Not seeing any proof of your previous claim.
Makes my life easy to just ignore you from now on, when you supply nothing of value for either stance.

This post was edited by lolkggz on Nov 4 2021 01:42pm

he supplies so many cool swear words tho

I don't think he has the brainpower to articulate a constructed point of view.
I feel bad.

A Child does not have the same intentions with their gun as a responsible adult.

There are hundreds of responsible adults that attended that night that got into arguments and physical fights. All of them used their words and understanding of what is right and wrong to not start shooting people 4 times when threatened.

Many people were threatened that night and felt threatened but the responsible adults brought their guns there not to use them just like the police didnt use lethal force they went and showed the guns as a symbol of their power and control over the mob. That is what the civilians intention was as per their own story from the documentaries. Everyone there knows that. Everyone that is 'protecting businesses' that is there and is a responsible of age adult understood that.

This child did not understand that, he was a child showing up to a War to protect 'his businesses'. This child had a different sense of what was happening and what was right and wrong because he is a child and cannot fully grasp and understand the situation. The Child doesn't even know exactly why the protests are happening anyway he thinks there is an angry mob of looting arsonists, which that mob at that night wasn't doing.

The Child truly thought himself that he would need to use his fire arm to protect himself. And felt he needed to murder people as a defense. No one else that night in that whole area thought that, only this child.

That is why the child had the pre intention of using his gun. Others used their words, and reasoning to not shoot people. This child, could not understand what using words and reasoning is, becuase he doesnt understand the situation he is in. He intended to murder those people. Those people did not intend to murder him. This child intended to use his weapon as he brought it, that was his defense. Everyone else with guns used words and non lethal tactics. But this child;once again, not being able to understand the situation, actually thought his gun was his protection. That is proof that he intended to use his weapon when he showed up. Therefore he is guilty of murder

Actually, wasn't Kyle technically a minor when he shot those people? How can a minor be held legally liable for his actions.

he's a roided out jock sniffer foreign voyeur. whatever brain cells he did have before ended up rotten thanks to the roids and the stench of unwashed jocks

If you make that argument this late in the game then you are essentially admitting that he intended to murder but his lack of understanding of what is right and wrong is what caused the err on the situation therefore him as a child cannot be responsible for his own actions.

Again you would have to admit that he murdered those people intentionally for that defense to have any merit so sure thanks for admitting he murdered those people in cold blood

Scathing.

I'm actually a bit confused, why is the prosecution playing up this witness who is destroying their case?
He's testified that Rosenbaum was a violent lunatic who had to be restrained by his buddies to keep him from trying to attack people, after he threatened to kill Rittenhouse and this witness earlier in the night.
"Did you ever seen Rosenbaum physically injure someone?" "I saw him attempt to injure people" "I asked if you actually saw him injure anyone"