- Reaction score
- 23,125
Piss off tranny lover, you have no idea what you're saying on any matter unless it involves abducting children or lusting after shemales
Good news for Kyle Rittenhouse fans
- Thread starter LotusBud
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Listen, if I want some advice on how to lure children off a playground into a windowless van without drawing attention from the authorities I'll look you up for a consultation, Five Six.
But until then how about you confine your worthless drivel to meltdown?
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Christ Almighty where's an accurate bolt of lightning when you need one?
- Reaction score
- 7,487
You have not posted a single fact in this entire thread. Quite the opposite. That you are drugged out might help to explain why you have been consistently posting such delusional and untrue nonsense. Well, that and that you are a genuinely low I.Q. and dishonest person.
- Reaction score
- 7,487
He has actually gotten the fact right. That is not something you have been able to do.
I never claimed they were peaceful protestors. All I said was Rittwnhouse murdered them.
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Them as in a convicted Ped0 who was in pursuit with obvious violent intent while some other dude was firing shots and then a domestic abuser who was attempting to pummel him with a skateboard.
Doesn't sound like murder to any thinking person when Kyle is forced to shoot them while in the midst of attempting to flee. Idiot.
- Reaction score
- 368
So what business did THEY have of being there, then?
- Reaction score
- 24,697
- Location
- United states
Which is completely false. You are calling obvious self defense murder because you are sk partisan you oppose peoples human rights if people rioting for a left wing cause attack someone. You think they should allow themselves to be beaten and murdered.
That's really hateful and gross.
- Reaction score
- 24,697
- Location
- United states
Because some people actually think left wingers are entitled to do whatever they want to whomever they want and the person they attack isnt allowed to protect themselves.
- Reaction score
- 7,487
I would mention attempting to flee to the police who were two blocks away. Kyle was running directly to the police and even told the skate board assaulter before the criminal attempted to "truck fuck him" by bashing his head with the metal trucks of the skate board.
- Reaction score
- 23,125
if it was a Ped0 leftwing antifa thug who shot two proud boys out of the clear blue lotus would be calling him a hero
she's a low life hypocrite dummy with a very low IQ.
end of
she's a low life hypocrite dummy with a very low IQ.
end of
- Reaction score
- 23,125
you have to be a real piece of shit and dishonest low life to watch that video in it's entirety and see it as cold blooded murder
But this is exactly why I keep saying you cannot reason with these rodents.
- Reaction score
- 24,697
- Location
- United states
In Portland the thugs shot and murdered a man who was there with a prayer group.
And they just glossed over that. Some said "they shouldnt have been there"
The logic is that they believe the mobs own everything and are in charge and if they are the only ones with any rights to be anywhere. And if you are in their presence they have some mystical privilege to do as they wish to you and you cant defend yourself because you "shouldnt be there".
Unfortunately for them that isnt reality and you dont get to dictate who goes where. If you attack someone, they can and should kill you. That's a human right and the law. And as far as most of the country is concerned the only place these violant pieces of authoritarian shit belong is in a prison cell or a grave.
Not on streets funded and paid for by the people they are terrorizing destroying peoples livelihoods.
- Reaction score
- 23,125
This is why I love Florida. In Florida most of our sheriffs will tell these punks straight out they'd better relax themselves because people down here will shoot your ass and more than likely not get charged provided the shooting is handled within the parameters of a lawful self defense situation.
That Kenosha or Portland bullshit wouldn't fly for 5 minutes down here and these liberal fucktards know it which is why they don't try it.
I really wish they would tho.
Seamajor
Site Supporter
- Reaction score
- 7,645
That kids life is ruined. Ask me if I care.
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Sewage is happy to see a child suffer
why is that not at all surprising?
why is that not at all surprising?
Seamajor
Site Supporter
- Reaction score
- 7,645
A child? Another lie Stumpy?
- Reaction score
- 23,125
He wasn't a child when this happened?
- Reaction score
- 12,930
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Typical libtard moron with nothing of value to add to the conversation
Seamajor
Site Supporter
- Reaction score
- 7,645
You've said yourself you hate children. Ones that get away from you anyway.
So you’d call this staying topic?
- Reaction score
- 23,125
How about addressing the topic with some actual facts instead of drool and hyperbole, Chester?
Seamajor
Site Supporter
- Reaction score
- 7,645
Stumpy the kids life is ruined forever. I bet he’s sorry he pulled the trigger
- Reaction score
- 23,125
- Reaction score
- 23,125
Taken right from the Wisconsin state statue regarding lawful use of deadly force
and I quote
"
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. .
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. , who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."
So perhaps one of you brain dead imbeciles on the left can point out for the group exactly which subdivision of this text Kyle violated so as to become deprived of the legal provision of deadly force usage?
Or, just continue to drool all over yourselves in utter stupidity and tedium
and I quote
"
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. .
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. , who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense."
So perhaps one of you brain dead imbeciles on the left can point out for the group exactly which subdivision of this text Kyle violated so as to become deprived of the legal provision of deadly force usage?
Or, just continue to drool all over yourselves in utter stupidity and tedium
Similar threads
