• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

I'm going to guess that yes, he is military because of his prior affiliation:

Past: Coalition to End Veteran Suicide and Student Veterans of America

I was watching him the first night of the protests in Kenosha, but had his partner (CJ) on the next night. The first night the two of them were together and trying their damndest to keep the car lot fire from reaching a church.

As extensive as the coverage was from both Andrew and CJ I'd venture a guess that they saw Rittenhouse previously, so assumed he was good guy. Much like the police did.

Yes, based on the past and his reaction it sure seems likely. It was sad, to see how emotional he got - even made me a bit emotional. He's someone that knows the horrors.
 
Yes, based on the past and his reaction it sure seems likely. It was sad, to see how emotional he got - even made me a bit emotional. He's someone that knows the horrors.

Same here.
 
So this could very well come down to the idea that the people who were chasing Kyle were simply trying to make a citizen's arrest. Would that nullify his self-defense claim?

depends: if he had done something that would justify a proper citizens' arrest, he might lose a self defense argument. However, if they were chasing him for something other than that, or if they were not justified in making a CA, his shooting of them is justified.
 
According to Pierce, Rittenhouse was there with friends cleaning the graffiti. I wondered if any of the photos from that day may have given a hint who they were and that was pretty easy to narrow down. The way the criminal complaint was written I kind thought Dominic hadn't been in the area when Rittenhouse called him. Now I've changed my mind.

In the wide angle shot of the graffiti cleaning we see Kyle, then a woman to his right and the very next guy just happens to have quite a few things in common with Dominic Black. We know from the video of Kyle hitting the girl that one of the girls calls the taller kid Dominic. In that video he's wearing his black cap backwards (with some type white logo) a Nike T shirt and black Nike socks. And of course the black frame glasses. The person in the graffiti photo is wearing black frame glasses, also is wearing a black cap backwards (with a white logo) and black Nike socks. The short girl behind him that is looking on her phone could easily be the short girl in the fight video that some have suggested was Kyle's sister.

So I think it's a pretty good bet that Dominic was one of the "friends" that Pierce spoke about in "going to protect property" and maybe even the ride that night.

View attachment 67294699 View attachment 67294700

it is quite possible that was his ride and not the mother, it is also possible that Dominic got him the gun, but how old is this Dominic? Was he calling him and telling him so they could get the hell out of town? We know he went back to Illinois.
 
The person chasing him didn't have a gun or other weapon. Lunging at someone is not life threatening to a reasonable person. The gunshot has no real bearing except to show that some people shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they are easily startled by noises that may just be in the area, but do not pose an actual threat to them. You cant kill someone because someone nearby shot a gun, especially if the person you shot was not armed.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

nor can you kill them because you anticipate that you are about to get in a fight...we know that from every bar fight that ends badly ever.
 
I'm really not. But I'm rather over it until more co.es out. Prosecution gonna have a tough time getting conviction. Good luck to them.

So, Wisconsin law is wrong and you are right? Interesting that you think you can change the law that is written to suit your purpose. If someone sucker punches you, do you have the right to kill them?
 
The person chasing him didn't have a gun or other weapon. Lunging at someone is not life threatening to a reasonable person. The gunshot has no real bearing except to show that some people shouldn't put themselves in a situation where they are easily startled by noises that may just be in the area, but do not pose an actual threat to them. You cant kill someone because someone nearby shot a gun, especially if the person you shot was not armed.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
When you clobber someone in the head with your skateboard that person can defend them self with lethal force.
 
Sorry if this has been covered (I don't have the [whatever] to read through a zillion pages of messages on this thread). Is anyone making the same "dumbass" point as many of us have made about Jacob Blake, who chose to fight with cops? Rittenhouse is an underage moron who chose to illegally carry his gun into a situation he knew he is in no way trained or authorized to "police" -- wtf did he think was going to happen? Does the law and order crowd (of which I am one) agree that this lawbreaking (and mind-bogglingly stupid) violent criminal should just be locked up, and be thankful the police didn't kill him on the spot? Or does it all get more complicated and nuanced, depending on which side he was on? Because a little consistency -- instead of a sliding scale of partisan-driven selective empathy -- might help matters for our nation.
 
Sorry if this has been covered (I don't have the [whatever] to read through a zillion pages of messages on this thread). Is anyone making the same "dumbass" point as many of us have made about Jacob Blake, who chose to fight with cops? Rittenhouse is an underage moron who chose to illegally carry his gun into a situation he knew he is in no way trained or authorized to "police" -- wtf did he think was going to happen? Does the law and order crowd (of which I am one) agree that this lawbreaking (and mind-bogglingly stupid) violent criminal should just be locked up, and be thankful the police didn't kill him on the spot? Or does it all get more complicated and nuanced, depending on which side he was on? Because a little consistency -- instead of a sliding scale of partisan-driven selective empathy -- might help matters for our nation.
It is complicated and nuanced, regardless of what side he's on. The totality of circumstances, combined with reasonable beliefs on Rittenhouse's part, are what matters. Such things don't always fir perfectly in a box.
 
Wow hadn't seen this video by Mercado. He suffers from PTSD and that triggered the crap out of him. Interesting that both him and CJ were under the impression that Rittenhouse wasn't
the shooter. I'm curious what gave them that impression. 3:39:54 is seconds before the first shot is heard.



Earlier they were chasing someone similiar to Rittenhouse saying he had touched a little girl and then that person pointed a rifle at them and people ran and let him go. I wonder if it was Rittenhouse or one of the other mlitia that touched her? You also see the militia light the dumpster on fire and then the protesters are mad and saying what the hell did you do that for? They just shrug and get back on their side of the parking lot as if it is not a big deal.
When you hear the shots that are fired, there was the rifle shot and then after that succession of shots you hear a shot, but we know none of the people he shot were armed.
 
depends: if he had done something that would justify a proper citizens' arrest, he might lose a self defense argument. However, if they were chasing him for something other than that, or if they were not justified in making a CA, his shooting of them is justified.

you can clearly hear them say he was pointing the gun. Also, earlier in the video one of the militia was being chased because he had sexually assaulted a little girl.. I am not sure if that was Rittenhouse, but they said the person was wildly swinging their rifle around.
 
Learn yourself some ****ing standards of self defense. I'm sick of trying to educate people who refuse to learn and either just parrot what some graduate of Twitter Law School told them or make up their own crap based on an episode of Law & Order.

Here is the Wisconsin statute that deals with the use of force in defense of self:

If it was reasonable for him to believe he was in danger from Rosenbaum, it doesn't ****ing matter whether Rosenbaum was armed or not. And if someone is lunging to grab your gun, you better ****ing believe that's worthy of deadly force. Ask *ANY* cop and they'll tell you that if someone tries to snatch their gun that person will probably not survive the day. (And to cut this off before you even try it, no, it doesn't matter that he wasn't a cop; all that matters is that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in jeopardy, or would be if Rosenbaum gained possession of his rifle.) And perhaps you can tell in the fog of conflict who shot a gun just yards from you and whether or not it was the person who'd been chasing you for half a block when you weren't looking at them, but I'm not sure most other people have your bat-like sense of hearing. Finally, even if Rittenhouse didn't think Rosenbaum was the one who was shooting, it's perfectly reasonable to turn to see if someone was shooting at him, and when he turned that's when Rosenbaum lunged.

Bottom line: straighten your **** out on self defense. This is getting ridiculous.

he had just committed a crime, if he pointed the gun at them...which it seems he did, they had a right to disarm him as he was a deadly threat and then there is no argument of self defense, according to Wisconsin law he may not have had one even if he aws in a deadly situation, because he had injected himself in what was a very volitle situation looking for trouble.
 
When you clobber someone in the head with your skateboard that person can defend them self with lethal force.
Depends on other factors. Especially in consideration is the fact that you just killed someone down the street and the person with the skateboard is trying to stop you.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
So, Wisconsin law is wrong and you are right? Interesting that you think you can change the law that is written to suit your purpose. If someone sucker punches you, do you have the right to kill them?

Nope. Your interpretation on the impact to his SD claim is wrong.
 
he had just committed a crime, if he pointed the gun at them...
Not necessarily. This is your conclusion.

which it seems he did, they had a right to disarm him as he was a deadly threat and then there is no argument of self defense, according to Wisconsin law he may not have had one even if he aws in a deadly situation, because he had injected himself in what was a very volitle situation looking for trouble.
First of all, try proper ****ing sentence structure. Your run-on sentences are difficult to parse and it's nearly impossible to tell where one "thought" ends and another begins.

Next, the "crime" of happening to flag someone as you turn around to see if they're still chasing you down does not justify that person lunging at you to take the gun. The totality of circumstances clearly supports a reasonable claim that Rittenhouse would have been on the receiving end of violence if he had simply surrendered the gun to Rosenbaum.
 
Depends on other factors. Especially in consideration is the fact that you just killed someone down the street and the person with the skateboard is trying to stop you.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
As I've said, repeatedly, both people could be acting reasonably. It's *possible*. Chasing down an armed individual who is retreating and engaging them rather than simply following him and calling the cops seems like a foolish endeavor, as two people learned the hard way.
 
Here are a couple of clips not widely seen. One close up of the start of the chase, one overhead (drone?) view of first shooting. Audio and 3rd gunman claims are speculation, and open to interpretation. It's just the best versions of these clips I can find.



 
Not necessarily. This is your conclusion.


First of all, try proper ****ing sentence structure. Your run-on sentences are difficult to parse and it's nearly impossible to tell where one "thought" ends and another begins.

Next, the "crime" of happening to flag someone as you turn around to see if they're still chasing you down does not justify that person lunging at you to take the gun. The totality of circumstances clearly supports a reasonable claim that Rittenhouse would have been on the receiving end of violence if he had simply surrendered the gun to Rosenbaum.

Oh, oh....the grammar Nazis are here.

grammar nazi.jpg
 
Rosenbaum "unarmed." Anyone who's been saying Kyle open carrying a rifle is provocation for a violent attack, what do you call walking around swinging a heavy chain? Not looking for trouble? Self defense chain?


STACnA4.png


 
you can clearly hear them say he was pointing the gun. Also, earlier in the video one of the militia was being chased because he had sexually assaulted a little girl.. I am not sure if that was Rittenhouse, but they said the person was wildly swinging their rifle around.

Witnesses detail Kenosha shooting, seeing Kyle Rittenhouse at protest

Jeremiah just wanted to find his car and go home, but he was trapped.

A massive line of police in riot gear had just forced him and hundreds of other protesters out of Kenosha's Civic Center Park and into the street. After that, there was nowhere to go. Soldiers and cops blocked one end of the road. White guys with big guns blocked the other.

It was past 11 p.m. Tuesday, the third night of protests after a Kenosha police officer shot Jacob Blake seven times in the back. Jeremiah had received a text from a friend saying a bunch of protesters had their tires slashed. He wanted to get to his car before vandals did. He decided the quickest path was to cut through a parking lot.

As he made his way toward it, Jeremiah saw more armed white men. Two crouched on the roof of a building, sniper style. Two or three others stood guard over the lot. One of them, a babyface with a backward ball cap, raised an assault rifle and pointed it at him.

Jeremiah, 24 and Black, was more annoyed than afraid. He'd been out protesting all summer, more than 90 days so far. He knew about these guys and their scare tactics, and he refused to be intimidated.

When the kid started yelling, Jeremiah shouted back: "I'm trying to get out of here. If you're gonna shoot me, just shoot!"

A few minutes later, Jeremiah saw the same guy pointing his weapon at someone else.

This time, Kyle Rittenhouse fired.

Rittenhouse, 17, has been charged with five felonies and a misdemeanor after shooting three people Tuesday night, two of them fatally. His lead attorney, John M. Pierce of the law firm Pierce Bainbridge, has said he plans to argue self-defense...

Marimackenzie was serving as a volunteer street medic that night, providing first aid to injured protesters. Of Native American and Japanese descent, she'd decided to take on the role because she hated the thought of people being hurt while they were protesting violence.

Earlier in the evening, she'd treated a woman hit in the eye with a ricocheted rubber bullet and helped others wash away the tear gas that blurred their vision.

Fellow street medic Gaige Grosskreutz was helping people deal with tear gas, too. Marimackenzie, who had spent several evenings working with him throughout the summer of protests in Milwaukee, stopped to say hello. A 22-year-old with only 20 hours of street medic training to go with her CPR certification, she looked up to Grosskreutz, a licensed paramedic.

Another guy in the vicinity, one Marimackenzie didn't recognize, was telling people he was a medic, too. But he made her uneasy. He had an AR-15 slung across his chest; no medic she'd ever worked with carried a weapon like that.

Some medics arm themselves with handguns as a last resort for protection, but their priority was helping people. Usually, they were paired with security teams.

Marimackenzie's medic partner gestured to the young man.

"Avoid that guy. He looks like bad news."

She would later learn the man who'd drawn her partner's warning was Rittenhouse.

The two walked on. About 10 minutes later, Marimackenzie heard two men yelling at each other. She couldn't tell what they were saying. Shots rang out. A man fell to the ground 50 yards from her.

Before she could reach the man, later identified as Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, a group of bystanders had picked him up and loaded him into a hospital SUV standing by for injured people at the edge of the Froedtert South medical center's parking lot.

"Back up!" Marimackenzie yelled at the crowds trying to livestream the scene. "Give the patient his privacy!"

She looked into the man's eyes. They were open and motionless.

As the SUV carrying Rosenbaum sped across the parking lot to the hospital's back door, Marimackenzie's medic partner told her the shooter was still in the area. The two medics crouched behind a brick hospital sign, hoping it would be enough to protect them if he opened fire again.

Her fellow medic didn't tell her until later that he'd seen the gunman run past them, fewer than 10 yards away.
 
Not necessarily. This is your conclusion.


First of all, try proper ****ing sentence structure. Your run-on sentences are difficult to parse and it's nearly impossible to tell where one "thought" ends and another begins.

Next, the "crime" of happening to flag someone as you turn around to see if they're still chasing you down does not justify that person lunging at you to take the gun. The totality of circumstances clearly supports a reasonable claim that Rittenhouse would have been on the receiving end of violence if he had simply surrendered the gun to Rosenbaum.

If you point a gun at someone that is a provocative action and they have every right to try to disarm you. Ask a police officer what he will do, if you pointed an AR15 at him...he would shoot you dead and not wait half a second to do it and it would be considred a justifiable shooting.
 
Rosenbaum "unarmed." Anyone who's been saying Kyle open carrying a rifle is provocation for a violent attack, what do you call walking around swinging a heavy chain? Not looking for trouble? Self defense chain?


STACnA4.png




how do you know that is Rosenbaum?
 
As he made his way toward it, Jeremiah saw more armed white men. Two crouched on the roof of a building, sniper style. Two or three others stood guard over the lot. One of them, a babyface with a backward ball cap, raised an assault rifle and pointed it at him.

Jeremiah, 24 and Black, was more annoyed than afraid. He'd been out protesting all summer, more than 90 days so far. He knew about these guys and their scare tactics, and he refused to be intimidated.

When the kid started yelling, Jeremiah shouted back: "I'm trying to get out of here. If you're gonna shoot me, just shoot!"

A few minutes later, Jeremiah saw the same guy pointing his weapon at someone else.

This time, Kyle Rittenhouse fired.



he was pointing his gun at people, more than one...I wonder if police would just let him point his gun at them?
 
It is consistent enough with what he was wearing in every other video. Why would you assume it isn't? See many people with the same red shirt on their head just like him, with the same shorts, belt, shoes, underwear and holding a white plastic bag? I think it's a pretty safe conclusion to say it's him. Maybe he put the chain in the bag before he threw it. Maybe he was holding it and swinging it at Kyle while chasing him? We don't have enough information, but it certainly is more plausible than not that it is him.
 
Back
Top Bottom