Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

 

[Faun]

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.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

 

[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.​

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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

 

[Faun]

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.

Great, cite a case where excessive force prevailed in court in a self defense case....

If it was called "excessive force," then it wouldn't have prevailed.

Cite the case.....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

It's hard to find one because most of the time the article doesn't give the number of shots fire. It just said the victim shot the perp.

Fucking moron, Turtlesoup claimed there are court cases demonstrating excessive force can be used to stop an attacker.

Her inability to show any such case demonstrates she is lying. You trying to give her lie CPR is not helping her either.

 

[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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

Great, explain what's "poorly drafted" that helps the teen murderer....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

 

[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.​

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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

Great, explain what's "poorly drafted" that helps the teen murderer....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

I can go only on his next words, Sides with the defendants

 

[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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

Great, explain what's "poorly drafted" that helps the teen murderer....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

I can go only on his next words, Sides with the defendants

LOLOL

Now you're lying to cover for your ignorance. He never said it sides with the defendant. He said he would argue it does. That doesn't mean it does.

Like I said, and you confirm, you have absolutely no idea what he's 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.​

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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

Great, explain what's "poorly drafted" that helps the teen murderer....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

I can go only on his next words, Sides with the defendants

LOLOL

Now you're lying to cover for your ignorance. He never said it sides with the defendant. He said he would argue it does. That doesn't mean it does.

Like I said, and you confirm, you have absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

What ever helps you get through this tough time lol

 

[2aguy]

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.

Kyle is a community lifeguard after he finished work he decided to clean up the graffiti from the Democrats to guard outside of a place where his community has come under attack by democrats. He had possession of his rifle which he’s allowed to under Wisconsin law because he has 17 years of age. And had to use it in defense of his life

LOLOL

Lying Russian troll ... that doesn't answer the question either.

One last time ... Specify what that attorney meant by "poorly drafted" in regards to 948.60...

It sides with the defendants.. just go away man you’re embarrassing yourself..

I didn't ask you who it sides with ... I asked you what about it is "poorly drafted."

You don't know.

You're just mindlessly copying & pasting.

It means it sides with Kyle.. he can be 17 in possession of that type of rifle, he will be released he will than sure Morons like you have that slandered him. he will be a billionaire with two communist lives in his resume

No, it doesn't mean that.

You don't know because you mindlessly copied & pasted.

It’s his words not mine. .. So now that we prove he did nothing against the law where do you stand

First of all, he never said it benefits the teen murderer. You said that. He merely said he would argue it.

But even funnier, you don't know what the fuck he's talking about.

I do know it clearly states the law sides with The defendant I don’t understand what is so hard for you to understand do you have no case.. You’re arguing against constitutional gun right lawyers in that state. Three of them lol We have video of a kid trying to desperately retreat.. he has a constitutional right of self-defense.. you’re talking like a crazed Lenin supporter.. where are rights are stripped .. go away

Great, explain what's "poorly drafted" that helps the teen murderer....

Spoiler

I know you can't.

The hispanic teen didn't commit murder....as we are finding out, each shot fired was in self defense as the joe biden voters violently attacked him......

 

[Correll]

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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Fucking moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a fucking moron.

If some violent criminal is chasing me for putting out their dumpster fire that they were going to use to burn the place down with----I am shooting them. Self Defense---The pedo was attacking the kid--self defense.

 

[Correll]

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.

Rittenhouse went what has been reported in the media as "mostly peaceful protests"

Rittenhouse was prevented from being with his group by the police and thus forced to be in the war zone by himself.

The question of self defense, is based on whether the mob attacked him or he attacked the mob.

"placing himself" there, does not justify your fellow lefties attacking him, as you are implying.


YOur support of mob violence as political speech, will have long term consequences.

You should really think that though.

 

[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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

 

[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.

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.

Fucking moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a fucking moron.

If some violent criminal is chasing me for putting out their dumpster fire that they were going to use to burn the place down with----I am shooting them. Self Defense---The pedo was attacking the kid--self defense.

No one chased the teen murderer for putting out a dumpster fire. Like I said, and you prove repeatedly, you're insane.

 

[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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

Where was there absence of self defense? We have video

 

[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.

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.

Fucking moron, Rosenbaum never tackled him to the ground. Rosenbaum never caused him to stop running.

You prove yet again you're a fucking moron.

If some violent criminal is chasing me for putting out their dumpster fire that they were going to use to burn the place down with----I am shooting them. Self Defense---The pedo was attacking the kid--self defense.

No one chased the teen murderer for putting out a dumpster fire. Like I said, and you prove repeatedly, you're insane.

Let me guess he was going for a jog lol

 

[2aguy]

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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

When you are attacked by a mob, it is not murder it is self defense, no matter how many posts you use to lie about what happened.

What the fuck is wrong with you siding with joe biden voters who have been burning, looting, beating and murdering Americans for the last 5 months?

 

[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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

Where was there absence of self defense? We have video

We've already established you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[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.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

You are literally more concerned with the legality of gun possession than the legality of a mob's murderous assault.


Because you support the "right" of the marxist mob to use violence to terrorize or kill your political enemies, more than you support the actual right of self defense.


You are a vile person.

No, idiot. I'm concerned with upholding the law. People can't just kill others and claim it's self defense when the law says it's not self defense. WTF is wrong with you?

When you are attacked by a mob, it is not murder it is self defense, no matter how many posts you use to lie about what happened.

What the fuck is wrong with you siding with joe biden voters who have been burning, looting, beating and murdering Americans for the last 5 months?

The initial attack was one guy, not a mob. Try harder.