Kyle Rittenhouse

[Faun]

I can't seem to find any definite link to whether he is a felon or not; can you?

Oh, well then, you cant claim he was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, can you?. But Rittenhouse being there illegally and possessing a gun illegally are facts we do know.

So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?

My claims don't dictate the reality of the universe? Oh my, what an excellent point!

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.
When is running at someone and pointing a pistol at them not assault? Or aggravated assault?
If someone does that to a cop, what happens to them? Are they charged with a crime, if they survive?





But he hasn't been charged with anything....... why is that?

For one thing, he wasn't pointing a pistol at him...

 

[Rigby5]

He was clearly acting in self defense and would probably be dead if he didn't defend himself.

Who goes to a mass demonstration with a loaded rifle?
He was under age, so that was illegal.
He was not defending some property because he was moving around inside the demonstration.

 

[Faun]

Why is he the only one being prosecuted?

I am not your assistant. Make your points.

Maybe it's because he is the only one who harmed and killed people? Good luck.

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot.......why hasn't he been charged with anything?

(Here, I'll give you the answer before you dodge the question yet again.....)
Because it's about politics and not about public safety or law, that's why.

Yup. Every single one of the scumbags that Kyle shot was a convicted felon. What are the odds of that in the first place, and, he is the only one without a prior criminal record.

His persecution is totally political.

Great, may you can succeed where freyasman failed miserably...

Of what felony was Grosskreutz convicted...?

 

[Faun]

He was clearly acting in self defense and would probably be dead if he didn't defend himself.

Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

Neither is beating someone with a skateboard and running off like a fucking coward.

It's legal to try and stop a murderer.

Uh.....they didn't know what happened.

So, no. Nothing was "legal".

It's legal to stop someone in Wisconsin if you have probable cause to believe they committed a felony.

And it's legal for them the defend themselves. That's exactly what Kyle did.

It's a clear case of self defense, you low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

Yes, it is legal to defend yourself. I never said otherwise. It's not legal to use excessive force to defend yourself. That's why he's charged with murder.

There was no excessive force used, dumbass. He was charged and arrested because some authoritarian America hating scumbag wanted to take a political prisoner.

You're a fucking idiot and a compulsive liar.

I bet you can't link to a single thread in which you have significantly participated in, in which you did not tell a demonstrable lie. I challenge you to do that.

I also challenge you to find even a single post of mine, in which I tell a lie. You can search through all 23,520 of them and you will not find even a single lie.

Dumbfuck, I didn't say you lied about Rittenhouse. I'm saying you're wrong. Just like you were wrong about Chauvin. You don't know shit. You didn't even know Rosenbaum was lying face down.

Of course you are simply lying again. I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos. I saw him lying facedown after he was shot.

You also lied when you claimed that the video showed him get shot while he was lying face down.

Please provide a link to a video of him getting shot by Kyle while he in lying face down. Of course you cannot do that because it simply doesn't exist. You're simply lying again.

You're a compulsive liar and a low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

"I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos."

You're lying now. Earlier I said that he was lying face down and you denied it...

Faun: Ignore the text, the video shows Rosenbaum lying face down before someone flipped him onto his back.​

​

Muhammed: And of course you're simply lying again as usual. The video shows nothing of the sort.​

And there you go lying again. I never denied that he was lying face down on the ground. And you cannot quote me saying that.

This is your other lie that I was referring to...

Faun:he was shot in the back lying face down on the ground.

That's the lie I was referring to, moron.

Granted I know you tell so many fucking lies that it's impossible for you, or anyone else, to keep track of all of them. So why even try? Why not just quit lying? Then you don't have to keep track of them. It obviously works for me.

Why is it that when idiots like you have an opinion that doesn't jibe with the truth, you simply lie to yourself and others?

I believe it is much easier and wiser to change my opinions if I find out they don't jibe with the truth, rather than fruitlessly try to change an immutable truth.

That's the huge difference between a wise person like me and an idiot like you.

You should stop lying then.

As far as him shotbin the back lying down, I already posted the video. Rosenbaum starts to fall face down after the first shot. By the 4th shot, he's face down and shot I the back. There was no other time Rittenhouse was facing Rosenbaum's back.

In what post did you post that video? Got a post number or a link?

Nobody believes you because you're a fucking compulsive liar.

Go ahead and post a video that shows him getting shot in the back while he is lying face down on the ground, liar.

That video has a false narrative edited onto it. Kyle obviously did not fire the 3 more shots as it claims. There were many people shooting, dumbass. Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground.

However, very low IQ people like you who are easily brainwashed via the power of suggestion are very susceptible to that sort of bullshit.

It must really suck to be as stupid as you.

So? It's still the video. Ignore the text.

"Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground."

Kyle shot the child molester 4 times -- the 4th was in the back when he was lying on the ground face down. That's the moment it went from self-defense to murder.

Bullshit. It was all one burst of gunfire in self-defense. It wouldn't matter if it was 5 or 10 shots, it would still be self-defense. Kyle was not the attacker, he was the defender.

You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend that obvious fact.

Nope, it's not all one burst. It's not an automatic weapon. He had to squeeze the trigger 4 times in order to get 4 shots.

And of course it matters. Self-defense is not a legal pass to murder someone. When employing self-defense, you're only allowed to use as much force as necessary to stop the threat. If killing an attacker is needed to stop the threat, the law allows that. It does not allow you to stop the threat but then continue shooting anyway.

It doesn't have to be an automatic weapon to fire a burst of rounds, idiot. You can fire a burst by repeatedly pulling the trigger fast.

It takes time to determine that someone is no longer a threat, dumbass.

LOL

Dumbfuck, I said he had to pull the trigger 4 times. The 4th shot should not have been fired. That was the shot that probably killed Rosenbaum and it was to his back. That's murder, not self-defense.

Bullshit. In an interview, the closest eyewitness, who was standing right there, the reporter who took off his shirt and applied pressure to the JR's head wound, said that Kyle's last shot went over JR and hit the pavement near him.

And even if it would have hit him, it would still be self-defense because a split second is obviously not enough time to determine that your attacker is no longer a threat.

He said no such thing, ya lyin' piece 'o shit. He said he thought the first hit the pavement because he felt something hit his leg...

Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting: We Found Missing Evidence At The Scene

Wisconsin Right Now's Jim Piwowarczyk found missing evidence - two shell casings - at the first Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene in Kenosha.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

​

]i\McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot. McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.​

I stand corrected. It was the first shot, not the last shot. However, all of those shots were obviously in self-defense.

Kyle was clearly not the aggressor. Your child molester kindred spirit was the aggressor.

We'll find out in court since he indisputably shot Rosenbaum in the back.

There's no law against shooting someone in the back in self-defense. Sure, if there was no video evidence the prosecution could make an honest jury very skeptical that it was self-defense.. However, in this case there is multiple videos that clearly show that Kyle shot a quick burst of rounds at that terrifying angry raging maniac in self-defense.

Again ... the law is excessive force to stop a threat is illegal. Shooting someone in the back when they're laying face down on the ground is excessive. Not handling the gun properly or firing too fast is not an excuse.

Lord have mercy----

Firing a gun to fast when you are under attack? Ummm semi automatic while on Adrenaline....the guns continue to fire and humans have little control about stopping the firing. The child molestor should not have attacked kyle----once the firing started, no one would have been able to stop firing.

BTW, why the hell are you upset about a child rapist being killed?

LOL

No one but Kyle Rittenhouse had control to stop firing. That's not an excuse. If anything, it's more reason, aside from the legal aspect which didn't permit him to have that gun, for why he shouldn't have been armed with a gun at all. He was not handling it very well.

I'm not upset about a child rapist being gunned down. I couldn't care less that a piece of shit like Rosenbaum is dead. That doesn't mean I also want someone to get away with murder. For me, it's a win-win. Children are safer from a child molester like Rosenbaum and the streets will be safer from a nut like Rittenhouse once he's locked up.

Hun, take a damn gun class if you can't grasp the basics. Semi automatics fire bang bang bang (you know easily in rapid succession)......once fear takes over, the body produces this thing called adrenaline and it is human nature to keep pressing the trigger.. Kyle was under attack from a deranged violent child molestor--------followed by two more violent criminals. I am amazed at how much control he was actually able to demostrate given the circumstances.

Going after Kyle, a child who shot a child molestor dead, is sick. The criminals deaths are a good thing for society-----the right thing for the 17 year old to have done, and the world is a better place with their deaths but worse now with Kyle on trial. You are upset about the lib/communist child molester being killed off...You can't murder a child molester attacking a child. It's classic self defense...

Dumbfuck, to fire 4 shots still requires 4 squeezes on the trigger. And the speed of getting the shots off is also managed by the squeezer. Rittenhouse is responsible for each squeeze.

 

[Faun]

He was clearly acting in self defense and would probably be dead if he didn't defend himself.

Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

Neither is beating someone with a skateboard and running off like a fucking coward.

It's legal to try and stop a murderer.

Uh.....they didn't know what happened.

So, no. Nothing was "legal".

It's legal to stop someone in Wisconsin if you have probable cause to believe they committed a felony.

And it's legal for them the defend themselves. That's exactly what Kyle did.

It's a clear case of self defense, you low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

Yes, it is legal to defend yourself. I never said otherwise. It's not legal to use excessive force to defend yourself. That's why he's charged with murder.

There was no excessive force used, dumbass. He was charged and arrested because some authoritarian America hating scumbag wanted to take a political prisoner.

You're a fucking idiot and a compulsive liar.

I bet you can't link to a single thread in which you have significantly participated in, in which you did not tell a demonstrable lie. I challenge you to do that.

I also challenge you to find even a single post of mine, in which I tell a lie. You can search through all 23,520 of them and you will not find even a single lie.

Dumbfuck, I didn't say you lied about Rittenhouse. I'm saying you're wrong. Just like you were wrong about Chauvin. You don't know shit. You didn't even know Rosenbaum was lying face down.

Of course you are simply lying again. I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos. I saw him lying facedown after he was shot.

You also lied when you claimed that the video showed him get shot while he was lying face down.

Please provide a link to a video of him getting shot by Kyle while he in lying face down. Of course you cannot do that because it simply doesn't exist. You're simply lying again.

You're a compulsive liar and a low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

"I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos."

You're lying now. Earlier I said that he was lying face down and you denied it...

Faun: Ignore the text, the video shows Rosenbaum lying face down before someone flipped him onto his back.​

​

Muhammed: And of course you're simply lying again as usual. The video shows nothing of the sort.​

And there you go lying again. I never denied that he was lying face down on the ground. And you cannot quote me saying that.

This is your other lie that I was referring to...

Faun:he was shot in the back lying face down on the ground.

That's the lie I was referring to, moron.

Granted I know you tell so many fucking lies that it's impossible for you, or anyone else, to keep track of all of them. So why even try? Why not just quit lying? Then you don't have to keep track of them. It obviously works for me.

Why is it that when idiots like you have an opinion that doesn't jibe with the truth, you simply lie to yourself and others?

I believe it is much easier and wiser to change my opinions if I find out they don't jibe with the truth, rather than fruitlessly try to change an immutable truth.

That's the huge difference between a wise person like me and an idiot like you.

You should stop lying then.

As far as him shotbin the back lying down, I already posted the video. Rosenbaum starts to fall face down after the first shot. By the 4th shot, he's face down and shot I the back. There was no other time Rittenhouse was facing Rosenbaum's back.

In what post did you post that video? Got a post number or a link?

Nobody believes you because you're a fucking compulsive liar.

Go ahead and post a video that shows him getting shot in the back while he is lying face down on the ground, liar.

That video has a false narrative edited onto it. Kyle obviously did not fire the 3 more shots as it claims. There were many people shooting, dumbass. Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground.

However, very low IQ people like you who are easily brainwashed via the power of suggestion are very susceptible to that sort of bullshit.

It must really suck to be as stupid as you.

So? It's still the video. Ignore the text.

"Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground."

Kyle shot the child molester 4 times -- the 4th was in the back when he was lying on the ground face down. That's the moment it went from self-defense to murder.

Bullshit. It was all one burst of gunfire in self-defense. It wouldn't matter if it was 5 or 10 shots, it would still be self-defense. Kyle was not the attacker, he was the defender.

You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend that obvious fact.

Nope, it's not all one burst. It's not an automatic weapon. He had to squeeze the trigger 4 times in order to get 4 shots.

And of course it matters. Self-defense is not a legal pass to murder someone. When employing self-defense, you're only allowed to use as much force as necessary to stop the threat. If killing an attacker is needed to stop the threat, the law allows that. It does not allow you to stop the threat but then continue shooting anyway.

It doesn't have to be an automatic weapon to fire a burst of rounds, idiot. You can fire a burst by repeatedly pulling the trigger fast.

It takes time to determine that someone is no longer a threat, dumbass.

LOL

Dumbfuck, I said he had to pull the trigger 4 times. The 4th shot should not have been fired. That was the shot that probably killed Rosenbaum and it was to his back. That's murder, not self-defense.

Bullshit. In an interview, the closest eyewitness, who was standing right there, the reporter who took off his shirt and applied pressure to the JR's head wound, said that Kyle's last shot went over JR and hit the pavement near him.

And even if it would have hit him, it would still be self-defense because a split second is obviously not enough time to determine that your attacker is no longer a threat.

He said no such thing, ya lyin' piece 'o shit. He said he thought the first hit the pavement because he felt something hit his leg...

Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting: We Found Missing Evidence At The Scene

Wisconsin Right Now's Jim Piwowarczyk found missing evidence - two shell casings - at the first Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene in Kenosha.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

​

]i\McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot. McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.​

I stand corrected. It was the first shot, not the last shot. However, all of those shots were obviously in self-defense.

Kyle was clearly not the aggressor. Your child molester kindred spirit was the aggressor.

We'll find out in court since he indisputably shot Rosenbaum in the back.

There's no law against shooting someone in the back in self-defense. Sure, if there was no video evidence the prosecution could make an honest jury very skeptical that it was self-defense.. However, in this case there is multiple videos that clearly show that Kyle shot a quick burst of rounds at that terrifying angry raging maniac in self-defense.

Again ... the law is excessive force to stop a threat is illegal. Shooting someone in the back when they're laying face down on the ground is excessive. Not handling the gun properly or firing too fast is not an excuse.

Lord have mercy----

Firing a gun to fast when you are under attack? Ummm semi automatic while on Adrenaline....the guns continue to fire and humans have little control about stopping the firing. The child molestor should not have attacked kyle----once the firing started, no one would have been able to stop firing.

BTW, why the hell are you upset about a child rapist being killed?

LOL

No one but Kyle Rittenhouse had control to stop firing. That's not an excuse. If anything, it's more reason, aside from the legal aspect which didn't permit him to have that gun, for why he shouldn't have been armed with a gun at all. He was not handling it very well.

I'm not upset about a child rapist being gunned down. I couldn't care less that a piece of shit like Rosenbaum is dead. That doesn't mean I also want someone to get away with murder. For me, it's a win-win. Children are safer from a child molester like Rosenbaum and the streets will be safer from a nut like Rittenhouse once he's locked up.

Hun, take a damn gun class if you can't grasp the basics. Semi automatics fire bang bang bang (you know easily in rapid succession)......once fear takes over, the body produces this thing called adrenaline and it is human nature to keep pressing the trigger.. Kyle was under attack from a deranged violent child molestor--------followed by two more violent criminals. I am amazed at how much control he was actually able to demostrate given the circumstances.

Going after Kyle, a child who shot a child molestor dead, is sick. The criminals deaths are a good thing for society-----the right thing for the 17 year old to have done, and the world is a better place with their deaths but worse now with Kyle on trial. You are upset about the lib/communist child molester being killed off...You can't murder a child molester attacking a child. It's classic self defense...

Faun: I'm not upset about a child rapist being gunned down. I couldn't care less that a piece of shit like Rosenbaum is dead.

Turtlesoup: You are upset about the lib/communist child molester being killed off.

You're truly fucked in the head, con. Beyond all repair.

 

[Faun]

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot

False. Sorry. Maybe you didnt hear, but that wasnt true, and he had a perfectly legal license to carry.

Got anything else? I suppose not, since your entire diatribe rested on that error.

Really? I'd like a link to that.

Don't much care though, because I have stated more than once that I don't have any problem with felons having guns....... attacking someone with it, is still a crime though.
And he did.
On video.
And he hasn't been charged.



Why do you suppose that is, if not politics?
What other reason is there?

Still waiting.... what felony did he commit...?

Other than aggravated assault with a firearm on the night in question, which it seems he won't be charged with, I can't find anything...... so I guess I was wrong about him being a convicted felon.
Mea culpa


You guys should all hire him as a babysitter, since he is clearly a man of sterling character, lol.

Uh, you claimed Grosskreutz is a felon.

And it wasn't assault as he never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

 

[freyasman]

I can't seem to find any definite link to whether he is a felon or not; can you?

Oh, well then, you cant claim he was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, can you?. But Rittenhouse being there illegally and possessing a gun illegally are facts we do know.

So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?

My claims don't dictate the reality of the universe? Oh my, what an excellent point!

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.
When is running at someone and pointing a pistol at them not assault? Or aggravated assault?
If someone does that to a cop, what happens to them? Are they charged with a crime, if they survive?





But he hasn't been charged with anything....... why is that?

For one thing, he wasn't pointing a pistol at him...

So he was just showing it to him when he ran up then?

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Persecuted for defending himself guilty of being White, I think so.

Your last 3 words are debatable. As they say, the devil is in the details.....of which in dealing with you indicate a case of myopia. Carry on.

 

[freyasman]

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot

False. Sorry. Maybe you didnt hear, but that wasnt true, and he had a perfectly legal license to carry.

Got anything else? I suppose not, since your entire diatribe rested on that error.

Really? I'd like a link to that.

Don't much care though, because I have stated more than once that I don't have any problem with felons having guns....... attacking someone with it, is still a crime though.
And he did.
On video.
And he hasn't been charged.



Why do you suppose that is, if not politics?
What other reason is there?

Still waiting.... what felony did he commit...?

Other than aggravated assault with a firearm on the night in question, which it seems he won't be charged with, I can't find anything...... so I guess I was wrong about him being a convicted felon.
Mea culpa


You guys should all hire him as a babysitter, since he is clearly a man of sterling character, lol.

Uh, you claimed Grosskreutz is a felon.

And it wasn't assault as he never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

I did, as all the news stories claimed he was.
I guess that was wrong.

He did however, attack Rittenhouse with a pistol. And got shot for it, as he should have.
Why do you object to that?
Other than the political affiliations of the parties in question, that is?

 

[westwall]

Why is he the only one being prosecuted?

I am not your assistant. Make your points.

Maybe it's because he is the only one who harmed and killed people? Good luck.

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot.......why hasn't he been charged with anything?

(Here, I'll give you the answer before you dodge the question yet again.....)
Because it's about politics and not about public safety or law, that's why.

Yup. Every single one of the scumbags that Kyle shot was a convicted felon. What are the odds of that in the first place, and, he is the only one without a prior criminal record.

His persecution is totally political.

Great, may you can succeed where freyasman failed miserably...

Of what felony was Grosskreutz convicted...?

Burglary. He is also a avowed communist.

 

[TheDefiantOne]

Let's just stop all this nonsense:

1. You got some kid looking to fulfill a Turner Diary fantasy, who has his mother drive him to another state where there is civil unrest.

2. Once in town, jr. goes to a friends house where he borrows an assault rifle....in that state it's illegal for a person of his age to own (much less open carry) such a weapon.

3. Jr. then goes into the disturbance zone under the premise that he is going to help local store owners protect their property....junior was neither asked by or personally knows any local store owners. To date, there is no record of ANYONE IN THAT CITY OR STATE asking for junior's help at any time.

4. Junior gets into an altercation with some of the (take your pick) protesters/rioters/demonstrators, THE INITIAL CONFLICT TAKING PLACE OFF CAMERA. Video is then shown of junior being chased by several individuals either trying to take away his weapon, hit him or both. Video clearly shows junior opening fire, but never fired upon. He killed 2, wounded 1.

5. Junior is then shown walking up to then past cops stating he just shot some one while still carrying the weapon. No arrests, junior leaves the scene and then turns himself in about 48 hours later (not sure of time frame).

So after all testimony is gathered and reviewed and brought before a jury (grand or otherwise), Junior's best hope is that he is charged with unlawful possession and discharging of a firearm, crossing state lines with intent to obtain said weapon, and he get's 3rd degree manslaughter. Anything else and he's looking at hard time. Either way, he's screwed and has no one to blame but himself....and maybe his idiot mother for aiding and abetting this nonsense.

 

[freyasman]

Let's just stop all this nonsense:

1. You got some kid looking to fulfill a Turner Diary fantasy, who has his mother drive him to another state where there is civil unrest.

2. Once in town, jr. goes to a friends house where he borrows an assault rifle....in that state it's illegal for a person of his age to own (much less open carry) such a weapon.

3. Jr. then goes into the disturbance zone under the premise that he is going to help local store owners protect their property....junior was neither asked by or personally knows any local store owners. To date, there is no record of ANYONE IN THAT CITY OR STATE asking for junior's help at any time.

4. Junior gets into an altercation with some of the (take your pick) protesters/rioters/demonstrators, THE INITIAL CONFLICT TAKING PLACE OFF CAMERA. Video is then shown of junior being chased by several individuals either trying to take away his weapon, hit him or both. Video clearly shows junior opening fire, but never fired upon. He killed 2, wounded 1.

5. Junior is then shown walking up to then past cops stating he just shot some one while still carrying the weapon. No arrests, junior leaves the scene and then turns himself in about 48 hours later (not sure of time frame).

So after all testimony is gathered and reviewed and brought before a jury (grand or otherwise), Junior's best hope is that he is charged with unlawful possession and discharging of a firearm, crossing state lines with intent to obtain said weapon, and he get's 3rd degree manslaughter. Anything else and he's looking at hard time. Either way, he's screwed and has no one to blame but himself....and maybe his idiot mother for aiding and abetting this nonsense.

Or some juror who is sick of all the riots and bullshit just says; "Not Guilty...... BFYTW"

 

[Winco]

Protect KR all you want.
Was he under attack.....probably YES.
Did he bring this attack upon himself......Absolutely. Prove me Wrong.

Protect Ashli Babbitt all you want.
Was she under attack......absolutely NOT.
Ashli instigated her own DEATH.
She jumped into an open window, with a direct path to congress members, and she was shot.

She doesn't approach congress members, she is still alive.
Make stupid choices........win stupid prizes.

 

[Muhammed]

Pause this it at 1:03 in this video. Notice that the tackler's torso is not facing the ball carrier. It's actually facing the ground, not the ball carrier. It's facing away from the ball carrier.



Yet obviously he still made the tackle, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't facing the ball carrier, his momentum carried him into the ball carrier.

Understand now? Or no?

Mother of God you're reaching, and you're failing.

First, off, we're talking about someone being shot in the back, not being tyackled in a football game. Second, if the tackler's back had been facing the ball carrier, he never would've made the tackle. He would've been no threat. That would've been an appropriate comparison. But, that comparison only proves you wrong, so you want nothing to do with it...

Rosenbaum was charging at Kyle just like that football player.

Also, someone's back doesn't need to be facing you in order for you shoot them in the back, jackass.

To prove this to yourself, stand several feet way from your kitchen table. Imagine that the top surface of your tabletop is the back of an attacker who is rushing towards you.

The attacker is not facing you, it's facing away from you towards the floor and it's back is facing away from you towards the ceiling. Now see if you can shoot a picture of the table top with your Cannon.

If you can, that's proof that someone does not need to be facing you to be a threat, and you could shoot that threat in the back.

Anyone who thinks that a gunshot wound to the back constitutes evidence that the shooting wasn't in self-defense is a fucking moron.

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot.

Moron, Rittenhouse wasn't several feet away from Rosenbaum. He was standing right next to him. And Rosenbaum wasn't 3 feet off the ground. He was laying face down on it.

Who knows why you're so desperate to think you can alter reality.

Bullshit. The child molester was rushing full speed at Kyle just like a football player making a tackle. And dove after his gun.

The video evidence and eyewitness testimony proves it conclusively. Kyle shot is self defense.

The only reason you are arguing to the contrary is to defend your kindred spirit, the child molester. And there's no way in hell you could ever pass a simple geometry or human physiology test. You're just too stupid.

You're a moron and a sick puppy.

 

[Winco]

Pause this it at 1:03 in this video. Notice that the tackler's torso is not facing the ball carrier. It's actually facing the ground, not the ball carrier. It's facing away from the ball carrier.



Yet obviously he still made the tackle, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't facing the ball carrier, his momentum carried him into the ball carrier.

Understand now? Or no?

Mother of God you're reaching, and you're failing.

First, off, we're talking about someone being shot in the back, not being tyackled in a football game. Second, if the tackler's back had been facing the ball carrier, he never would've made the tackle. He would've been no threat. That would've been an appropriate comparison. But, that comparison only proves you wrong, so you want nothing to do with it...

Rosenbaum was charging at Kyle just like that football player.

Also, someone's back doesn't need to be facing you in order for you shoot them in the back, jackass.

To prove this to yourself, stand several feet way from your kitchen table. Imagine that the top surface of your tabletop is the back of an attacker who is rushing towards you.

The attacker is not facing you, it's facing away from you towards the floor and it's back is facing away from you towards the ceiling. Now see if you can shoot a picture of the table top with your Cannon.

If you can, that's proof that someone does not need to be facing you to be a threat, and you could shoot that threat in the back.

Anyone who thinks that a gunshot wound to the back constitutes evidence that the shooting wasn't in self-defense is a fucking moron.

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot.

Moron, Rittenhouse wasn't several feet away from Rosenbaum. He was standing right next to him. And Rosenbaum wasn't 3 feet off the ground. He was laying face down on it.

Who knows why you're so desperate to think you can alter reality.

Bullshit. The child molester was rushing full speed at Kyle just like a football player making a tackle. And dove after his gun.

The video evidence and eyewitness testimony proves it conclusively. Kyle shot is self defense.

The only reason you are arguing to the contrary is to defend your kindred spirit, the child molester. And there's no way in hell you could ever pass a simple geometry or human physiology test. You're just too stupid.

You're a moron and a sick puppy.

Fair enough.
You defend Kyle. I get it.
Kyle was under attack
Kyle reacted.
True?

 

[Muhammed]

Pause this it at 1:03 in this video. Notice that the tackler's torso is not facing the ball carrier. It's actually facing the ground, not the ball carrier. It's facing away from the ball carrier.



Yet obviously he still made the tackle, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't facing the ball carrier, his momentum carried him into the ball carrier.

Understand now? Or no?

Mother of God you're reaching, and you're failing.

First, off, we're talking about someone being shot in the back, not being tyackled in a football game. Second, if the tackler's back had been facing the ball carrier, he never would've made the tackle. He would've been no threat. That would've been an appropriate comparison. But, that comparison only proves you wrong, so you want nothing to do with it...

Rosenbaum was charging at Kyle just like that football player.

Also, someone's back doesn't need to be facing you in order for you shoot them in the back, jackass.

To prove this to yourself, stand several feet way from your kitchen table. Imagine that the top surface of your tabletop is the back of an attacker who is rushing towards you.

The attacker is not facing you, it's facing away from you towards the floor and it's back is facing away from you towards the ceiling. Now see if you can shoot a picture of the table top with your Cannon.

If you can, that's proof that someone does not need to be facing you to be a threat, and you could shoot that threat in the back.

Anyone who thinks that a gunshot wound to the back constitutes evidence that the shooting wasn't in self-defense is a fucking moron.

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot.

Moron, Rittenhouse wasn't several feet away from Rosenbaum. He was standing right next to him. And Rosenbaum wasn't 3 feet off the ground. He was laying face down on it.

Who knows why you're so desperate to think you can alter reality.

Bullshit. The child molester was rushing full speed at Kyle just like a football player making a tackle. And dove after his gun.

The video evidence and eyewitness testimony proves it conclusively. Kyle shot is self defense.

The only reason you are arguing to the contrary is to defend your kindred spirit, the child molester. And there's no way in hell you could ever pass a simple geometry or human physiology test. You're just too stupid.

You're a moron and a sick puppy.

Fair enough.
You defend Kyle. I get it.
Kyle was under attack
Kyle reacted.
True?

An extremely agitated violent career criminal took his shirt off and very quickly fashioned it into a mask and hood, and the mugger started following/stalking Kyle when he got separated from the group. Like a typical predator.

Then we see him chasing Kyle and throwing a weapon at him, cornering Kyle and attempting to rob Kyle of his rifle.

Kyle shot the aggressor in self-defense.

It's crystal clear. He was only arrested because the anti-American left wanted to take a political prisoner.

 

[Faun]

I can't seem to find any definite link to whether he is a felon or not; can you?

Oh, well then, you cant claim he was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, can you?. But Rittenhouse being there illegally and possessing a gun illegally are facts we do know.

So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?

My claims don't dictate the reality of the universe? Oh my, what an excellent point!

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.
When is running at someone and pointing a pistol at them not assault? Or aggravated assault?
If someone does that to a cop, what happens to them? Are they charged with a crime, if they survive?





But he hasn't been charged with anything....... why is that?

For one thing, he wasn't pointing a pistol at him...

So he was just showing it to him when he ran up then?

He held the gun I'm a ready position as he approached. When he saw Huber get shot, he put his hands up to signal surrender, then he lunged at Rittenhouse who then shot him. At no time did he point his gun at Rittenhouse.

 

[Faun]

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot

False. Sorry. Maybe you didnt hear, but that wasnt true, and he had a perfectly legal license to carry.

Got anything else? I suppose not, since your entire diatribe rested on that error.

Really? I'd like a link to that.

Don't much care though, because I have stated more than once that I don't have any problem with felons having guns....... attacking someone with it, is still a crime though.
And he did.
On video.
And he hasn't been charged.



Why do you suppose that is, if not politics?
What other reason is there?

Still waiting.... what felony did he commit...?

Other than aggravated assault with a firearm on the night in question, which it seems he won't be charged with, I can't find anything...... so I guess I was wrong about him being a convicted felon.
Mea culpa


You guys should all hire him as a babysitter, since he is clearly a man of sterling character, lol.

Uh, you claimed Grosskreutz is a felon.

And it wasn't assault as he never pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

I did, as all the news stories claimed he was.
I guess that was wrong.

He did however, attack Rittenhouse with a pistol. And got shot for it, as he should have.
Why do you object to that?
Other than the political affiliations of the parties in question, that is?

I object because Grosskreutz had a right to try to disarm an active shooter. In retrospect, Grosskreutz should have just shot Rittenhouse when he had the chance. A missed opportunity he himself regrets not taking.

 

[candycorn]

He was clearly acting in self defense and would probably be dead if he didn't defend himself.

Who goes to a mass demonstration with a loaded rifle?
He was under age, so that was illegal.
He was not defending some property because he was moving around inside the demonstration.

A borrowed loaded rifle at that apparently.

 

[Faun]

Why is he the only one being prosecuted?

I am not your assistant. Make your points.

Maybe it's because he is the only one who harmed and killed people? Good luck.

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot.......why hasn't he been charged with anything?

(Here, I'll give you the answer before you dodge the question yet again.....)
Because it's about politics and not about public safety or law, that's why.

Yup. Every single one of the scumbags that Kyle shot was a convicted felon. What are the odds of that in the first place, and, he is the only one without a prior criminal record.

His persecution is totally political.

Great, may you can succeed where freyasman failed miserably...

Of what felony was Grosskreutz convicted...?

Burglary. He is also a avowed communist.

Seriously, are you ever not a retard?

Ever???

No, Grosskreutz was not convicted of burglary. He had never been convicted of any felonies. You're falling for fake news again.

As far as being a Communist, I neither know, nor care, if that's true or not, but even if it is, that's not a crime.