Kyle Rittenhouse

[Rigby5]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

 

[freyasman]

freyasman

Another fun little fact:

The little lie the child killer told about going there to provide "medical services" was a lie.

Ironically, the guy whose arm he shot is a trained medic who was there providing medical services to injured people.

It's pretty clear with are dealing with two levels of quality of people, here.

Ironically the third guy that Kyle shot was also another violent druggy and convicted Criminal. Kyle shot 3 criminals that day. The child deserves a medal.

LOL

No worries -- he'll be getting lots of "medals" where he's going for about the next 40 years. He learn to like them.

Look everybody, it's Faun wishing torment and suffering on our youth for not falling into line........ remember these people. When they show you their true colors like this, make a note, and remember them for what they are, so they can be treated accordingly when the time comes.

Nah, now you're lying because you're position is too weak to stand on the truth. I want Rittenhouse locked up for shooting 3 people, killing two of them.

No, that's not true.

Lying again, aren't you?

 

[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.

He wasn't a murderer, asshole.

Sure he is. He shot someone in the back. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense -- it's murder.

4 shots in 1.5 seconds.

Who knows what happened.

Sorry to break it to you....but you are still a moron.

And he's still going to prison for shooting someone in the back.

They already have the trial and sentencing sweetheart?

Of course not. I'm giving my prediction for how I suspect it will turn out. Same as everyone else here.

You have zero credibility as you thought the hag would be Trump in the election and we all know how that turned out silly girl

LOLOL

By that measure you have no credibility since you thought Trump would be re-elected.

You also didn't know Rosenbaum was shot in the back, which exposes your limited knowledge of this case.

You don't know either.

4 shots in 1.5 seconds.

Who knows what happened ?

Not you.

I know he shot him in the back. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You are saying there is no circumstance that you can think of where someone defending themselves might shoot someone in the back ?

That is your claim ?

Not that I can think of, no. When someone's committing a crime has their back is to you, they are typically moving away from you at that point. In Rosenbaum's case, he was lying on the ground face down.

 

[freyasman]

Was he though? If one-arm boy isn't a criminal, then neither is the kid.

Irrelevant whataboutism, not a defense of Rittenhouse possessing a firearm illegally, also based on a lie about the other guy possessing a firearm illegally that persists in right wing circles

-Did he? I didn't see him chasing anyone.

Also irrelevant, chasing wasn't mentioned or required

Justified
-Justified

Apparently not, he is charged with murder. Your excuses that you contrive to suit your political fetishes are not a good defense and will not work in court.

There are 2 guys in the US that are recognized as being subject matter experts on lawful self defense; Massad Ayoob, and Andrew Branca.
Here is Branca's take on it;

Rittenhouse 1 – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

From the link;

"Conclusion​

Kyle Rittenhouse’s use of deadly defensive force in killing his attacker in the Parking Lot Confrontation and in killing one attacker and maiming another in the Street Confrontation was collectively, and to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, lawful uses of deadly defensive force, justified self-defense, and not criminal conduct.

Indeed, each and every one of the persons against whom Kyle defended himself was themselves committing felony aggravated assaults upon him. Two of those deadly force attackers are, of course dead, having been foiled in their efforts to murder a 17-year-old boy, and are therefore beyond the reach of earthly justice.

The man who attempted to murder Kyle with his pistol and got a maimed arm in the process, however, ought in any fair world to be charged with attempted murder, prosecuted, tried, and (assuming a sane and rational jury) convicted of that charge and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. At least he’ll have a cool scar going in."


It's pretty long, but do follow the link and RTWT.

LOL

So in your world, had someone mustered the courage to attempt to disarm Nikolas Cruz, they themselves would have been committing felonious Aggravated Assault, huh?

Can't stop lying even for a second, can you?

Dumbfuck, that was the claim made in the video you posted but apparently didn't watch. They claim trying to disarm an active shooter is Aggravated Assault.

You should at least try to know what you post.

And more lying...... it's pathological with you, huh?

 

[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.

You or Rittenhouse ?

Which would I rather see on the streets.

I choose Kyle.

LOL

Sucks to be you then because between myself and Kyle, if only one of us is on the streets, I'd say the odds are on my side it will be me.

 

[freyasman]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

But just carrying a gun around, cannot be legally construed to be "provocative".

 

[Faun]

freyasman

Another fun little fact:

The little lie the child killer told about going there to provide "medical services" was a lie.

Ironically, the guy whose arm he shot is a trained medic who was there providing medical services to injured people.

It's pretty clear with are dealing with two levels of quality of people, here.

Ironically the third guy that Kyle shot was also another violent druggy and convicted Criminal. Kyle shot 3 criminals that day. The child deserves a medal.

LOL

No worries -- he'll be getting lots of "medals" where he's going for about the next 40 years. He learn to like them.

Look everybody, it's Faun wishing torment and suffering on our youth for not falling into line........ remember these people. When they show you their true colors like this, make a note, and remember them for what they are, so they can be treated accordingly when the time comes.

Nah, now you're lying because you're position is too weak to stand on the truth. I want Rittenhouse locked up for shooting 3 people, killing two of them.

No, that's not true.

Lying again, aren't you?

Nope.

 

[Faun]

Was he though? If one-arm boy isn't a criminal, then neither is the kid.

Irrelevant whataboutism, not a defense of Rittenhouse possessing a firearm illegally, also based on a lie about the other guy possessing a firearm illegally that persists in right wing circles

-Did he? I didn't see him chasing anyone.

Also irrelevant, chasing wasn't mentioned or required

Justified
-Justified

Apparently not, he is charged with murder. Your excuses that you contrive to suit your political fetishes are not a good defense and will not work in court.

There are 2 guys in the US that are recognized as being subject matter experts on lawful self defense; Massad Ayoob, and Andrew Branca.
Here is Branca's take on it;

Rittenhouse 1 – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

From the link;

"Conclusion​

Kyle Rittenhouse’s use of deadly defensive force in killing his attacker in the Parking Lot Confrontation and in killing one attacker and maiming another in the Street Confrontation was collectively, and to a reasonable degree of legal certainty, lawful uses of deadly defensive force, justified self-defense, and not criminal conduct.

Indeed, each and every one of the persons against whom Kyle defended himself was themselves committing felony aggravated assaults upon him. Two of those deadly force attackers are, of course dead, having been foiled in their efforts to murder a 17-year-old boy, and are therefore beyond the reach of earthly justice.

The man who attempted to murder Kyle with his pistol and got a maimed arm in the process, however, ought in any fair world to be charged with attempted murder, prosecuted, tried, and (assuming a sane and rational jury) convicted of that charge and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life. At least he’ll have a cool scar going in."


It's pretty long, but do follow the link and RTWT.

LOL

So in your world, had someone mustered the courage to attempt to disarm Nikolas Cruz, they themselves would have been committing felonious Aggravated Assault, huh?

Can't stop lying even for a second, can you?

Dumbfuck, that was the claim made in the video you posted but apparently didn't watch. They claim trying to disarm an active shooter is Aggravated Assault.

You should at least try to know what you post.

And more lying...... it's pathological with you, huh?

Nope, not lying. You really should watch your own video. After you do that, if you still need me to explain it to you, I'd be happy to.

 

[freyasman]

freyasman

Another fun little fact:

The little lie the child killer told about going there to provide "medical services" was a lie.

Ironically, the guy whose arm he shot is a trained medic who was there providing medical services to injured people.

It's pretty clear with are dealing with two levels of quality of people, here.

Ironically the third guy that Kyle shot was also another violent druggy and convicted Criminal. Kyle shot 3 criminals that day. The child deserves a medal.

LOL

No worries -- he'll be getting lots of "medals" where he's going for about the next 40 years. He learn to like them.

Look everybody, it's Faun wishing torment and suffering on our youth for not falling into line........ remember these people. When they show you their true colors like this, make a note, and remember them for what they are, so they can be treated accordingly when the time comes.

Nah, now you're lying because you're position is too weak to stand on the truth. I want Rittenhouse locked up for shooting 3 people, killing two of them.

No, that's not true.

Lying again, aren't you?

Nope.

Yep.

 

[Turtlesoup]

I'll help you out---3 adult men are out burning down the city and attacking a child all...

Haha, think the defense will get away with saying that without having evidence to support it? Doubtful.

You are delusional.......

What exactly do you not understand about these violent criminals attacking him? Once they attacked him, he had the right and obligation to protect himself. This is SELF DEFENSE.

 

[Faun]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

But just carrying a gun around, cannot be legally construed to be "provocative".

Of course it can be. At least try not to be stupid. It depends on how you're carrying it. There's evidence that someone in Kenosha that night was pointing their gun at someone, maybe even at Rosenbaum. That's provocative. And if evidence surfaces in the trial that Rittenhouse did that, he's absolutely fucked. But again, he'll have many years to get used to being fucked.

 

[Faun]

freyasman

Another fun little fact:

The little lie the child killer told about going there to provide "medical services" was a lie.

Ironically, the guy whose arm he shot is a trained medic who was there providing medical services to injured people.

It's pretty clear with are dealing with two levels of quality of people, here.

Ironically the third guy that Kyle shot was also another violent druggy and convicted Criminal. Kyle shot 3 criminals that day. The child deserves a medal.

LOL

No worries -- he'll be getting lots of "medals" where he's going for about the next 40 years. He learn to like them.

Look everybody, it's Faun wishing torment and suffering on our youth for not falling into line........ remember these people. When they show you their true colors like this, make a note, and remember them for what they are, so they can be treated accordingly when the time comes.

Nah, now you're lying because you're position is too weak to stand on the truth. I want Rittenhouse locked up for shooting 3 people, killing two of them.

No, that's not true.

Lying again, aren't you?

Nope.

Yep.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Not sure who you think you're fooling with this dog and pony show, but you want mobs to have carte blanche, and you want anyone who refuses to let themselves be run over by the mob, be run over by a legal system you are weaponizing against them, because you don't recognize the authority inherent in every man to defend himself and his property.

As if this is an accurate or even ballpark description of a child traveling out of State with an illegal gun to seek out protestors. You embarrass yourself.

You're not embarrassed by your bloodlust to see a young man thrown in a cage for life for not being willing to lay down and die?

You're not embarrassed by that?





You ought to be.

Those cages are where murderers belong. He'll do fine there. Get himself a boyfriend or two. Maybe he'll even be a hero to some other rightards in there whose brain is screwed on backwards like yours.

He didn't murder anyone---he shot 3 violent criminals trying while they attacked him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What exactly do you not understand about these violent criminals attacking him?

What do you not understand about the kid being charged with murder because the prosecution plans to establish that he threatened them first? Cool your jets sally, try to have an adult discussion.

 

[freyasman]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

But just carrying a gun around, cannot be legally construed to be "provocative".

Of course it can be. At least try not to be stupid. It depends on how you're carrying it. There's evidence that someone in Kenosha that night was pointing their gun at someone, maybe even at Rosenbaum. That's provocative. And if evidence surfaces in the trial that Rittenhouse did that, he's absolutely fucked. But again, he'll have many years to get used to being fucked.

And yet more fantasies about young men being raped and tortured from Faun .

This is who they are, this is who is claiming to be "progressive".



Treat them as they have shown they deserve to be treated people.

 

[freyasman]

What exactly do you not understand about these violent criminals attacking him?

What do you not understand about the kid being charged with murder because the prosecution plans to establish that he threatened them first? Cool your jets sally, try to have an adult discussion.

With you delusional fanatics?

Not likely.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What exactly do you not understand about these violent criminals attacking him?

What do you not understand about the kid being charged with murder because the prosecution plans to establish that he threatened them first? Cool your jets sally, try to have an adult discussion.

With you delusional fanatics?

Not likely.....

cry it all out, crybaby.

 

[Rigby5]

You can not be provocative carrying a gun around, and then claim self defense.
It is not like he was defending any of his own property or that of anyone he knew.
Essentially he was there looking for trouble, with the intent of intimidating people he assumed were going to be unarmed.

But just carrying a gun around, cannot be legally construed to be "provocative".

Not too provocative if holstered, but very provocative if a rifle carried in your hands, as you walk around to mingle with demonstrators.
What other purpose could he have had other then intentionally trying to intimidate?
And while intimidation itself can be justified if there was some particular property he wanted to defend, it is clear he was not concerned with any property.
Which means that instead he was deliberately trying to intimidate protestors in order to scare them into leaving.
And that not only violates their 1st amendment right, but is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.
No one else was visibly armed but the police.
You can't get any more provocative than that.

 

[freyasman]

What exactly do you not understand about these violent criminals attacking him?

What do you not understand about the kid being charged with murder because the prosecution plans to establish that he threatened them first? Cool your jets sally, try to have an adult discussion.

With you delusional fanatics?

Not likely.....

cry it all out, crybaby.

Keep on preaching your whackjob version of events...... people like you bring me more allies by the day, lol.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He went to another state, with an illegal firearm, to illegally play vigilante ostensibly to protect property that wasn't his.

This is why he is charged with murder, and reckless homicide. In light of these facts, one would have a hard time successfully arguing Rittenhouse was standing around minding his own business when assaulted by protestors.

So that is why the defense is reaching into its bag of tricks, such as claiming the first man Rittenhouse killed initiated the confrontation by chasing Rittenhouse in an effort to steal his gun, since he could not own one legally himself (being a convicted child predator). I imagine the jurors will have a hard time not laughing out loud at that, if the judge even allows that argument into court in the first place..