Democrats can't prove Rittenhouse is a white supremacist

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is simply untrue. The guy that just got out of the mental institution was the first guy he shot. He is on camera chasing Rittenhouse prior to being shot. Did you not know this?
A young white male cruising a mob with an AR15 hanging from his neck is begging for an altercation. It’s not against the law but it shows you the stupidity he possessed.
 
A young white male cruising a mob with an AR15 hanging from his neck is begging for an altercation. It’s not against the law but it shows you the stupidity he possessed.

Okay fine. He was stupid. That doesn't preclude his right to self-defense. If being stupid was against the law, 80 million Biden voters would be in prison.
 
Okay fine. He was stupid. That doesn't preclude his right to self-defense. If being stupid was against the law, 80 million Biden voters would be in prison.
He has the same right to self defense as much as anyone who created a need for it to begin with.
Obviously there were others who weren’t looking for trouble like Retennhouse was.
 
Just another stat to reinforce that people who carry firearms are more likely to get shot. He was being chased because he was carrying a firearm used more now to intimidate people.


Nope. Rosenbaum was clear earlier. He was upset that they stopped him from committing arson and would kill any of them that he caught alone.


He said nothing about the guns, then or later when he caught Rittenhouse alone and tried to murder him.


Unless you have information that was not presented at the trial?
 
There is no good guy in this whole mess. The good guys stayed within the confines of the demonstrations Or stayed home.

It’s apparent that young males, a juvenile and a mentally ill homeless person and firearms don’t mix. It’s a scene that plays itself out too frequently. Yet, we just keep arming everyone, watering down firearms regs so even unqualified have them. We than wonder why people are held unaccountable for shooting down three people with a weapon he couldn’t legally buy, yet managed to so he could play out a video game and shoot more homeless people.

Because , the poor and the homeless and the mentally ill are expendable.


Mmm, no. The people that stepped forward to protect their community, when the government refused to, they certainly count as good people.


The poor are not expendable. Neither are the homeless or mentally ill.


Violent would be murderers? Yes, they are more than "expendable". They have given up their Right to Life, by choosing to attack people violently.
 
You really don’t know much about the law. Look up what conspiracy is, then read the testimony.
In order for there to be a conspircy, prior knowledge of a crime is needd, under yor logic, you could be charged as a co-conspiritor if your friend was carrying an illal handgun without you knowledge and you got pulled over while giving him a ride.
 
In order for there to be a conspircy, prior knowledge of a crime is needd, under yor logic, you could be charged as a co-conspiritor if your friend was carrying an illal handgun without you knowledge and you got pulled over while giving him a ride.
You’re funny. You actually read my post and came up with that fake crappolla. The conspiracy is being engaged in a straw purchase. Their own testimony revealed they knew it was illegal for Retennhouse to buy the rifle in both states. He claims he “ gifted” the money to his friend to buy the rifle. What malarkey.
 
Nope. Rosenbaum was clear earlier. He was upset that they stopped him from committing arson and would kill any of them that he caught alone.


He said nothing about the guns, then or later when he caught Rittenhouse alone and tried to murder him.


Unless you have information that was not presented at the trial?
Babble. Who ever said Rosenbaum was carrying a firearm ?
 
Babble. Who ever said Rosenbaum was carrying a firearm ?
He didnt need to have a firearm. Its it legal to use lethal force if you have a reasonable belief that someone poses an iminent threat of EITHER your life or a threat of severe bodily harm. The attacker having a weapon isnt necessary.
 
He didnt need to have a firearm. Its it legal to use lethal force if you have a reasonable belief that someone poses an iminent threat of EITHER your life or a threat of severe bodily harm. The attacker having a weapon isnt necessary.
When did I ever say one way or another ?
 
Babble. Who ever said Rosenbaum was carrying a firearm ?


No one. Why do you ask?

My point stands. Rosebaum openly stated that he would kill any of the group that put out his fire, if he caught them alone. It had nothing to do with the gun.
 
He was not an active shooter and he absolutely was chased by the first person who he had to shoot in self defense.

The video PROVES you to be an out right liar


He knows that, but he has to lie, or else it is clear that he is on the side of the violent criminals.
 
No one. Why do you ask?

My point stands. Rosebaum openly stated that he would kill any of the group that put out his fire, if he caught them alone. It had nothing to do with the gun.
So, he deserved to die at the hands of a video game master.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top