Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Dogmaphobe]

You know, you can sure tell a lot about a person by seeing who they identify with here. Some of us identify with the normal, productive members of society running their small businesses and earning their own way.

As we can see in this thread, though, some are only capable of identifying with the rapists, arsonists and looters who are out to destroy the normal people's lives.

We identify with those who seem most like ourselves, here.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

How dare he call the cops on a druggy thief and a guy with a history of attacking other people. It is all zimmermans fault for daring to care about his community and try to stop the violent criminals which trayvon absolutely was.

PUll your head out of the sand and get a clue...buy a vowel if you have to.

Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong.

he was beating a guys head into the concrete,,,

Zimmerman started an unnecessary altercation. Then he got his butt kicked. Then he killed him.

martin attacked him,,,

I agree.

 

[Faun]

he worked in the town and the property owner asked them for help,,,

Link please.

I really wish you mother fuckers would educate yourself before commenting,,,

Kyle Rittenhouse Defended Himself, ‘Did Nothing Wrong,' Attorney Says

The attorneys representing Kyle Rittenhouse, the Antioch 17-year-old charged with the shooting deaths of two protesters in Kenosha, released a statement Friday night, saying the teen “did nothing wrong” and acted in self-defense. Earlier in the day, a judge agreed to delay for a month a decision...

www.nbcchicago.com

LOLOL

Wut?? The teen murderer's attorney is claiming is client is innocent? The nerve.

wheres that proof he was convicted of murder???

"wheres that proof he was convicted of murder???"

You really should stop lying. I never said he was convicted. I said it's my opinion his actions amount to murder.

Like I always say, if rightards didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??

Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...

He says he did and he was right there.

 

[Faun]

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

I can see how that will be used in the trial. Personally, I don't think it will work.

We'll see though.

It's what saved Zimmerman. He shot once and stopped the attack and didn't shoot again. This guy stopped the attack with his first shot and kept on shooting.

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the USMB ******* moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

******* moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “**** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

******* moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, ******* moron.

got a link to that court conviction???

Don't need one. Again, what part of "opinion" is beyond your first grade reading level?

so youre revising your claim from what youve been saying all day,,

I changed nothing. I am not responsible for your reading comprehension problems.

 

[Faun]

if it even goes to trial,,,and if its the case he didnt kill the first guy likes being presented it wont,,

I would guess that it goes to trial and that he only gets hit with the misdemeanor for being a minor with a gun, resulting in 9 months in prison.

That's my prediction. Book it. I could be wrong obviously. Especially as more evidence rolls in.

That charge may be in doubt.

 

[progressive hunter]

he worked in the town and the property owner asked them for help,,,

Link please.

I really wish you mother fuckers would educate yourself before commenting,,,

Kyle Rittenhouse Defended Himself, ‘Did Nothing Wrong,' Attorney Says

The attorneys representing Kyle Rittenhouse, the Antioch 17-year-old charged with the shooting deaths of two protesters in Kenosha, released a statement Friday night, saying the teen “did nothing wrong” and acted in self-defense. Earlier in the day, a judge agreed to delay for a month a decision...

www.nbcchicago.com

LOLOL

Wut?? The teen murderer's attorney is claiming is client is innocent? The nerve.

wheres that proof he was convicted of murder???

"wheres that proof he was convicted of murder???"

You really should stop lying. I never said he was convicted. I said it's my opinion his actions amount to murder.

Like I always say, if rightards didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

you called him a murderer which to sane people means he was convicted,,,

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the USMB ******* moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

******* moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “**** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

******* moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, ******* moron.

Shit stain....it is sounding more and more like someone else shot the guy in the back......you moron.......

Nope, there's no evidence anyone else shot Rosenbaum in the back.

You mean except for the guy who may have shot at the hispanic kid with the rifle...right?

let's see your proof....

 

[Flash]

It is amazing how these Moon Bats are hell bent on defending the Communists thugs that attacked Kyle Just like they were defending that filthy ass Trayvon thug attacking George Zimmerman.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

 

[BothWings]

Because they can't win by being straight and to the point without calling people names.

I did not call anybody a name, that makes you the person who can not win a point by being straight.

Hypocrites are the ones that accuse others of what they do. At the least you are a hypocrite. At the least you seem pretty ******* stupid.

You can not go back to the original posts and prove I lied or called someone a name, seeings how you can not do that, that makes you complete idiot.

Ha ha! WOW! I gave Progressive Hunter a general example of several things liberals and leftists do to gain the upper hand in semantics. You DID pull him away from what he was responding to because dont want to be straight about it, and then you called me ******* stupid (name calling). So now you meet not one but TWO of the criteria. Thanks! Damn, youre gullible....

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the USMB ******* moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

******* moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “**** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

******* moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, ******* moron.

Shit stain....it is sounding more and more like someone else shot the guy in the back......you moron.......

Nope, there's no evidence anyone else shot Rosenbaum in the back.

its developing quickly,,,theres video of someone behind rosenbaum firing his way,,,

show it...

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??

Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...

He says he did and he was right there.

watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

LOL

Oh, noooos .... a rightard disagrees with me. How can I survive that??

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??

Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...

He says he did and he was right there.

watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,

I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.

 

[progressive hunter]

Slobbers the USMB ******* moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

******* moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “**** you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

******* moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, ******* moron.

Shit stain....it is sounding more and more like someone else shot the guy in the back......you moron.......

Nope, there's no evidence anyone else shot Rosenbaum in the back.

its developing quickly,,,theres video of someone behind rosenbaum firing his way,,,

show it...

if you arent going to keep up with the posts you should shut up,,,

 

[XponentialChaos]

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

I can see how that will be used in the trial. Personally, I don't think it will work.

We'll see though.

It's what saved Zimmerman. He shot once and stopped the attack and didn't shoot again. This guy stopped the attack with his first shot and kept on shooting.

I think it can be side-stepped with a simple "everything just happened so fast" kind of statement. I'm just really skeptical of how effective that argument will be. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out for sure.

They're arguing that he didn't even shoot the first guy, which is just plain ridiculous.

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??

Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...

He says he did and he was right there.

watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,

I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.

it was posted on this thread within the last few pages,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

its turning out he didnt kill the first guy,,,still waiting for the investigation,,arent you??

Oh, let's see your evidence he didn't kill the first guy...

He says he did and he was right there.

watch the video posted earlier,,and kyle thought he did but he might be wrong,,,

I'm not hunting for videos. If you can't post it, I'll just assume you're full of shit again.