Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

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.

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.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

 

[Jarlaxle]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line...

Cite the law. Be specific. (You won't, because you can't.)

 

[jc456]

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 you didn't see the skateboard, gun and molatoff cocktail huh? amazing. so you are blind.

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

So now you forgot he’s 17 lol

LOL

Then that exemption doesn't apply to him. With no exemption, he's not allowed to carry that firearm.

 

[Jitss617]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

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.

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.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

Lol even batteries run out of energy lol hahaha dude stop embarrassing yourself right now.. he’s going to be walking free and you’re gonna sound like a retard more than you are now

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

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.

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.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

Lol even batteries run out of energy lol hahaha dude stop embarrassing yourself right now.. he’s going to be walking free and you’re gonna sound like a retard more than you are now

Only if he can produce a hammer.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Kid shouldn't have been there, but that's not the same as having no right to be there. And it sure as hell doesn't mean he can't defend himself.

If a woman invites me into her bedroom and her husband violently objects, I still have a right to keep him from killing me for it, even though I never should have been there.

If a woman invites you into her bedroom, and you stop off at a friends to get an assault rifle, and the husband walks in, and you shoot him while he has no weapon, it is going to be awful hard to prove you feared for your life.

How in the hell can you fear for your life while you are prepared to kill with an assault rifle?

I do not see it as being self-defense. The kid made the choice to join a riot armed and ready to kill. You can not join a riot and kill somebody then claim it was simple self defense. He could of just as easily as walked away. He could of dropped the clip and ran with the gun. He could of kept the clip dropped the gun and ran.

This kid made the choice, to join a riot, armed, prepared to kill. It might be different, if the kid could show somebody was beating him up or did something more than have a bag thrown at him or been chased.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

Kid shouldn't have been there, but that's not the same as having no right to be there. And it sure as hell doesn't mean he can't defend himself.

If a woman invites me into her bedroom and her husband violently objects, I still have a right to keep him from killing me for it, even though I never should have been there.

If a woman invites you into her bedroom, and you stop off at a friends to get an assault rifle, and the husband walks in, and you shoot him while he has no weapon, it is going to be awful hard to prove you feared for your life.

How in the hell can you fear for your life while you are prepared to kill with an assault rifle?

I do not see it as being self-defense. The kid made the choice to join a riot armed and ready to kill. You can not join a riot and kill somebody then claim it was simple self defense. He could of just as easily as walked away. He could of dropped the clip and ran with the gun. He could of kept the clip dropped the gun and ran.

This kid made the choice, to join a riot, armed, prepared to kill. It might be different, if the kid could show somebody was beating him up or did something more than have a bag thrown at him or been chased.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

It was not my narrative, I simply commented on it.

Kyle came to the riot and inserted himself into a violent situation. The mob did not attack kyle's property, where he lived. Kyle sought out the mob with a loaded assault rifle ready to kill.

Kyle was not trained to control riots, he was a boy in over his head. Kyle panicked. He never should of wandered away from the other folks carrying rifles, but he did.

Kyle had no business being there, that is all the prosecutor has to say.

Now kyle is postponing his trail? Gee? It is cut and dry going to get thrown out of court so why the sudden postponement? Why fight extradition? Clear case of self defense, hell, it would be thrown out this morning had kyle not fought extradition?

The kid got himself in serious trouble.

By your logic, because I walked home from work one day in my twenties and two guys in a van tried snatching me-----it was my fault because hell I knew Vegas downtown was dangerous?

It's a free country, Kyle had mOre right to be there than any of the protestors because 1) he wasn't rioting 2) His intention were not just good but needed because of the failure of our government to control terrorists like Anit fa and Blm and 3) he had permission to be on the property and 4) its a free country, who the hell are you to tell kyle where he can and can't be ----those out terrorizing were the ones that should have been arrested before or shot by the cops. The prosecutor can't say that he had no business there----it is none of the prosecutor or your business that he was. You have no say.

The mob attacked kyle idiot-----and sorry you do have the right to defend yourself and OTHERS which you better get used consider who actually probably fired the kill shot.

Court is being postponed because in Illinois in his hometown is protecting him fool and it gives kenosha (as the dems now seeing the tides change on their polling) to drop charges...even as the lib propagandist in the media are lying and trying to smear him.

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

<crickets>

Your inability to answer demonstrates you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

So now you forgot he’s 17 lol

LOL

Then that exemption doesn't apply to him. With no exemption, he's not allowed to carry that firearm.

Take that up with fire arm lawyers in Wisconsin

 

[Jarlaxle]

Because Rittenhouse was the one forced by the police to wander around in the war zone, alone, for the mob to attack for the crime of preventing them from rioting and looting and burning.

The others were together as a group. Ritterhouse was one guy, and a very young and polite guy. Bullies and barbarians see politeness as weakness.

You know all of this. Why are you playing stupid?

I'm not sure Faun is PLAYING stupid...

 

[bripat9643]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

 

[Jitss617]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

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.

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.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

Lol even batteries run out of energy lol hahaha dude stop embarrassing yourself right now.. he’s going to be walking free and you’re gonna sound like a retard more than you are now

Only if he can produce a hammer.

Huh

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

So now you forgot he’s 17 lol

LOL

Then that exemption doesn't apply to him. With no exemption, he's not allowed to carry that firearm.

Take that up with fire arm lawyers in Wisconsin

I don't have to, I'm not facing murder charges.

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

<crickets>

Your inability to answer demonstrates you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Huh

 

[Jitss617]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

So now you forgot he’s 17 lol

LOL

Then that exemption doesn't apply to him. With no exemption, he's not allowed to carry that firearm.

Take that up with fire arm lawyers in Wisconsin

I don't have to, I'm not facing murder charges.

Neither am I

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

Where does the law say "to hunt?"

Dayum, you are fucking moron.

Fucking moron ... I've lost count how many times this has been posted ... this is the exception to the law...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​

Where does the law say you can only carry a gun "when hunting?" Here's a clue for you: it doesn't.

Fucking moron, the exemption is for hunting purposes. It allows minors to be in possession of a firearm for the purpose of hunting and learning to hunt.

That you're incapable of reading that and still not understanding doesn't prove that exemption isn't restricted to hunting -- it proves you're a fucking moron, just as I've said.

 

[Jarlaxle]

They are the schools resident bullies and terrorists who were harassing and attacking kyle so much that a restraining was requested to be put against them

Wait, what?!

 

[Faun]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
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.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

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.

He's not innocent.

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.

Liar. 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.

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.. heheh

Dumbfuck, if your argument is that the teen murderer was out there hunting, he's even more screwed than before.

No 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?

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18​

(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.​

Are 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 lawyer

LOL

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

LOLOL

Oh, noooos ... his lawyer is defending him. Guess that means there won't be a trial then, huh?

These guys aren’t his lawyer
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.

LOLOL

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?"

<crickets>

Your inability to answer demonstrates you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Huh

LOLOL

You even admit you're too stupid to answer the question.

Like I said, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Saying "huh" proves it.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Firing until the perp stops moving is generally considered "necessary to prevent or terminate the interference."

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.

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.​

In every instance Kyle showed that he was retreating, Until he couldn’t retreat anymore

That too is a lie. There was nothing preventing him from continuing to run.

The asshole Rosenbaum tackled him to the ground. He couldn't continue running. Then those other two assholes both tackled him and tried to take his gun away.

 

[Turtlesoup]

No, Scalise was saved by a secret service cop who shot Hodgkinson before he finished off Scalise, who was first on the Hodgkinson hit list.

Actually, it was a capitol policewoman, who was gay and black.

We Republicans do no harm in thought, word, and deed against any black person since. the Democrats fired on Fort Sumpter shortly after the first Republican President Abe Lincoln defeated his Democrat opponent for President. No wonder you Dimmies want to poke out Trump's eyes and had to support the killers in BLM and Antifa to avoid legal truths.

Actually, when Democrats threw out the Racists in 1968, Republican welcomed them with open arms... and it shows.

That

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

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.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You'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.

Which is it?

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 agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

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 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.

"Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving."

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.

Ummm..the courts have already ruled on this--its true. Attack me and I am not shooting you once----I am emptying my gun or till you completely stop moving which won't be till after my gun is empty.