Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[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

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

I don’t? But you won’t see another democrat president for the rest of you life lol

 

[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.

I don’t? But you won’t see another democrat president for the rest of you life lol

LOLOLOL

Suuure, lying Russian troll.

 

[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.

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.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if you are attacked that you shoot quickly and don't stop till he is no longer moving at all.

For example Faun, I have meth head brother in law----------always in trouble with the law and dumb as a box of rocks---but bloody big and able to actually carry around entire tree trunks or atleast used to be.

Anyways, right after my husband and I got married----I get a phone call from my mother in law--she is all upset because they found out that her baby boy has been arrested in Kansas by the bad bad police who have been just picking on her innocent little darling baby. (What is funny is she couldn't stand be around him and anytime that we were all together she and my sis-in-laws would do nothing but talk about how awful he is.) So since all of them are helpless and my husband was on deployment overseas, I went investigating----turns out that kenny was high on meth and stole a car---when the cop pulled him over and tried to arrest him he pulled a George floyd move and refused to be arrested by this poor cop who was much smaller and far less strong than my brother in law. He refused to be handcuffed, a scuffle ensued and Kenny grabbed to cops flash light and preceded to beat the cop to death with it----to protect himself, the cop shot him 5 times including once in the nuts but that didn't stop my brother in law and the poor cop barely lived to see another day. ...even shot Kenny was able to walk home which was a few miles away after taking apart the flash light and tossing pieces of if all over the place. If I have to shoot someone---they getting shot until I run out of bullets or they aren't moving at all anymore. This is perfectly legal and the safest option for the person trying to protect themselves or others.

 

[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

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

I don’t? But you won’t see another democrat president for the rest of you life lol

LOLOLOL

Suuure, lying Russian troll.

So now that you been debunked what next?

 

[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.

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.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Houston Man Stands Ground Against Multiple Home Invaders, Kills 3

 

[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.

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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

 

[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.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

 

[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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

 

[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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

how can you be sure???

 

[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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

how can you be sure???

I'm going by what you said. "just enough."

"just enough" is not excessive.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

how can you be sure???

I'm going by what you said. "just enough."

"just enough" is not excessive.

thats a matter of perspective,,,

 

[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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

how can you be sure???

I'm going by what you said. "just enough."

"just enough" is not excessive.

thats a matter of perspective,,,

LOLOL

Imbecile ... I used your perspective.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/counties/fayette-county/article216291330.html

How many shots did he fire until the threat was neutralized?

just enough,,,

Then it's not excessive and irrelevant to this case.

how can you be sure???

I'm going by what you said. "just enough."

"just enough" is not excessive.

thats a matter of perspective,,,

LOLOL

Imbecile ... I used your perspective.

you say that now ,but???

 

[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?

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

And? The first attack against the hispanic teenager was apparently after a shot was fired, not by the hispanic teenager........and the joe biden voter attacked the hispanic teenager and tried to grab his rifle.......

Self defense, not murder...

 

[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.

And? The first attack against the hispanic teenager was apparently after a shot was fired, not by the hispanic teenager........and the joe biden voter attacked the hispanic teenager and tried to grab his rifle.......

Self defense, not murder...

And not fired by Rosenbaum either.

 

[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?

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

And? The first attack against the hispanic teenager was apparently after a shot was fired, not by the hispanic teenager........and the joe biden voter attacked the hispanic teenager and tried to grab his rifle.......

Self defense, not murder...

And not fired by Rosenbaum either.

So? Rosenbaum, the sex offender, made several grabs for the hispanic teenager's rifle...as reported by an eyewitness..........he was shot in self defense.........

 

[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.

And? The first attack against the hispanic teenager was apparently after a shot was fired, not by the hispanic teenager........and the joe biden voter attacked the hispanic teenager and tried to grab his rifle.......

Self defense, not murder...

And not fired by Rosenbaum either.

So? Rosenbaum, the sex offender, made several grabs for the hispanic teenager's rifle...as reported by an eyewitness..........he was shot in self defense.........

So .... you point out there was a gunshot and the teen murderer didn't fire it -- well neither did Rosenbam. So it's a pointless point to your failed argument.

 

[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.

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.

What did the idiot just say that I did?

Faun, wth man....stop lying your ass off especially where it concerns me because I will go after you for it.

I never said anything about excessive force idiot.

I said that the shooting of an attacker multiple times has been brought up in court before and ruled on before-----------its legal dippy.

Cops are trained to shoot multiple times so perp is no longer a threat. Even a kill shot often does not kill immediately leaving attacker mobile enough to do harm to others. You shoot till the attacker is no longer a threat and if you do it right he will never ever be a threat to anyone again,

People defending themselves and homes whether it be self defense or castle doctrine or whatever are allowed to shoot muttiple times until it is very clear that perp is no longer a threat.

This is why I recommend that if are attacked you shoot quickly to stop, like forever stop, the attacker.

Yes, you did. I said this is a case of excessive force in that the teen murderer kept shooting even after neutralizing the threat. Some fucking moron claim you can keep shooting until the attacker is no longer "moving." You chimed and claimed there have been court cases showing the fucking moron is right.

I challenged you to show such court cases and instead of showing them, you now cry you didn't say anything about excessive force -- which shooting someone more times than is necessary to prevent an attack, is.

YOu just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.....It has been settled by the supreme court and it is common practice to shoot and keep shooting


And Here to explain it to the obnoxious child known as Faun is an article breaking it down for you.


Why do police shoot so many times?

Huber said in cases when lethal use of force is justified, inflicting a single, non-fatal wound is not enough to remove the threat that person represents to the officer or others.


To illustrate his point, Huber discussed the physiology of why one single shot from police is not enough when use of lethal force is legally justified. Unless an airway or certain parts of the central nervous system, such as the brain stem or upper spinal cord, are struck by a bullet, a person isn't guaranteed to lose consciousness until they lose about 40-to-50 percent of their blood, Huber said.

If a person does not lose enough blood, he or she is "still able to fight," he said. That's why officers are trained to fire multiple times when they are justified in doing so.



To demonstrate how quickly shots are fired in use-of-force situations, Huber showed reporters a video of three agents who were instructed to fire their handguns at a target at a fast pace. During the 4-second video, he said, a total 37 rounds were fired. Huber said in a use-of-force situation, several shots are fired to cause enough damage to stop the person, and also because many of the gunshots generally miss the target.
Scharf also said it's important to note many shots fired by police miss the target. Avery said officers are generally trained to shoot people from a distance of 6-to-8 feet, so the chances of hitting the target are not high if the distance between the officer and subject extends farther.
Avery said a more critical factor than the number of total shots fired when evaluating proper use of force is the number of bursts. For example, some guns fire a handful of shots in quick succession before there's a lapse in time.
"If we're talking about four-or-five shots in a single burst, it is not that unusual," Avery said.
When officers fire multiple bursts of gunfire, Avery said, use-of-force investigators should look into the circumstances of the situation to determine if the second, third or successive bursts were necessary.
"It might be because the suspect is still moving... In other cases, it might be because the (officer) has so much adrenaline and he's so excited, and he's forgotten his training and he is just reacting viscerally," Avery said.
Depending on the magazine and type of gun, Avery said, investigators should also explore if the officer emptied the magazine. If an officer fired 16 rounds and the gun held 16 rounds, Avery said, "That, to me, is suspicious."

Such a case occurred in Chicago, where Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged in November with murder for firing 16 shots in 2014 into teenager Laquan McDonald as the teen lay prone on the pavement. Van Dyke eventually kicked away from McDonald a 3-inch knife with its blade folded into the handle.
The person had a toy gun, why did the officer shoot?
Huber said in a life-or-death situation, a toy gun, which can look nearly identical to a real gun, is just as threatening to an officer. He showed side-by-side examples of a real gun and a fake gun. The only difference was the orange tip on the fake gun. Some officers have encountered situations where a subject has colored or painted the orange tip black, to look more like a real gun, he said. Likewise, a fake orange tip can be added to a real gun to make it appear real.
Moreover, custom-painted guns are becoming more popular, Huber said. Pink guns are now being marketed for women, for example.
Avery agreed a toy gun sometimes looks like a real gun. If a possible fake gun is in the hands of a young child, he said, officers should exercise judgment and take a moment to determine if it's a real or fake gun.
But Avery said courts have in recent years become too lenient in accepting officers' claims that they mistakenly believed a subject had a gun in a use-of-force situation, when the subject was actually unarmed. The San Antonio Police Department last month began investigating the shooting of an unarmed man after an 11-year veteran of the department said he believed the subject was carrying a gun. The object in the subject's hand was a cell phone, the department later confirmed, according to the San Antonio Express-News. That officer was suspended March 1 as the Bexar County District Attorney's Office probes potential criminal charges.

Huber said any situation in which an officer is unable to see what a non-compliant subject may or may not be holding is a dangerous one.
"The time you can't see his hands is the time you need to stay worrying," he said.
Other factors
A number of external factors are likely to enter the mind of a law enforcement officer when faced with a potentially life-or-death decision to shoot, Huber said.
Besides the instinct to survive, he said, officers might consider if shooting the subject could land them in prison. They might consider if they will become the target of a lawsuit. The media response and current events surrounding police shootings could carry weight during the decision-making process, Huber said. Moreover, officers might consider the risk to their reputations and careers.
"Everyone has the right to self defense," Huber said. "Police officers do, too."
Scharf said most law enforcement officers are generally restrained when it comes to using deadly force, considering the number of scenarios that occur when it is constitutionally acceptable to fire their weapons.
"When a police officer wakes up in the morning, they want to go home," Scharf said. "They don't want to get into a shooting."
Both Scharf and Avery said police officers are trained to avoid scenarios in which they're facing down a subject with a gun, whenever possible. Avery said well-trained officers are more apt to try to de-escalate a situation before they find themselves in the position of having to make a "split-second decision."
If the situation allows, calling for backup, taking hard cover and summoning a SWAT team are better alternatives to pitting oneself against a subject, one-on-one, Scharf said. He added that most SWAT standoffs tend to result in no injuries and peaceful surrenders.

Why do police shoot so many times? FBI, experts answer on officer-involved shootings

Eight men in have been fatally shot by law enforcement officers in Orleans and Jefferson parishes in the last 15 months, including the Feb. 8 shooting of Eric Harris in

www.nola.com

NOw Faun, grow up-----multiple shots to take down criminals is nothing new and has been settled...You are a big boy, you should be able to research all the cases you want on your own. There are reasons why criminals go up against cops and come out with lots and lots of bullet holes and the cops aren't arrested for it.