- Apr 17, 2009
- 113,028
- 38,469
Gaige was not a felon, do you guys ever stop lying?Not only no, but hell no.
Gaige was a felon in possession of a firearm.
I think he had a intoxication charge pending also
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gaige was not a felon, do you guys ever stop lying?Not only no, but hell no.
Gaige was a felon in possession of a firearm.
I think he had a intoxication charge pending also
Doesn’t mean anything. You are talking a span of minutes, where he already shot and killed an unarmed man, someone else apparently fired shots in the air…multiple gunshots, guy with a high powered firearm running and people shouting “he just shot somebody”…all in the setting of angry, volatile and tense situation. You think people will pause and run through your active shooter checklist before reacting?Of the hundreds of people Rittenhouse passed between shooting the child rapist and shooting Huber, how many people did he shoot?
Jesus H Christ, Rosenbaum wouldn't have been shot if he didn't grab the barrel of the gun. Rosenbaum had damage to his hand and gunpowder residue around the wound . . . The flash-hider was in his hand. The attempt to disarm is an action that allows deadly force.You think everyone who isn’t a rabid rightwinger like you is a commie. It has become meaningless.
Rittenhouse also admitted he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed but he shot him anyway. Point is, at that moment in time, as far as anyone knew, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
Because Rosenbaum had a hold of his gun and was trying to disarm him.Rittenhouse also admitted he knew Rosenbaum wasn’t armed but he shot him anyway.
Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.Point is, at that moment in time, as far as anyone knew, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.Because Rosenbaum had a hold of his gun and was trying to disarm him.
That makes him a threat.
Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.
only idiot libs would chase someone with a loaded assault rifle life is not a tv show
Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter.
I have the luxury of reality supporting my position.You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.
Indeed.only idiot libs would chase someone with a loaded assault rifle life is not a tv show
Or on a death-wish of his own. At the gas station, after the dumpster fire was extinguished by Rittenhouse and others, Rosenbaum was strutting around, running up to and screaming at anyone with a gun, for them to shoot/kill him (Koerri Washington testimony and video from that night).Indeed.
Why -does- someone chase an active shooter armed with a weapon of war, if not to harm him in some way?
Or on a death-wish of his own. At the gas station, after the dumpster fire was extingushed by Rittenhouse and others, Rosenbaum was strutting around, running up to and screaming at anyone with a gun for them to shoot/kill him.
And none of this was known at time.Except, of course, what Rittemhouse did does not fall under any meaningful definition of 'active shooter' as 'active shooters' do not limit the people they shoot to those who directly threaten him.
You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.I have the luxury of reality supporting my position.
And none of this was known at time.
You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.
And none of this was known at time.
You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.
At that moment in time, with what was known, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. You have the luxury of judging this with hindsight.
WRONG.
Grosskruetz admitted on the stand that he had no direct evidence of Rittenhouse shooting anyone and only acted on hearsay. Furthermore - an "active shooter" implies, you know, ACTIVE SHOOTING, which Rittenhouse was NOT doing when Grosskruetz first approached him.
Tell me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial without telling me you haven't watched the video evidence/trial....
Moreover, even if Rittenhouse's attackers legitimately believed they were trying to stop an "active shooter" his right to self defense is not overridden if he isn't committing a crime, regardless of their intentions.
Let me put it to you this way (I assume you're a woman by some of your posts): You come home one day and find your husband trying to stab your children to death. You attempt to stop him. There's a lot of screaming and yelling in the process and in the chaos you manage to get the knife away from your husband and stab HIM to prevent the attack on your children. But in the meantime your neighbor hears the ruckus. He comes over, looks through the window and sees you attacking your husband with a knife. Knowing NOTHING about what had taken place just second prior, he busts in and tries to grievously assault/kill you to prevent you from grievously assaulting/killing your husband. You stab/kill him in the process.
Was he being a good samaritan? Yes. Did he know the context? No. Are you guilty of murder? NO. Your right to self defense still applied.
Nooooo.
Gunshots would've been heard by everyone.
Kyle had just killed two men and was running down the street with an AR15 in his hands while people yelled that he was the killer.
A reasonable person could assume he was an "active shooter."
Not like such an attack is unheard of in America.
It was. Active shooters actively shoot, usually indiscriminately. Rittenhouse was doing neither.And none of this was known at time.
Uh-huh.You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.
Anyone who actually watched videos of what happened knew this. Maybe stop getting your propaganda from the MSspinAnd none of this was known at time.
You have the luxury of hindsight only, not what people were observing at the time.