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

[TemplarKormac]

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.

That's not what the videos say.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

And to be clear. You have consistently failed to back up anything. A photo of a gun shot wound of entry doesn’t establish that the guy was shot IN the back for reasons the expert witness conceded on cross. You can’t just wish that away you petty disingenuous simpleton.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Faun]

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

Which just goes to show how retarded you are; and while you may fool yourself into believing you're defeating my argument, all you're really doing is exposing your own ignorance.

Case in point, your quote above. I never once said Rittenhouse may have forfeited his legal right of self defense for pointing his gun at an "armed pursuer."

Now everyone here sees all this time you've been arguing with the voices in your head and not what I'm actually saying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Yeah, I laughed at you and ignored you like the putrid mucus on the sidewalk of humanity that you are the last 325 times you trotted out your insult list, but THIS time, I'm magically going to respect you and care what you think.

Your masters really never gave you any instructions what to do when, "Aha!! I disapprove of you, so THERE!" doesn't work, did they? Poor, ignorant little vermin. Sent out to make a fool of yourself, and don't even know it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lied about what?

That Rittenhouse provoked the attack by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum/Ziminski. All the videos I posted blow that claim (and by proxy, your argument) out of the water.

 

[BackAgain]

Which just goes to show how retarded you are; and while you may fool yourself into believing you're defeating my argument, all you're really doing is exposing your own ignorance.

Case in point, your quote above. I never once said Rittenhouse may have forfeited his legal right of self defense for pointing his gun at an "armed pursuer."

Now everyone here sees all this time you've been arguing with the voices in your head and not what I'm actually saying.

Amazing. Now you deny your own position.

Your argument IS that the defendant’s claim of self defense is gutted BECAUSE he pointed his weapon at the armed pursuer. This IS your argument BECAUSE you claim this amounts to “provoking” that pursuer (which would negate a claim of self defense).

Accordingly, you are caught in your own web of ignorance and deception.

putting your present effort at deflection aside, the facts remain. Your position has been fully exposed as valid and it stands refuted. This doesn’t mean that a jury isn’t capable of buying the pathetic prosecutor’s argument (the same crap you spew). It simply means that your argument is a web of ephemeral bullshit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And before we get to the part where Faun says "but those videos can't be admitted as evidence! Rittenhouse is guilty!!1!11!!!"

The FBI withheld those videos for 14 months knowing full well they would exonerate Rittenhouse. That is obstruction of justice.

 

[Faun]

And to be clear. You have consistently failed to back up anything. A photo of a gun shot wound of entry doesn’t establish that the guy was shot IN the back for reasons the expert witness conceded on cross. You can’t just wish that away you petty disingenuous simpleton.

LOL

You fail again. The witness answered, "that's correct," to the defenses question, “We’re not saying he was turned and shot in the back correct?”

But that was never asserted by anyone in this case. No one suggested Rosenbaum turned and was shot in the back.

So you prove to be wrong yet again. The expert witness did not concede the prosecution's claim that Rosenbaum fell forward, face down, when he was shot in the back.

 

[Faun]

That Rittenhouse provoked the attack by pointing his weapon at Rosenbaum/Ziminski. All the videos I posted blow that claim (and by proxy, your argument) out of the water.

I never once said anything about Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Ziminski, so you too are arguing with voices in your head and nothing I'm claiming. So I didn't lie about that.

As far as Rittenhouse provoking Rosenbaum to go for his gun, that is not a lie. The judge said the jury can consider that. so I didn't lie about that either.

Can you freaks bring in your A-team? You bench warmers are flopping around like a dying fish on a dock.

 

[Faun]

Amazing. Now you deny your own position.

Your argument IS that the defendant’s claim of self defense is gutted BECAUSE he pointed his weapon at the armed pursuer. This IS your argument BECAUSE you claim this amounts to “provoking” that pursuer (which would negate a claim of self defense).

Accordingly, you are caught in your own web of ignorance and deception.

putting your present effort at deflection aside, the facts remain. Your position has been fully exposed as valid and it stands refuted. This doesn’t mean that a jury isn’t capable of buying the pathetic prosecutor’s argument (the same crap you spew). It simply means that your argument is a web of ephemeral bullshit.

"Your argument IS that the defendant’s claim of self defense is gutted BECAUSE he pointed his weapon at the armed pursuer."

LOLOLOL

I never said that, you flaming retarded ball of ignorance.

Watch this as I utterly destroy you...

Quote me saying Rittenhouse pointed his gun at an armed pursuer....

When you can't, since I didn't, that will be an opportune moment for you to admit you're an idiot and slink away from this topic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never once said anything about Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Ziminski, so you too are arguing with voices in your head and nothing I'm claiming. So I didn't lie about that.

As far as Rittenhouse provoking Rosenbaum to go for his gun, that is not a lie. The judge said the jury can consider that. so I didn't lie about that either.

Can you freaks bring in your A-team? You bench warmers are flopping around like a dying fish on a dock.

Lolol.

Your argument was that Rittenhouse provoked the attack by pointing his weapon at them.

First lie.

You are STILL claiming that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the back while he was face down on the ground.

Second lie.

Both refuted.

But please continue this disturbing display of self flagellation. But I would ask that you let me have my turn flogging you, too.

 

[Faun]

And before we get to the part where Faun says "but those videos can't be admitted as evidence! Rittenhouse is guilty!!1!11!!!"

The FBI withheld those videos for 14 months knowing full well they would exonerate Rittenhouse. That is obstruction of justice.

You really shouldn't lie about other peoples' positions. The FBI video, which actually was given to the defense, is very damaging to the defense. Otherwise the prosecution wouldn't have submitted it as evidence. It presents 2 key pieces of evidence...

1) Rittenhouse aimed his gun at Rosenbaum before Ziminski fired his gun.

2) Rosenbaum was on the ground face down when the 3rd & 4th shots were fired.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Rittenhouse aimed his gun at Rosenbaum before Ziminski fired his gun.

Ziminiski fired his gun before Rittenhouse did anything, you idiot.

2) Rosenbaum was on the ground face down when the 3rd & 4th shots were fired.

No. All 4 shots were fired in a span of .736 seconds, which means all the shots entered Rosenbaum before he fell to the ground.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You really shouldn't lie about other peoples' positions

I'm not. Your changing positions are here for everyone in this thread to see.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never once said anything about Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Ziminski, so you too are arguing with voices in your head and nothing I'm claiming. So I didn't lie about that.

As far as Rittenhouse provoking Rosenbaum to go for his gun, that is not a lie. The judge said the jury can consider that. so I didn't lie about that either.

Can you freaks bring in your A-team? You bench warmers are flopping around like a dying fish on a dock.

...

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.​

Please, for the love of all that is holy, keep that forked tongue of yours silent.

 

[Faun]

Lolol.

Your argument was that Rittenhouse provoked the attack by pointing his weapon at them.

First lie.

You are STILL claiming that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the back while he was face down on the ground.

Second lie.

Both refuted.

But please continue this disturbing display of self flagellation. But I would ask that you let me have my turn flogging you, too.

You're flailing, shitstain. The first is not a lie as demonstrated by the judge allowing the jury to consider it; something he would not allow if it was a lie. Judges don't take kindly to lies.

The second is not a lie as demonstrated by the drone video which shows it.

 

[Faun]

Ziminiski fired his gun before Rittenhouse did anything, you idiot.

Lie.

No. All 4 shots were fired in a span of .736 seconds, which means all the shots entered Rosenbaum before he fell to the ground.

Lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The first is not a lie as demonstrated by the judge allowing the jury to consider it

The judge made no ruling on the veracity of the claim, loser. He said that's for the jury to determine.

 

[Faun]

I'm not. Your changing positions are here for everyone in this thread to see.

Of course you are. Want proof...?

Quote me saying, or even intimidating, videos should be suppressed....