Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Jarlaxle]

You're not a lawyer. Stop trying to act like one.

There IS a slam-dunk case...but it's for the defense. The charging documents alone might get the case dismissed by a judge. (Unlike you, the one who said that actually IS a lawyer, licensed in Wisconsin.)

Actually, the guy is kind of posturing.

You have the little shit shooting people in a crowd. It's a slam dunk case.

New job- Aryan Nation Prison *****.

You're not a lawyer. Stop trying to act like one.

There IS a slam-dunk case...but it's for the defense. The charging documents alone might get the case dismissed by a judge. (Unlike you, the one who said that actually IS a lawyer, licensed in Wisconsin.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

LOL....Weak tactic my left wing friend....Trying to catagorize the case as open and shut before any investigation, let alone a trial is the folly of a loser.

There's no need for an investigation.... we have the little shit on tape shooting people.

What I saw on the videos, was self defense. But, I note your willingness to do away with equal protection under the law.

You need to understand: Joey is a Stalinist. He is perfectly fine with show trials with predetermined verdicts for the "wrong" people.

 

[progressive hunter]

why did you pull my comment out of context???

I did not pull your comment out of context.

then wheres the comment I was responding to for context of my words???

Exactly the thing I was talking about. They learn how to manipulate the direction of a conversation in ways that normal honest people dont think of. It puts you at a disadvantage only if you dont expect it. I expect it.

They always redirect the focus to the vacuum created by your words rather than actually to your words. Honest people dont do that. Then they give pat their own back for somehow being "smarter" than you when in fact they were really just more devious and dishonest. A 5 year old can be devious and dishonest. Sometimes they even get away with eating that cookie... its cute. Often they end up orchestrating their own punishment and you dont even have to lift a finger.

so true,,,like I said this aint my first time dealing with nthis tactic,,,
best thing to do is shut it down right away,,,

 

[elektra]

Gee wowee willickers...
I guess if we were in grade school I might actually worry about a childish rant like that.

The fact that you replied is evidence of such.

 

[j-mac]

LOL....Weak tactic my left wing friend....Trying to catagorize the case as open and shut before any investigation, let alone a trial is the folly of a loser.

There's no need for an investigation.... we have the little shit on tape shooting people.

What I saw on the videos, was self defense. But, I note your willingness to do away with equal protection under the law.

You need to understand: Joey is a Stalinist.

Oh, I do....

 

[Correll]

You're not a lawyer. Stop trying to act like one.

There IS a slam-dunk case...but it's for the defense. The charging documents alone might get the case dismissed by a judge. (Unlike you, the one who said that actually IS a lawyer, licensed in Wisconsin.)

Actually, the guy is kind of posturing.

You have the little shit shooting people in a crowd. It's a slam dunk case.

New job- Aryan Nation Prison *****.

You are confused Moon Bat. The little shits were the Left Wing Communists that attacked him.

Two of them are in Commie Hell now and one of them will never be able to jerk off to gay porn anymore.

Kyle's defense team will get him off. The charges are bogus. We all know that. Then you stupid immoral confused Moon Bats will cry and whine just like you did when that George Zimmeran was found innocent.

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Did hear about the filthy ass Democrat Governor of Maryland that fired a state employee because the employee posted something saying he supported Kyle? Democrat asshole!

I hope he sues.

 

[Correll]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.

The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon.

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.


That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals.


That you support that, is you siding with violent criminals.

 

[elektra]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"

 

[bripat9643]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

I doubt you can site a law that says any of those things.

 

[playtime]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

 

[Flash]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

Veterans against Trump? LOL. Must be Black Navy cooks.

 

[elektra]

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.

I doubt you can site a law that says any of those things.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; ...
(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[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.

Are you always this dramatic as you clutch your pearl necklace, Karen? I have sent no one to prison.

You and your ilk certainly have.
And the fact that you have no remorse for that is a pretty damning indictment of your character.

LOLOL

Let me make a note to let you know when I give my first shit what a con thinks about my character.

 

[playtime]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

Veterans against Trump? LOL. Must be Black Navy cooks.

<pfffft> i see what you did there, torch bearer... although you are wrong per yer usual M.O. - that would still make them braver than your coward president.

 

[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.

I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.

You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.

Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.

The pedo was shot 4 times 3 from the front and one from the back----kyle was never in back of the pedo....ergo the medical examiner has some questions and is awaiting ballistic test results.

Not true. Rosenbaum was facing the little terrorist when he was first shot. But he ended up on his back. That means his body had to spin as he fell; otherwise, he eould have landed face down. One of the shots apparently hit him in the back as he spun to the ground.

 

[Faun]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.

The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon.

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.


That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals.


That you support that, is you siding with violent criminals.

"That the mob found his present enough of a provocation that they attacked him for just being there, is them being violent criminals."

There is no evidence that is true. No other RWers were chased.

 

[2aguy]

You're not a lawyer. Stop trying to act like one.

There IS a slam-dunk case...but it's for the defense. The charging documents alone might get the case dismissed by a judge. (Unlike you, the one who said that actually IS a lawyer, licensed in Wisconsin.)

Actually, the guy is kind of posturing.

You have the little shit shooting people in a crowd. It's a slam dunk case.

New job- Aryan Nation Prison *****.

Do you understand the teenager is hispanic? You moron.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I knew you were full of shit. Thanks for confirming it.

You didn't post any evidence the teen murderer didn't kill Rosenbaum -- you posted evidence someone else fired first. That's been known since the NYTimes discovered it. But that guy didn't shoot Rosenbaum, he fired one shot into the air. You can even see his arm is up above his head.

Then about 2-3 seconds later, the teen murderer shoots Rosenbaum 4 times. Then calls a friend to tell him he killed somebody.

The pedo was shot 4 times 3 from the front and one from the back----kyle was never in back of the pedo....ergo the medical examiner has some questions and is awaiting ballistic test results.

Not true. Rosenbaum was facing the little terrorist when he was first shot. But he ended up on his back. That means his body had to spin as he fell; otherwise, he eould have landed face down. One of the shots apparently hit him in the back as he spun to the ground.

And you have nothing but your imagination on that one....The hispanic teenager shot the guy from the front...we still don't know if all of the bullets are the same....

 

[2aguy]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.

It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"


View attachment 382165

So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....

The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....

And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.

I doubt you can site a law that says any of those things.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; ...
(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

And yet there is an exception for long rifles that may apply, you dumb ass....