Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

[SkyFox76]

What misinformation would that be?

First misinformation, where the first shot came from. The man they claim fired that shot cannot be in two locations at once. He was either walking on the sidewalk at the car lot (which video shows) or he was across the street (which no video shows). Why the need to move his location? Second, there was no group forming a barricade with bats and other weapons to "pin Rittenhouse between cars". The drone footage shows were people hanging at that corner before the chase even began. Pretty high odds they were aware Rittenhouse was heading towards them or even why. Third, Rittenhouse never "placed a call for help". It's right in the criminal complaint that the call he made was to his friend Dominic Black.

But at least they put that "felon with a gun" claim to rest. And they also put in footage of Rittenhouse yelling to people he's an EMT.

 

[ASHES]

First misinformation, where the first shot came from. The man they claim fired that shot cannot be in two locations at once. He was either walking on the sidewalk at the car lot (which video shows) or he was across the street (which no video shows). Why the need to move his location?
Second, there was no group forming a barricade with bats and other weapons to "pin Rittenhouse between cars". The drone footage shows were people hanging at that corner before the chase even began. Pretty high odds they were aware Rittenhouse was heading towards them or even why. Third, Rittenhouse never "placed a call for help". It's right in the criminal complaint that the call he made was to his friend Dominic Black.

But at least they put that "felon with a gun" claim to rest. And they also put in footage of Rittenhouse yelling to people he's an EMT.

First was likely a mistake not intentional misinformation, because the closer he is to the events the better it is for them. Second, I can see why the defense framed it that way. I don't believe that group had formed up for the purpose of blocking Kyle, but they were an obstacle, and many of them probably were armed. Not the place you'd want to run in the middle of when at least one of their friends is already very angry at and chasing you. Third: I don't believe he called 911, I do wish people would not repeat that. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't calling for help. It isn't objectively unreasonable that he thought calling his friend who was in the vicinity and would be able to provide him help faster than calling 911 and getting a dispatcher somewhere, who then has to relay the message to the police. It was also reasonable for him to assume, with so many people around, that someone else was calling 911.

 

[SkyFox76]

First was likely a mistake not intentional misinformation, because the closer he is to the events the better it is for them. Second, I can see why the defense framed it that way. I don't believe that group had formed up for the purpose of blocking Kyle, but they were an obstacle, and many of them probably were armed. Not the place you'd want to run in the middle of when at least one of their friends is already very angry at and chasing you. Third: I don't believe he called 911, I do wish people would not repeat that. However, that doesn't mean he wasn't calling for help. It isn't objectively unreasonable that he thought calling his friend who was in the vicinity and would be able to provide him help faster than calling 911 and getting a dispatcher somewhere, who then has to relay the message to the police. It was also reasonable for him to assume, with so many people around, that someone else was calling 911.

Putting camo pants across the street (rather than on the sidewalk running next to the car lot) doesn't put him closer though. I've always thought that flash looked to be in a different location than where we see camo pants walking and raising his arm. So my thought is that the flash is more at the intersection but his lawyers are feeding off the online version that camo pants truly fired the shot and for whatever reason they aren't aware video shows camo pants (and backpack girl) in front of the lot.

Of course it's obvious why they tried to paint an angry armed mob waiting to devour Rittenhouse, but it's still misinformation.

How exactly was some other kid going to provide help to Rosenbaum? Or even Rittenhouse for that matter? According to McGinniss he told Rittenhouse call 911. He then saw Rittenhouse take out his phone and make a call. There is also video of someone saying call 911 or has somebody called and the cameraman tells them yes, and then points out Rittenhouse. So it's quite possible he actually delayed emergency response with his actions. We know police weren't headed down Sheridan until the second incident because another video shows them parked and idle at the gas station.

It's ironic that not an hour earlier this kid was literally telling people he was an EMT and if someone was injured he was running into harm's way to help them, but in reality he didn't even have the sense to call 911 instead of his buddy. Which goes back to the fact he was naive to the entire surroundings he'd put himself into. He was in a real life situation but treating it like a damn video game.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

How exactly was some other kid going to provide help to Rosenbaum? Or even Rittenhouse for that matter? According to McGinniss he told Rittenhouse call 911. He then saw Rittenhouse take out his phone and make a call. There is also video of someone saying call 911 or has somebody called and the cameraman tells them yes, and then points out Rittenhouse. So it's quite possible he actually delayed emergency response with his actions. We know police weren't headed down Sheridan until the second incident because another video shows them parked and idle at the gas station.

It's ironic that not an hour earlier this kid was literally telling people he was an EMT and if someone was injured he was running into harm's way to help them, but in reality he didn't even have the sense to call 911 instead of his buddy. Which goes back to the fact he was naive to the entire surroundings he'd put himself into. He was in a real life situation but treating it like a damn video game.

I don't find it at all implausible to think this kid was in shock when he made that call. Never having actually killed someone before, it's probably quite unsettling to cause someone's skull to blow apart right in front of your face.

We'll see what the defense says, but it's totally plausible he wasn't thinking clearly and not, as others have claimed, calling his friend to brag about what he'd just done.

 

[pamak]

It's a misdemeanor that's rarely enforced. Such laws are rarely challenged... it's just not worth it. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, knowing that it will drop to a juvenile record in less than a year.

What is your evidence for such claim?

So, you are telling me that when they search a teenager and find any dangerous weapon on him that they ignore it? And if you want to make such claims without evidence, I can also claim that there have been trials where an arrested person committed a felony and a misdemeanor of carrying a dangerous weapon, so there must have been opportuntiies for people who went to court anyway to challenge the law. I am pretty sure they have arrested teenagers carryng both drugs and a dangerous weapon.

 

[dcsports]

Putting camo pants across the street (rather than on the sidewalk running next to the car lot) doesn't put him closer though. I've always thought that flash looked to be in a different location than where we see camo pants walking and raising his arm. So my thought is that the flash is more at the intersection but his lawyers are feeding off the online version that camo pants truly fired the shot and for whatever reason they aren't aware video shows camo pants (and backpack girl) in front of the lot.

Of course it's obvious why they tried to paint an angry armed mob waiting to devour Rittenhouse, but it's still misinformation.

How exactly was some other kid going to provide help to Rosenbaum? Or even Rittenhouse for that matter? According to McGinniss he told Rittenhouse call 911. He then saw Rittenhouse take out his phone and make a call. There is also video of someone saying call 911 or has somebody called and the cameraman tells them yes, and then points out Rittenhouse. So it's quite possible he actually delayed emergency response with his actions. We know police weren't headed down Sheridan until the second incident because another video shows them parked and idle at the gas station.

It's ironic that not an hour earlier this kid was literally telling people he was an EMT and if someone was injured he was running into harm's way to help them, but in reality he didn't even have the sense to call 911 instead of his buddy. Which goes back to the fact he was naive to the entire surroundings he'd put himself into. He was in a real life situation but treating it like a damn video game.

I don't think there's any question that a 17 year old shouldn't have been there. There were probably a lot of 16-17 year old's in the area that this would apply to. In fact, with the curfew, none of those people should have been there. The police should have cleared everyone out, and sent them home. But that's not the issue here.

Also not at issue is his call. Easy to say in hindsight that he should have called 911, or should have helped McGinnis, but in the heat and stress of the moment, he called a friend to ask what to do. We don't know what would have happened after that, because a mob, also not stopping to help Rosenbaum, started chasing him.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests



They caught the thug. Good:

Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse arrested for murder after cops let him flee out of state – Raw Story

Yeah, he had a duty to die. When terrorist democrats like convicted child molester Joey Rosenbaum is going to kill you. you MUST submit..

The prosecutor in this case must pay a heavy price for her violation of basic human rights. No jury will convict. but putting Kyle through this cannot go unanswered. The Soros funded DA'a are far too emboldened.

 

[dcsports]

What is your evidence for such claim?

So, you are telling me that when they search a teenager and find any dangerous weapon on him that they ignore it? And if you want to make such claims without evidence, I can also claim that there have been trials where an arrested person committed a felony and a misdemeanor of carrying a dangerous weapon, so there must have been opportuntiies for people who went to court anyway to challenge the law. I am pretty sure they have arrested teenagers carryng both drugs and a dangerous weapon.

We're not talking about 'searching a teenager and finding a dangerous weapon', or arresting a drug dealer. This is specifically a 17 year old openly carrying a long rifle. In a state where open carry of a long rifle is legal. At 17, it's questionably an offense, and at 18 wouldn't be. He actually spoke to officers, and they didn't bat an eye.

 

[pamak]

We're not talking about 'searching a teenager and finding a dangerous weapon', or arresting a drug dealer. This is specifically a 17 year old openly carrying a long rifle. In a state where open carry of a long rifle is legal. At 17, it's questionably an offense, and at 18 wouldn't be. He actually spoke to officers, and they didn't bat an eye.

We were talking about the opportunity to challenge the law in court, and my point was that logically, there must have been previous trials where this law applied. And as I said before, previous cases give a clue about how a law has been interpreted.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Very curious as to this punk's history.

If you had your way, he would have no future.

Child molester Joey Rosenbaum wanted to kill him, you demand that he should have willingly died at the hands of the democrat terrorist, because Orange Man Bad or something.

 

[SkyFox76]

I don't find it at all implausible to think this kid was in shock when he made that call. Never having actually killed someone before, it's probably quite unsettling to cause someone's skull to blow apart right in front of your face.

We'll see what the defense says, but it's totally plausible he wasn't thinking clearly and not, as others have claimed, calling his friend to brag about what he'd just done.

Dramatics aside (no ones skull was blown apart in front of him) I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't thinking clearly to even show up there armed, in a situation way, way over his head. But keep in mind, we're suppose to be touched that this patriot is a past police/fire cadet and a certified EMT. He'll run into danger to help others. Out of which one of those three does "call a friend" get put into the experience and training? Most five year olds know to call 911 in an emergency, not little Johnny down the street. What the defense is offering is "he began placing a call for help". That's obviously done to try and convince people Rittenhouse was solely focused on getting Rosenbaum emergency attention. They know who he called. Or at least they should, though with those two I wouldn't swear on it.

 

[pamak]

No, strict reliance on only the text of 3c is insufficient. You have to read and apply the entire section. The section first applies a blanket prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons, then specifies exceptions to the prohibition. The third exception is a minor in possession of a rifle or shotgun (but not any other dangerous weapon) in certain specific instances. The prohibition still exists, and 3c doesn't change that, insofar as dangerous weapons other than rifles or shotguns are concerned.

If your point is that you have to read the statute in situ and apply it in the context of its surrounding clauses, then yes you are correct. Reading 948.60 as defining all sorts of dangerous weapons, banning their possession by minors, then allowing their possession when supervised, then allowing their possession by minors in the armed forces, then stating the section only applies to minors in possession of a rifle or shotgun in two narrow circumstances is silly. It makes meaningless the definitions, prohibition on possession, and the first two exceptions. When you read the section as a whole, 3c appears to grant an exception to the possession of dangerous weapons by minors only when they are armed with rifles or shotguns, but not when they are armed with other dangerous weapons. You'll note that nowhere did I assert that the only text that carries weight is 3c. What I am asserting is that your notion of applying legislative intent in contradiction to the black-letter wording of the statute is a travesty of justice because it is unknowable to the layperson.


Exactly. This section (948.60) applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun (but not some other dangerous weapons) if the person is in violation... blah blah blah.

See, 3c is an exception to the prohibition on possession of those two types of dangerous weapons by minors, but it is mute as to excepting other types of dangerous weapons. Therefore, since it doesn't exempt possession of other dangerous weapons by minors, such possession remains prohibited by the terms of part 2. Because you read the entire section as a whole in a way that is not internally nonsensical.


I don't see any basis for this conclusion in the statute whatsoever.


This is a pathetic line of reasoning. And you're right, it's not your problem. Until it is because someone is prosecuting you for violating a law that doesn't cover what you actually did, but the legislative intent is allegedly clear. It's pretty apparent by your final paragraph that your interpretation of this law is biased by your prejudice against gun owners. Grow up and figure out the fact that justice doesn't depend on whether or not you like the people charged or what they did, but instead on the law as written and passed.

And my point is similar!

Strict reliance to 3c text is insufficient. One has to see the whole text and take in consderation the background information, including the intention of the lawmakers. It makes zero sense to believe that the lawmakers who crafted, debated and passed the dangerous weapons law were more worried that a teenager under 18 years old age would be armed with a chain or a knife but were not worried that the same teenager would be armed with a long barrel rifle. And as I said, we have ways to see both the interpretation of the law and intend of the lawmakers by other sources, such as previous cases in court with teenagers and dangerous weapons and I can even add that we have additional evidence from the trasncripts from the legislation related to tha passage of the law


The pathetic reasoning is when people like you interpreter a law in a way that permits a 10 year old walkig around armed with a long barrel rifle. And this IS my problem because such interpretations puts everybody around me in danger !

 

[ASHES]

And my point is similar!

Strict reliance is insufficient. You have to take in consderation the background information, including the intention of the lawmakers. It makes zero sense to believe that the lawmakers were more worried that a teenager under 16 years old age was armed with a chain or a knife or any other dangerous weapon and not worry when the same teenage was armed with a long barrel rifle. And as I said, we have ways to see both the interpretation of the law and intend of the lawmakers by other sources, such as previous cases in court with teenagers and dangerous weapons and I can even add trasncripts from the legislation related to tha passage of the law


The pathetic reasoning is when people like you interpreter a law in a way that permits a 10 year old walkig around armed with a long barrel rifle. And this IS my problem!

Our interpretation of the law and 3c does not permit this. The 10 year old is prohibited by 29.304 if all other circumstances are the same, and so is not protected by 3c.

 

[SkyFox76]

I don't think there's any question that a 17 year old shouldn't have been there. There were probably a lot of 16-17 year old's in the area that this would apply to. In fact, with the curfew, none of those people should have been there. The police should have cleared everyone out, and sent them home. But that's not the issue here.

Also not at issue is his call. Easy to say in hindsight that he should have called 911, or should have helped McGinnis, but in the heat and stress of the moment, he called a friend to ask what to do. We don't know what would have happened after that, because a mob, also not stopping to help Rosenbaum, started chasing him.

I agree police failed their response to this situation in several ways. But as I just replied above, we're not talking about some kid that has spent the last 10 years living under a rock or a 2 year old. Police cadet, fire cadet and lifeguard. Do you think in any of those situations it was drilled into his head that in case of an emergency he call a friend to see what he should do? "Hey Dominic, I just pulled this kid out of the lake and he's not breathing, what should I do?" If it's not an issue then why does the video try to paint it as that call was for help (911)? As I said, it's misleading. The video is a PR stunt to promote what a fine patriot Rittenhouse is. They should put their efforts into his trial not Twitter feeds.

BTW, plenty of people attended to Rosenbaum on scene and then they literally carried him to the hospital across the street and loaded him into a vehicle so he could be taken directly to the ER entrance.

 

[rahl]

Our interpretation of the law and 3c does not permit this. The 10 year old is prohibited by 29.304 if all other circumstances are the same, and so is not protected by 3c.

as you've been shown, kyle is also precluded from openly carrying a rifle, as he was not hunting, target practicing, in the armed forces or under direct adult supervision, as the statute clearly spells out.

 

[pamak]

Our interpretation of the law and 3c does not permit this. The 10 year old is prohibited by 29.304 if all other circumstances are the same, and so is not protected by 3c.

You contradict what Grizzly Adams has said. So, obviously, the interpretation of the law is not consistent even among the people of your side

 

[ASHES]

You contradict what Grizzly Adams has said. So, obviously, the interpretation of the law is not consistent even among the people of your side

What did Grizzly Adams say that contradicts what I said?

 

[pamak]

What did Grizzly Adams say that contradicts what I said?

That the law permits a 10 year old walk around unsupervised with a long- barrel rifle

From

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

Actually, 948.60 3 starts saying the opposite... This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age ... https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1999/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a I am not arguing against the claim that "For 29.593 to apply to Kyle, 29.304 must also apply to Kyle, because...

debatepolitics.com

pamak said:
I can use almost the exact same logic you use to claim that it is legal of a 10 year old to walk around the city streats without supervision with a long barrel gun!



Grizzly Adams said:
The statute does appear to permit this.



.

 

[ASHES]

That the law permits a 10 year old walk around unsupervised with a long- barrel rifle

From

Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, charged with murder after two killed during Wisconsin protests

Actually, 948.60 3 starts saying the opposite... This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age ... https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1999/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a I am not arguing against the claim that "For 29.593 to apply to Kyle, 29.304 must also apply to Kyle, because...

debatepolitics.com

pamak said:
I can use almost the exact same logic you use to claim that it is legal of a 10 year old to walk around the city streats without supervision with a long barrel gun!



Grizzly Adams said:
The statute does appear to permit this.



.

Ok, I see it now. In the future, could you please use the quote feature so people don't have to go hunting several pages back for what you're talking about? I didn't see half of what you said or his reply at the time because the text is black and I'm using the dark theme. If that's how he reads it, I read it differently. Like I said when you first brought up this hypothetical, I do plan on addressing it in full, and then maybe he will change his mind.

 

[pamak]

Ok, I see it now. In the future, could you please use the quote feature so people don't have to go hunting several pages back for what you're talking about? I didn't see half of what you said or his reply at the time because the text is black and I'm using the dark theme. If that's how he reads it, I read it differently. Like I said when you first brought up this hypothetical, I do plan on addressing it in full, and then maybe he will change his mind.

I cannt guarantee it because it takes me also some time to find these specific posts before using the quoting feauture. But I am open to always do it when somebody asks for clarification. In this way, I think I can save time for me and satisfy the need of a poster who has not followed a particular conversation between me and another poster.
I understand that you read it differently which shows how even people who want to only rely on the text come to different conclusions. It is a sign of the fact that the text itself is imprecise which is the point I make about the need to read the text within a larger context taking in consideration past court decisions related to the same law and even transcripts of the WI legislation related to the passage of this law which reveal the political intend.

 

[ASHES]

I cannt guarantee it because it takes me also some time to find these specific post. But I am open to always do it when somebody asks for clarification. In this way, I think I can save time for me and satisfy the need of a poster who has not followed a particular conversation between me and another poster.
I understand that you read it differently which shows how even people who want to only rely on the text come to different conclusions. It is a sign of the fact that the text itself is imprecise.

Agreed, but then you have people like rahl on your side claiming the opposite of what you just said, same as Grizzly and I.

 

[pamak]

Agreed, but then you have people like the rahl on your side claiming the opposite of what you just said, same as Grizzly and I.

I do not even know what rahl has said... Like you, I cannot follow every line of argument that every person on my side makes...

 

[ASHES]

I do not even know what rahl has said... Like you, I cannot follow every line of argument that every person on my side makes...

as you've been shown, kyle is also precluded from openly carrying a rifle, as he was not hunting, target practicing, in the armed forces or under direct adult supervision, as the statute clearly spells out.

Obviously not as clear as rahl wants it to be.

 

[d0gbreath]

Kyle's life is basically over. Even if he walks, he'll never walk anywhere again without constantly looking over his shoulder.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Dramatics aside (no ones skull was blown apart in front of him) I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't thinking clearly to even show up there armed, in a situation way, way over his head.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But that doesn't have anything to do with anything.

But keep in mind, we're suppose to be touched that this patriot is a past police/fire cadet and a certified EMT. He'll run into danger to help others. Out of which one of those three does "call a friend" get put into the experience and training?

A lot of people think they can handle a stressful life-and-death situation with a cool head and not get panicky. No one knows until they are in that situation what they will actually do.

Most five year olds know to call 911 in an emergency, not little Johnny down the street.

Sure, if you ask them nicely. If you start screaming at them while ripping the heads off their favorite stuffed animals and then demanded to know who they should call in an emergency, I think most would just stare at you and cry. The point here, obviously, is the same as it was above -- everyone knows what to do when they have time to think about it. When you just shot someone to death, you might be a little out-of-sorts for a minute or two.

What the defense is offering is "he began placing a call for help". That's obviously done to try and convince people Rittenhouse was solely focused on getting Rosenbaum emergency attention. They know who he called. Or at least they should, though with those two I wouldn't swear on it.

"Placing a call for help" isn't limited to calling 911, though I'm sure that's how his attorneys want people to envision what he did without them saying something provably false.