Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[Meathead]

Coming from a lying racist republican Defending a murderer who carried an AR 15

No murder. No one questions it's a homicide, but thugs die from that all the time.

 

[Faun]

"kept"

Matters not, he provoked being attacked by pointing his gun. Up until then, he was just being chased.

941.20 - Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:

(c) Except as provided in sub. (1m), intentionally points a firearm at or toward another.​

 

[Faun]

No you are lying I said there was no evidence Rittenhouse shot him in the back go ahead and paste my post you coward

I already quoted you and will happily do so again to show everyone here you're a lying skeeve...

He shot no one in the back

And that was after you outright denied Rosenbaum was shot in the back at all...

No one was shot in the back or face down you moron.

​

 

[BackAgain]

Why? You said z bullet hole in the back doesn't mean he was shot in the back. So show where else you think he was shot then because the reality is -- he was shot in the back.

Already refuted. I even quoted the cross exam of the medical examiner. Since you are determined to be either disingenuous or dishonest, however, I will expose your rhetorically fraudulent attempt to exploit an ambiguity. The ambiguous term is “shot in the back”.

If you are walking away from the guy with the rifle and the bullet enters your back, you were obviously shot in the back.

But, as in the Rittenhouse case, by contrast, you can have a bullet wound of entry in the back without having been SHOT IN the back.

Why? Because the shot could have come from in front — BUT FIRED while you were falling downward and charging forward, thereby exposing that area to the rifle. And I don’t care how much you try to quibble, you fraud. Your argument isn’t with me or even the defense attorney who asked the Medical Examiner the questions. Your complaint is about the expert testimony of the expert witness who was indeed under oath.

Strangely enough, the credibility and claims of the expert forensic witness is miles above your own cred and claims.

 

[BackAgain]

Matters not, he provoked being attacked by pointing his gun. Up until then, he was just being chased.

941.20 - Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.​

​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:​

​

(c) Except as provided in sub. (1m), intentionally points a firearm at or toward another.​

An idiotic claim. It’s so absurd that I’d expect the pathetic prosecutor to argue that to the jury. Future gunshot wound (let’s call him “idiot”) rioter chases an armed person. Idiot rioter is armed.

Fraudy Faun’s contention is that the armed person being chased is not allowed to point (not yet fire) his rifle at the idiot rioter because that would “provoke” the aforesaid idiot rioter. Common sense (which Fraudy Faun obviously lacks) will inform any reasonable person that this is NOT the intended meaning of “provoked.”

EDIT: actually I am not 100% certain of which gunshot wound victim or victims had a gun. I’ll have to go back and double check

 

[Flash]

Context:

1. Ziminski fired his weapon into the air.

2. Rosenbaum then charged Rittenhouse

3. Rittenhouse attempted to flee, but Rosenbaum continued the pursuit.

4. Rosenbaum was given no other alternative but to attempt deterrence, which failed.

5. Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum in self-defense.

Rosenbaum was already chasing him.

Words "he kept" implies had been chasing him before that point.

Moreover the video I posted shows Rittenhouse pointing his arm, not his weapon at Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

Notably, when Ziminski fired into the air, that most certainly triggered Rittenhouse's fight or flight response. Because not soon after, Rosenbaum charged him, which led to the sequence of events in question.

Your argument is invalid.

Why isn't that shithead Ziminski in jail for "reckless endangerment" a charge that was made against Kyle?

Why isn't this GG asshole in jail for illegally carrying a pistol and then aiming at Kyle?

Why are scores, if not hundreds of Negroes and ANTIFA in jail for all the destruction they caused in Kenosha and the rest of the US?

If the resourses of the fucking FBI was used to track down the Patriots that protested against the stolen election on 6/1 why can't the same resources be used to find the shitheads that spent six months looting, murdering, destroying and rioting in over 200 American cities?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Matters not, he provoked being attacked by pointing his gun. Up until then, he was just being chased.

941.20 - Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.​

​

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:​

​

(c) Except as provided in sub. (1m), intentionally points a firearm at or toward another.​

You are ignoring the videos. Typical you.

 

[Faun]

Context:

1. Ziminski fired his weapon into the air.

2. Rosenbaum then charged Rittenhouse

3. Rittenhouse attempted to flee, but Rosenbaum continued the pursuit.

4. Rosenbaum was given no other alternative but to attempt deterrence, which failed.

5. Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum in self-defense.

Rosenbaum was already chasing him.

Words "he kept" implies had been chasing him before that point.

Moreover the video I posted shows Rittenhouse pointing his arm, not his weapon at Rosenbaum and Ziminski.

Notably, when Ziminski fired into the air, that most certainly triggered Rittenhouse's fight or flight response. Because not soon after, Rosenbaum charged him, which led to the sequence of events in question.

Your argument is invalid.

I only got as far as item #1...

1. Ziminski fired his weapon into the air.​

Before that happened, Rittenhouse had already pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.

 

[Faun]

Nah, you don't need company.

LOLOL

He already admitted he's stupid.

 

[Faun]

Lied about what?

 

[Soupnazi630]

I already quoted you and will happily do so again to show everyone here you're a lying skeeve...

​

And that was after you outright denied Rosenbaum was shot in the back at all...

​

No you did not you lied

 

[Faun]

Already refuted. I even quoted the cross exam of the medical examiner. Since you are determined to be either disingenuous or dishonest, however, I will expose your rhetorically fraudulent attempt to exploit an ambiguity. The ambiguous term is “shot in the back”.

If you are walking away from the guy with the rifle and the bullet enters your back, you were obviously shot in the back.

But, as in the Rittenhouse case, by contrast, you can have a bullet wound of entry in the back without having been SHOT IN the back.

Why? Because the shot could have come from in front — BUT FIRED while you were falling downward and charging forward, thereby exposing that area to the rifle. And I don’t care how much you try to quibble, you fraud. Your argument isn’t with me or even the defense attorney who asked the Medical Examiner the questions. Your complaint is about the expert testimony of the expert witness who was indeed under oath.

Strangely enough, the credibility and claims of the expert forensic witness is miles above your own cred and claims.

You're utterly confused and refuted nothing.

But, as in the Rittenhouse case, by contrast, you can have a bullet wound of entry in the back without having been SHOT IN the back. ​

The only way you can have a bullet wound in the back without having been shot in the back is if it's an exit wound. And that bullet wound is not an exit wound.

 

[BackAgain]

I was away for a while. Back in the day, Faun was pretty much always this way. Unable to honestly support his claims. Also showed a general propensity to deliberately or stupidly misconstrue factual matters.

I see he hasn’t changed. He may have been born a douchebag but he hasn’t rested on his laurels. He has apparently gotten an advanced degree in douchebaggery.

It defies logic to claim that pointing a gun at an armed pursuer means you have “provoked” the armed pursuer.

 

[BackAgain]

You're utterly confused and refuted nothing.

But, as in the Rittenhouse case, by contrast, you can have a bullet wound of entry in the back without having been SHOT IN the back. ​

The only way you can have a bullet wound in the back without having been shot in the back is if it's an exit wound. And that bullet wound is not an exit wound.

Idiot Fraud Faun can’t even admit when he has been refuted. As the Medical Examiner testified under oath, in fact, one can indeed have a bullet wound of entry in his back but nevertheless have been facing and approaching the person who shot him at that time. So Fauny’s disagreement is with the testimonial position of the medical doctor forensic expert witness called by the prosecution!

Alas, Fauny simply has no credibility.

 

[Faun]

An idiotic claim. It’s so absurd that I’d expect the pathetic prosecutor to argue that to the jury. Future gunshot wound (let’s call him “idiot”) rioter chases an armed person. Idiot rioter is armed.

Fraudy Faun’s contention is that the armed person being chased is not allowed to point (not yet fire) his rifle at the idiot rioter because that would “provoke” the aforesaid idiot rioter. Common sense (which Fraudy Faun obviously lacks) will inform any reasonable person that this is NOT the intended meaning of “provoked.”

EDIT: actually I am not 100% certain of which gunshot wound victim or victims had a gun. I’ll have to go back and double check

"It’s so absurd that I’d expect the pathetic prosecutor to argue that to the jury."

You're beyond stupid to think it's either absurd or unexpected to argue.

Of course the prosecution is going to argue Rittenhouse forfeited his legal right of self defense by provoking Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

Why?

Because Rittenhouse admitted he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Because pointing a gun at someone is provocative. Because a person can't legally use self defense in Wisconsin if they provoked an attack. And because the judge is allowing the jury to consider the first 3 "becauses"...

U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.

www.reuters.com

 

[BackAgain]

"It’s so absurd that I’d expect the pathetic prosecutor to argue that to the jury."

You're beyond stupid to think it's either absurd or unexpected to argue.

Of course the prosecution is going to argue Rittenhouse forfeited his legal right of self defense by provoking Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

Why?

Because Rittenhouse admitted he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Because pointing a gun at someone is provocative. Because a person can't legally use self defense in Wisconsin if they provoked an attack. And because the judge is allowing the jury to consider the first 3 "becauses"...

U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.

www.reuters.com

The endless stupidity and confusion demonstrated by Fraudulent Faun gets more desperate each time he replies. Rather amusing.

breaking it down: the pathetic prosecutor must make arguments. But that doesn’t mean his arguments are premised on logic or common sense.

BECAUSE he has to argue is just not the same as the claim that his arguments have merit. He begins with an incontrovertible fact here. The defendant was being PURSUED by an armed man.

The defendant (who was clearly himself armed AS his pursuer was pursuing him) eventually turned around to face his pursuer. From these premises, idiot Fauny and the weak ass prosecutor want a jury to conclude that the defendant is the one who “provoked” the pursuer by virtue of pointing a weapon “at” the armed moron pursuer.

 

[Faun]

No you did not you lied

LOLOL

Keep going. I'll post your lies every time.

You denied ever saying Rosenbaum was shot in the back...

No I said gthere is no evidence Rittenhouse shot him. Others were shooting

You said he wasn't shot in the back. I proved he was.

​

...but here you are saying Rosenbaum wasn't shot in the back before you changed your story to he was shot in the back but by someone other than Rittenhouse...

No one was shot in the back or face down you moron.

​

 

[Faun]

The endless stupidity and confusion demonstrated by Fraudulent Faun gets more desperate each time he replies. Rather amusing.

breaking it down: the pathetic prosecutor must make arguments. But that doesn’t mean his arguments are premised on logic or common sense.

BECAUSE he has to argue is just not the same as the claim that his arguments have merit. He begins with an incontrovertible fact here. The defendant was being PURSUED by an armed man.

The defendant (who was clearly himself armed AS his pursuer was pursuing him) eventually turned around to face his pursuer. From these premises, idiot Fauny and the weak ass prosecutor want a jury to conclude that the defendant is the one who “provoked” the pursuer by virtue of pointing a weapon “at” the armed moron pursuer.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck... Rittenhouse admitted it. The judge then said the jury can consider Rittenhouse could have provoked the attack. And on Monday, I fully expect that be front and center fro both sides.

 

[Faun]

I was away for a while. Back in the day, Faun was pretty much always this way. Unable to honestly support his claims. Also showed a general propensity to deliberately or stupidly misconstrue factual matters.

I see he hasn’t changed. He may have been born a douchebag but he hasn’t rested on his laurels. He has apparently gotten an advanced degree in douchebaggery.

It defies logic to claim that pointing a gun at an armed pursuer means you have “provoked” the armed pursuer.

Nah, you're lying. I'm backing my claims with videos, pictures, news articles, links to Wisconsin law, and quotes.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[BackAgain]

"It’s so absurd that I’d expect the pathetic prosecutor to argue that to the jury."

You're beyond stupid to think it's either absurd or unexpected to argue.

Of course the prosecution is going to argue Rittenhouse forfeited his legal right of self defense by provoking Rosenbaum by pointing his gun at him.

Why?

Because Rittenhouse admitted he pointed his gun at Rosenbaum. Because pointing a gun at someone is provocative. Because a person can't legally use self defense in Wisconsin if they provoked an attack. And because the judge is allowing the jury to consider the first 3 "becauses"...

U.S. judge in Rittenhouse trial says jury can consider teen provoked attack

The judge in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse said on Friday he would instruct the jury they can consider the prosecution's argument that the teenager provoked an encounter with one of two men he fatally shot during protests in Wisconsin last year.

www.reuters.com

Yeah. A judge is allowing a jury to “consider” a question of fact for the jury. But to reach the idiotic conclusion you and the pathetic prosecutor hope the jury “finds,” the proposition is that by pointing your rifle at an armed pursuer you are thereby “provoking” the armed pursuer. Your position doesn’t pass the lamest giggle test.

Examine what passes for your logic. Put guns aside. Let’s simplify it by making it straight non deadly self defense.

A PURSUES B and is threatening physical violence like, “I’m gonna punch you in your stupid face.” B reacts reasonably by thinking, “hell. A has been chasing me. He just threatened me. I better be prepared for a physical altercation.” Consequently, if not instinctively, he raises his fists in a classic fighter pose.

YOUR idiotic logic would hold that B isn’t allowed to invoke self defense, now, BECAUSE he “provoked” A by raising his fists.

I doubt the jury will prove ridiculous enough to buy your obviously flawed attempt at argument. But even if they do, I’d venture another guess. Any conviction on such count will be reversed on appeal.

very sorry all of this flies over your little stubbornly vacant pin head.