Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

And this is based on what? Rosenbaum hasn't killed anybody ever. And the kid probably wouldn't even have shown up with that gun in the first place.

 

Rosenbaum has no history of being an arsonist at all. And as far as I know there are no vids around where you hear Rosenbaum and co are going for the gas station. It just a lid dumpster being pushed down the street. For all you know they would have kept on pushing that dumpster all night long before simply going home.

The "bearing" is Zimmerman way of "confronting" is that he chased down a kid, just like Rosenbaum did. And you're allowed to do that, without the kid applying deadly force against it. In both cases the kids applied deadly force. As shown in the Zimmerman-case.. the victim of that deadly force has the right to defense and not the other way around.

Also.. the "you can confront someone you think is in the act of committing a crime" is not relevant. Zimmerman did not confront a person committing a crime at all. He confronted a kid who walked in the rain, which is perfectly legal.

 

Its absurd you are actually trying to make this point after 100 buildings where burned and 40 burned to the ground but ok..

Lighting the dumpster on fire and NOTHING ELSE is a class I felony and ruins your pedophile self defense case

Rosenbaum had no legal right to chase down the person who stopped him from committing felony arson, sorry but both cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

again he confronted someone he thought was committing a crime, and called the police before hand. What does this have to do with a pedophile committing arson and trying to attack the person who stopped the arson? Both cases have NOTHING to do with each other, they are not even in the same state so the laws will be different anyway. Stick to WI laws because that was where the arson happened..

 

no he is just a child rapist which is much more evil.

Listen I understand you want it to be legal for pedophiles to attack minors and commit arson. But in WI they do not have that right sorry

 

The kid ran from him and he gave chase knowing full well there was a gun involved. Pure suicide.

You know it's been a while since that happened but the story you relate doesn't even sound close to what we watched on the various videos. I mean, Rosenbaum didn't have a sterling record and he wasn't out just to walk his french bulldog that night. He was there to cause trouble and he found some.

 

As I said... lots of vids around. But you can't prove that specifically Rosenbaum had any kind of intent to burn down a gas station.
It's utterly irrelevant what other people did that night, as if when other did this, it means Rosenbaum could only had planned to do that.
It's absurd and you know it. The entire idea of innocent until proven guilty is nowhere to be found. It's assuming this, and so it's a fact and guilty.
What a joke.

That is pushing a utterly retarded idea that when somebody committed a felony, it means they have no rights and you can just lynch him.
You are really out of line with this idea and got an ill concept of what the law is about.
A cop can not even just shoot a person for lighting a dumpster, since it's not putting anybody in any kind of danger.
That's how much rights a person committing a felony has.

The whole idea that there is no right for self defense against a far white nationalistic violent gangmember just because you committed a felony is therefor untrue.

So what. Rosenbaum is allowed to simply chase down a kid for no reason at all, just like Zimmerman did. Doing that doesn't give the victim any kind of right to defend itself in a deadly way.

He saw a kid walking in the rain. So he did not think the kid was committing a crime at all. Nobody would. You're being dishonest.

Both cases are about:
An adult chasing a kid
A kid assaulting the adult for being chased in a deadly way.
The kid being in the wrong.

 

Not seeing how this would lead to some kind of death. And I'm also not seeing how the child was in danger of being raped even.
The kid heard gun shots,... that's when he started aiming his weapon at his victim. That is what violent far right wing nationalist gangmembers do.
It's not because he saw somebody with his pants down.

I know you're all for the idea that ex convicts who paid their time for raping children can just be executed when they commit a felony.
But that's not how the law works. We agreed on that.

 

Do you listen to yourself good grief, although you got some things correct.
Adults chasing a kid running to the cops, and the adults had and used deadly weapons to knock him down and tried to use deadly force.

A kid that got knocked down shot the adult with a pistol and the skate board wielding adult attackers.

100% self defense in any and every definition you want to conjure up but funny watching spin, pivot and run with wild theories.

 

sorry but its a felony to try and burn down anything in WI, doesnt matter if it was the gas station, another business or just the dumpster, its all a felony arson charge

no but when you are in the act of committing a felony and someone is actively trying to stop you, you can not attack that person and then claim self defense, im sorry if this bothers you but thats the law

did Kyle run up and shoot him or did he use a fire extinguisher to put out the fire? lol didnt really think that one through did ya?
And if a cop tries to stop a person from committing arson and that person tries to attack the cop and steal his gun you think the cop is just going to give it to him? lol didnt think that one through very well either did ya?

sure there is, if a white nationalist attacks you unprovoked then sure you can defend yourself, but if your commenting a felony and a "white Natonalist" stops you, you have no legal rights to attack them, thats the law.. sorry if that bothers you

Zimmerman was not committing a felony and got stopped by Martin, like Rosenbaum was, so again there is no comparison here

so he just butt dialed 911 then? lol

why are you brining up a case in FL when the laws in WI are all that matters? Is it because you know how horribly wrong you are so this is all you have?

 

Suicide or not. That doesn't give a person a right to use deadly force. Zimmerman ran after a kid as well. The kid applied deadly force and subsequently since the kid was in the wrong it meant that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself and not the kid.

Rosenbaums record is irrelevant. It doesn't give him lesser rights to self defense. And "looking for trouble" doesn't give somebody else the right to just kill such a person.

 

Adults used deadly weapons to knock a kid down?? what?

You mean... somebody swung a skateboard at Kyle?
Rosenbaum already was dead at that point. So this is like... that far right wing nationalists gets to kill some person A because some minutes later person B swings a skateboard at him. As if!!! lol

 

You're dropping that whole... he was about the burn down a gasstation... and moved to lighting up a dumpster.
So what that the guy did that and committed a felony.

Uh... he chased down a person for it. And so what. That does not justify getting a weapon aimed at you. That is assault, and you are allowed to defend yourself against being assaulted.

A citizen is not allowed to just point a gun at somebody for lighting up a dumpster, or point a gun at that same person when chased down.
Pointing a gun is assault and the right to defend yourself is against being assaulted. The victim of the assault has the right to defend himself.
Zimmerman proved that.

Oh... "provoked"... when person A provokes person B with saying something naughty about his mother, then person A still doesn't have a right to pull a gun on B.

Zimmerman chased somebody innocent, and when Zimmerman got assaulted over it, it meant Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force.
Rosenbaum chased somebody innocent, and when Rosenbaum got assaulted over it,... you are suggesting that suddenly Rosenbaum has no right to self defense.

And you come to the conclusion because prior to that Rosenbaum committed a felony that wasn't hurting anybody, and somehow it means he forfeited all rights to self defense.
That's where I say: you're making that last part up, to come up with a different conclusion. We all know you're making it up.

He said he saw a kid walking in the rain to the police. So he did not think the kid was committing a crime at all at that point. Nobody would. You're being dishonest.

Laws like.. you forfait the right to self defense ones you commit a felony that isn't hurting anybody? lol
You're out of line here.

 

I wasn't talking about Trayvon Martin

 

Pedo trying to assault him and take his gun certainly gives Kyle that right.

The difference is that Zimmerman didn't initiate violence against Martin. GZ was standing on the sidewalk and TM walked up and punched him in the nose (and then continued and escalated his assault). If, in an alternate reality, GZ had thrown something at Martin and tried to take Martin's gun away, then Martin would have some standing to claim self defense. Back in reality however, GZ did none of those things. Pedo did though, and that's why he was justifiably shot by Kyle.

 

I didnt drop anything I was just pointing out your argument that there was "no proof" that they where trying to burn down a gas station does not matter. Just lighting the dumpster on fire is a felony so just pointing out no matter how you want to argue this.. your wrong

well thats against WI law,

"(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."

yes it does, because the other option is letting a person steal your weapon.

no its not
"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of this section, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

thats debatable if you think they are going to try and blow up a gas station with it.. But regardless no guns where pointed and fire extinguishers where used

"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of this section, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

"Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of this section, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064."

I dont care about zimmermans case, FL law has no jurisdiction for making a legal argument in WI, find a WI case that is similar and we can talk.

I'm not making anything up,

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. 895.07 (1) (h).
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. (1) 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. (ar) 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.

 

Violent far right wing white nationalist gang member pointing a gun at a person, gives that person the right to defend against such an assault.

GZ hunted down TM with his car and then chased the kid down on foot.
GZ admitted that HE confronted TM in a lie detecting kind of setting. And he told the truth.
The end.

 

not when the pedophile initiated the attack to steal the gun, (thats a class H felony by the way) the pedophile tried to steal the gun first before the gun was pointed at him, this is a clear case of self defense by Kyle.

 

I believe this is what you're referring to:

"Along with questions about whether his first name was George and if it was Monday, Zimmerman was asked, “Did you confront the guy you shot?’ He answered, “No.” He was also asked, “Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy.” Zimmerman replied, “Yes.”"

Report: George Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector Test on Trayvon Martin Killing - TheBlaze

 

Wrong with what? I always admitted he lit up a dumpster.
Your idea that the gas station was going to be set on fire, is something you dropped since you can't prove it.

You're not proving a thing that chasing a person is actually provoking anything.

You're being dishonest by leaving out the part that the kid heard gun shots.
And THAT was THE QUE where he turned around and aimed his weapon.
It really is a no brainer to come up why he did that.
That action right there and why he did that is assaulting Rosenbaum.
That gives Rosenbaum the right to take away the weapon.
There was no attempt to take away the weapon before this.

It's not up to debate when you're just making wild guesses.

Zimmerman had the following thrown at him:
a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

And it was judged that chasing somebody down isn't a thing where it gets to be necessary to apply deadly force. The WI law is hardly any different.

There is also not a necessity to threaten to kill somebody for lighting up a dumpster.

 

The violent far right wing gangmember initiated the attack by pointing his weapon. THAT was the que when his victim tried to take it away, not before. And the gangmember did that, when he heard gun shots.

 

The problem with your fiction here is that Pedo attacked Kyle (threw something at him, chased him, and tried to grab his gun) before Kyle ever pointed his gun at Pedo. That sequence of events is why Kyle will be exonerated for justifiably shooting Pedo.

 

I dont need to prove it, thats the point, you made the argument that they might of just pushed the dumpster around all night.. OK lets go with that, lets go with your idea of what happened.. STILL A FELONY ARSON. dont you get it? your best case scenario that your trying to push still proves my side of the argument..

trying to steal a fire arm is a class H felony, sorry if you dont agree with the law here but the pedophile tried to steal his gun and got shot for his efforts..

no I have addressed this several times. Just because someone shot a gun at him (another felony) does not magically erase the felony assault that rosubaum was attempting to carry out on Kyle, There can be more then one threat, and just because another threat joins in on the felonys against Kyle does not mean anything.

Rousenbaum was committing felony arson, Kyle put out his second fire with a fire extinguisher, please point to the law where you can NOT put out an arsons fire lol
Rousenbaum lunged at Kyle and tried to grab his gun, that right there is felony assault, Kile did a "juke" move (according to video and witnesses) and ran away. Running away from a person trying to steal your gun is NOT against the law
Someone shot at Kyle, another felony against Kyle, he stopped and once again Rousenbaum tried to steal Kyles gun, still a felony to try and steal someones gun, and Kyle aimed at him and shot him.

I'm posting the actual Law, your posting to an unrelated incident in FL.. lol

Dont care about what happened in FL, find a relatable case in WI and we can talk about it, I'm not debating something that is completely meaningless to WI law

True, but they used fire extinguishers not guns for the fires, so what point are you trying to make here?

 

How did he attempt to take his weapon when he never even made contact with Rittenhouse? Rosenbaum was shot before he ever reached him if I remember the video correctly.

That sounds like a similar argument the three men in Georgia made last year.

 

Uh... I made the counter argument that they might as well push that dumpster around all night, where you claimed they must be going for the gas station.... with no prove at all.
And so what that it's a felony. It's not up for some far right wing gang member to start a gun fight over it. It lacks any kind of necessity.

That attempt only happened AFTER that far right wing gang member aimed the gun at his victim. That's where the victim gets the right to take away that weapon in self defense.

Chasing somebody is not a thing where it becomes a necessity to be killed over. Even that far right wing gang member didn't think so, since he didn't pull his gun over it.
And nobody shot at far right wing gang member.

You're dishonestly leaving out that the far right wing gang member heard gun shots, and that was HIS IRRATIONAL que to assault Rosenbaum. He had no right to pull a gun at Rosenbaum simply because he heard gunshots. That's assaulting Rosenbaum. That's where Rosenbaum gets the right to defend himself.

I cited the law form FL which is as good as the same.

 

He was chasing another juvenile, which is what got him arrested for raping 5 kids. I can see why you’re defending him.