Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head

[MadChemist]

They call this journalism.

It is amazing how the low the bar has dropped. There is no visible daylight below it.

Kyle Rittenhouse, Kenosha, and the Sheepdog Mentality

Rittenhouse appears to live in a fantasy world where police and car dealerships are more endangered than unarmed Black men, and where he is a warrior.

www.theatlantic.com

Speculation and judgement as well as slanted statements about guns.

Absolutely disgusting.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

Right? Can’t read, can’t see

 

[MadChemist]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

Right? Can’t read, can’t see

I am unable to discern if this overt lying or simple ignorance.

It's to the point, I don't trust anyone's motives.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

 

[Faun]

You can't say it was used as a weapon when you don't even know what it is

Lol wtf there is video of it being used as a weapon .. of you see someone show with a gun but don’t know what Trump of gun is it not a weapon? Lol

Try again in English, comrade. I don't speak stupid.

Opps lol if you see somebody shot a gun and but you don’t know what type of gun is it not a weapon?

LOL

Dumbfuck, what kind of gun is not a weapon?

But you don’t know what type of gun it is, how can it be a weapon.. that’s your logic..

Dumbfuck, because all guns are weapons.

So isn’t a object in a bag being thrown at someone lol DO YOU GET IT YET!? Lol

Nope, not all objects are weapons. To constitute as a weapon, it would have to be something capable of harming the teen murderer. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Without knowing what it was, you can't say it's a weapon.

Only someone on the side of the criminals, would call a person a "murderer" for defending himself.

I can't help you're an idiot who can't fathom that not everyone agrees with you.

No, I understand that. I also understand that you can clearly see he was defending himself. Thus your position is an after the fact rationalization for the attack, not a real rational thought.

I believe he started out by defending himself but I also believe he used excessive force not protected by Wisconsin law; and that at some point during those 4 shots, it went from self defense to murder.

Your desire to second guess him, and his decisions made when his life was being threatened by a howling mob, while you are in the comfort of your own living room,

is completely wrong.

People are not held to that standard of behavior, not in a just or fair court.

Um, actually, he will be held to that same standard in court as jurors will have to decide if he responded with justifiable force.

He should not. That is not the normal standard self defense is supposed to be judged by.


It is insane to not make allowance for the fact that life and death situations are scary and chaotic.


And unjust.


YOu support injustice.

This was an interesting analysis:

Column: Here’s why Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen shooting suspect in Kenosha killings, is likely to get off

Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teen who prosecutors allege killed two and wounded one in shootings during street protests in Kenosha on Aug. 25, has a good self-defense claim and will probably be acquitted on those charges.

www.chicagotribune.com

You'll notice the claim that despite the fact he was illegally carrying a firearm, he can still defend himself. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in court.

That's not his only challenge. Excessive force is too.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

Right? Can’t read, can’t see

I am unable to discern if this overt lying or simple ignorance.

It's to the point, I don't trust anyone's motives.

Or you could just watch the video yourself.

 

[Jitss617]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless your one of the mob that was there. The guy that was shot in the arm was packing a Glock.
Thank God for the Second Amendment, whether you agree or not with it.

Did any of the "victims" shoot anyone?

Since the first person Kyle shot was killed by a shot fired from behind, its certainly possible.

 

[Faun]

View attachment 384798View attachment 384799

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

The first guy tried to hit him in the head with a brick....like Reginald Denny style....Mr. Denny is still having trouble walking and speaking...in case you went to public school and don't know who Denny is look it up.....tell you what...I'll give you a rifle and I will attack you with a brick from behind....what would you do?...take the hit?....

Reginald Denny wasnt attacking anybody, he was just driving a truck.

What a coincidence. Mr. Rittenhouse wasn't attacking anyone when someone tried to hit him with a brick, either.

There was no brick thrown at him. Cons just can't stop lying.

What’s in the bag? Let me sit back on my coffee while you research. Hehe

Not a brick. You think that's a hammer though, right?

Does the object inside really matter.. it was still a weapon

Faun believes that a person being attacked, has a duty to be able to see inside of the bag and just know whether or not it is a brick or a stuffed teddy bear.

And unless he can provide x-ray vision based photos, downloaded from his brain via bat computer, his right to self defense is not applicable.

LOL
I like how you have to make up my position in order to win an argument.

You're the one arguing about what is inside the bag, not me. I just pointed out your unstated but required premise, for your argument to make any "sense".

It matters not because the bag didn't hit the teen murderer nor did the teen murderer fire his weapon because a bag was thrown at him.

A mob in chasing you and now a mob is chasing you and throwing things at you and you hear gunshots coming from the mob that is chasing you.


And you don't think that having "things thrown at you" in that setting is relevant?

Sure you don't.


What this is, is you supporting your mob and the idea that your mob has the moral and legal right to rule the streets and beat to death anyone that it chooses, so as to terrorize and silence your political enemies.


But, it's not working. People are fighting back. So, the question now is, are you prepared to have your people die in the pursuit of political power. Are you that certain that you cannot win an election based on the merits of your ideas?

One person is not a mob. There was no one else with Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

An interesting claim. And completely insane.

Being insane will not change things when the shit gets real and the people that are stupid enough to try to act out your ideas, find themselves facing someone prepared to defend themselves.


At least some of them will die. And for what?

Why are you pissing away the lives of your people?

LOLOL

You're crazy enough to think pointing out to you one person does not constitute a mob, is insane? That kinda makes you insane.

mob​

1. a large and disorderly crowd of people

I think you claiming something that we all know to be a lie, is insane of you.

I told no lie. I pointed out that one person is not a mob, that's true. And I pointed out you can't say something is a weapon when you can't say what that something is. That's also true.

The Ritterhouse managed to run away enough that, for a moment, there was only one other person in the video clip with him, does not mean that he was not being pursued by the mob.

Your sophist nonsense in defense of the violent mob, is just you admitting what side you are on.

Here's the beginning of the conflict between Rosenbaum and the the teen murderer. There was no one else chasing him. This matches up with an eyewitness account according to the charging document.



And while I condemn the mob's violent actions, I don't condemn their attempts to disarm the teen murderer after they saw him shoot Rosenbaum.

View attachment 384798

And what's plainly visible in that video is that no one other than Rosenbaum was chasing the teen murderer.

Looked like they were going the same way he was

LOLOL

Your observation proves you're insane as the people on the sidewalk never leave the sidewalk, even as Rosenbaum chases the teen murderer away from the sidewalk.

What’s your point?

That you're a nut who denies reality.

Because they are on a side walk they weren’t moving towards him? Huh? Lol

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, he ran away from the sidewalk. For them to follow him, they too would have had to leave the side walk. They didn't. You completely and utterly lack critical thinking.

You mean the mob? Hehe

Yes, the mob that didn't chase him.

So what were they doing with poles, guns and objects in bags?

Don't know but it doesn't matter since the mob didn't chase him until after he shot someone.

Well he defended him
Self, so they ran like chickens and dropped the poles
As you can hear lol

So? They still didn't chase him until he shot someone. Are you always this stupid?

Lol he just started running .. they filled that area kinda fast don’t ya think lol

He was chased by Rosenbaum. The others ran over after Rosenbaum was shot.

They all chased him some moved faster then others .. it was a mob with poles guns and objects

Nope, the only one to chase him was Rosenbaum. It's on video. If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie.

There is no lie.

From the New York Times:

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I guess they don't know how to watch video either.

The video shows only Rosenbaum chasing the teen murderer.

View attachment 385483View attachment 385484

Same as the other day you posted that, the folks circled in that frame remained on the sidewalk and did not chase the teen murderer.

I know you're crazy enough to think if you keep posting it, that outcome will change, but instead, you only reaffirm the axiom of crazy.

 

[Faun]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless your one of the mob that was there. The guy that was shot in the arm was packing a Glock.
Thank God for the Second Amendment, whether you agree or not with it.

Did any of the "victims" shoot anyone?

Since the first person Kyle shot was killed by a shot fired from behind, its certainly possible.

Or it's possible the teen murderer shot him in the back. Nice claim of self-defense, huh? Shooting someone in the back?

 

[gtopa1]

Gee; am I the only one waiting for the actual findings.....OK...Repubs are mostly doing the same. Dems are bsc as usual!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless your one of the mob that was there. The guy that was shot in the arm was packing a Glock.
Thank God for the Second Amendment, whether you agree or not with it.

Did any of the "victims" shoot anyone?

Since the first person Kyle shot was killed by a shot fired from behind, its certainly possible.

Or it's possible the teen murderer shot him in the back. Nice claim of self-defense, huh? Shooting someone in the back?

You woulda just run away and kept running!! You have form in such matters. lol

Greg

 

[AZrailwhale]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

Yes he has.

He has not completely linked his position to the constitutionality of the law.

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Says 17-Year-Old Acted ‘100 Percent’ in ‘Self-Defense,’ Was Legally Carrying Rifle | National Review

Rittenhouse carried an AR-15-style rifle and was attempting to protect businesses from being looted or set ablaze by demonstrators, his lawyer said.

www.nationalreview.com

“This is 100 percent self-defense,” Rittenhouse’s lawyer John Pierce said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. “The only individuals Kyle shot were the three individuals attacking him and putting him at risk. This is a 17-year-old kid, this is amazing what he did.”

The article then goes on to say that the lawyer will challenge the constitutionality of the law.

But there is nothing to indicate that is what his entire case hinges on.

It largely does hinge on that law. If one cannot claim self defense because as the laws state, self does not apply to those engaged in criminal activity, then the judge will be obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot consider Rittenhouse’s argument of self defense. That's the reason his attorney wants to nullify Wis. 948.60.

You don’t understand. In court a presumption doesn’t have to be proven. The section you keep quoting merely says the PRESUMPTION doesn’t apply. So the defense has to prove self defense. All of the videos plus the surviving attacker’s own words are more than sufficient to prove self defense. The only legitimate charges are a minor in possession of a firearm, and curfew violation. The curfew violation will be taken care of by having the police testify that they wouldn’t let him return to the property he was defending. The DA will probably drop the firearm charge in return for a agreement for Kyle not suing the city for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

OJ walked because the trial wasn’t held in the Beverly Hills courthouse where it should have been and Judge Ito was a star struck idiot who let OJs “dream team” run amok in his courtroom with their theatrics and inadmissible testimony. Also the quality of the jurors was horrible. I saw one of the jurors after the trial saying “I don’t know no DNA, DNA just means OJ gots blood”.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sick Kyle shot an unarmed person 5 times. Anyone who is evil enough to call that self defense is utterly irredeamable.

Huh it was self defense.. are Republicans not able to use their constitutional right of self-defense?

One of the victims was shot in the back. That takes away any plausibity of self defense

The first attacker was shot in the back WHILE FACING Kyle. Unless Kyle was using ACME Wil E. Coyote-style bullets that can turn around in mid flight the first attacker was killed by one of his fellow rioters, NOT Kyle.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

Yes he has.

He has not completely linked his position to the constitutionality of the law.

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Says 17-Year-Old Acted ‘100 Percent’ in ‘Self-Defense,’ Was Legally Carrying Rifle | National Review

Rittenhouse carried an AR-15-style rifle and was attempting to protect businesses from being looted or set ablaze by demonstrators, his lawyer said.

www.nationalreview.com

“This is 100 percent self-defense,” Rittenhouse’s lawyer John Pierce said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. “The only individuals Kyle shot were the three individuals attacking him and putting him at risk. This is a 17-year-old kid, this is amazing what he did.”

The article then goes on to say that the lawyer will challenge the constitutionality of the law.

But there is nothing to indicate that is what his entire case hinges on.

It largely does hinge on that law. If one cannot claim self defense because as the laws state, self does not apply to those engaged in criminal activity, then the judge will be obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot consider Rittenhouse’s argument of self defense. That's the reason his attorney wants to nullify Wis. 948.60.

You don’t understand. In court a presumption doesn’t have to be proven. The section you keep quoting merely says the PRESUMPTION doesn’t apply. So the defense has to prove self defense. All of the videos plus the surviving attacker’s own words are more than sufficient to prove self defense. The only legitimate charges are a minor in possession of a firearm, and curfew violation. The curfew violation will be taken care of by having the police testify that they wouldn’t let him return to the property he was defending. The DA will probably drop the firearm charge in return for a agreement for Kyle not suing the city for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

There's still excessive force and shooting Rosenbaum in the back.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

OJ walked because the trial wasn’t held in the Beverly Hills courthouse where it should have been and Judge Ito was a star struck idiot who let OJs “dream team” run amok in his courtroom with their theatrics and inadmissible testimony. Also the quality of the jurors was horrible. I saw one of the jurors after the trial saying “I don’t know no DNA, DNA just means OJ gots blood”.

Nah. OJ walked because there was reasonable doubt, which prevented a conviction. Between the glove not fitting and Fuhrman taking the 5th instead of denying he planted the glove, the prosecution blew it.

 

[Faun]

Sick Kyle shot an unarmed person 5 times. Anyone who is evil enough to call that self defense is utterly irredeamable.

Huh it was self defense.. are Republicans not able to use their constitutional right of self-defense?

One of the victims was shot in the back. That takes away any plausibity of self defense

The first attacker was shot in the back WHILE FACING Kyle. Unless Kyle was using ACME Wil E. Coyote-style bullets that can turn around in mid flight the first attacker was killed by one of his fellow rioters, NOT Kyle.

Rosenbaum spun around as he fell to the ground, potentially facing away from the teen killer.

 

[katsteve2012]

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

In a very simple nutshell, without wasting words,, my observation was that you did not qualify your statement with the word "some". Had you stated "black men living near me", I can understand that.

I can also state that within my circle, in a different area this case is irrelevant.

I'm quite sure that you are able work in the same environment as black men, because doing so is required in order to earn a living.

You might even be personally acquainted with some.
T
What I don't understand is why it is so alarming that geographical differences typically have an impact on what is important to an individual.

What’s your point exactly? Do you have one?

If what I stated is too difficult for you to understand, what are you asking me to do?
Use single syllable words?

It doesn’t say anything. There’s that

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Because I am a man, and i can see that someone telling me that I have the right to attack people and it is wrong of them to defend themselves against me, is an encouragement of me to commit such violence, and thus place myself in danger.

Why would you think that I could NOT know that? Because black men are such a different species that they are incomprehensible to a white guy?

Were you actually at the protest? Did anyone PERSONALLY attack YOU?

Or are you living vicariously through Rittenhouse?

Neither.

My point stands. When you tell a group of people that they have the right to violently attack other people, and indeed, it is morally and legally wrong of those people to defend themselves, you are encouraging those people to do that type of behavior.

And, as it is a lie, you are encouraging them to get themselves into situations that can lead to their deaths.


As we saw in kenosha.

And why would you IGNORANTLY claim that this is encouraging "Black men in general to get thmselves killed"?

That is an assumption which is rooted in your own ignorance of what YOU assume that black men in general think.

You don't know any more about what Black men" in general think "will get themselves killed over" than black men in general know about you and those like you think.

Your "point" only "stands" to be a testament to an ignorant statement on your part and that of others as to of what you "think" you believe that black men in general "think.".

You know Kat, the basis of the discussion on race here in America, going back at least to the 50s, if not earlier is that we are all basically the same, thus we should be equal.

That is an idea I was raised with and never seriously questioned.


But, you are making the argument that white and black men are so greatly different, that I as a white man, cannot hope to understand you, as a group.

I open to hearing your arguments. At first glance your position would explain a lot.


BUT, have you really considered the implications?

If you are correct, than America has been wrong on race and needs to rethink everything we have done, all the way back to BEFORE desegregation.

(not slavery, that argument was different and not based on equality so much as immorality)

I believe you are misunderstanding what I am stating. All day, everyday and without exception numeous people here bring up the "cultural" differences between the races.


That being said, it is obvious that the majority who post here do not believe that we are all the same, or even equal to begin with.

Where we ARE undeniably equal is that we ALL have the same rights under the constitution as we should.

Beyond that point, people are different and have different belief systems.

In the case of the shooter, I stated that I do not know any black males who feel strongly enough about his innocence or guilt that they would be "encouraged to get themselves killed over it".

From there, you made the decision to read farther into what I stated for your own reasons.

I've posted on message boards like this dating back to when the internet became accessible to the mainstream, and this forum, unlike the ones I've seen before, reminds me more of the pre civil rights era than any other that I've experienced.

I'm not certain what you are implying regarding "rethinking everything that America has "done" even prior to desegregation".

What has been "done" is to ensure equal rights under the law, and if one is a tax paying, law abiding citizen, that is a minimum right of citizenship.

I suspect that you are leaning towards stating that the country may be better off to return minorities to the same 2nd class citizenship that existed prior to the Civil rights era.

Your smear of the other posters on this site is just your opinion and wrong. Dismissed.


Beyond that, you attacked me for daring to imagine that I could understand what black males would think, hearing lyslander's urging to violence.


That was you being racist and wrong. My point stand. Shit talk like lyslander was doing, is getting people killed, in the streets.


Men, or people do not need to be told that they have the right to commit violence on people, just because those people disagree with them.

Lol! What "smear are you referring to? If you are denying that there are an abundance of people in this forum who DO NOT believe that we are all equal , then you are in denial to the point of hypocrisy, which speaks volumes about YOU.


And no, I did not "attack" you. I told you what I think, not what you want to hear. You're just hypersensitive and thin-skinned, which is not my problem.

If you think that is "racist", too bad.

For someone who whines incessantly about others being racist, you appear to live in a glass house.

Now, what are you implying regarding race being "rethought" even prior to desegregation?

Bringing up cultural differences, is not claiming that people are not equal. Are you serious not understanding that?


And you are making the claim that as a white man, I cannot know what will motivate a black man to kill.

THAT'S a pretty serious and alarming claim, which if true, makes living and working together a fool's dream.

I've stand by my position that I as a man, can empathize with and thus understand black men. Thus, I can live and work along side of them, with a reasonable expectation of being able to do so with a reasonable degree of safety.


You are arguing that I am wrong. That my attempts at understand are doomed to failure, because I am not black, and that thus, at any time, due to unknown reasons, and thus, from my perspective without warning or reason, the black man or men living near me might be motivated to kill.


I am will to listen to your supporting arguments. I will admit that your claim would explain a number of observed behaviors that I wanted to lump into either the mental health crisis or political warfare.


So, make your case. I am interested to hear what you have to say.

In a very simple nutshell, without wasting words,, my observation was that you did not qualify your statement with the word "some". Had you stated "black men living near me", I can understand that.

I can also state that within my circle, in a different area this case is irrelevant.

I'm quite sure that you are able work in the same environment as black men, because doing so is required in order to earn a living.

You might even be personally acquainted with some.
T
What I don't understand is why it is so alarming that geographical differences typically have an impact on what is important to an individual.

What’s your point exactly? Do you have one?

If what I stated is too difficult for you to understand, what are you asking me to do?
Use single syllable words?

It doesn’t say anything. There’s that

And here is this. I was not addressing you in the first place.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]