- Banned
- #2,061
Just think of all these stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats that said Kyle was guilty as hell simply because he was illegally carrying an AR.
LOL!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I already quoted you. The part you say I edited was removing other parts of your post unrelated to you falsely claiming I want evidence suppressed.Quote me, without selectively editing it.
Hmm, I checked. My backside is looking as good as it was before Thursday. That's quite the imagination you've got there.You're making a fool of yourself Faun.
Had I been so utterly defeated by you, I would not have been in this thread kicking your backside since Thursday afternoon.
They also hate Kyle because they are TDS afflicted morons who know that Kyle attended a Trump rally.. All they know is that they hate. The reason they hate is because they are worthless things that offer nothing of value to the world and are bitter and resentful because of it.
It's irrelevant to this discussion about which killed individuals were armed since we're talking about Rosenbaum and he wasn't armed.Let’s break it down — since you are so clearly in whining puss mode. Ready?
Based on the trial evidence, which of the injured or killed individuals were armed when shot by Rittenhouse?
Let us put the question about a “gun” aside (except for rhe defendant’s rifle, naturally).
If you are in an area where rioting has been going on and is still going on, and you are pursued by someone in an angry manner, IS IT your claim that by pointing a rifle at or in the direction of your pursuer, you have “provoked” the encounter In such a way as to negate a legal claim of self-defense?
It's because they believe it should be illegal for anyone to carry an AR.Just think of all these stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats that said Kyle was guilty as hell simply because he was illegally carrying an AR.
The discussion was about Rosenbaum being shot in the back. What does Grosskreutz have to do with that?Grosskreutz.
You're again lying through your keyboard. You really should stop.Of course. Given where you stand on this case, naturally you wouldn't want any exonerating evidence submitted.
Your behavior throughout this entire thread has suggested you want Rittenhouse to be guilty regardless of the evidence. You've repeatedly ignored refuting evidence posted by me and other posters.
There's always a pattern of behavior with people like you. Yours was easy to read.
Are we still using this thread to beat each other senseless over the Rittenhouse trial?
Yanno, let's just ignore Faun.
Faun is gonna look like a complete idiot before the day is out.
Done.I figured out a long time ago that the Boy was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and that he had no real convictions on anything but just got a kick out of shit posting so I put him on ignore.
^^^ Another raving lunatic.The subhumans in this thread don't care about right or wrong, and they don't care about truth vs fiction. All they know is that they hate. The reason they hate is because they are worthless things that offer nothing of value to the world and are bitter and resentful because of it.
Here they are supporting serial child rapists and domestic terrorists. One of the subhumans even tried claiming it was some sort of successful business person. If that were actually true, it certainly wouldn't support burning down people's businesses.
Fuck off. I don't bother with idiots who aren't paying attention to the case.when I asked you A SECOND TIME to provide a time stamp of any video showing this, your response 'nah, stay stupid,' meanwhile you keep saying 'the video proves it,' so again, PLEASE, provide the time stamp of the evidence showing this in ANY VIDEO, or take your lefty feelings elsewhere.
LOLNah. Stay Stupid.
Except I never said Rittenhouse was "behind" Rosenbaum when he shot him in the back.Thanks for confirming what I said: that YOU contend that the shot in the back does mean he was shot from behind. You are absolutely wrong again, of course.
I realize you are far too stupid or dishonest to follow along or admit the reality here. But others are not persuaded by your false claims. The PROSECUTORS called the expert witness forensic expert. He did acknowledge (contrary to your false claim) that the gun shot wound in the back could have come from the weapon being fired in front of him because of the position of his body at the moment the round was fired.
I quoted his cross examination concession.
You rely on your ignorant and baseless and totally unsupported denial. You are no expert. You aren’t even intelligent. You are just a worthless hack.
Fuck off. I don't bother with idiots who aren't paying attention to the case.
no,, you said he was standing over him while he laid on the ground,,Except I never said Rittenhouse was "behind" Rosenbaum when he shot him in the back.
Sadly, you're once again arguing with yourself.![]()
Future tense?