Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

What was Rosenbaum planning to do when he caught Rittenhouse? You faggot.

No one knows. Including you.

 

[Correll]

The initial shoot was one guy, not a mob. And he shot him because he couldn't outrun Rosenbaum. The rest were people lawfully trying to disarm an active shooter.

1. What was Rosenbaum planning to do, if/when he caught Rittenhouse?

2. You have claimed that they were not right there, they were not running along side. How did they determine that it was a bad shot, and that Rittenhouse should be disarmed, IF THAT WAS THEIR INTENT? Which it wasn't.

 

[Faun]

I have not heard of any forensics on the back wound. Have you? Or are you just talking shit?

Moron, I'm talking logic. What is more likely the source of the Bullet that struck Rosenbaum? The gun pointed at him from maybe inches away? Or the gun fired randomly into the air?

You're a fucking moron to even think it wasn't Rittenhouse. Not to mention, the police who have the forensics, charged Rittenhouse, NOT Ziminski, with murder.

Dayum, you're desperate.

 

[Correll]

No one knows. Including you.

You people have no problem deciding what Rittenhouse's intent was. Are you only able to read the minds of people you hate?

Or does the act of raping a child, like Rosenbaum did, make him immune to your mind reading?


What was his intent?

 

[Faun]

You're not presenting any good faith argument; you're not even trying to.

You're just flat out lying to advance your narrative, because you're an evil person who wants to see a young man suffer. And I think the reason it is so important to to you, is because that young man illustrated that the mob is not the unstoppable force it is being portrayed as. It can actually be dealt with quickly and easily by a determined man with a rifle....... and you really don't like that info getting out to the public.

Still waiting for you to say what lie I told. In reality, you can't since I told no lie.

As far as a mob being unstoppable, nobody’s saying that. Of course a mob can be stopped. Just ask Ashli Targetpractice. Oh... wait... you can't. That traitorous bitch is dead.

 

[Correll]

Moron, I'm talking logic. What is more likely the source of the Bullet that struck Rosenbaum? The gun pointed at him from maybe inches away? Or the gun fired randomly into the air?

You're a fucking moron to even think it wasn't Rittenhouse. Not to mention, the police who have the forensics, charged Rittenhouse, NOT Ziminski, with murder.

Datum, you're desperate.

I don't know the odds of the shots. Considering the violence and incompetence of the mob, I could easily see one of those violent asshole thugs, trying to shoot Rittenhouse and accidently shooting his comrade.

Friendly Fire is always a possibility. Especially with people as stupid as liberals.


This prosecution is almost certainly at least tainted with, if not consumed by, politics. I have no faith that their actions are driven by the evidence.


You people are soulless monsters. And you are a fucktard.

 

[Faun]

No, he didn't.



But liars gotta lie, right?

It's not a lie. It's what I believe based on Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the back. I could be wrong, we'll find out with the trial, but that's not a lie.

 

[Faun]

1. What was Rosenbaum planning to do, if/when he caught Rittenhouse?

2. You have claimed that they were not right there, they were not running along side. How did they determine that it was a bad shot, and that Rittenhouse should be disarmed, IF THAT WAS THEIR INTENT? Which it wasn't.

I don't recall saying anything in terms of where they were when Rosenbaum was shot.

 

[Faun]

You people have no problem deciding what Rittenhouse's intent was. Are you only able to read the minds of people you hate?

Or does the act of raping a child, like Rosenbaum did, make him immune to your mind reading?


What was his intent?

Again... no one knows, including you.

 

[Faun]

I don't know the odds of the shots. Considering the violence and incompetence of the mob, I could easily see one of those violent asshole thugs, trying to shoot Rittenhouse and accidently shooting his comrade.

Friendly Fire is always a possibility. Especially with people as stupid as liberals.


This prosecution is almost certainly at least tainted with, if not consumed by, politics. I have no faith that their actions are driven by the evidence.


You people are soulless monsters. And you are a fucktard.

LOL

Fucking moron, again... had Ziminski's solo shot miraculously happened to hit Rosenbaum, he would have been charged for that.

Do you have any common sense at all??

 

[freyasman]

Consent of the Governed is determined by elections. And protests.

According to you every drug dealer who opens fire on the police is merely expressing his correct moral authority against the drug laws.

But here is a question. What happens if the people take up arms against those like yourself who see a reckoning? What happens if you are outnumbered? What happens if the majority oppose your revolution?

You go into the history books. As traitors. Fools. Morons. Probably as racists and all the other negative terms.

But beyond that what happens to the nation?

Laws are immediately passed with public approval to make such actions even more punitive. Earlier I mentioned the legislative fallout from the McMichaels in Brunswick. Instead of loosening the Aggravated Assault restrictions they removed the right of the citizens to detain criminals caught in the act.

So now if I walk up to my car and a guy busts the window and runs. I can’t even legally chase him and hold him for police. I literally can do nothing legally except watch him run.

If a guy steals my groceries, medications, wallet. Whatever. I can’t do anything legally but watch him run away. Why? Vocal supporters of the McMichaels like you support Kyle made it impossible to maintain the rights we had.

The GOP in Georgia voted to the last man to do this. The Republicans voted to change the laws. The Republican Governor signed the legislation.

I wonder what legislation to further restrict the majority will come about because you feel it necessary to support a criminal like Kyle?

You need to worry less about the laws, and more about what is right.
And when those conflict, do the right thing.

 

[freyasman]

The initial shoot was one guy, not a mob. And he shot him because he couldn't outrun Rosenbaum. The rest were people lawfully trying to disarm an active shooter.

This is you lying.

 

[SavannahMann]

1. What was Rosenbaum planning to do, if/when he caught Rittenhouse?

2. You have claimed that they were not right there, they were not running along side. How did they determine that it was a bad shot, and that Rittenhouse should be disarmed, IF THAT WAS THEIR INTENT? Which it wasn't.

A few days ago people cheered when party goers stoned a gunman to death. The claim is the McMichaels we’re trying to place a criminal under citizens arrest. Why assume that the people chasing Kyle intended anything different than people here have cheered?

 

[SavannahMann]

You need to worry less about the laws, and more about what is right.
And when those conflict, do the right thing.

And I am sure that feeling of right will keep me warm in prison for violating the laws.

 

[freyasman]

No one knows. Including you.

But a reasonable person would conclude, from the evident facts, that he intended death or great bodily harm.

 

[SavannahMann]

But a reasonable person would conclude, from the evident facts, that he intended death or great bodily harm.

Why not assume they intended to detain Rittenhouse under citizens arrest for the first shooting? Oh. That’s right. You approve of Kyle shooting people who you think needed to die.

 

[freyasman]

It's not a lie. It's what I believe based on Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum in the back. I could be wrong, we'll find out with the trial, but that's not a lie.

Yes, it is.

Deliberately so.




(You even lie about your lying.)

 

[Faun]

This is you lying.

Nope, that's not a lie. It's what I believe. Rosenbaum, not a mob first charged Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, who may or may not have hade the legal right to engage in self-defense, lost that right even if he had it when he shot Rosenbaum, face down, in the back. Wisconsin law is clear you can only use whatever force is necessary to stop a threat. You can't use excessive force. The others who then tried to stop Rittenhouse did so to disarm an active shooter.

 

[Faun]

But a reasonable person would conclude, from the evident facts, that he intended death or great bodily harm.

I don't think reasonable people find it reasonable to shoot someone in the back while they're face down in order to stop them.

 

[freyasman]

And I am sure that feeling of right will keep me warm in prison for violating the laws.

Being a man takes effort.