• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

pamak

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
5,997
Reaction score
1,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
GA can speak for himself. I simply answered the hypothetical you keep bringing up.

29.304 is, like 948.60 3c, quite clear in it's language. "No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" yada yada supervision training etc. If it was the intent of the legislature to prohibit a 17 year old from simply possessing a rifle or shotgun, 940.60 3c wouldn't provide them an exception, like it does when it later goes on to clarify who is restricted from possessing one in what circumstances in 29.304, which only applies to those under 16.
Only this text you cite (29..304) is under a headline " "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms" and headlines define in what context the text below is used. If the context is hunting then one coud argue that a person who does not use his gun for hunting is not obliged to respect any of the restrictions mentioned in the 29.304. And I also noted that you did not answer the question whether of a person 12 years and above is permitted to use a long-barell gun unsupervised
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I refuse to answer this question on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether attendance was intelligent or not has no bearing on whether or not he is entitled to a self defense claim.


Maybe, if you even hear it and it registers in your mind.


Haven't watched the "11 minutes" video.
Ha, then maybe you shouldn't have dragged heads exploding into the conversation as defense for why this self proclaimed certified EMT didn't call 911.

Not watching it doesn't change the fact it has misinformation.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
472
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Only this text you cite (29..304) is under a headline " "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms" and headlines define in what context the text below is used. If the context is hunting then one coud argue that a person who does not use his gun for hunting is not obliged to respect any of the restrictions mentioned in the 29.304. And I also noted that you did not answer the question whether of a person 12 years and above is permitted to use a long-barell gun unsupervised
Why do I have to answer that question? It's in the next part of 29.304, why didn't you just read it?

29.304
(2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age.
(a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or
2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never heard he called anyone other than his friends and all the rest above is irrelevant to his defense. Witness testimony establishes that Kyle was being chased and that he lunged at Kyle and grabbed the barrel of his gun.
We already know he was being chased. What we don't know is what started the chase. Did Rittenhouse provoke Rosenbaum? Provocation affects one's self defense claims, although self defense can be won back if the one who provoked makes clear they are withdrawing. The problem I see is if this started with provocation from Rittenhouse (by pointing his weapon) he never clearly withdrew. He ran into the car lot, stopped, turned and pointed his weapon. Rosenbaum reacted by slamming on the brakes hands out at his sides. Then Rittenhouse ran again, stopped, turned and pointed his weapon and this time he fired.

His attorneys don't seem clear on where they going other than self defense. In one instance they've push the idea Rittenhouse house turned because of the shot fired behind him. Except for some odd reason they've now moved that shot completely off to the other side of the street when the person they blame is seen right in the video walking in the sidewalk by the car lot. But now in this new version it was an armed mob creating a blockade behind the cars that made him stop and turn.

One can only hope the new lawyer brought on is interested in defending Rittenhouse rather than trying to rescue two hobbled careers.

They knew from day one they couldn't take a laptop into visits with Rittenhouse, but after he's sat in juvi 30 days they ask the judge to grant permission so they can discuss evidence? Why didn't they ask for an emergency hearing the very first week on that issue?

Imo, both Wood's and Pierce should step away and focus on their failing practices. Let someone (without all the baggage of debt and looney tunes bs) fully represent Rittenhouse with him being the priority.
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We already know he was being chased. What we don't know is what started the chase. Did Rittenhouse provoke Rosenbaum? Provocation affects one's self defense claims, although self defense can be won back if the one who provoked makes clear they are withdrawing.
Like Kyle was withdrawing as he ran from the guy. And theres video, he was infuriated that Kyle put out his dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Like Kyle was withdrawing as he ran from the guy. And theres video, he was infuriated that Kyle put out his dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher.
Had he kept running then fine. Ignoring that he stopped to reengage Rosenbaum midway in the chase doesn't erase that it's right in the video.

What dumpster fire are you talking about? At best he may have put out a trashcan fire, but all I've seen is him walking down Sheridan with the fire extinguisher, not actually putting out anything. Rosenbaum and his group are quite a bit in front of him, going the direction of the car lot.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We already know he was being chased. What we don't know is what started the chase. Did Rittenhouse provoke Rosenbaum? Provocation affects one's self defense claims, although self defense can be won back if the one who provoked makes clear they are withdrawing. The problem I see is if this started with provocation from Rittenhouse (by pointing his weapon) he never clearly withdrew. He ran into the car lot, stopped, turned and pointed his weapon. Rosenbaum reacted by slamming on the brakes hands out at his sides. Then Rittenhouse ran again, stopped, turned and pointed his weapon and this time he fired.

His attorneys don't seem clear on where they going other than self defense. In one instance they've push the idea Rittenhouse house turned because of the shot fired behind him. Except for some odd reason they've now moved that shot completely off to the other side of the street when the person they blame is seen right in the video walking in the sidewalk by the car lot. But now in this new version it was an armed mob creating a blockade behind the cars that made him stop and turn.

One can only hope the new lawyer brought on is interested in defending Rittenhouse rather than trying to rescue two hobbled careers.

They knew from day one they couldn't take a laptop into visits with Rittenhouse, but after he's sat in juvi 30 days they ask the judge to grant permission so they can discuss evidence? Why didn't they ask for an emergency hearing the very first week on that issue?

Imo, both Wood's and Pierce should step away and focus on their failing practices. Let someone (without all the baggage of debt and looney tunes bs) fully represent Rittenhouse with him being the priority.
It doesn't really matter where the gunshot came from. If anything, this highlights how chaotic it was that night. Rittenhouse didn't know either, which is why he turned. He didn't fire at the gunshot. He fired at the 37 year old angry man who was charging at him and grabbing for his weapon.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Had he kept running then fine. Ignoring that he stopped to reengage Rosenbaum midway in the chase doesn't erase that it's right in the video.

What dumpster fire are you talking about? At best he may have put out a trashcan fire, but all I've seen is him walking down Sheridan with the fire extinguisher, not actually putting out anything. Rosenbaum and his group are quite a bit in front of him, going the direction of the car lot.
Correct. Rosenbaum set a dumpster on fire (yes a dumpster) and got mad at the person who put it out. The person was dressed similarly to Rittenhouse. He then went down the street and started setting trash cans on fire. Then Rittenhouse ran down the street with an extinguisher (it doesn't show him using it). It's not clear if Rosenbaum thought Rittenhouse was the same guy, or if he just didn't like anyone putting out his fires. This does shed light on why he was angry.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
472
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Correct. Rosenbaum set a dumpster on fire (yes a dumpster) and got mad at the person who put it out. The person was dressed similarly to Rittenhouse. He then went down the street and started setting trash cans on fire. Then Rittenhouse ran down the street with an extinguisher (it doesn't show him using it). It's not clear if Rosenbaum thought Rittenhouse was the same guy, or if he just didn't like anyone putting out his fires. This does shed light on why he was angry.
That's some pretty big hoops to jump through. Several problems though.

The person who put out the dumpster was wearing a long sleeved black shirt, grayish baggie camo pants and had a pot belly. But Rittenhouse lawyers have switched players (and timelines) to make another man responsible who's only resemblance to Rittenhouse was a green shirt. That's it. He had on green shirt, black shorts, black hat facing forward, black sneakers, goggles, facemask and a vest. Rittenhouse, green shirt, tight jeans, white/tan hat facing backwards and boots.

Add to that, Rosenbaum was seen yelling prior to the dumpster fire, so it's hard for him to be pissed at a guy who (didn't) put out a fire that hadn't happened yet. So the attorneys have assigned a role to a guy in a green shirt in order to try and suggest Rosenbaum was mistaken, and his beef was Rittenhouse putting out the dumpster fire.

With all the video out there I still say the best chance of Rittenhouse putting out a fire, was after he's seen running by with a fire extinguisher and then seen on video casually walking down the street with it (alone) somewhere into the 6100 block of Sheridan. Rosenbaum and his group were further down the block heading toward the car lot after setting a residential trash can on fire.

But I will say, what you took from the video is absolutely what his attorneys were aiming for. Taking their information as "truth" when it's not.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's some pretty big hoops to jump through. Several problems though.

The person who put out the dumpster was wearing a long sleeved black shirt, grayish baggie camo pants and had a pot belly. But Rittenhouse lawyers have switched players (and timelines) to make another man responsible who's only resemblance to Rittenhouse was a green shirt. That's it. He had on green shirt, black shorts, black hat facing forward, black sneakers, goggles, facemask and a vest. Rittenhouse, green shirt, tight jeans, white/tan hat facing backwards and boots.

Add to that, Rosenbaum was seen yelling prior to the dumpster fire, so it's hard for him to be pissed at a guy who (didn't) put out a fire that hadn't happened yet. So the attorneys have assigned a role to a guy in a green shirt in order to try and suggest Rosenbaum was mistaken, and his beef was Rittenhouse putting out the dumpster fire.

With all the video out there I still say the best chance of Rittenhouse putting out a fire, was after he's seen running by with a fire extinguisher and then seen on video casually walking down the street with it (alone) somewhere into the 6100 block of Sheridan. Rosenbaum and his group were further down the block heading toward the car lot after setting a residential trash can on fire.

But I will say, what you took from the video is absolutely what his attorneys were aiming for. Taking their information as "truth" when it's not.
Sigh. You are pretty well missing the point every time. But OK
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sigh. You are pretty well missing the point every time. But OK
And what point is that? That his lawyers put out a video that contains misinformation all the way from the beginning to the end hoping that people will bite on it? Then you come along and say just what they fed you.

Correct. Rosenbaum set a dumpster on fire (yes a dumpster) and got mad at the person who put it out. The person was dressed similarly to Rittenhouse.
Nevermind the fact Rittenhouse and the actual man that put the fire out don't look anymore alike that Fred Flintstone and Barney Ruble. But yeah his lawyers tossed in a guy with a green shirt so it's got to be true! o_O
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
L. Lin Wood is now saying they are going to sue Biden and the Biden Campaign for libel.


Because of this tweet:

Now is the time to provide evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist. Failure to do so would mean this suit could have merit. No, supporting Trump doesn't make him white supremacist. No supporting police does not make him white supremacist.

Haha Rittenhouse has been called that since the morning after the shooting. It probably has something to do with the fact he was clearly seen within the group of armed militia including trekking around with Balch who is an admitted boogaloo boi, not that he was a trump or police supporter. You know that old saying sleep with dogs wake up with fleas.

Ryan Balch, who says he marched with Kyle Rittenhouse and a contingent of militia conducting armed patrols in Kenosha, Wis., promoted far-right, Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric on his social media accounts, including a video featuring Hitler, a Hatewatch investigation found.
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
472
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
What your quote doesn't say is that Kyle Rittenhouse promoted far right, Nazi or white supremacist rhetoric. Even Aunt Antifa pulled back from white supremacist to white nationalist earlier in this thread.
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Had he kept running then fine. Ignoring that he stopped to reengage Rosenbaum midway in the chase doesn't erase that it's right in the video.

What dumpster fire are you talking about? At best he may have put out a trashcan fire, but all I've seen is him walking down Sheridan with the fire extinguisher, not actually putting out anything. Rosenbaum and his group are quite a bit in front of him, going the direction of the car lot.
Revealing that you haven't even watched the videos of the incident and yet have formed such strong opinions.

 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And what point is that? That his lawyers put out a video that contains misinformation...……...
Every second of the video is an accurate representation of what was recorded by the camera.
 

dixon01767

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2019
Messages
6,821
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What your quote doesn't say is that Kyle Rittenhouse promoted far right, Nazi or white supremacist rhetoric. Even Aunt Antifa pulled back from white supremacist to white nationalist earlier in this thread.
White nationalist is now defined as any nationalist who happens to be white. Nothing more.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Revealing that you haven't even watched the videos of the incident and yet have formed such strong opinions.

I've likely watched more videos than you even know exist. But congratulations on taking another bite of misinformation and sharing it. I'll repeat to you the man (that's man, not teenager) in that video is NOT Rittenhouse. And it's also not the imaginary Rittenhouse. As I've already pointed out long ago and recently, the man who puts out the dumpster fire is wearing loose fitting camo pants and a black long sleeved shirt. And here he is walking up to the dumpster and putting that fire out. Btw, also take note who else is in those photos and not putting out the fire. Screenshot_20201001-053540.pngScreenshot_20201001-053602.jpg
 

ASHES

A Person
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
1,196
Reaction score
472
Location
Canada
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I've likely watched more videos than you even know exist. But congratulations on taking another bite of misinformation and sharing it. I'll repeat to you the man (that's man, not teenager) in that video is NOT Rittenhouse. And it's also not the imaginary Rittenhouse. As I've already pointed out long ago and recently, the man who puts out the dumpster fire is wearing loose fitting camo pants and a black long sleeved shirt. And here he is walking up to the dumpster and putting that fire out. Btw, also take note who else is in those photos and not putting out the fire. View attachment 67297297View attachment 67297298
I agree, we do not know the entire sequence of events, or even all the events. From my understanding, the "imaginary" Rittenhouse (guy with a green shirt white hat not Kyle) was from the gas station confrontation video, not the fire video. So many facts to keep straight and conjecture out of. Also, who else is in the photos not putting out the fire? I don't recognize a single person in either of those pictures except "putting out the dumpster fire guy." Seems to me the more important thing than who was putting fires out, was who was starting them and why? If, as speculated, it was Rosenbaum setting multiple fires, then it would explain a lot why he was angry at anyone putting any fires out. Just him seeing Kyle with a fire extinguisher could have been enough of a "provocation" for him to chase Kyle down and... do whatever it was he was planning to do.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well I've just given you photos proving otherwise.
Again, this supports the possibility that Rosenbaum was angry at Rittenhouse because he had a fire extinguisher, and Rosenbaum didn't like people putting out 'his' fires, rather than being provoked by something Rittenhouse said.

That's reasonable doubt that you could drive a truck through on the theory that Rittenhouse provoked the incident, rather than simply protecting himself from an angry and irrational Rosenbaum. Given McGinnis's statement, it makes a convincing case for self defense.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Again, this supports the possibility that Rosenbaum was angry at Rittenhouse because he had a fire extinguisher, and Rosenbaum didn't like people putting out 'his' fires, rather than being provoked by something Rittenhouse said.

That's reasonable doubt that you could drive a truck through on the theory that Rittenhouse provoked the incident, rather than simply protecting himself from an angry and irrational Rosenbaum. Given McGinnis's statement, it makes a convincing case for self defense.
You're all over the place.

First you went with the 11 minutes of "truth" video and that Rosenbaum confused Rittenhouse with the imaginary Rittenhouse who put out the dumpster fire, yet he didn't. Then you posted a tweet that says Rosenbaum was pissed because Rittenhouse did indeed put out the dumpster fire, when he didn't. Now you've wandered off in another direction that Rosenbaum was pissed that Rittenhouse was carrying a fire extinguisher. Do you realize how many people were walking around with fire extinguishers that night?

As I mentioned earlier, all from one uncut video, Rosenbaum and his group were some distance ahead of Rittenhouse after lighting a residential trash can on fire. Rittenhouse may have put it out or it could have just died back out as it is barely visible as they walk away. There has been no video showing anything past Rittenhouse walking alone at the intersection of Sheridan and 61st.

But regardless of however it happened, it is not what the 11 minute "truth" video suggests. The video you call accurate. It's not possible for Rosenbaum to be pissed at the imaginary Rittenhouse for putting out the dumpster fire, because the actual video shows someone entirely different did it. Their "truth" is bs.
 

SkyFox76

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
4,055
Reaction score
2,262
Location
Down the street
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I agree, we do not know the entire sequence of events, or even all the events. From my understanding, the "imaginary" Rittenhouse (guy with a green shirt white hat not Kyle) was from the gas station confrontation video, not the fire video. So many facts to keep straight and conjecture out of. Also, who else is in the photos not putting out the fire? I don't recognize a single person in either of those pictures except "putting out the dumpster fire guy." Seems to me the more important thing than who was putting fires out, was who was starting them and why? If, as speculated, it was Rosenbaum setting multiple fires, then it would explain a lot why he was angry at anyone putting any fires out. Just him seeing Kyle with a fire extinguisher could have been enough of a "provocation" for him to chase Kyle down and... do whatever it was he was planning to do.

The confrontation where his lawyers try to splice cuts to give the impression Rosenbaum was pissed at the imaginary Rittenhouse takes place at the same (Ultimate) gas station as the dumpster fire. But, that argument takes place before the dumpster fire. And yes I've seen Rosenbaum toss something lit into the dumpster and the fire takes off as they push it. Then gray camo man comes with the fire extinguisher. Imaginary Rittenhouse is standing behind him closer to the gas pumps.

It's then probably 15 minutes of just various people mingling, and then Balch walks into the view of the camera. He wanders a bit, and that's when Rittenhouse flies past. The camera man is on skates and after pans around a bit he cuts through people and starts toward the car lot. That's where his camera catches Rittenhouse walking across 61st street. The guy keeps going and then we see Rosenbaum in a group trying to light the trash can. Rosenbaum walks off and continues toward the car lot. The cameraman then continues and eventually moves across the street from the car lot. He's discussing not recording the antifa group and that's when Rittenhouse enters from the right, followed by Rosenbaum.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,280
Reaction score
1,753
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree, we do not know the entire sequence of events, or even all the events. From my understanding, the "imaginary" Rittenhouse (guy with a green shirt white hat not Kyle) was from the gas station confrontation video, not the fire video. So many facts to keep straight and conjecture out of. Also, who else is in the photos not putting out the fire? I don't recognize a single person in either of those pictures except "putting out the dumpster fire guy." Seems to me the more important thing than who was putting fires out, was who was starting them and why? If, as speculated, it was Rosenbaum setting multiple fires, then it would explain a lot why he was angry at anyone putting any fires out. Just him seeing Kyle with a fire extinguisher could have been enough of a "provocation" for him to chase Kyle down and... do whatever it was he was planning to do.
This case is a great example of why the prosecutor needs to take the time needed to gather information before pressing charges, and not bend to public pressure to immediately 'throw the book' at someone. It's going to be difficult to frame Rosenbaum as the aggressor, especially given his record and the videos of his behavior that evening. It's not hard to see how a 17 year old would fear for his life with that guy coming at him.
 
Top Bottom