Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[TemplarKormac]

Lie.



Lie.

Prove me wrong then. You have failed repeatedly to do so.

Your circular arguments are getting boring, Faun.

 

[BackAgain]

LOL

You fail again. The witness answered, "that's correct," to the defenses question, “We’re not saying he was turned and shot in the back correct?”

But that was never asserted by anyone in this case. No one suggested Rosenbaum turned and was shot and shot in the back.

So you prove to be wrong yet again. The expert witness did not concede the prosecution's claim that Rosenbaum fell forward, face down, when he was shot in the back.

You absolute asswipe. As I already explained, there is an ambiguity in the phrase “shot in the back.” And be honest for once. When the inept prosecutor asked the M.E. on direct examination, about the gunshot wound to the man’s back, HE was trying to elicit a piece of testimony with which to ultimately argue that Rittenhouse shot the guy in the back AS he was already lying prone on the ground.

The vastly superior defense lawyer then did a very smart cross examination of the expert. This showed that the “victim” was NOT necessarily lying prone on the ground. So, he was NOT necessarily “shot in the back” as the prosecutor wished to argue. The distinction may still elude a simpleton like you (or maybe you aren’t quite THAT dumb; but you’re just being deliberately obtuse), but it matters.

once again then: a gun shot wound of entry in the back does not mean that the shooter shot the “victim” FROM behind.

If you still wish to make your vapid “argument” about the bullet wound in the back, try to clarify which of those ambiguous meanings you are trying to discuss.

And of course, feel free to explain how a person raising his weapon at an armed PURSUER can conceivably thereby be said to have provoked that armed pursuer. So far your claim on that point makes less sense than you normally make. And that’s not much.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Of course you are. Want proof...?

Quote me saying, or even intimidating, videos should be suppressed....

I never said anything of the sort about you wanting the videos suppressed.

That is unless this is your self-projection coming through, in that case, I would be happy to.

I said the FBI held the videos for 14 months, not you.

 

[Soupnazi630]

LOLOL

Keep going. I'll post your lies every time.

You denied ever saying Rosenbaum was shot in the back...

​

...but here you are saying Rosenbaum wasn't shot in the back before you changed your story to he was shot in the back but by someone other than Rittenhouse...

​

I said post link motherfurcker you are lying

 

[Faun]

The judge made no ruling on the veracity of the claim, loser. He said that's for the jury to determine.

You're brain-dead, moron. If the claim was a lie, the judge would not allow the jury to consider it. It would be different if the defense challenged it so then the jury would have to decide which side they believe is telling the truth, but the defense didn't challenge it because it's true.

It's on video. It's as plain as the stupidity you're posting here. So no, I'm not lying. Now there could be extenuating circumstances which allows Rittenhouse to still use self defense, but I don't see it and you haven't shown shit beyond, nuh-uh!

 

[Faun]

I said post link motherfurcker you are lying

It's not my problem you're mentally disabled. I posted your quotes with links to your quotes.

 

[Faun]

Prove me wrong then. You have failed repeatedly to do so.

Your circular arguments are getting boring, Faun.

It's been proven. You lie and deny despite that. Now you can fuck off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the claim was a lie, the judge would not allow the jury to consider it.

That's faulty reasoning.

The judge allowing the jury to consider it is not inferring one way or another whether he thinks it's true or not.

There's a reason why trial courts have juries, you legally illiterate shill. They are the ones who determine the veracity of claims and evidence made or submitted by the witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's been proven.

How?

 

[Soupnazi630]

It's not my problem you're mentally disabled. I posted your quotes with links to your quotes.

No you did not

 

[M14 Shooter]

Coming from a lying racist republican Defending a murderer who carried an AR 15

^^^
A prime example of how to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

 

[Faun]

You absolute asswipe. As I already explained, there is an ambiguity in the phrase “shot in the back.” And be honest for once. When the inept prosecutor asked the M.E. on direct examination, about the gunshot wound to the man’s back, HE was trying to elicit a piece of testimony with which to ultimately argue that Rittenhouse shot the guy in the back AS he was already lying prone on the ground.

The vastly superior defense lawyer then did a very smart cross examination of the expert. This showed that the “victim” was NOT necessarily lying prone on the ground. So, he was NOT necessarily “shot in the back” as the prosecutor wished to argue. The distinction may still elude a simpleton like you (or maybe you aren’t quite THAT dumb; but you’re just being deliberately obtuse), but it matters.

once again then: a gun shot wound of entry in the back does not mean that the shooter shot the “victim” FROM behind.

If you still wish to make your vapid “argument” about the bullet wound in the back, try to clarify which of those ambiguous meanings you are trying to discuss.

LOLOL

Last time I'm going to repeat this. The defense got the answer they wanted by asking a question about something that didn't happen. At no point did Rosenbaum "turn" to get shot in the back. So it's meaningless that the witness agreed he did not turn and get shot in the back.

Furthermore, not even the prosecution is asserting Rittenhouse was behind Rosenbaum when he shot him in the back. So yet again, we find you're arguing with voices in your head and not against what anyone is saying.

And of course, feel free to explain how a person raising his weapon at an armed PURSUER can conceivably thereby be said to have provoked that armed pursuer. So far your claim on that point makes less sense than you normally make. And that’s not much.

Again, last time I repeat this... I never said Rosenbaum was armed when Rittenhousepointed his gun at him. I challenged you to quote me but regrettably, it seems you'd rather repeat your lie than quote me saying what you're claiming I said. Especially since you can't quote me because I never said that.

 

[Faun]

I never said anything of the sort about you wanting the videos suppressed.

You said I want that. So either I said that, or at least intimated that, or you made that up from whole clothe.

Which is it?

 

[Faun]

I said post link motherfurcker you are lying

Did that so now you can fuck off.

 

[BackAgain]

"Your argument IS that the defendant’s claim of self defense is gutted BECAUSE he pointed his weapon at the armed pursuer."

LOLOLOL

I never said that, you flaming retarded ball of ignorance.

Watch this as I utterly destroy you...

Quote me saying Rittenhouse pointed his gun at an armed pursuer....

When you can't, since I didn't, that will be an opportune moment for you to admit you're an idiot and slink away from this topic.

You remain utterly dishonest and pathetically brain damaged. You know, endlessly asking for reiteration of what you’ve already been schooled on only makes you come across as the pathetic imbecile you’ve always been.

as I already explained to you, your argument doesn’t require that you explicitly state “Rittenhouse shot the guy in the back” when you harp on the fact that the wound is IN the back and when you note that it’s not an exit wound. Just as the prosecutor didn’t elicit the information from the M.E. Without having a reason to make the attempt, so too YOU harped in that wound as constituting some kind of “evidence” that it wasn’t self defense.

don’t run from your own position so quickly without admitting what you had been up to. It’s unseemly.

Put your douchebaggery on the back burner for a while. And stop running from the difficult questions. Sack up, you puss.

1. If, as the government-called expert forensic witness testified, it is true that a bullet wound of entry in the “victim’s” back does NOT necessarily mean that his shooter was behind him (or that the “victim” was lying prone face down on the ground) when that shot was fired, then what difference does it make to any of your “arguments” that the gunshot wound of entry happened to be in the back?

2. As to your muddled claim about “provocation,” is it an accurate summary of your contention that:

when a defendant is pursued by an armed rioter, and then the defendant “points” his rifle “at” the pursuer, this is convincing evidence that the pursuer has been “provoked” in a way that legally negates that defendant’s claim of justification or self-defense?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You said I want that. So either I said that, or at least intimated that, or you made that up from whole clothe.

Which is it?

You're putting words in my mouth, you blithering fetishized leftist.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Did that so now you can fuck off.

You never did liar

 

[Faun]

That's faulty reasoning.

The judge allowing the jury to consider it is not inferring one way or another whether he thinks it's true or not.

There's a reason why trial courts have juries, you legally illiterate shill. They are the ones who determine the veracity of claims and evidence made or submitted by the witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.

Again, there's video of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum. And again, that happened before Ziminski fired his gun, so that was not a reason for Rittenhouse to point his gun at Rittenhouse. The defense did not even challenge that. Nor could they because their own client admitted it.

Now the judge is saying the jury can consider if that Rittenhouse provoked the attack.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again, there's video of Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Rosenbaum.

No, Faun, I posted all of the videos. They all claim otherwise. Especially the FBI infrared video.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And again, that happened before Ziminski fired his gun, so that was not a reason for Rittenhouse to point his gun at Rittenhouse.

You're doing this shit on purpose, aren't you?