It looks like the jury is giving it thought.

zymurgy said:
hope you shit stains learned something from this.

you will get fucked up in person - better act like asses on the internet.
Click to expand...

Yes. Three lessons:

1. Kill all active shooters and terrorist first, ask questions later.

2. Always carry a gun and be ready to use it when facing a terrorist or active shooter.

3. All the Insurrectionists using material objects to beat police should have been shot as the police defended themselves against deadly force. Hopefully next time they won't hesitate like Grosskreutz did.

5tf1n0.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yes. Three lessons:

1. Kill all active shooters and terrorist first, ask questions later.

2. Always carry a gun and be ready to use it when facing a terrorist or active shooter.

3. All the Insurrectionists using material objects to beat police should have been shot as the police defended themselves against deadly force. Hopefully next time they won't hesitate like Grosskreutz did.

5tf1n0.jpg
Click to expand...

so this shit stain learned nothing

remember how sure you were of him going to jail? you do realize you were a fucking idiot now, right? it is a shame you were too much of a pussy to agree to my bet
 
Althea said:
Even your link shows the same bias that you did. It redacts the pertinent language from the prosecution's question. 'With your hands down, advancing toward him'.
Click to expand...

Is your gun pointed at him? Yes.
So, you are saying that he did not fire until you were pointing a gun at him and advancing? Correct.

My "bias" is simply facts, it is always nice to have facts on your side when forming a "bias". I listened to the questioning. I listened to all of the trial. I know what that witness said. I know the difference between what folks say under oath and when they try to explain their testimony away later. The reality is, this verdict is almost all based on what this witness said and how well Rittenhouse did on the witness stand. The video just cemented it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
i hope you consider the next person shooting in self defense an active shooter and shoot them......let me know how the trial goes
Click to expand...
Are you saying only those in a militia or using an AR-15 have the right of self defense?

In Wisconsin it'd be "Not guilty" as affirmed by Wisconsin law and legal precedent. Basically, anyone one seen shooting an unarmed person should be considered an active shooter and taken down as quickly as possible.

As pirates of yore advised, "dead men tell no tales" so always double-tap or more to ensure permanent silence when shooting terrorists, active shooters and other criminals seen murdering unarmed Americans.

Everyone knows terrorists and other violent assholes are liars anyway since they are willing to kill Americans to get their way.

On a taxpayer note, taking them down on the spot both saves taxpayer dollars and removes the risk they'll weasel out in court. ;)

Do agree that, in Wisconsin, it's legal to shoot into a crowd if someone is shooting at you?
 
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle said:
Are you saying only those in a militia or using an AR-15 have the right of self defense?
Click to expand...
no

Dutch Uncle said:
In Wisconsin it'd be "Not guilty" as affirmed by Wisconsin law and legal precedent. Basically, anyone one seen shooting an unarmed person should be considered an active shooter and taken down as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...
and I hope you get a chance to prove that

Dutch Uncle said:
As pirates of yore advised, "dead men tell no tales" so always double-tap or more to ensure permanent silence when shooting terrorists, active shooters and other criminals seen murdering unarmed Americans.

Everyone knows terrorists and other violent assholes are liars anyway since they are willing to kill Americans to get their way.
Click to expand...
because there would be no video of the incident at all, would there LOL

Dutch Uncle said:
On a taxpayer note, taking them down on the spot both saves taxpayer dollars and removes the risk they'll weasel out in court. ;)
Click to expand...
not when they try you for murder

Dutch Uncle said:
Do agree that, in Wisconsin, it's legal to shoot into a crowd if someone is shooting at you?
Click to expand...
it's legal to shoot someone who is shooting at you.......if there's a crowd, it's the instigators fault for how many are hurt or killed. why don't you know the law?
 
zymurgy said:
so this shit stain learned nothing

remember how sure you were of him going to jail? you do realize you were a fucking idiot now, right? it is a shame you were too much of a pussy to agree to my bet
Click to expand...

...and you are too fucking stupid to correct me where I am wrong. Figures.

Yes. I was sure endangering lives would nail him with a sentence of 10-15 years. Wisconsin law has affirmed that the right of Self-Defence trumps all over laws. You are free to shoot into a group of Kindergartners if a Terrorist is using them as a meat shield and shooting at you. Obviously the parents can sue you later, but if you kill a kid or two defending your life, it's all good....in Wisconsin. Their state, their laws. I'm good with it.

Conversely, had Grosskreutz fired when he pulled his gun, he'd be not guilty too since he would have been in fear of his life and the lives of others after having seen an active shooter shoot two unarmed men.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
...and you are too fucking stupid to correct me where I am wrong. Figures.

Yes. I was sure endangering lives would nail him with a sentence of 10-15 years. Wisconsin law has affirmed that the right of Self-Defence trumps all over laws. You are free to shoot into a group of Kindergartners if a Terrorist is using them as a meat shield and shooting at you. Obviously the parents can sue you later, but if you kill a kid or two defending your life, it's all good....in Wisconsin. Their state, their laws. I'm good with it.

Conversely, had Grosskreutz fired when he pulled his gun, he'd be not guilty too since he would have been in fear of his life and the lives of others after having seen an active shooter shoot two unarmed men.
Click to expand...

I do believe you've lost more mind than you ever had to begin with.

I STRONGLY urge you to either consult with a lawyer before you do any of the crap you've said is now legal, or PLEASE go out and do it, take videos..........
 
Dutch Uncle said:
...and you are too fucking stupid to correct me where I am wrong. Figures.

Yes. I was sure endangering lives would nail him with a sentence of 10-15 years. Wisconsin law has affirmed that the right of Self-Defence trumps all over laws. You are free to shoot into a group of Kindergartners if a Terrorist is using them as a meat shield and shooting at you. Obviously the parents can sue you later, but if you kill a kid or two defending your life, it's all good....in Wisconsin. Their state, their laws. I'm good with it.

Conversely, had Grosskreutz fired when he pulled his gun, he'd be not guilty too since he would have been in fear of his life and the lives of others after having seen an active shooter shoot two unarmed men.
Click to expand...

had he fired his illegal gun on a person defending his life, he would of been fucked

you are so fucking stupid. good luck in life - it must be a challenge for you
 
So, I'm waiting still. Been two days and no one can answer my question.

"What is the best and proper way to fire a warning shot in his situation?"

I don't need a deflection. I need to see how long it took for anyone to make that answer. Two days now. I'm winning.
 
Damocles said:
Is your gun pointed at him? Yes.
So, you are saying that he did not fire until you were pointing a gun at him and advancing? Correct.

My "bias" is simply facts, it is always nice to have facts on your side when forming a "bias". I listened to the questioning. I listened to all of the trial. I know what that witness said. I know the difference between what folks say under oath and when they try to explain their testimony away later. The reality is, this verdict is almost all based on what this witness said and how well Rittenhouse did on the witness stand. The video just cemented it.
Click to expand...

IMO the right of self-defense, under Wisconsin law, was the determining factor: "Did Kyle Rittenhouse have a reasonable fear for his life each and every time he pulled the trigger?".

The jury had reasonable doubt as to whether he did or didn't. The right of Self-Defense, under Wisconsin law, has been affirmed as the reasonable belief of the person shooting in self-defense.

The fact he put himself there was irrelevant as was the fact he endangered others while defending himself.
 
zymurgy said:
had he fired his illegal gun on a person defending his life, he would of been fucked

you are so fucking stupid. good luck in life - it must be a challenge for you
Click to expand...

You upset very easily. Is it because I hit some old, limp-dicked nerves?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no

and I hope you get a chance to prove that

because there would be no video of the incident at all, would there LOL

not when they try you for murder

it's legal to shoot someone who is shooting at you.......if there's a crowd, it's the instigators fault for how many are hurt or killed. why don't you know the law?
Click to expand...
Okey-dokey.

Awesome.

The video would show an active shooter dropping two unarmed people and the third person, fearing for their life and the lives of others, takes him down by emptying a legally-owned Glock into the back of the active shooter.

Fine. Do you think my NRA insurance would help?

If you were correct, then why did Kyle get off on the endangering others charges? Are you hinting that it's a matter of kids-per-square-yard before people can shoot back in self-defense?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The video would show an active shooter dropping two unarmed people and the third person, fearing for their life and the lives of others, takes him down by emptying a legally-owned Glock into the back of the active shooter.
Click to expand...
as you seemed quite fond of saying, that would be for the jury to decide, not you..........just like you believed the jury would send him away for 10 to 15 years.......and you were wrong, you would be wrong with your assessment of you saving the world from an active shooter..........

Dutch Uncle said:
If you were correct, then why did Kyle get off on the endangering others charges? Are you hinting that it's a matter of kids-per-square-yard before people can shoot back in self-defense?
Click to expand...

kyle wasn't the instigator.............or are you too traumatized at being proven wrong to accept that part yet?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I do believe you've lost more mind than you ever had to begin with.

I STRONGLY urge you to either consult with a lawyer before you do any of the crap you've said is now legal, or PLEASE go out and do it, take videos..........
Click to expand...

Isn't that what Kyle claimed? Are you saying a lawfully armed citizen can't legally empty a magazine into the back of an active shooter that has killed people?

If that's true, then why not a sniper round from the local Home Owner Assoc Sniper Squad? HOASS?

5rusew.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Isn't that what Kyle claimed? Are you saying a lawfully armed citizen can't legally empty a magazine into the back of an active shooter that has killed people?

If that's true, then why not a sniper round from the local Home Owner's Assoc Sniper Squad?
Click to expand...

when you do that, be damned sure you can prove he was an active shooter by the laws in our state.........I look forward to watching your trial
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top