Armed BLM protester shot by Kyle Rittenhouse sues police for ‘deputizing’ white nationalist vigilantes

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

He was threatened with deadly force and deadly weapons.

his shootings were legal and justified that is fact you cannot challenge

Nope.
At no time was Kyle threatened by deadly force or a deadly weapon.
The prosecutor and judge clearly need to be prosecuted for misconduct.

 

[Flash]

Wrong.
Kyle got off because both the prosecutor and judge were obviously biased in his favor.
He was clearly guilty on all counts, including the juvenile in possession.

No Moon Bat you are confused again.

Kyle was found not guilty by a jury of 12 after hearing all the evidence the Prosecution could present.

The Judge didn't get a vote.

I know you don't like the Left Wing scumbags being shot because you are one of them but they shouldn't have attacked Kyle.

You don't know the gun law in Wisconsin, do you?

The law says that somebody under 18 can't have a firearm unless they are in supervised hunting or shooting sports.

However, they make an exception for a 17 year old with a rilfe or shotgun providing it has a barrel longer than 16 inches and an overall length of 26 inches. That makes it just as legal for a 17 year old to open carry as any adult.

This has been explained to you many times but you are too stupid to understand.

Kyle had much more of a right to carry that AR than GG had with carrying that illegal Glock with a a revoked carry license.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can easily see that the pistol is in his right arm, the one that got shot, and that the pistol is NOT and could NOT have been pointed at Kyle.
The body of Grosskreutz is perpendicular to Kyle, and he even slightly has his back to Kyle.
So there is absolutely no way that pistol could possibly be aimed or pointed at Kyle.
For the pistol to be aimed at Kyle, it would have to be between Grosskreutz and Kyle at least.
But in the image it is clear it is BEHIND Grosskreutz.

You can easily see that the pistol is in his right arm, the one that got shot, and that the pistol is NOT and could NOT have been pointed at Kyle.

You said his hands were up.

Those hands aren't up. See the mist of blood and muscle? That's the moment after he was shot.
That gun is pointed toward Rittenhouse. Even a liar like you can admit that.

So there is absolutely no way that pistol could possibly be aimed or pointed at Kyle.

Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? LOL!

But in the image it is clear it is BEHIND Grosskreutz.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope.
At no time was Kyle threatened by deadly force or a deadly weapon.
The prosecutor and judge clearly need to be prosecuted for misconduct.

Wrong.

he was threatened by alkl three men he shot and two of them atytacked him with deadly weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

No it was not.

The law was judged and proven to be too vague to be applied and that was a correct rulong.

This fact was proven to you many times over

No, it was NOT a correct ruling at all.
The statute is very clear that there are only a few exceptions to the law making it illegal for a minor to be armed.
And Kyle was not applicable to any of the exceptions.
It was a very clear case of absolute guilt.

The short barrel reference had nothing to do with the main statue, but was only to eliminate the exemption for hunters, if the hunter was using a short barrel.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, it was NOT a correct ruling at all.
The statute is very clear that there are only a few exceptions to the law making it illegal for a minor to be armed.
And Kyle was not applicable to any of the exceptions.
It was a very clear case of absolute guilt.

The short barrel reference had nothing to do with the main statue, but was only to eliminate the exemption for hunters, if the hunter was using a short barrel.

It eas the correct ruling.

The judge correctly and accurately demonstratyed the law was too vague.

He is a legal expert you are not and he proved you wrong just as the image here proved you a coward and bald faced LIAR about Grosskreutz who pointed a gun at rittenhouse.

You are an unbelievable coward and chldish liar and you know it

 

[Rigby5]

You don't need a deadly weapon to kill someone. Plenty of people are beaten to death with bare hands or booted feet. So, that was you talking shit.



Rosenbaum publicly stated his intent to kill any of that group, he "caught alone". Rittenhouse was fully justified in defending himself from a dangerous madman. Your claim is just you talking shit.



For the gun, so indeed, it was completely justified. Your claim is just you talking shit.



Those skateboards are popular with antia rioters because they are certainly heavy enough to be a deadly weapon. YOur claim is just you talking shit.



You skipped the part where he pretended to surrender and then pulled the gun and was raising it towards pointing at Rittenhouse, when he was shot.

That was you just talking shit.


You need to decide. Is your position that of a whining cuck of a man, who thinks that any use of force is morally wrong and thus you....somehow still blame Rittenhouse more than his attackers,


Or are you a hardcore, tough, willing solider in the coming Revolution, totally willing to throw down and see your comrade die and you kill and burn and rape in the name of the Worker, or some such bullshit?


Cause, when you try to have it both ways, neither is believable.

Doesn't matter if you can kill someone with bare hands.
The law says you still can not immediately escalate to a gun and shoot.
At no time was Kyle ever at a lethal risk.

In the image, when Kyle pulled the trigger, it is obvious the pistol was NOT at all pointed anywhere near to Kyle.

Violence is never desirable.
Reform is necessary.
But first all nonviolence means has to be tried.
It is only after the Boston Tea Party failed, that the American Revolution had to turn into a shooting war.
And the majority are against the police who are illegally shooting and murdering people.
In fact, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc., are all totally illegal.

 

[Correll]

Obviously Kyle was not intimidated by anything Rosenbaum may have said, because we went around alone anyway.

Irrelevant. Rosenbaum had publicly stated his intent to commit murder. His actions fit his words. We have no reason to doubt the seriousness or honestly of his words or stated intent or actions.

That is a deliberate provocation.

That is how you see it, it is not how I see it. ANd irrelevant. Being provoked does not give you the right to attack and murder someone. If you try, he still has hte right to defend himself.

Starting violence without a weapon, does not allow for anyone to escalate to the use of a weapon.

Sure it does. Especially with a publicly stated intent of murder.

Just like with the Boston Tea Party, the corrupt government has to be removed and replaced.
The majority will not stand for police shooting innocent people.
Those who support the criminal government are a fascist minority who will lose.

Kind of undermines your tough talk, when you call the cops to arrest the people that kicked your ass, as you try to start your anti-government, anti-cop revolution.

 

[Rigby5]

You can easily see that the pistol is in his right arm, the one that got shot, and that the pistol is NOT and could NOT have been pointed at Kyle.

You said his hands were up.

View attachment 576787

Those hands aren't up. See the mist of blood and muscle? That's the moment after he was shot.
That gun is pointed toward Rittenhouse. Even a liar like you can admit that.

So there is absolutely no way that pistol could possibly be aimed or pointed at Kyle.

Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes? LOL!

But in the image it is clear it is BEHIND Grosskreutz.

You don't know what you're talking about.

The point is the arm is PERPENDICULAR to Kyle, so could not have been aiming at Kyle.
And clearly you can see he is NOT aiming at all at Kyle, and could not have been.
His back is slightly toward Kyle, with the right arm with the pistol, behind his own head.
Totally and completely impossible for that to at all be threatening.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Doesn't matter if you can kill someone with bare hands.
The law says you still can not immediately escalate to a gun and shoot.
At no time was Kyle ever at a lethal risk.

In the image, when Kyle pulled the trigger, it is obvious the pistol was NOT at all pointed anywhere near to Kyle.

Violence is never desirable.
Reform is necessary.
But first all nonviolence means has to be tried.
It is only after the Boston Tea Party failed, that the American Revolution had to turn into a shooting war.
And the majority are against the police who are illegally shooting and murdering people.
In fact, the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, mandated sentences, etc., are all totally illegal.

Yes he was at lethatl risk when Rosenbaum attempted to take his weapon. The law DOES allow one to use lethal force when another tries to trrake ones weapon.

He was at lethal risk when beaten with an improvised weapon ( skateboard ) and he was at lethal risk when Grosskreutz pointed his pistol at rittenhouse.

The image shows clearly the pistol pointed at Rittenhosue when he pulled the trigger. You are outright lying through your teeth when you claim otherwise and you know it

Illegal police shootings are rare and do not justify riots.

 

[Rigby5]

It eas the correct ruling.

The judge correctly and accurately demonstratyed the law was too vague.

He is a legal expert you are not and he proved you wrong just as the image here proved you a coward and bald faced LIAR about Grosskreutz who pointed a gun at rittenhouse.

You are an unbelievable coward and chldish liar and you know it

Wrong.
The law is clear, and I studied the WI gun law to get a WI CCW.
There is nothing remotely vague about the law Kyle was clearly in violation of.
The judge simply lied.
And the image shows you also are lying.
The gun is not only not aimed, but is slightly behind Grosskreitz, not at all pointed at Kyle.

 

[Rigby5]

Irrelevant. Rosenbaum had publicly stated his intent to commit murder. His actions fit his words. We have no reason to doubt the seriousness or honestly of his words or stated intent or actions.





That is how you see it, it is not how I see it. ANd irrelevant. Being provoked does not give you the right to attack and murder someone. If you try, he still has hte right to defend himself.



Sure it does. Especially with a publicly stated intent of murder.





Kind of undermines your tough talk, when you call the cops to arrest the people that kicked your ass, as you try to start your anti-government, anti-cop revolution.

Actually, the violent provocation of Kyle being armed does give everyone there the right to end the lethal threat by whatever means necessary.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes he was at lethatl risk when Rosenbaum attempted to take his weapon. The law DOES allow one to use lethal force when another tries to trrake ones weapon.

He was at lethal risk when beaten with an improvised weapon ( skateboard ) and he was at lethal risk when Grosskreutz pointed his pistol at rittenhouse.

The image shows clearly the pistol pointed at Rittenhosue when he pulled the trigger. You are outright lying through your teeth when you claim otherwise and you know it

Illegal police shootings are rare and do not justify riots.

Wrong.
The law does NOT allow you to use lethal for against an attempt to take a weapon if you should not have had the weapon in the first place.
The weapon constituted a death threat to everyone there, so everyone was authorized to remove that deadly threat by whatever means necessary.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The law is clear, and I studied the WI gun law to get a WI CCW.
There is nothing remotely vague about the law Kyle was clearly in violation of.
The judge simply lied.
And the image shows you also are lying.
The gun is not only not aimed, but is slightly behind Grosskreitz, not at all pointed at Kyle.

Wrong.'

getting a CCW makes you no espert being a judge does make you one.

Tou are ignorant of the law which is vague and unclear which is why the legal experts trumpo your ignorant opinion

You are the one lying not the judge.

The gun is pointed at rittenhouse. The image proves tyhis and you know it

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The law does NOT allow you to use lethal for against an attempt to take a weapon if you should not have had the weapon in the first place.
The weapon constituted a death threat to everyone there, so everyone was authorized to remove that deadly threat by whatever means necessary.

Yes it does.

The weapon constituted no threat.

 

[Correll]

Actually, the violent provocation of Kyle being armed does give everyone there the right to end the lethal threat by whatever means necessary.

No, it doesn't. Him having a weapon, does not give you the right to attack him.


And really, why the legalistic bullshit excuse making. YOu obviously feel that the time for revolution is here.


Stop pussyfooting around it. Just state, you support violence revolution, and people like Rittenhouse, you see as the enemy and you want to see them dead, for the simple fact that they are your enemy.

 

[Polishprince]

The police should just charge Grosskreutz for his possession of a firearm.

Convicted criminals aren't permitted to have guns in Wisconsin- send his sorry ass up the river. I bet the other inmates will be interested in knowing how he cavorted with Child Molester Joe Rosenbaum. Those who speak with such characters are assumed to be chomos themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Doesn't matter if you can kill someone with bare hands.
The law says you still can not immediately escalate to a gun and shoot.

Liar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the image, when Kyle pulled the trigger, it is obvious the pistol was NOT at all pointed anywhere near to Kyle.

It was obvious his hands weren't up. Liar.

 

[bripat9643]

Obviously Kyle was not intimidated by anything Rosenbaum may have said, because we went around alone anyway.
That is a deliberate provocation.

Utter horseshit. Not being intimidated is not a provocation, numskull. However, whaterve Rosenbaum did that should have intimidated Kyle was a provocation. You have a back-assward system of ethics where the victim is always in the wrong.

Starting violence without a weapon, does not allow for anyone to escalate to the use of a weapon.

Sure it does. The reason we have weapons is to protect us from thugs who threaten us, weapon or not. Furthermore, two of them did have a weapon.

Just like with the Boston Tea Party, the corrupt government has to be removed and replaced.
The majority will not stand for police shooting innocent people.
Those who support the criminal government are a fascist minority who will lose.

If anything, the government of Kenosha was corrupt because it allowed thugs to run around threatening people, beating them up and not arresting them.