Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

 

[danielpalos]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

The jury gets to hear more of the details.

The dilemma, in my opinion, is that gun lovers seem to want to be able to, take the law into their own hands over ensuring the security of our free States through militia service, well regulated.

 

[Correll]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

The jury gets to hear more of the details.

The dilemma, in my opinion, is that gun lovers seem to want to be able to, take the law into their own hands over ensuring the security of our free States through militia service, well regulated.

THis issue is that assholes like you, want to use the power of teh state to punish people that defend themselves from the violent mobs you are allied with.

 

[Muhammed]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors and disinformation.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video.

 

[danielpalos]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

The jury gets to hear more of the details.

The dilemma, in my opinion, is that gun lovers seem to want to be able to, take the law into their own hands over ensuring the security of our free States through militia service, well regulated.

THis issue is that assholes like you, want to use the power of teh state to punish people that defend themselves from the violent mobs you are allied with.

Your guy should have stayed home. We have a First Amendment and it is First not Second. All he did was prove the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

In the case of the several States it is a simple ratio of organizing more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

 

[Correll]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

The jury gets to hear more of the details.

The dilemma, in my opinion, is that gun lovers seem to want to be able to, take the law into their own hands over ensuring the security of our free States through militia service, well regulated.

THis issue is that assholes like you, want to use the power of teh state to punish people that defend themselves from the violent mobs you are allied with.

Your guy should have stayed home. We have a First Amendment and it is First not Second. All he did was prove the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

In the case of the several States it is a simple ratio of organizing more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

I think Rosenbaum might disagree with you. If he could talk. Building not burned. Rittenhouse alive, and Rosenbaum dead.


That sounds pretty effective to me.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video

If a person is shot in the back, he could not be considered a threat. Hey, maybe he was running at Rittenhouse. But if the kid felt truly threatened, the gunshot would've entered the guy from the front, not the back. The fact that it entered into his back demonstrates that he wasn't even facing Rittenhouse at the time.

He could not have been a threat. and you don't get to shoot someone if you think they'll be a threat in the future or they were a threat in the past. A gunshot to the back is always damning evidence against a shooter...

 

[danielpalos]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

The jury gets to hear more of the details.

The dilemma, in my opinion, is that gun lovers seem to want to be able to, take the law into their own hands over ensuring the security of our free States through militia service, well regulated.

THis issue is that assholes like you, want to use the power of teh state to punish people that defend themselves from the violent mobs you are allied with.

Your guy should have stayed home. We have a First Amendment and it is First not Second. All he did was prove the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

In the case of the several States it is a simple ratio of organizing more militia until we have no more security problems in our free States.

I think Rosenbaum might disagree with you. If he could talk. Building not burned. Rittenhouse alive, and Rosenbaum dead.


That sounds pretty effective to me.

You miss the point. Rioting is still happening and still happens. Organizing more militia means more people would be more well regulated and less likely to riot. What percentage would it take to not have a critical mass of unorganized militia?

 

[Correll]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video

If a person is shot in the back, he could not be considered a threat. Hey, maybe he was running at Rittenhouse. But if the kid felt truly threatened, the gunshot would've entered the guy from the front, not the back. The fact that it entered into his back demonstrates that he wasn't even facing Rittenhouse at the time.

He could not have been a threat. and you don't get to shoot someone if you think they'll be a threat in the future or they were a threat in the past. A gunshot to the back is always damning evidence against a shooter...

People can move and twist suddenly, especially when they are being shot or shot at.


That shot placement can seem off, is not evidence of ill intent.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

I addressed your point seriously and honestly. You choose to response like a fucking asshole.


So fuck you.

My point stands.


In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

I addressed your point seriously and honestly. You choose to response like a fucking asshole.


So fuck you.

My point stands.


In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Stop your crying. Your points are stupid. "Don't attack armed men, neener neener". But thanks for reminding me why i had your whiny little ass on ignore. Byeeee

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

I addressed your point seriously and honestly. You choose to response like a fucking asshole.


So fuck you.

My point stands.


In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Stop your crying. Your points are stupid. "Don't attack armed men, neener neener". But thanks for reminding me why i had your whiny little ass on ignore. Byeeee

I addressed your point seriously and honestly. You choose to response like a fucking asshole.


So fuck you.

My point stands.


In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

 

[Muhammed]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video

If a person is shot in the back, he could not be considered a threat. Hey, maybe he was running at Rittenhouse. But if the kid felt truly threatened, the gunshot would've entered the guy from the front, not the back. The fact that it entered into his back demonstrates that he wasn't even facing Rittenhouse at the time.

He could not have been a threat. and you don't get to shoot someone if you think they'll be a threat in the future or they were a threat in the past. A gunshot to the back is always damning evidence against a shooter...

That's an ignorant statement.

That's akin to saying you cannot possibly shoot a wolf in the back in self-defense when it is chewing on your foot.

We live in a 3 dimensional universe. Quit playing stupid.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

No it won't. They have video evidence that proves it

Have you even seen any of the multiple videos out there?

Kinda telling that everyone here who posts a video of the incident argues that Kyle acted in self-defense while everyone who argues to the contrary merely mindlessly repeats internet and fakestream news rumors.

Watch the first 4 minutes of this video

If a person is shot in the back, he could not be considered a threat. Hey, maybe he was running at Rittenhouse. But if the kid felt truly threatened, the gunshot would've entered the guy from the front, not the back. The fact that it entered into his back demonstrates that he wasn't even facing Rittenhouse at the time.

He could not have been a threat. and you don't get to shoot someone if you think they'll be a threat in the future or they were a threat in the past. A gunshot to the back is always damning evidence against a shooter...

That's an ignorant statement.

That's akin to saying you cannot possibly shoot a wolf in the back in self-defense when it is chewing on your foot.

We live in a 3 dimensional universe. Quit playing stupid.

Are you trained in the use of deadly force?

I am. Well trained, in fact.

Your comparison is the absolute apex of ignorance and stupidity.

How is someone whose back is turned to you a threat? Lemme' help you out: He's not. He can't be...

 

[Canon Shooter]

In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well, that's too bad for Rittenhouse.

By the way, what's your background that you can make such a definitive statement regarding a human's reaction time and how fast someone can go from threat to non-threat? What's your training in that area?

 

[Correll]

In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well, that's too bad for Rittenhouse.

By the way, what's your background that you can make such a definitive statement regarding a human's reaction time and how fast someone can go from threat to non-threat? What's your training in that area?

I have none. I am quoting people that do have such training.


There is of course, the fact that I have been in danger and can certainly believe the statements about the impetus to fire quickly when your life is in danger, and I can, for one example SEE IN THE VIDEO, how quickly the final attack from Rosenbaum went.


And it is not "too bad" for Rittenhouse. It is GOOD for him, because any competent expert would advise the jury that such behavior is normal and not a sign of intent to murder but still well within the bounds of self defense.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I have none.

So, at least we've established that you're completely ignorant of the subject matter...

I am quoting people that do have such training.

Who, specifically, are you quoting?

 

[Muhammed]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....

You really willing to piss your life away, because you think that some guy might be violating a minor gun control law?

Well, I will defer to your judgement as to the value of your life.


Or really to it's complete lack of value.


My point stands. In a violent attack. like the one the mob launched on Rittenhouse, it is common for a man fighting for his life, to fire quickly, and an attacker can go from Threat to Non-threat faster than a human's reaction time.

Well you are getting into the realm of feelings. I can get you a binky and some kleenex, or we can go back to talking about the case in front of the court.

So back to the point: the dead guy sure learned not to attack the criminal with the gun. But i don't see.how this affects the case.

Correction: Alleged criminal.

The grand jury declined to indict him but the deputy prosecutor decided to prosecute him anyways, most likely because he was running for office and wanted the publicity.

 

[Correll]

I have none.

So, at least we've established that you're completely ignorant of the subject matter...

I am quoting people that do have such training.

Who, specifically, are you quoting?

People who work for the government and I can't refer to by name, for fear of reprisals from assholes.


If you disagree with the information I have been given, explain your disagreement.


Are you saying that people are not in fear during violent attacks?

Are you saying that such people might not pull the trigger faster than they can adjust to someone twisting or falling?


What exactly are you trying to get to?