Soupnazi630
Gold Member
- Dec 9, 2013
- 19,210
- 5,635
- 265
Rittenhouse did not shoot Rosenbaum in the back you dumb fucking foolAww, poor baby. Sure beats having to defend Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the back.
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.
Rittenhouse did not shoot Rosenbaum in the back you dumb fucking foolAww, poor baby. Sure beats having to defend Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the back.
For what reason?He was a prohibited person, dumbshit.
LOLOLso theress no video of him standing over him shooting him in the back,,
got it,,
Maybe to a fucking moron like you, but he had a bullet hole in his back and the medical examiner performing the autopsy noted he was shot in the back.It doesn't look like Rittenhouse shot him in the back.
He wasn't. He fell to the ground at Rittenhouse's feet, ya fucking moron.How could Rittenhouse shoot him in the back if Rosenbaum is still running towards Rittenhouse?
Rittenhouse did not shoot him in the back liar.LOLOL
Of course there is. How else did Rittenhouse shoot him in the back?
After being shot while attacking Rittenhouse you fucking cowardHe wasn't. He fell to the ground at Rittenhouse's feet, ya fucking moron.
Watch the fucking video.He wasn't. He fell to the ground at Rittenhouse's feet, ya fucking moron.
I've already stated it many times. I believe shooting Rosenbaum in the back was excessive force. The law only allows for enough force necessary to stop a threat. It is not necessary to shoot someone in the back to stop a threat.Okay, so tell us what about this situation removes Rittenhouse's self-defense claim?
Here's the law, in case you need to refer to it:
Wisconsin Statutes 939.48 - Self-Defense
Fucking moron, what I'm saying is on the video.Watch the fucking video.
Rittenhouse did not shoot Rosenbaum in the back so your repitition is a proven repeated lie.I've already stated it many times. I believe shooting Rosenbaum in the back was excessive force. The law only allows for enough force necessary to stop a threat. It is not necessary to shoot someone in the back to stop a threat.
No it is not you lying cowardFucking moron, what I'm saying is on the video.![]()
I sure as hell didn't see it.Fucking moron, what I'm saying is on the video.![]()
no one did.I sure as hell didn't see it.
LOLOLWe agree that one of the bullets hit Rosenbaum in the back. 4 rounds fired in quick precession typically have all sorts of different trajectories.
That's not the same thing as Rittenhouse walking up behind Rosenbaum and shooting him right in the back.
You are DEFINITELY trying to spin it in that direction.
So?I sure as hell didn't see it.
Faun is playing pettifogger and running hard and loose with the facts.After being shot while attacking Rittenhouse you fucking coward
then why havent you posted it??LOLOL
Of course there is. How else did Rittenhouse shoot him in the back?