, by saying "race" and with an hint of "wace".


And that is all you've got.

"All that I've got"? ROFLMAO! As if I need that much to hold any kind of conversation with you.

First of all, I do not even know who the fuck "Lyslader" is, so I couldn't care less about your criticism of her. You generalized, as if you actually know what would "encourage black men to get themselves killed" and I pointed it out, which YOU didn't "like", and thinking back, this is actually even more hilarious than I initially thought.

The very idea of you having a shred of concern for black men being killed under any circumstance is equivalent to an adult believing that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are actually real people.

As far as the rest of this vague nonsense that you are talking about, while making up silly, childish words like "wace', I acknowledged the fact that you MIGHT know something about black people who are within your immediate proximity....as in a co worker, or a neighbor.

OUTSIDE of your proximity, is an entirely different story.

Now, it's time for the ignore feature

The only way that you would be right, ie that it is impossible for me to understand black men, is as I pointed out, if they are radically different that I, a white man.

But the moment I questioned you on that, you started walking it back and getting evasive.

My point stands, the type of talk that you lefties are constantly spewing, ie that the mob has the right to randomly attack people, especially white people, and that it is morally and legally wrong for those people to even defend themselves,


if believed, will encourage bad and very dangerous behavior, that could and indeed, IS getting people killed.



YOu don't like that, and your only attempt at refuting it, is the claim that black men are so different from me, that I as a white guy, can't understand what would motivate them to kill.


That is absurd. You support this violence. You are prepared to see men die, for partisan political aims.


But, you want to pretend otherwise, so you can moralize and try to take the high road, when shit blows back on you.


And you complain about me making up words, like "wacism" in the same post where you accuse me of being a heartless monster who does not care about my fellow man dying.


I'm proud of that word. It is a perfect way of treating your sides, constant bullshit, with all the respect it deserves.

 

[Correll]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

1. Correct. I was addressing another point. Wow. Funny how you were confused and that meant you didn't have to actually address the point. Lucky you were too stupid to understand. Otherwise, you might have had to admit the truth.


2. Sure. You "CONDEMN" it. You also completely support the narrative that justifies it, you demonize those oppose it, you support those who work with the mobs to let them terrorize the streets, you oppose any attempts to deal with them effectively,

hell, you even attack a young man that defended himself from their attack.


Your "condemnation" has all the credibility of a...


I can't even think of an analogy strong enough. YOu have anti-credibility. OCEANS of it.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

1. Correct. I was addressing another point. Wow. Funny how you were confused and that meant you didn't have to actually address the point. Lucky you were too stupid to understand. Otherwise, you might have had to admit the truth.


2. Sure. You "CONDEMN" it. You also completely support the narrative that justifies it, you demonize those oppose it, you support those who work with the mobs to let them terrorize the streets, you oppose any attempts to deal with them effectively,

hell, you even attack a young man that defended himself from their attack.


Your "condemnation" has all the credibility of a...


I can't even think of an analogy strong enough. YOu have anti-credibility. OCEANS of it.

You're truly fucked in the head, con, and this rant of yours stems from your delusions. I did not oppose attempts to stop the rioters. You only think I do because you're crazed. And nothing justifies it, nor have I said anything does. Once again, you go off on a tangent of your own making due to nothing but a mixture of dementia and prejudice.

 

[Correll]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

1. Correct. I was addressing another point. Wow. Funny how you were confused and that meant you didn't have to actually address the point. Lucky you were too stupid to understand. Otherwise, you might have had to admit the truth.


2. Sure. You "CONDEMN" it. You also completely support the narrative that justifies it, you demonize those oppose it, you support those who work with the mobs to let them terrorize the streets, you oppose any attempts to deal with them effectively,

hell, you even attack a young man that defended himself from their attack.


Your "condemnation" has all the credibility of a...


I can't even think of an analogy strong enough. YOu have anti-credibility. OCEANS of it.

You're truly fucked in the head, con, and this rant of yours stems from your delusions. I did not oppose attempts to stop the rioters. You only think I do because you're crazed. And nothing justifies it, nor have I said anything does. Once again, you go off on a tangent of your own making due to nothing but a mixture of dementia and prejudice.

Do you support the way Trump used federal agents to arrest ring leaders in POrtland?

 

[Correll]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

1. Correct. I was addressing another point. Wow. Funny how you were confused and that meant you didn't have to actually address the point. Lucky you were too stupid to understand. Otherwise, you might have had to admit the truth.


2. Sure. You "CONDEMN" it. You also completely support the narrative that justifies it, you demonize those oppose it, you support those who work with the mobs to let them terrorize the streets, you oppose any attempts to deal with them effectively,

hell, you even attack a young man that defended himself from their attack.


Your "condemnation" has all the credibility of a...


I can't even think of an analogy strong enough. YOu have anti-credibility. OCEANS of it.

You're truly fucked in the head, con, and this rant of yours stems from your delusions. I did not oppose attempts to stop the rioters. You only think I do because you're crazed. And nothing justifies it, nor have I said anything does. Once again, you go off on a tangent of your own making due to nothing but a mixture of dementia and prejudice.

Yeah, you said that. And I pointed out how that doesn's stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

And in response to that, you repeat your initial, already refuted assertion.


That is the logical fallacy of proof by assertion.


My point stands.


You and your side, support the riots and as such, there is a real chance that Rittenhouse will not get a fair trial, if any of you liberals/dems are involved at any level.

 

[2aguy]

Good chance he walks on the gun charges too...

The explanation of the law at ar15.com is very good. However, I thought it could profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively.

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.



What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or which have an over all length less than 26 inches.


The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type, does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 948.60 only forbids people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

While a casual reading of Wisconsin Statutes seems to indicate people under the age of 18 are forbidden from carrying rifles or shotguns, that is not the case under Wisconsin law, in general.

The general prohibition is for those under the age of 16.

Kyle is reported to be more than 17 years old.

Kenosha, Kyle Rittenhouse: Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

Image from facebook, page taken down. Cropped, scaled, and green text added by Dean Weingarten. One of the questions involving the Kyle Ri...

gunwatch.blogspot.com

 

[Rambunctious]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

Except that you dems are on the side of the murderous mob, and have demonstrated that you put politics WAY, WAY, ahead of professional responsibility or ethics.

a) that has absolutely nothing to with the fact that only Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer; and

b) I have condemned the rioting.

1. Correct. I was addressing another point. Wow. Funny how you were confused and that meant you didn't have to actually address the point. Lucky you were too stupid to understand. Otherwise, you might have had to admit the truth.


2. Sure. You "CONDEMN" it. You also completely support the narrative that justifies it, you demonize those oppose it, you support those who work with the mobs to let them terrorize the streets, you oppose any attempts to deal with them effectively,

hell, you even attack a young man that defended himself from their attack.


Your "condemnation" has all the credibility of a...


I can't even think of an analogy strong enough. YOu have anti-credibility. OCEANS of it.

You're truly fucked in the head, con, and this rant of yours stems from your delusions. I did not oppose attempts to stop the rioters. You only think I do because you're crazed. And nothing justifies it, nor have I said anything does. Once again, you go off on a tangent of your own making due to nothing but a mixture of dementia and prejudice.

I guess you are going to keep showing us your ass until November 3rd.....what a fucking tool....

 

[MadChemist]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

Sorry, but that's not what I and other see.

Can't help you there.

Why Kyle Rittenhouse, Filmed Fleeing Attackers, Was Charged With Murder

Conservatives have argued that the 17-year-old was acting in self-defense while shooting at two protesters in Kenosha.

www.newsweek.com

In one video, Rittenhouse is seen being chased into a parking lot by several people while still armed with his gun.

 

[MadChemist]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

Right? Can’t read, can’t see

I am unable to discern if this overt lying or simple ignorance.

It's to the point, I don't trust anyone's motives.

Or you could just watch the video yourself.

Did I say I had not watched it.

 

[MadChemist]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless your one of the mob that was there. The guy that was shot in the arm was packing a Glock.
Thank God for the Second Amendment, whether you agree or not with it.

Did any of the "victims" shoot anyone?

Since the first person Kyle shot was killed by a shot fired from behind, its certainly possible.

Or it's possible the teen murderer shot him in the back. Nice claim of self-defense, huh? Shooting someone in the back?

You seem to be really stretching to make a case.

Did Rosenbaum owe you money ?

 

[MadChemist]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

You still have an explain what that means.. lol
They all weren’t on the sidewalk. The mob was moving towards Kyle .. one just sprinted .. and booom.. smart move hehe

They were not moving towards Kyle. That group, including Kyle and another armed man protecting kyle, were all heading south together. Most were on the sidewalk, including Kyle and Rosenbaum. Something set off Rosenbaum who made a motion towards Rittenhouse, who took off running across the parking lot of that auto shop. Rosenbaum chased after him. A reporter followed to film them. Everyone else on the sidewalk stayed on the sidewalk and kept heading south until the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum. That's what you moronically call him being chased by a mob.

Not what the video shows, men with Paul’s heading in this direction guys shooting off a gun in his direction.. democrats your lynching days are over you’re gonna get roseblumed lol

LOLOL

The charging document describes what I said. Your delusions fuel your claims.

And the video shows mine

LOLOL

If that were true, and it's not, it would be reflected in the charging document which detailed the events.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

The charging documents simply make a case assuming they can hold up the statements they make in the documents.

You seem to unaware that there are many who think the documents themselves are little more than a fairy tale.

Regardless, he will have his day in court. Until then, you can continue to tell people what your alternate universe shows while everyone else can see for themselves....that you are in just that....an alternate universe.

 

[jc456]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless your one of the mob that was there. The guy that was shot in the arm was packing a Glock.
Thank God for the Second Amendment, whether you agree or not with it.

Did any of the "victims" shoot anyone?

Since the first person Kyle shot was killed by a shot fired from behind, its certainly possible.

Or it's possible the teen murderer shot him in the back. Nice claim of self-defense, huh? Shooting someone in the back?

post the video then! seems it is you that thinks if you repeat your shit enough it will change the outcome.

 

[Mac-7]

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

An ar-15 is not an assault rifle

I agree that the kid should not have been at the riot.

but nor should the rioters that he shot

if the democrat party leadership of that city were doing their job to maintain order in the streets no one would have died that night