M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
-Snort-Your truth is not the truth of any sane person.
Why do you believe Rittenhouse shot someone that was not attacking, or about to attack, him?
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.
-Snort-Your truth is not the truth of any sane person.
What you meant to post, of course, was: "Absolutely correct in all respects." Look, we get it...you want a show trial followed by a witch burning.Nonsense JarBoy
You wouldn't recognize the truth if it marched past you playing Thriller on a pink flugelhorn.Your truth is not the truth of any sane person.
UPDATE: Yesterday the judge saw it my way and dismissed the weapons charge because the law was ambiguous.And of course the statute that the anti-civil rights scumbag prosecution cites is extremely ambiguous, at best. In that case, the court must decide in favor of the accused.
That's a SCOTUS precedent.
I've researched this case.Sounds like he set a fire in a dumpster.
I've researched this case.
That day that's not the only crime Rosenbaum committed before he attacked Kyle for no legitimate reason and earned his Darwin award.
He was literally on a crime spree.
His first crime that day that I know of was when he called his girlfriend from the psychiatric hospital and told her he was being discharged. That violated a court protection order saying that he could have no contact with her.
He then went to the motel where she lived. Another violation of the protection order. After she refused to let the homeless Rittenhouse stay with her he walked ~4 miles to join the riot. Rioting is a crime.
At the riot he pushed over a porta potty at a demolition site and lit a fire. That's vandalism and arson.
Then Rosenbaum, Ziminski (the guy who fired the first shot at Carsource 3) and others stole a heavy equipment trailer and turned it over in Sheridan road to block emergency vehicles and lit it on fire. That's class H felony theft, arson and obstructing emergency or rescue personnel.
Kyle testified that he witnessed that crime, Ziminski has been charged with arson for setting the trailer on fire and ADA Binger said that if Rosenbaum was alive, he would be charged with arson too.
Rosenbaum is also seen with others pushing a dumpster they stole from a gas station that they set on fire towards police vehicles. That's class I felony theft, arson and obstructing emergency personnel.
So that day Rosenbaum committed...
Arson X3
Violation of protection order X2
Felony theft X2
Obstructing emergency or rescue personnel X2
Vandalism
Rioting
That's 11 crimes in one day. And those are just the crimes we know about. There may have been many more. That was a hell of a crime spree Rosenbaum was on before he attacked Kyle and earned his Darwin award.
Good looking out.rosenbaum, not rittenhouse
Wisconsin law begs to differ. Note Section 948.60Expert testifies that Kyle was within his rights to defend himself considering the circumstances. This young man will, and should be found not guilty.
Kyle Rittenhouse's decision to shoot was reasonable, use-of-force expert testifies
A use-of-force expert testified that Kyle Rittenhouse’s decision to shoot three people during a riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year was reasonable.www.foxnews.com
That charge has been dropped.Wisconsin law begs to differ. Note Section 948.60
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
TheDefiantOne said:
Wisconsin law begs to differ. Note Section 948.60
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Really? That's dumb, being that he is clearly in violation of that part of the law. What are they replacing it with?That charge has been dropped.
nope, the gun charge was dropped, he legally possessed the rifle.Wisconsin law begs to differ. Note Section 948.60
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
dropped.Really? That's dumb, being that he is clearly in violation of that part of the law. What are they replacing it with?
nope. no violation.Really? That's dumb, being that he is clearly in violation of that part of the law. What are they replacing it with?
TheDefiantOne said:
Really? That's dumb, being that he is clearly in violation of that part of the law. What are they replacing it with?
that's not what Wisconsin law says. Look at section 948.60nope. no violation.
See: (1)that's not what Wisconsin law says. Look at section 948.60
Why they would drop this charge is beyond me. Can you provide the link?Wisconsin Legislature: 948.55
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Ahh, but remember the charge was valid by Wisconsin law. I proved that with the link. Kyle Rittenhouse.....use of force expert!The Prosecutor didn't know the law either. Thats the only explanation for them bringing that charge. This prosecution doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.