Lead Prosecutor in Rittenhouse Political Prosecution Says Rittenhouse Chased His Antifa Attackers. Then He Shows Video Of Antifa Chasing Rittenhouse.

[Faun]

Umm, you are the moron consistently proven wrong.

Dumbass.

Suuuure, dumbfuck. Uh-huh.

Tell me again how you saw Jumpkick guy as a "WHITE DUDE."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Suuuure, dumbfuck. Uh-huh.

Tell me again how you saw Jumpkick guy as a "WHITE DUDE."

Remind us how you claimed the dead guys were black.....

 

[Faun]

Remind us how you claimed the dead guys were black.....

How can I remind you of something I never said??

Have you always been this retarded?

 

[struth]

LOL

Liar, none of your links say Harris donated any money.

Try harder next time.

maybe you should read again it certainly shows that

 

[j-mac]

That was my mistake. It's, "withdraw" and give "adequate notice."

His notice was that Kyle was running away.

 

[Faun]

maybe you should read again it certainly shows that

LOL

Get your comprehension checked. It says she "backed" the fund, it says she "promoted" the fund, but it doesn't say she donated money to the fund. All she did was tweet a shout out to the fund where she endorsed it and asked people to donate. She never donated and your own links don't say she donated. Your third link doesn't even mention her at all.

Now stop lying.

 

[Faun]

His notice was that Kyle was running away.

False. Running away was only one element of "withdraw" and give "adequate notice."

Education from University of Wisconsin Law School...

To begin with, which section of 939.48 would apply? D unlawfully provoked the attack by smacking V in the chest (battery under 940.19). So we need to look at 939.48(2) to see if he can raise a self-defense claim at all. The answer is yes: He regained the privilege by withdrawing from the fight and giving adequate notice to V (“I take it back!” and running away). 939.48(2)(b).​

You do know the implications of "and," don't you?

 

[j-mac]

False. Running away was only one element of "withdraw" and give "adequate notice."

Education from University of Wisconsin Law School...

To begin with, which section of 939.48 would apply? D unlawfully provoked the attack by smacking V in the chest (battery under 940.19). So we need to look at 939.48(2) to see if he can raise a self-defense claim at all. The answer is yes: He regained the privilege by withdrawing from the fight and giving adequate notice to V (“I take it back!” and running away). 939.48(2)(b).​

You do know the implications of "and," don't you?

Ofcourse, let's keep in civil here...Look, He was being chased by at least 4 people in the middle of a riot. He didn't want trouble from Rosenbaum. But, Rosenbaum sure wanted to cause trouble with him....

The fact of the matter is that Kyle was retreating until he felt he was cornered, at that point Rosenbaum made a fatal mistake didn't he? I mean, lunging at someone pointing an AR at you has to be the stupidest thing in the history of the world, given the proximity...

 

[struth]

LOL

Get your comprehension checked. It says she "backed" the fund, it says she "promoted" the fund, but it doesn't say she donated money to the fund. All she did was tweet a shout out to the fund where she endorsed it and asked people to donate. She never donated and your own links don't say she donated. Your third link doesn't even mention her at all.

Now stop lying.

haha keep reading she donated to the fund

as well as many other demafascist cultist in the admin

 

[struth]

False. Running away was only one element of "withdraw" and give "adequate notice."

Education from University of Wisconsin Law School...

To begin with, which section of 939.48 would apply? D unlawfully provoked the attack by smacking V in the chest (battery under 940.19). So we need to look at 939.48(2) to see if he can raise a self-defense claim at all. The answer is yes: He regained the privilege by withdrawing from the fight and giving adequate notice to V (“I take it back!” and running away). 939.48(2)(b).​

You do know the implications of "and," don't you?

since there was no evidence of Kyle provoking the attack…in fact the evidence showed the other guy threatened to kill him first, then attacked him from a hidden position…we don’t have to even get to your flawed view

 

[Roudy]

LOL

I'm talking about now -- and you're talking about the 1940's.

Moron.

It's wasn't the 1940's that your Democrat leaders attended an ex KKK clansman's funeral and eulogized him, douche.

 

[Faun]

Ofcourse, let's keep in civil here...Look, He was being chased by at least 4 people in the middle of a riot. He didn't want trouble from Rosenbaum. But, Rosenbaum sure wanted to cause trouble with him....

The fact of the matter is that Kyle was retreating until he felt he was cornered, at that point Rosenbaum made a fatal mistake didn't he? I mean, lunging at someone pointing an AR at you has to be the stupidest thing in the history of the world, given the proximity...

I agree it's stupid to lunge at someone carrying an AR-15. Regardless, Rittenhouse provoked it by pointing his gun at people. If you're going to carry that weapon, you have to be responsible. Going to a riot and pointing your gun at rioters is not responsible. And again, as far as that law to regain the privilege of self-defense, one must withdraw AND give adequate notice. Rittenhouse only complied with the former.

 

[Faun]

haha keep reading she donated to the fund

as well as many other demafascist cultist in the admin

LOL

Keep reading what? None of your articles say she donated any money to that fund.

None.

Your NY Post article only mentions donations in regard to how much the fund raised and in regard to some Biden staffers donating. She wasn't a Biden staffer. Your Fox News story doesn't even contain the word, "donate." And your Reuters article doesn't even contain the name, "Harris."

Which means you're lying again. You're literally citing yourself and not any of your links when you falsely claim Harris donated money to that fund.

 

[Faun]

since there was no evidence of Kyle provoking the attack…in fact the evidence showed the other guy threatened to kill him first, then attacked him from a hidden position…we don’t have to even get to your flawed view

The evidence does not show that. And pointing a gun at someone is not only provocation, it immediately gives the person on the other end the right to use any force necessary to stop that threat in self defense.

 

[Faun]

It's wasn't the 1940's that your Democrat leaders attended an ex KKK clansman's funeral and eulogized him, douche.

Yes, he was an ex-clansman -- from back in the 40's. He then died some 75 years later.

Again, I'm not talking about the 1940's. I'm talking about now. He was not in the clan when he died.

 

[struth]

LOL

Keep reading what? None of your articles say she donated any money to that fund.

None.

Your NY Post article only mentions donations in regard to how much the fund raised and in regard to some Biden staffers donating. She wasn't a Biden staffer. Your Fox News story doesn't even contain the word, "donate." And your Reuters article doesn't even contain the name, "Harris."

Which means you're lying again. You're literally citing yourself and not any of your links when you falsely claim Harris donated money to that fund.

they discuss how she backed the fund....backing a fund...ie giving money to it.

regardless, she openly supported letting these rioters out of jail so they could commit more violence

 

[Roudy]

Yes, he was an ex-clansman -- from back in the 40's. He then died some 75 years later.

Again, I'm not talking about the 1940's. I'm talking about now. He was not in the clan when he died.

So an ex clansman was one of the most respected and revered Democrat senators. Remember that when you’re cheering the toppling of our founders by Democrat whackos or BLM / Antifa terrorists. Like I said, the Democratic Party never stopped being racist, they just learned to be more inconspicuous about who they really are.

 

[struth]

The evidence does not show that. And pointing a gun at someone is not only provocation, it immediately gives the person on the other end the right to use any force necessary to stop that threat in self defense.

Agreed, and the evidence, from the State's own witness says he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first

Rittenhouse trial: Key state witness admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot​

Rittenhouse trial: Key state witness admits he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot

KENOSHA, Wis. (CBS 58) -- The sixth day of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial shifted focus from the first shooting to the second and third. Witnesses recalled the moments when Anthony Huber was shot in th

www.cbs58.com

Thanks for making the case for Rittenhouse

 

[struth]

The evidence does not show that. And pointing a gun at someone is not only provocation, it immediately gives the person on the other end the right to use any force necessary to stop that threat in self defense.

Witnesses: Threat, lunge for gun from 1st Rittenhouse victim

Witnesses at Kyle Rittenhouse's murder trial say the first man shot on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive," threatened to kill Rittenhouse and another man who were patrolling with guns, and later lunged for Rittenhouse’s gun in an attempt to take it away.

apnews.com

"
KENOSHA, Wis. (AP) — The first man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on the streets of Kenosha was “hyperaggressive” that night, threatened to kill Rittenhouse and later lunged for his rifle just before the 17-year-old fired, witnesses testified Thursday.

The testimony at Rittenhouse’s murder trial came from two witnesses who had been called to the stand by the prosecution but gave accounts often more favorable to the defense in the politically polarizing case."

....

"
Richie McGinniss, who was recording events on a cellphone that night for the conservative website The Daily Caller, testified that Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man shot that night, was killed after chasing down Rittenhouse and making a lunge for the gun.

“I think it was very clear to me that he was reaching specifically for the weapon,” McGinniss said.

Ryan Balch, a former Army infantryman who carried an AR-style rifle that night and walked around patrolling the streets with Rittenhouse, testified that Rosenbaum was “hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” including trying to set fires and throwing rocks.

Balch said he got between Rosenbaum and another man while Rosenbaum was trying to start a fire, and Rosenbaum got angry, shouting, “If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I’m going to f—- kill you!”

Balch said that Rittenhouse was within earshot and that he believed the threat was aimed at both of them.

"

 

[j-mac]

I agree it's stupid to lunge at someone carrying an AR-15. Regardless, Rittenhouse provoked it by pointing his gun at people. If you're going to carry that weapon, you have to be responsible. Going to a riot and pointing your gun at rioters is not responsible. And again, as far as that law to regain the privilege of self-defense, one must withdraw AND give adequate notice. Rittenhouse only complied with the former.

Well, we shall see…