LOL!

The funniest bit is, in firearms training, standard operation is if someone is attacking you and you're forced to open fire, you empty the magazine. Granted, that's handgun training, but you'd assume at that point 10+1 shots.

Only shooting him 4 times means he used restraint specifically BECAUSE he saw Rosenbaum falling.

"His hip was fractured and he fell forward and you continue to shoot?" - Bingdinger

"I shot until the threat was no longer a threat" - KR

I remember that lol

I mean this whole case is a clown show at this point, but why are so many people this angry about this? He's being questioned of murder, like anyone would in this circumstance and he did act in self-defense.

Can everyone just agree that a 17 year old should not have had an AR-15 or been in that scenario...like at all? What kind of parent drops your kid off across state lines to participate in this. Same goes for any demonstration or form of protest...period.

Sure it was dumb, but that's not against the Wisconsin law.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:03am

The officer who killed Ashli Babbitt never had to stand trial and defend whether his actions were justified

Absolutely not. Any 17 year old in the nation is perfectly welcome to utilize public streets and sidewalks. Likewise, 17 year olds are perfectly okay to be in possession of AR-15's in Wisconsin.

Kyle did nothing whatsoever wrong. And had Kyle not been attacked, no shots would have been fired by Kyle that day. The entire chain of events was caused by the attackers, NOT by Kyle's perfectly legal activity.

Human reaction time: 0.2 seconds.

Since this post was done in sincerity, and I don't think this was intentional bait.
This one slides..

Just know going forward "He shouldn't have been there" is and will be considered bait.
From here on out.

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=88983873&f=119&p=591026784

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:10am

In a post where you rerouted here to the URL, I stated he acted in self-defense. In terms of the trial, he did act entirely upon the nature of which anyone would in that scenario.

But...he obtained a gun illegally and through those means killed two people, although in self-defense. Considering everyone is cookie-cutter taking the bait of this entire political facade, I think finding some common ground doesn't hurt and don't consider it bait but I understand your sentiment.

Bold one is false.
You're starting off on a bad foot, showing your current level of media influenced brain and not trial observation.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 11 2021 11:16am