Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But one only needs to engage in that childish fantasy when the reality doesn't align with what they wish were true. Which you will surely do, if the jurors do not reach the decision that aligns with your gross political fetishes.But they are not perfect, obviously. One can easily imagine many ways that the trial could be fixed, by people of ill intent and poor character.
Nope, not based on my words. Based on your lies. Your inability to quote me saying he is a child just a few posts earlier, as you falsely ascribed to me, proves you're a liar.YOu called him a child just a few posts ago. YOU defined him as a child. Now you are pushing to see him serve life in prison.
Just pointing out what you are doing, in your own words. Based on your words.
But one only needs to engage in that childish fantasy when the reality doesn't align with what they wish were true. Which you will surely do, if the jurors do not reach the decision that aligns with your gross political fetishes.
So you line up these fantastical, embarrassingly stupid, pre-emptive excuses.
Nope, not based on my words. Based on your lies. Your inability to quote me saying he is a child just a few posts earlier, as you falsely ascribed to me, proves you're a liar.
LOLOLYOu are welcome to take your silly word games and shove them up your ass.
LOLOL
There's no "silly word game" here. You claimed I said something I never said. I'm highlighting the fact you're now lying about what I said. And now I'm highlighting the fact you're not man enough to own your false attribution.
Had I said what you claim I said, you would have quoted me saying it when I challenged you to prove I said it. You couldn't quote me since I didn't say he is a child so now you cry "semantics" rather than man up and own your lie.Standard libtard tactic. Say something, and deny saying it, and gin up an argument based on semantics.
I am not interested in playing your libtard troll games.
Rittenhouse was attacked by a violent mob. He defended himself. YOu want to punish him for daring to stand up to your violent thugs.
It takes a real piece of shit, to want to punish someone for defending themselves.
Had I said what you claim I said, you would have quoted me saying it when I challenged you to prove I said it. You couldn't quote me since I didn't say he is a child so now you cry "semantics" rather than man up and own your lie.
This is not about semantics. It's about you being a delusional freak who lies.
You falsely claimed I want children to be locked up for life in adult prisons with murderers and rapists. When I point out that's a lie as I never said any such thing, you then lie again and claim you base that on me saying he is a child; when I didn't say that either.
Realize it or not, you're fucked in the head, con.
Of course, you got caught lying so now you want to move past that.I'm not interested in your attempts at derailing the thread into stupid games.
Rittenhouse was clearly defending himself, from a violent mob, that was attacking him with clear intent to harm.
That you people want to see him go to jail for this, is you being on the side of the violent criminals.
Of course, you got caught lying so now you want to move past that.
Regadless of your lies, shooting someone in the back is murder, not self defense.
Nope, self-defense becomes murder when excessive force is used. And shooting someone on the ground, face down, in the back, is excessive.People move quickly, especially when being shot at, or being shot. That Rosenbaum might have twisted and got shot in the back during his attack on Rittenhouse, does not negate the fact that he was attacking Rittenhouse.
Which makes the shooting justified self defense.
Nope, self-defense becomes murder when excessive force is used. And shooting someone on the ground, face down, in the back, is excessive.
Why do you think it is illegal to shoot armed poeople chasing you with the intent to harm you?He's a murderer..
As much as i know it pleases you that the black guy was paralyzed, standards of evidence must be met.
"The department said it made the decision because the evidence is insufficient to prove Sheskey willfully used excessive force."
Hunting isn't legal within the city limits.
He's a murderer.. How "political" is that?
Self-defense......still not murder.
Rittenhouse?
Standard libtard tactic. Say something, and deny saying it, and gin up an argument based on semantics.
I am not interested in playing your libtard troll games.
Rittenhouse was attacked by a violent mob. He defended himself. YOu want to punish him for daring to stand up to your violent thugs.
It takes a real piece of shit, to want to punish someone for defending themselves.
Even if all this is true - and its not - none of this in any way negates this claims to self-defense.He traveled from another state with a gun to get involved in a protest.
