- Nov 14, 2011
- 122,720
- 73,123
- 2,635
LOLOLThe use of force expert who testified, disagreed.
A defense witness who may or may not be allowed to testify in the trial. Defenses only select witnesses who provide testimony favorable to their defense.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOLOLThe use of force expert who testified, disagreed.
Even if all this is true - and its not - none of this in any way negates this claims to self-defense.
Why do you think it is illegal to shoot armed people chasing you with the intent to harm you?
No, he bought the gun from a friend, who purchased it for him, in Wisconsin. That gun only crossed state lines when he brought it back with him to Illinois.He traveled from another state with a gun to get involved in a protest.
You avoided my question:Do you take guns to a peaceful protest? What was Rittenhouse protesting?
No, he bought the gun from a friend, who purchased it for him, in Wisconsin. That gun only crossed state lines when he brought it back with him to Illinois.
Of course not.Did Rittenhouse go to Wisconsin to protest police brutaality?
You avoided my question:
Why do you think it is illegal to shoot armed people chasing you with the intent to harm you?
This question only matters if you believe there is a relevant situation where you believe they have a right to chase him down and assault him.Why were they chasing him?
Why were they chasing him?
Of course not.
Looks to me like they were trying to disarm a shooter. One of them even had a gun. If they were trying to kill Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz would have just shot him.View attachment 551691
View attachment 551693
Looks like the kicker and the guy with the skateboard were trying to kill him.
Looks to me like they were trying to disarm a shooter.
Who says they were trying to kill him? People chasing him were yelling he just shot someone. And again, Grosskreutz didn't have to approach Rittenhouse. If their intent was to kill him, Grosskreutz would have just shot him.By killing him? How did they know he shot anybody?
One of them even had a gun.
The guy with one bicep?
Who says they were trying to kill him? People chasing him were yelling he just shot someone. And again, Grosskreutz didn't have to approach Rittenhouse. If their intent was to kill him, Grosskreutz would have just shot him.
It all boils down this this:Who says they were trying to kill him?
People chasing him were yelling he just shot someone.
If their intent was to kill him, Grosskreutz would have just shot him.
Their actions say they weren't. A guy trying to kick him isn't trying to kill him. Another guy with a gun trying to charge, rather than shoot him at him, certainly isn't. Huber may or may not have, we'll never know.Who says they were trying to kill him?
Who says they weren't?
People chasing him were yelling he just shot someone.
If I chase you and yell you just shot someone, people are allowed to kick you and hit you
in the head with skateboards? Would you be allowed to defend yourself if they did?
If their intent was to kill him, Grosskreutz would have just shot him.
He didn't try to shoot him? And what does his failure have to do with the intention of the other two?
Their actions say they weren't. A guy trying to kick him isn't trying to kill him. Another guy with a gun trying to charge, rather than shoot him at him, certainly isn't. Huber may or may not have, we'll never know.
Show an image of Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Rittenhouse...Their actions say they weren't. A guy trying to kick him isn't trying to kill him.
A guy hitting him in the head with a skateboard says they were.
Another guy with a gun trying to charge, rather than shoot him at him, certainly isn't.
Pointing a gun at him after two others just hit him.......almost fatal stupidity.
Vapid whining. Your fantasies are colliding with reality again. And instead of puting on your big boy pants and taking the L, you are regressing to a childlike state and inventing fantasy 'spiracies to explain why the world isn't coddling your retarded fetishes.You are confused by cause and effect. We have had it demonstrated, over and over again, that liberals are teh ones that have created a fantasy,
ie, that they are the Heroes, up against evul villains, that are thus, justified in violating their professional, ethical, moral, or even legal responsibilities to win the fight against the Evul Ones.
Thus, if there is any political angle in an event or action, the motive of the liberal, has to be called into question and his actions not trusted.
Russia gate, where teh FUCKING FBI violated federal law, lying to a federal judge, to get a warrant, sealed that deal.
Anyone that denies that now, is either a fool or a liar. No other options.