Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[freyasman]

if it even goes to trial,,,and if its the case he didnt kill the first guy likes being presented it wont,,

I would guess that it goes to trial and that he only gets hit with the misdemeanor for being a minor with a gun, resulting in 9 months in prison.

That's my prediction. Book it. I could be wrong obviously. Especially as more evidence rolls in.

it will be a small fine at best,,,cpl hundred bucks,,

If that happens, I'll join the rioters. You demented assholes need to be put down.

Can you add me to your will first?
Because I think a lot more rioters are going to get killed.


People are sick of this shit.

 

[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.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, fucking moron.

No it's not. Rosenbaum chased him down. He got what he deserved.

 

[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?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

Why did you say "highly armed" rather than simply "armed"?

You seem to be trying to craft a narrative.

Change it to armed if it makes you feel better. It's just minor semantics to me.

It is, but it's a step in a direction and it's a step I believe you're taking deliberately.

That's fine. Have fun with that. Makes no difference to me.

I just want you to be aware that you're not fooling anyone with this shit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

LOL

Your idea of what men do is sucking cock in prison?? Thst's what that little terrorist is gonna be doing for the rest of his life.

You deserve cancer.

 

[freyasman]

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

I can see how that will be used in the trial. Personally, I don't think it will work.

We'll see though.

It's what saved Zimmerman. He shot once and stopped the attack and didn't shoot again. This guy stopped the attack with his first shot and kept on shooting.

Except, that didn't happen either.



You sure do spend a lot of time being factually wrong about a lot of shit.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Nonsense.
Trayvon was a thief and druggy. He had history of attacking authority figures. Along with being kicked out of school 4 times that year alone including for destroying school property. The black security called Trayvon suspicious just like Zimmerman did. And oh his drink and skittles is a concoction combined with drugs which according to his phone was his favorite drink--his phone also had pictures of him with guns and drugs. HIs school found him with expensive stolen jewelry and a burglary kit.


On the night he died, this idiot was casing homes in Zimmermans community. The community had a recent rash of burglaries which just happen to corresphond to druggy Trayvon moving in with his deadbeat criminal POS father after being kicked out of school again. Zimmerman called the police and when the police dispatch said it wasn't necessary to follow the large trayvon, zimmerman stopped following the violent criminal trayvon----and instead started to search for house numbers so the cops could find him easier. By that point trayvon was only a few yards away from his dead beat mooching daddy's girlfriends house and could easily out run zimmerman to her house. But he didn't do that--he called his girlfriend and circled around and hid in the bushes waiting for zimmerman to get off the phone with the police. As soon as he did-----Trayvon acted liked all the other thuggy criminals are now and attacked zimmerman for daring to call the cops. TRAYVONS SUPPOSED GIRLFRIEND (NOTICE i USED SUPPOSED AND i WILL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE) stated that she heard the attack begin and that the phone suddenly went l dead and said in court that would be just like trayvon to attack someone and in this case she referred to zimmerman as a cracker. She did not call the cops-----and in fact hid from the cops when she found out that trayvon had died.

Now Rachel Jeantal is an odd character---it was clear that she was perjurying herself a trial when a cursive letter came up that she supposedly wrote---only thing is that she can' read or write cursive. This immigrant and idiot at 18 was in the 9th grade and could only read a 4th grade level. She was very fat and very ugly which seemed an odd choice for a girlfriend even with thug and criminal trayvon. She said she was Diamond Trayvons girlfriend.........



But she wasn't as it turns out and now is known. She is actually the half or step sister of the real diamond...and despite Trayvon and Diamond being bf and g/f and exchanging lots of photos and she being 1/2 the size of Rachel---the prosecutors, Rachel and Diamond, and Trayvon's trashy lying mother and deadbeat father kept claiming that Rachel was his girlfriend and helped her perpertrate the fraud and perjury. I find it unlikely that the prosecutors did not go through trayvons phone which definately had pictures of the girlfriend btw. Zimmerman is now suing the trash Trayvon family and the girlfried and her sister.

Pick better heroes......Trayvon was a violent thug like his daddy-----------everyone around him are trash and they are all embarrassments for the black community fitting into the stereo types of being stupid, violent, criminal, lying, money scamming hoes.

Thankfully Kyle shot 3 white trashballs so maybe he won't be railroaded like zimmerman was.

 

[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?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

Why did you say "highly armed" rather than simply "armed"?

You seem to be trying to craft a narrative.

Change it to armed if it makes you feel better. It's just minor semantics to me.

It is, but it's a step in a direction and it's a step I believe you're taking deliberately.

That's fine. Have fun with that. Makes no difference to me.

I just want you to be aware that you're not fooling anyone with this shit.

I don't see much value in your input, sorry. Thanks though.

 

[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?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

People with your flawed understanding of the uses of force have sent a lot of innocent people to gaol.

You should be ashamed of that.

LOL

Oh, noooos .... a rightard disagrees with me. How can I survive that??

And a casual disregard for the rights and freedom of anyone you disagree with...… that's another thing you should be ashamed of, right there.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

Geebus how can you be so clueless about everything----he worked as a life guard in Kenosha.

 

[XponentialChaos]

On the night he died, this idiot was casing homes in Zimmermans community.

That was a whole lot of bullshit.

Start with this part. You can either prove that or you can't. In this case, you can't.

 

[freyasman]

LOL

Your idea of what men do is sucking cock in prison?? Thst's what that little terrorist is gonna be doing for the rest of his life.

You deserve cancer.

I agree.
That poster is a pretty despicable person.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

I disagree. I believe there's enough evidence to convict him. At least for the first killing. You are legally allowed to use lethal force to prevent an imminent attack you reasonably believe will result in death or great bodily harm.

He did that with the first shot he took, which took Rosenbaum down. Rosenbaum was no longer a threat at that point. The next 3 shots were intended to kill him. Including a shot to the back.

You can't see any of the shots he took in the video, so how do you know what happened?

 

[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?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

Why did you say "highly armed" rather than simply "armed"?

You seem to be trying to craft a narrative.

Change it to armed if it makes you feel better. It's just minor semantics to me.

It is, but it's a step in a direction and it's a step I believe you're taking deliberately.

That's fine. Have fun with that. Makes no difference to me.

I just want you to be aware that you're not fooling anyone with this shit.

I don't see much value in your input, sorry. Thanks though.

You're welcome.

 

[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.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, fucking moron.

Shit stain....it is sounding more and more like someone else shot the guy in the back......you moron.......

Nope, there's no evidence anyone else shot Rosenbaum in the back.

We'll know after forensics compares the rounds.

 

[elektra]

Ha ha! WOW! I gave Progressive Hunter a general example of several things liberals and leftists do to gain the upper hand in semantics. You DID pull him away from what he was responding to because dont want to be straight about it, and then you called me fucking stupid (name calling). So now you meet not one but TWO of the criteria. Thanks! Damn, youre gullible....

No, I am not gullible, you are simply stupid. Now you let me, a very staunch conservative see that as well are everybody else.

I pointedly asked him a question, which was the premise in which he replied, hardly pulling him away from what he responded to. I directly asked a question, which was the premise he responded to, and you call that, "pulling him away"?

But hey, you want to be right even when wrong and you certainly think you can outsmart people with what you call, semantics.

Most posts were relevant to the OP, the only thing pulling me away from the OP is responding to your nonsense as well the other idiot.

Thank you for pulling me away from the OP to discuss your shortcomings, you should make a thread of it.

 

[elektra]

sorry not interested in anymore mind games from dishonest skanks,,,
now fuck off,,,

Asking you, how the teen found himself in the middle of a riot with an assault rifle is a mind game? That question is dishonest?

Sorry, that part where you told me to, "fuck off". That did not work, I responded despite you telling me to fuck off. There is only one way our exchange ends. You must shut your trap and not comment, move on, now, little mind.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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?

It's absolutely adorable if you think your opinion of me is hurtful.

Nope, I don't think anyone thinks you got enough brains to be bothered about being wrong.

 

[progressive hunter]

sorry not interested in anymore mind games from dishonest skanks,,,
now fuck off,,,

Asking you, how the teen found himself in the middle of a riot with an assault rifle is a mind game? That question is dishonest?

Sorry, that part where you told me to, "fuck off". That did not work, I responded despite you telling me to fuck off. There is only one way our exchange ends. You must shut your trap and not comment, move on, now, little mind.

my god youre a pathetic skank,,,

how can I explain my comment when you removed what I was commenting to???

 

[Ben Thomson]

Kenosha violence: Juvenile arrested in deadly shooting amid Jacob Blake unrest, Illinois police say

A 17-year-old suspect has been arrested in connection to at least one of the two shooting deaths amid the unrest Tuesday night in Kenosha, Wis., Illinois police confirmed on Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

How do arrest someone for self defense!? If we don’t get this child out of jail we are doing to let them
Arrest all of us! We need to fight back!

A 17-year-old can’t legally own a firearm in Wisconsin except for hunting purposes and with the permission of a legal guardian and the gun he has was using was one a friend of his in Wisconsin gave him...there's that.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, fucking moron.

Oh brother-------Bad guys get shot and need to be shot when they attack other people.

And fyi, you ASSume that he was the only one shooting.