Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Jarlaxle]

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

******* idiot, the law you posted is totally irrelevant, because it is for those younger than 16! Kyle is 17! Do you or do you not understand that 17 is older than 16?

 

[Turtlesoup]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

You are crazy....he was on the ground surrounded by a mob of atleast 20 violent communists and BLMs-----he wasn't ever going to be able to outrun them.

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

You are crazy....he was on the ground surrounded by a mob of atleast 20 violent communists and BLMs-----he wasn't ever going to be able to outrun them.

I don't know if craziness quite covers it. There is much evil in there as well.

I am simply amazed at the utter hatred the subhumans have for the humans, at times. Whatever happened to liberalism, anyway? It has been replaced by this bloodthirsty identity politics hatred for civilization.

It needs to be stopped.

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

******* moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a ******* moron.

 

[Jitss617]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

******* moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a ******* moron.

He was chasing him, and a fire arm was discharged, the Pedophile should I stop chasing him to put his hands up and said bro that was not me.. now he’s cold lol

 

[Faun]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

 

[bripat9643]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

******* moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a ******* moron.

Really? You have video of what happened between the two cars?

 

[Jitss617]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

A mob chasing him cornering him, firing shots in his direction? Do you think they want to play patty cake with him

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

You are crazy....he was on the ground surrounded by a mob of atleast 20 violent communists and BLMs-----he wasn't ever going to be able to outrun them.

Dumbfuck, I am talking about Rosenbaum. If you can't keep up with a debate, you shouldn't participate.

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

******* moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a ******* moron.

Really? You have video of what happened between the two cars?

******* moron, you don't even know who or what I'm talking about. Try harder next time.

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?

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.​

Are you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyer

LOL

As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.

Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.

www.breitbart.com

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.



Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?

And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are ******* moron.

******* moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

******* moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a ******* moron, just as I've said.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

 

[bripat9643]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.

The kids father should be going to jail with him.

The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269

The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.

Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

You're such a ******* moron.

"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya ******* moron.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. ​

Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

No, it's not, ya ******* moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

******* moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a ******* moron.

Really? You have video of what happened between the two cars?

******* moron, you don't even know who or what I'm talking about. Try harder next time.

Sure I do: Rosenbaum.