Kyle Rittenhouse

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And what did these 2 do wrong?

Nothing except not allow the mob to have it's way, right?

False. They even pled guilty to their crimes. Once again reality and your fantasies diverge. A normal, functional adult might start to get embarrassed, at this point.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Pause this it at 1:03 in this video. Notice that the tackler's torso is not facing the ball carrier. It's actually facing the ground, not the ball carrier. It's facing away from the ball carrier.



Yet obviously he still made the tackle, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't facing the ball carrier, his momentum carried him into the ball carrier.

Understand now? Or no?

Mother of God you're reaching, and you're failing.

First, off, we're talking about someone being shot in the back, not being tyackled in a football game. Second, if the tackler's back had been facing the ball carrier, he never would've made the tackle. He would've been no threat. That would've been an appropriate comparison. But, that comparison only proves you wrong, so you want nothing to do with it...

Someone's back doesn't need to be facing you in order for you shoot them in the back, jackass.

Actually, it does.

Unless, of course, Rittenhouse was using magic bullets. Is that what he had? Magic bullets?

 

[freyasman]

I can't seem to find any definite link to whether he is a felon or not; can you?

Oh, well then, you cant claim he was a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, can you?. But Rittenhouse being there illegally and possessing a gun illegally are facts we do know.

So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?

My claims don't dictate the reality of the universe? Oh my, what an excellent point!

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.
When is running at someone and pointing a pistol at them not assault? Or aggravated assault?
If someone does that to a cop, what happens to them? Are they charged with a crime, if they survive?





But he hasn't been charged with anything....... why is that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.

Then that's on you, big guy. Horse, water, etc.

 

[freyasman]

And what did these 2 do wrong?

Nothing except not allow the mob to have it's way, right?

False. They even pled guilty to their crimes. Once again reality and your fantasies diverge. A normal, functional adult might start to get embarrassed, at this point.

Them pleading out is an indictment of the legal system more than anything else. They paid off the local state government to the tune of a few hundred bucks in exchange for the legal system fucking off and leaving them alone. Big whoop....

And they did nothing wrong.








But I understand why someone like you would hate people for standing up for themselves and defending their property; you're that kind of person.

 

[freyasman]

"So, starting to understand why he was the only one charged?"
Nope.

Then that's on you, big guy. Horse, water, etc.

A normal, functional adult might start to get embarrassed at this point, at the way you cherry pick things to respond to, and dodge all the questions you don't have answers for...... but that ain't you, is it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Them pleading out is an indictment of the legal system more than anything else.

Or because they were guilty of the crimes that we all watched them commit on video.

I will again go with facts and reality instead of the partisan fantasies of a guy who seems quite at odds with facts and reality. Surely you understand.

 

[freyasman]

Them pleading out is an indictment of the legal system more than anything else.

Or because they were guilty of the crimes that we all watched them commit on video.

I will again go with facts and reality instead of the partisan fantasies of a guy who seems quite at odds with facts and reality. Surely you understand.

You keep saying "facts and reality" when you're referring to the imaginary bullshit in your head.

 

[Faun]

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot

False. Sorry. Maybe you didnt hear, but that wasnt true, and he had a perfectly legal license to carry.

Got anything else? I suppose not, since your entire diatribe rested on that error.

Really? I'd like a link to that.

Don't much care though, because I have stated more than once that I don't have any problem with felons having guns....... attacking someone with it, is still a crime though.
And he did.
On video.
And he hasn't been charged.



Why do you suppose that is, if not politics?
What other reason is there?

Still waiting.... what felony did he commit...?

 

[westwall]

Why is he the only one being prosecuted?

I am not your assistant. Make your points.

Maybe it's because he is the only one who harmed and killed people? Good luck.

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot.......why hasn't he been charged with anything?

(Here, I'll give you the answer before you dodge the question yet again.....)
Because it's about politics and not about public safety or law, that's why.

Yup. Every single one of the scumbags that Kyle shot was a convicted felon. What are the odds of that in the first place, and, he is the only one without a prior criminal record.

His persecution is totally political.

 

[Turtlesoup]

He was clearly acting in self defense and would probably be dead if he didn't defend himself.

Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

Neither is beating someone with a skateboard and running off like a fucking coward.

It's legal to try and stop a murderer.

Uh.....they didn't know what happened.

So, no. Nothing was "legal".

It's legal to stop someone in Wisconsin if you have probable cause to believe they committed a felony.

And it's legal for them the defend themselves. That's exactly what Kyle did.

It's a clear case of self defense, you low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

Yes, it is legal to defend yourself. I never said otherwise. It's not legal to use excessive force to defend yourself. That's why he's charged with murder.

There was no excessive force used, dumbass. He was charged and arrested because some authoritarian America hating scumbag wanted to take a political prisoner.

You're a fucking idiot and a compulsive liar.

I bet you can't link to a single thread in which you have significantly participated in, in which you did not tell a demonstrable lie. I challenge you to do that.

I also challenge you to find even a single post of mine, in which I tell a lie. You can search through all 23,520 of them and you will not find even a single lie.

Dumbfuck, I didn't say you lied about Rittenhouse. I'm saying you're wrong. Just like you were wrong about Chauvin. You don't know shit. You didn't even know Rosenbaum was lying face down.

Of course you are simply lying again. I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos. I saw him lying facedown after he was shot.

You also lied when you claimed that the video showed him get shot while he was lying face down.

Please provide a link to a video of him getting shot by Kyle while he in lying face down. Of course you cannot do that because it simply doesn't exist. You're simply lying again.

You're a compulsive liar and a low IQ subhuman piece of shit.

"I knew he was lying face down because I saw a shitload of videos."

You're lying now. Earlier I said that he was lying face down and you denied it...

Faun: Ignore the text, the video shows Rosenbaum lying face down before someone flipped him onto his back.​

​

Muhammed: And of course you're simply lying again as usual. The video shows nothing of the sort.​

And there you go lying again. I never denied that he was lying face down on the ground. And you cannot quote me saying that.

This is your other lie that I was referring to...

Faun:he was shot in the back lying face down on the ground.

That's the lie I was referring to, moron.

Granted I know you tell so many fucking lies that it's impossible for you, or anyone else, to keep track of all of them. So why even try? Why not just quit lying? Then you don't have to keep track of them. It obviously works for me.

Why is it that when idiots like you have an opinion that doesn't jibe with the truth, you simply lie to yourself and others?

I believe it is much easier and wiser to change my opinions if I find out they don't jibe with the truth, rather than fruitlessly try to change an immutable truth.

That's the huge difference between a wise person like me and an idiot like you.

You should stop lying then.

As far as him shotbin the back lying down, I already posted the video. Rosenbaum starts to fall face down after the first shot. By the 4th shot, he's face down and shot I the back. There was no other time Rittenhouse was facing Rosenbaum's back.

In what post did you post that video? Got a post number or a link?

Nobody believes you because you're a fucking compulsive liar.

Go ahead and post a video that shows him getting shot in the back while he is lying face down on the ground, liar.

That video has a false narrative edited onto it. Kyle obviously did not fire the 3 more shots as it claims. There were many people shooting, dumbass. Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground.

However, very low IQ people like you who are easily brainwashed via the power of suggestion are very susceptible to that sort of bullshit.

It must really suck to be as stupid as you.

So? It's still the video. Ignore the text.

"Kyle shot the child molester three times before he hit the ground."

Kyle shot the child molester 4 times -- the 4th was in the back when he was lying on the ground face down. That's the moment it went from self-defense to murder.

Bullshit. It was all one burst of gunfire in self-defense. It wouldn't matter if it was 5 or 10 shots, it would still be self-defense. Kyle was not the attacker, he was the defender.

You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend that obvious fact.

Nope, it's not all one burst. It's not an automatic weapon. He had to squeeze the trigger 4 times in order to get 4 shots.

And of course it matters. Self-defense is not a legal pass to murder someone. When employing self-defense, you're only allowed to use as much force as necessary to stop the threat. If killing an attacker is needed to stop the threat, the law allows that. It does not allow you to stop the threat but then continue shooting anyway.

It doesn't have to be an automatic weapon to fire a burst of rounds, idiot. You can fire a burst by repeatedly pulling the trigger fast.

It takes time to determine that someone is no longer a threat, dumbass.

LOL

Dumbfuck, I said he had to pull the trigger 4 times. The 4th shot should not have been fired. That was the shot that probably killed Rosenbaum and it was to his back. That's murder, not self-defense.

Bullshit. In an interview, the closest eyewitness, who was standing right there, the reporter who took off his shirt and applied pressure to the JR's head wound, said that Kyle's last shot went over JR and hit the pavement near him.

And even if it would have hit him, it would still be self-defense because a split second is obviously not enough time to determine that your attacker is no longer a threat.

He said no such thing, ya lyin' piece 'o shit. He said he thought the first hit the pavement because he felt something hit his leg...

Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting: We Found Missing Evidence At The Scene

Wisconsin Right Now's Jim Piwowarczyk found missing evidence - two shell casings - at the first Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene in Kenosha.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

​

]i\McGinnis said when the first round went off, he thought it hit the pavement. McGinnis felt something on his leg and his first thought was wondering whether he had gotten shot. McGinnis was behind and slightly to the right of Rosenbaum, in the line of fire, when the defendant shot. McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum. McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.​

I stand corrected. It was the first shot, not the last shot. However, all of those shots were obviously in self-defense.

Kyle was clearly not the aggressor. Your child molester kindred spirit was the aggressor.

We'll find out in court since he indisputably shot Rosenbaum in the back.

There's no law against shooting someone in the back in self-defense. Sure, if there was no video evidence the prosecution could make an honest jury very skeptical that it was self-defense.. However, in this case there is multiple videos that clearly show that Kyle shot a quick burst of rounds at that terrifying angry raging maniac in self-defense.

Again ... the law is excessive force to stop a threat is illegal. Shooting someone in the back when they're laying face down on the ground is excessive. Not handling the gun properly or firing too fast is not an excuse.

Lord have mercy----

Firing a gun to fast when you are under attack? Ummm semi automatic while on Adrenaline....the guns continue to fire and humans have little control about stopping the firing. The child molestor should not have attacked kyle----once the firing started, no one would have been able to stop firing.

BTW, why the hell are you upset about a child rapist being killed?

LOL

No one but Kyle Rittenhouse had control to stop firing. That's not an excuse. If anything, it's more reason, aside from the legal aspect which didn't permit him to have that gun, for why he shouldn't have been armed with a gun at all. He was not handling it very well.

I'm not upset about a child rapist being gunned down. I couldn't care less that a piece of shit like Rosenbaum is dead. That doesn't mean I also want someone to get away with murder. For me, it's a win-win. Children are safer from a child molester like Rosenbaum and the streets will be safer from a nut like Rittenhouse once he's locked up.

Hun, take a damn gun class if you can't grasp the basics. Semi automatics fire bang bang bang (you know easily in rapid succession)......once fear takes over, the body produces this thing called adrenaline and it is human nature to keep pressing the trigger.. Kyle was under attack from a deranged violent child molestor--------followed by two more violent criminals. I am amazed at how much control he was actually able to demostrate given the circumstances.

Going after Kyle, a child who shot a child molestor dead, is sick. The criminals deaths are a good thing for society-----the right thing for the 17 year old to have done, and the world is a better place with their deaths but worse now with Kyle on trial. You are upset about the lib/communist child molester being killed off...You can't murder a child molester attacking a child. It's classic self defense...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

keep saying "facts and reality" when you're referring to the imaginary bullshit in your head.

Well lets review:

- Rittenhouse illegally possessing a firearm
- Rittenhouse seeks out and confronts protestors (he went to them)
- Rittenhouse kills a man who rushed him
- others rush him, he shoots them too
- Rittenhouse charged with murder

Start there?

 

[westwall]

Why is he the only one being prosecuted?

I am not your assistant. Make your points.

Maybe it's because he is the only one who harmed and killed people? Good luck.

And maybe it's for political reasons.
The state wants a monopoly on force, and always seeks to punish anyone who uses force without their okay, whether justified or not.
If it is demonstrated that a riot can be put down by just a few men with rifles, then why do we need the state, then?
Why then, do we need police and DA's and judges and all the rest?



“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle

So you just better hope there are more “good men” with rifles than idiotic wannabes like Rittenhouse who shot and killed two unarmed men.

At least those employed by the state know law and can be held accountable. Vigilantes? Not so much. History is full of bad examp,es.

The second piece of shit that Kyle shot had tried to brain him with a skateboard. He was far from unarmed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

take a damn gun class if you can't grasp the basics. Semi automatics fire bang bang bang (you know easily in rapid succession)......once fear takes over, the body produces this thing called adrenaline and it is human nature to keep pressing the trigger

Nobody disputes anything like this. This poor kid really had not much idea at all about anything, except he was going to shoot a protestor if they fucked with him. I doubt he even really grasps the weight of it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The second piece of shit that Kyle shot had tried to brain him with a skateboard.

Lesson learned? Take your long gun instead of a skateboard and shoot the child dead on the ground in 'self defense'. Cant know who the crazy kid is going to shoot next, right? Awesome. Murrica!

 

[freyasman]

The guy who got his bicep shot off was a felon with a handgun, actively attacking someone with it, when he was shot

False. Sorry. Maybe you didnt hear, but that wasnt true, and he had a perfectly legal license to carry.

Got anything else? I suppose not, since your entire diatribe rested on that error.

Really? I'd like a link to that.

Don't much care though, because I have stated more than once that I don't have any problem with felons having guns....... attacking someone with it, is still a crime though.
And he did.
On video.
And he hasn't been charged.



Why do you suppose that is, if not politics?
What other reason is there?

Still waiting.... what felony did he commit...?

Other than aggravated assault with a firearm on the night in question, which it seems he won't be charged with, I can't find anything...... so I guess I was wrong about him being a convicted felon.
Mea culpa


You guys should all hire him as a babysitter, since he is clearly a man of sterling character, lol.

 

[Muhammed]

keep saying "facts and reality" when you're referring to the imaginary bullshit in your head.

- Rittenhouse seeks out and confronts protestors (he went to them)

Of course you're simply lying again, as usual.

 

[freyasman]

keep saying "facts and reality" when you're referring to the imaginary bullshit in your head.

Well lets review:

- Rittenhouse illegally possessing a firearm
- Rittenhouse seeks out and confronts protestors (he went to them)
- Rittenhouse kills a man who rushed him
- others rush him, he shoots them too
- Rittenhouse charged with murder

Start there?

-Was he though? If one-arm boy isn't a criminal, then neither is the kid.
-Did he? I didn't see him chasing anyone.
-Justified
-Justified
-Political theater

 

[freyasman]

The second piece of shit that Kyle shot had tried to brain him with a skateboard.

Lesson learned? Take your long gun instead of a skateboard and shoot the child dead on the ground in 'self defense'. Cant know who the crazy kid is going to shoot next, right? Awesome. Murrica!

Since the kid didn't hurt a soul who wasn't attacking him, I don't think "crazy" is the right term.
That might better describe people like you who are defending the attackers, actually.

 

[Faun]

Pause this it at 1:03 in this video. Notice that the tackler's torso is not facing the ball carrier. It's actually facing the ground, not the ball carrier. It's facing away from the ball carrier.



Yet obviously he still made the tackle, because regardless of the fact that he wasn't facing the ball carrier, his momentum carried him into the ball carrier.

Understand now? Or no?

Mother of God you're reaching, and you're failing.

First, off, we're talking about someone being shot in the back, not being tyackled in a football game. Second, if the tackler's back had been facing the ball carrier, he never would've made the tackle. He would've been no threat. That would've been an appropriate comparison. But, that comparison only proves you wrong, so you want nothing to do with it...

Rosenbaum was charging at Kyle just like that football player.

Also, someone's back doesn't need to be facing you in order for you shoot them in the back, jackass.

To prove this to yourself, stand several feet way from your kitchen table. Imagine that the top surface of your tabletop is the back of an attacker who is rushing towards you.

The attacker is not facing you, it's facing away from you towards the floor and it's back is facing away from you towards the ceiling. Now see if you can shoot a picture of the table top with your Cannon.

If you can, that's proof that someone does not need to be facing you to be a threat, and you could shoot that threat in the back.

Anyone who thinks that a gunshot wound to the back constitutes evidence that the shooting wasn't in self-defense is a fucking moron.

LOL

You're such a fucking idiot.

Moron, Rittenhouse wasn't several feet away from Rosenbaum. He was standing right next to him. And Rosenbaum wasn't 3 feet off the ground. He was laying face down on it.

Who knows why you're so desperate to think you can alter reality.