Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

Yeah...no. If the kid had wanted to commit murder he could have done it a lot easier than he did..........with a lot more pre-meditation. In all three shots, he was the one who was attacked, unprovoked by the joe biden voters.

Yea, but getting away with murder.

If he just walked in there and started shooting people, it would be a clear felony.

Nothing he did was murder....he was the one attacked by all three of the people he shot.....they approached and attacked him, even by the eyewitness account of the first shooting...and from the video of the mob chasing him....as he tried to escape.....

That's the point. He's going to get away with it.

That little recipe is how to kill people without getting convicted for it.

Ummm….. you're not supposed to be convicted for it if you're actions are justified.

Again, wtf is wrong with you?

I'm aware of how the system works.

 

[freyasman]

And that is just bullshit.........he is attacked, and you blame him........you really shouldn't work for a rape crisis hotline....your comments about the women and the clothes they wore might not go over well...

I'm not defending the people who attacked him.

But I do believe he was hoping for a fight and an excuse to shoot one of them. He got his opportunity and he took it.

Reminds me of this. Not exactly the same but another example of the playbook. (Almost worked that time)

View attachment 381580

I remember that incident, and no, it wasn't anything like this one.
The only similarity is that the people who got shot in both incidents broke the number 1 rule; "Don't touch other people."

 

[XponentialChaos]

And that is just bullshit.........he is attacked, and you blame him........you really shouldn't work for a rape crisis hotline....your comments about the women and the clothes they wore might not go over well...

I'm not defending the people who attacked him.

But I do believe he was hoping for a fight and an excuse to shoot one of them. He got his opportunity and he took it.

Reminds me of this. Not exactly the same but another example of the playbook. (Almost worked that time)

View attachment 381580

I remember that incident, and no, it wasn't anything like this one.
The only similarity is that the people who got shot in both incidents broke the number 1 rule; "Don't touch other people."

He followed the Zimmerman playbook.

1. Instigate.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Yay we get to shoot them now.

I doubt Zimmerman actually wanted to kill anyone. The Florida guy looked like he wanted to shoot someone.

 

[progressive hunter]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

thankfully thats not what happened here,,,

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

 

[freyasman]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

Why?
Not applicable in that case at all and why are you trying to deflect?

 

[freyasman]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

Yeah...no. If the kid had wanted to commit murder he could have done it a lot easier than he did..........with a lot more pre-meditation. In all three shots, he was the one who was attacked, unprovoked by the joe biden voters.

Yea, but getting away with murder.

If he just walked in there and started shooting people, it would be a clear felony.

Nothing he did was murder....he was the one attacked by all three of the people he shot.....they approached and attacked him, even by the eyewitness account of the first shooting...and from the video of the mob chasing him....as he tried to escape.....

That's the point. He's going to get away with it.

That little recipe is how to kill people without getting convicted for it.

Ummm….. you're not supposed to be convicted for it if you're actions are justified.

Again, wtf is wrong with you?

I'm aware of how the system works.

Doesn't seem like it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

Why?
Not applicable in that case at all and why are you trying to deflect?

I don't see how it's not applicable.

He instigated. He got attacked. He killed. He wasn't convicted of murder.

Provocation with intent is only illegal if they can prove it. More often than not, they can't. Simple as that.

 

[bripat9643]

Slobbers the USMB fucking moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “Fuck you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

Fucking moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

Yeah...no. If the kid had wanted to commit murder he could have done it a lot easier than he did..........with a lot more pre-meditation. In all three shots, he was the one who was attacked, unprovoked by the joe biden voters.

Yea, but getting away with murder.

If he just walked in there and started shooting people, it would be a clear felony.

Nothing he did was murder....he was the one attacked by all three of the people he shot.....they approached and attacked him, even by the eyewitness account of the first shooting...and from the video of the mob chasing him....as he tried to escape.....

That's the point. He's going to get away with it.

That little recipe is how to kill people without getting convicted for it.

Ummm….. you're not supposed to be convicted for it if you're actions are justified.

Again, wtf is wrong with you?

I'm aware of how the system works.

Doesn't seem like it.

I'm not particularly interested in your evaluation. Thanks though.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

Yeah...no. If the kid had wanted to commit murder he could have done it a lot easier than he did..........with a lot more pre-meditation. In all three shots, he was the one who was attacked, unprovoked by the joe biden voters.

Yea, but getting away with murder.

If he just walked in there and started shooting people, it would be a clear felony.

Nothing he did was murder....he was the one attacked by all three of the people he shot.....they approached and attacked him, even by the eyewitness account of the first shooting...and from the video of the mob chasing him....as he tried to escape.....

That's the point. He's going to get away with it.

That little recipe is how to kill people without getting convicted for it.

Ummm….. you're not supposed to be convicted for it if you're actions are justified.

Again, wtf is wrong with you?

Psycopathy usually starts at a young age and is exhibited by a complete indifference to the suffering of others. It can often arise from prolonged sexual or physical abuse, but the one thing psychopaths share in common is the extreme lack of empathy.

When people routinely side with the victimizers instead of rhe victims, this is often because of their psychopathy. They literally cannot place themselves in the position of the townspeople being invaded and so do not see anything wrong with looting their businesses, burning them to the ground and trying to murder anybody who attempts to stop them.

 

[Persuader]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Great analogy.....excellent analytical skills

 

[Flash]

We have a right to walk freely and we have a right to bear arms

At any age, if you hear of a riot, and you gather your weapons and run into the middle of it, the result will be that you must kill someone or die yourself.

If you purchase all the parts that are very cool, and build an AR-15 that is bad ass. That looks like it was built to kill. You are going to have a tough time convincing anyone that you left your house with that weapon, walked a mile to find a riot, and never had the intent to murder.

To be honestView attachment 381856, when the prosecutor holds up this weapon, and tells the jury that you ran into a riot with the intent to kill, and there are dead people, you will have a tough time proving you were simply walking freely, smelling a rose, and found yourself in need of a military grade weapon.

If you want to be honest and look at the videos then it is clear that the kid had no intentions of using the weapon to kill anybody until he was viciously attacked. He even tried to run away from the trouble but was chased down.

I carry my S&W all the time when I go out. It doesn't mean I have any intentions of killing somebody.

 

[Flash]

And that is just bullshit.........he is attacked, and you blame him........you really shouldn't work for a rape crisis hotline....your comments about the women and the clothes they wore might not go over well...

I'm not defending the people who attacked him.

But I do believe he was hoping for a fight and an excuse to shoot one of them. He got his opportunity and he took it.

Reminds me of this. Not exactly the same but another example of the playbook. (Almost worked that time)

View attachment 381580

I remember that incident, and no, it wasn't anything like this one.
The only similarity is that the people who got shot in both incidents broke the number 1 rule; "Don't touch other people."

He followed the Zimmerman playbook.

1. Instigate.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Yay we get to shoot them now.

I doubt Zimmerman actually wanted to kill anyone. The Florida guy looked like he wanted to shoot someone.

You are confused.

1. Investigate.
2. Kill them when they viciously attack you.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

 

[freyasman]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

Why?
Not applicable in that case at all and why are you trying to deflect?

I don't see how it's not applicable.

He instigated. He got attacked. He killed. He wasn't convicted of murder.

Provocation with intent is only illegal if they can prove it. More often than not, they can't. Simple as that.

Describe to me exactly what action of his "instigated" the violent assault against him.




I'll wait.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And that is just bullshit.........he is attacked, and you blame him........you really shouldn't work for a rape crisis hotline....your comments about the women and the clothes they wore might not go over well...

I'm not defending the people who attacked him.

But I do believe he was hoping for a fight and an excuse to shoot one of them. He got his opportunity and he took it.

Reminds me of this. Not exactly the same but another example of the playbook. (Almost worked that time)

View attachment 381580

I remember that incident, and no, it wasn't anything like this one.
The only similarity is that the people who got shot in both incidents broke the number 1 rule; "Don't touch other people."

He followed the Zimmerman playbook.

1. Instigate.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Yay we get to shoot them now.

I doubt Zimmerman actually wanted to kill anyone. The Florida guy looked like he wanted to shoot someone.

You are confused.

1. Investigate.
2. Kill them when they viciously attack you.

I'm not confused. He initiated an altercation that he had no business getting involved with in the first place.

Same thing with Drejka.

 

[freyasman]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

Yeah...no. If the kid had wanted to commit murder he could have done it a lot easier than he did..........with a lot more pre-meditation. In all three shots, he was the one who was attacked, unprovoked by the joe biden voters.

Yea, but getting away with murder.

If he just walked in there and started shooting people, it would be a clear felony.

Nothing he did was murder....he was the one attacked by all three of the people he shot.....they approached and attacked him, even by the eyewitness account of the first shooting...and from the video of the mob chasing him....as he tried to escape.....

That's the point. He's going to get away with it.

That little recipe is how to kill people without getting convicted for it.

Ummm….. you're not supposed to be convicted for it if you're actions are justified.

Again, wtf is wrong with you?

I'm aware of how the system works.

Doesn't seem like it.

I'm not particularly interested in your evaluation. Thanks though.

Truth hurts, don't it?

 

[progressive hunter]

And that is just bullshit.........he is attacked, and you blame him........you really shouldn't work for a rape crisis hotline....your comments about the women and the clothes they wore might not go over well...

I'm not defending the people who attacked him.

But I do believe he was hoping for a fight and an excuse to shoot one of them. He got his opportunity and he took it.

Reminds me of this. Not exactly the same but another example of the playbook. (Almost worked that time)

View attachment 381580

I remember that incident, and no, it wasn't anything like this one.
The only similarity is that the people who got shot in both incidents broke the number 1 rule; "Don't touch other people."

He followed the Zimmerman playbook.

1. Instigate.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Yay we get to shoot them now.

I doubt Zimmerman actually wanted to kill anyone. The Florida guy looked like he wanted to shoot someone.

You are confused.

1. Investigate.
2. Kill them when they viciously attack you.

I'm not confused. He initiated an altercation that he had no business getting involved with in the first place.

Same thing with Drejka.

and yet you failed to say what that is,,,