Kyle Rittenhouse to go free!!!

[Oerdin]

You claimed the source was biased. I pointed out that it was just the time line and sequence of events the agreed upon expert said occurred and was entered as evidence. I therefore said it is not a biased source. Then you went on a rant off topic.

I appreciate you haven't stated your opinion on the case but the post you responded too wasn't about verdicts it was about the timing, sequence, and order of events which both sides agreed upon via the official expert. So, do you retract your claim about it being a biased source?

 

[Levon]

You claimed the source was biased. I pointed out that it was just the time line and sequence of events the agreed upon expert said occurred and was entered as evidence. I therefore said it is not a biased source. Then you went on a rant off topic.

I appreciate you haven't stated your opinion on the case but the post you responded too wasn't about verdicts it was about the timing, sequence, and order of events which both sides agreed upon via the official expert. So, do you retract your claim about it being a biased source?

You're telling me that a tweet claiming "the State doesn't want you to know about Joshua Ziminski's role because it would destroy their narrative" is UNBIASED? And that the prosecutors and the defense team have AGREED IT IS FACT?

While it's possibly true that this tweetstorm actually DOES contain a timeline that both sides have agreed to stipulate to in court without the need to actually interrogate witnesses and stuff (which I rather doubt) the tweetstorm ALSO contains plenty of BIASED commentary which you'd have to be blind or stupid not to see. Thus when I say your source (the Twitter account) is biased, I think I'm standing on solid rock, and YUO are misrepresenting the source's credibility like a fucking 8 year old.

Here's som more recent twits from your source. Have a nice day.

 

[Admin.]

You claimed the source was biased. I pointed out that it was just the time line and sequence of events the agreed upon expert said occurred and was entered as evidence. I therefore said it is not a biased source. Then you went on a rant off topic.

I appreciate you haven't stated your opinion on the case but the post you responded too wasn't about verdicts it was about the timing, sequence, and order of events which both sides agreed upon via the official expert. So, do you retract your claim about it being a biased source?

You're telling me that a tweet claiming "the State doesn't want you to know about Joshua Ziminski's role because it would destroy their narrative" is UNBIASED? And that the prosecutors and the defense team have AGREED IT IS FACT?

While it's possibly true that this tweetstorm actually DOES contain a timeline that both sides have agreed to stipulate to in court without the need to actually interrogate witnesses and stuff (which I rather doubt) the tweetstorm ALSO contains plenty of BIASED commentary which you'd have to be blind or stupid not to see. Thus when I say your source (the Twitter account) is biased, I think I'm standing on solid rock, and YUO are misrepresenting the source's credibility like a fucking 8 year old.

Here's som more recent twits from your source. Have a nice day.

Ouch Levon, that's going to leave a scar!

 

[Admin.]

 

[Lokmar]

Cleese is a disarmed cunt from a disarmed cunt country. America was created by Christian gun lovers for Christian gun lovers. Foreigners need to fuck off with their opinions on our guns and residents who dont love our gun culture need to fuck off over to a cuck country.

 

[Admin.]

Cleese is a disarmed cunt from a disarmed cunt country. America was created by Christian gun lovers for Christian gun lovers. Foreigners need to fuck off with their opinions on our guns and residents who dont love our gun culture need to fuck off over to a cuck country.

^^^Triggered cry babby!

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Hey guess what guise

If you happen to be armed with pistol or long gun and a guy a lot older than you, stronger than you and obviously far more demented than you comes running towards you bent on harming you then you should hand over your weapon. why? cause he's unarmed of course and is therefore no threat to you whatsoever.

and never mind the 200 other people who are thinking just like him ... you'll be fine.. just hand over your weapon because the smart people say you should

 

[The Prowler]

If a guy a lot older than me comes running at me there is no point in shooting him because he must be Superman.

 

[The Prowler]

It is those younger fuckers that I have to worry about now.

 

[Admin.]

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Yep. The leftist retardation is now in full swing

 

[Joe]

Cleese is a disarmed cunt from a disarmed cunt country. America was created by Christian gun lovers for Christian gun lovers. Foreigners need to fuck off with their opinions on our guns and residents who dont love our gun culture need to fuck off over to a cuck country.

LOL!

 

[Reggie_Essent]

Oh look! Another "approved" cartoon posted by our resident cartoon boy.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

 

[Levon]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

I can guarantee there won't be a single lib here that provides a sound and credible answer which references the actual law

watch

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

See what I mean, folks ?

 

[Levon]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

See what I mean, folks ?

How is my response "unsound" or "incredible," shitposter?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

See what I mean, folks ?

How is my response "unsound" or "incredible," shitposter?

Because you're a moron incapable of addressing the matter directly you disgusting looking freak.

Hey, isn't it close to Halloween? Shouldn't you be out scaring children with your face?

 

[Joe]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

I got mixed feelings about this incident.

On one hand Kyle is guilty of killing someone.

But on the other he may have prevented someone from blowing up a gas station which could have killed a lot more people.

So it's like arguing who was the lesser of 2 evils.

Kinda like...who do ya prefer? Hitler or Stalin?

 

[Levon]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

See what I mean, folks ?

How is my response "unsound" or "incredible," shitposter?

Because you're a moron incapable of addressing the matter directly you disgusting looking freak.

Hey, isn't it close to Halloween? Shouldn't you be out scaring children with your face?

It was actually an interesting question. So how did I know you didn't really mean it, shit poster?

 

[Admin.]

I can guarantee there won't be a single lib here that provides a sound and credible answer which references the actual law

watch

So you're willing to die defending the self defense molehill?

 

[Oerdin]

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Okay, so lets look at the matter this way for just a second.

Kyle makes a bad decision showing up to Kenosa that night armed with a long gun. His mere presence with a rifle equals conclusively that he has lost his right to self defense via the element of provocation. Does Wisconsin state law provide a provision to "regain" the privlege of self defense in the event it is lost? And if so, what are the requirements?

Interesting question. Do you believe the second sentence, or are you being hypothetical and erecting a straw man? That would make your two questions moot.

See what I mean, folks ?

How is my response "unsound" or "incredible," shitposter?

Because you're a moron incapable of addressing the matter directly you disgusting looking freak.

Hey, isn't it close to Halloween? Shouldn't you be out scaring children with your face?

It was actually an interesting question. So how did I know you didn't really mean it, shit poster?

What difference does it make if I were to believe it or not you disgusting freak?

All that matters is the clear language used in the Wisconsin state statue governing this matter. And the objectivity of intelligent persons who are capable of realizing that the law is designed to take into account a stream of events within a stream of time which can have vastly different outcomes based upon the intent or Mens Rae of the person alleging the privilege. The law is fluid this way so that one poor decision does not lock a person into a predetermined outcome. Meaning, it doesn't fucking matter if he showed up to a blm rally wearing a KKK outfit holding a rifle. If he had a sudden burst of common sense and decided to run home and was being chased the person doing the chasing just became the aggressor at that moment in time. Armed or not totally inconsequential.

Got it now, or do you need stick figures drawn out you stupid and disgusting looking freak?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

I can guarantee there won't be a single lib here that provides a sound and credible answer which references the actual law

watch

So you're willing to die defending the self defense molehill?

I'm willing to say you are too stupid to debate with on any reasonable level and I reserve the right to continue telling you to suck a cock until which time you manage to pull your head out of your koolo and prove me wrong, dipshit.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Now did I not predict there wouldn't be a single lib that takes me up on examining the statue line by line to see why the state's case is falling apart on this one?

No, instead they try their famous maggot formulated merry-go-ground tactics to avoid the meat of the matter.

 

[Dove]

Rosebuam was only unarmed because he was shot before he could get the gun.

So.

 

[Dove]

I can guarantee there won't be a single lib here that provides a sound and credible answer which references the actual law

watch

So you're willing to die defending the self defense molehill?

Evidently you guys are willing to die on the "leftwing rioters can kill who they want" hill and your "people" will probably riot AGAIN when its decided Kyle didnt break any laws(he didnt).

The only reason people are saying "bias!" here is because YOUR side has turned courts into partisan weapons.

So much so people are literally defending scum bag rioters with a history of violence who ATTACKED someone on VIDEO.

I bet anything Brock Turners dad donates to democrats.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

Rosebuam was only unarmed because he was shot before he could get the gun.

So.

What sane person do you know who runs up to a person carrying an Ar-15 without some kind of back up?

This was a coordinated effort between Rosenbuam and that Joshua shitnitz guy and possibly a few others. yeah, rosenbuam was unarmed. So what. he was in the company of several like minded individuals who were and knew it.

 

[Dove]

Rosebuam was only unarmed because he was shot before he could get the gun.

So.

What sane person do you know who runs up to a person carrying an Ar-15 without some kind of back up?

This was a coordinated effort between Rosenbuam and that Joshua shitnitz guy and possibly a few others. yeah, rosenbuam was unarmed. So what. he was in the company of several like minded individuals who were and knew it.

It's obvious what happened to everyone whose brains havent been scrambled by tribal politics.

You can fuckinf SEE them ATTACKING Kyle. That's a fucking wrap.....it has nothing to do with politics.

They MADE it about politics because now, no one should be allowed to defend themselves from LEFTWING domestic terrorists.