Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
No more or less worthless than yours.That's your opinion and your opinion is actually worthless.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.""Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
You already lost. You already admitted there are restrictions on arms.nope,,,Does that evasive answer mean there are other private citizens you believe can legally own nukes?I believe the people that currently have them shouldnt,,,Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,
now how about you come down from the clouds and have a rational discussion on the subject at hand and not take it to the ludicrous extremes??
youre the one dodging the discussion because you know you cant win,,,You already lost. You already admitted there are restrictions on arms.nope,,,Does that evasive answer mean there are other private citizens you believe can legally own nukes?I believe the people that currently have them shouldnt,,,Does this mean you believe private citizens can own nukes?are you ever going to respond to my statement??There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
thanx for proving just how insane you really are.
the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,
now how about you come down from the clouds and have a rational discussion on the subject at hand and not take it to the ludicrous extremes??
You're still sticking with that fake story? You will be absolutely furious when Kyle walks.Kyle was not the instigator of anything. Hell, the kid was there cleaning up filthy Left Wing hate graffiti and helping to put out a fire started by the Communists. He was attacked by the Communists because he helped to put out the fire.
Nobody travels 22 miles with a gun to clean graffiti. There's plenty of graffiti in Antioch to clean up.
Check it out, here's Kyle Rittenhouse cleaning graffiti, and Ted Bundy helping to clean the dishes.
View attachment 382513
The fact that he was armed was not instigation. If that is the case everybody legally carrying a weapon could never plea self defense, which is not the case.
No, the fact he was illegally in possession of a gun which he had brought across state lines in violation of a curfew order is why he can't plead self-defense. He went there looking for trouble and he found it.
LOLOLThese guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.
Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.www.breitbart.com
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Where does the law say "to hunt?"LOLOLThese guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?
And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"
No, it's not, ya fucking moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.""Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
We’re talking about possession of a rifle at the age of 16, the law says he can have possession of a hunting rifle. And it’s a open carry state. Yes the law is poorly written but it benefits the defendantLOLOLThese guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?
And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"
In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymoreNo, it's not, ya fucking moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.""Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
The courts and LE have let many people off who fired multiple shots into the perp.No, it's not, ya fucking moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.""Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Dayum, you are fucking moron.Where does the law say "to hunt?"LOLOLThese guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?
And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"
.....and considering how many of them are lying through their teeth and salivating over the possibility of the boy being raped in prison, it seems that the battle lines that are drawn in our country are really between civilized and uncivilized more than anything else.not one demofk in this thread has presented any worthy material for any further discussion. I supposed you all know you ain't got nutin.
Fucking moron, only if that's what it took to end the threat. WTF is wrong with you? Self defense is a license to prevent an imminent attack -- it's not a license to kill.The courts and LE have let many people off who fired multiple shots into the perp.No, it's not, ya fucking moron. You're making that up. I just showed the law. You're allowed to fire (assuming you're using a gun to prevent an attack) only until you reasonably believe the threat is terminated. He terminated that threat with his first shot as Rosenbaum is visibly seen going down. The jury could be generous and allow for a second shot because he's still falling. Four shots were excessive force.Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.""Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used againsYou're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.
Which is it?
t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin
The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.
You're such a fucking moron.
"moving" isn't the legal bar set, ya fucking moron.
The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.
Preventing being attacked is the legal bar.
The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
You're just plain wrong.
You are SO full of shit your breath stinks.Kyle was not the instigator of anything. Hell, the kid was there cleaning up filthy Left Wing hate graffiti and helping to put out a fire started by the Communists. He was attacked by the Communists because he helped to put out the fire.
Nobody travels 22 miles with a gun to clean graffiti. There's plenty of graffiti in Antioch to clean up.
Check it out, here's Kyle Rittenhouse cleaning graffiti, and Ted Bundy helping to clean the dishes.
View attachment 382513
The fact that he was armed was not instigation. If that is the case everybody legally carrying a weapon could never plea self defense, which is not the case.
No, the fact he was illegally in possession of a gun which he had brought across state lines in violation of a curfew order is why he can't plead self-defense. He went there looking for trouble and he found it.
See, you just lied.Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.
The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.
Except it's not self-defense when you created the situation by breaking the law to start with.
He shot three people, two of them unarmed and fatally.
So now you forgot he’s 17 lolDayum, you are fucking moron.Where does the law say "to hunt?"LOLOLThese guys aren’t his lawyerLOLOLLOLAre you a lawyer? Because a firearm expert lawyer says he has a right to possess that gun.. I prefer a professional lawyer over a armchair lawyerNo it’s a type of rifle that a 16-year-old could possess. And it’s an open carry state. And he’s allowed to protest. And he was retreating when he was forced to use it.. what’s else you got?Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.All gun to use for hunting can be processed by anybody 16 or over and that’s the rifle that he possessed . And it’s open carry state and he has a right to protest.. hehehLiar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.He's not innocent.Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.The law states he must be hunting.Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.
He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.
Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.
You are vile beyond measure.
See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.
All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.
We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;...(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
As if I give a shit what you prefer, lying Russian troll.Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin
Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse.
Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
Lying Russian troll, what part of "to hunt" don't you understand?
And as far as the second lawyer, you don't understand what he's talking about. Here, watch this ... what do you specifically think he means by "poorly drafted?"
Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...
Indeed.....and considering how many of them are lying through their teeth and salivating over the possibility of the boy being raped in prison, it seems that the battle lines that are drawn in our country are really between civilized and uncivilized more than anything else.not one demofk in this thread has presented any worthy material for any further discussion. I supposed you all know you ain't got nutin.
Mad Max can't come fast enough for some of the subhumans.
