Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 98,396
- 3,635
It has to be a reasonable belief, fucking moron. That is going to come down to what the jury decides is reasonable.It depends on what the actors believes, not what you believe is necessary.
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.
It has to be a reasonable belief, fucking moron. That is going to come down to what the jury decides is reasonable.It depends on what the actors believes, not what you believe is necessary.
he didnt do that as per the testimony of first hand witnesses,,It's not reasonable to shoot someone in the back who is face down who is no longer a threat.
And Rittenhouse had a reasonable means to escape while Rosenbaum was face down before being shot in the back.
They are not the same in Wisonsin which is why Wisconsin has both.You know there's really no difference between "assault" and "battery" right?
That's why Texas only has "assault."
It's not reasonable to shoot someone in the back who is face down who is no longer a threat.
And Rittenhouse had a reasonable means to escape while Rosenbaum was face down before being shot in the back.
Nobody saw where the shots hit so of course no witnesses testify to that. For that we turn to the medical examiner.he didnt do that as per the testimony of first hand witnesses,,
Testimony so far indicates that Rittenhouse reasonably believed that Rosenbaum intended to take his rifle, which one can only assume that if his rifle is taken, he will be shot with it.It has to be a reasonable belief, fucking moron. That is going to come down to what the jury decides is reasonable.
You really should pay better attention, fucking moron.Who says Rittenhouse shot him in the back? You certainly can't see it on the video.
It seems entirely reasonable to me. The guy told Rittenhouse he was going to kill him. He tried to take Rittenhouses rifle.It has to be a reasonable belief, fucking moron. That is going to come down to what the jury decides is reasonable.
You missed some key testimony, didn't you?Nobody saw where the shots hit so of course no witnesses testify to that. For that we turn to the medical examiner.
we arent talking about where they hit but when they were fired,,and what you claim is wrong,,Nobody saw where the shots hit so of course no witnesses testify to that. For that we turn to the medical examiner.
The prosecutor's witness clarified all of that and said that Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum lunged at him.You really should pay better attention, fucking moron.
Yes, I believe he reasonably felt his life was in danger.Testimony so far indicates that Rittenhouse reasonably believed that Rosenbaum intended to take his rifle, which one can only assume that if his rifle is taken, he will be shot with it.
So, tell us, based no the testimony so far, do you believe that Rittenhouse reasonably believed his life was in danger when Rosenbaum lunged at him and tried to take the rifle?
(you won't answer)
Because he is losing pathetically.not sure why youre moving the goal post,,
So, why are you still taking the position that murder charges are justified?Yes, I believe he reasonably felt his life was in danger.
Faux the dumbass should pay attention.The prosecutor's witness clarified all of that and said that Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum lunged at him.
Did you see that?
Matters not if it seems reasonable to a fucking moron like you. It only matters what the jury finds reasonable.It seems entirely reasonable to me. The guy told Rittenhouse he was going to kill him. He tried to take Rittenhouses rifle.
Nope.You missed some key testimony, didn't you?
Of course it matters where they hit. Someone who is face down after being shot 3 times is no longer a threat. Shooting them a 4th time in the back is excessive force.we arent talking about where they hit but when they were fired,,and what you claim is wrong,,
not sure why youre moving the goal post,,