But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....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.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.This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?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.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.Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.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.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.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
"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.
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.
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.