• The forum will be going down at about 7:30 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • 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 special

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,814
Reaction score
418
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A libertarian has a regular series balled the bogostiy podcast. This episode is a special dedicated to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

Artymoon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
981
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A libertarian has a regular series balled the bogostiy podcast. This episode is a special dedicated to the case of Kyle Rittenhouse.


Gotta be honest, listened to the first 1:30 and bailed. In the opening monologue, he stated his position that the cop committed homicide so I made a guess on how the rest of the audio was to go. Can you provide the cliff notes version?
 

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,814
Reaction score
418
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gotta be honest, listened to the first 1:30 and bailed. In the opening monologue, he stated his position that the cop committed homicide so I made a guess on how the rest of the audio was to go. Can you provide the cliff notes version?

You decided to listen to nothing else because you heard something you didn't like?
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
47,901
Reaction score
29,261
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
self defense is not vigilante action

Good because we wouldn't want anyone to get confused here, like yourself, for instance.
Rittenhouse was not a Roof Korean or a business owner, or even a homeowner, or a tenant, or even a duly authorized agent of any of those above.
The only reason he went there was to shoot someone, which he did, twice.

His actions will never live in a vacuum in a court trial, because his actions stem from motivations, and those don't exist apart from his actions, as they are irrevocably intertwined. Absent any connection to this town other than his excitement at reading a call to arms from the Facebook page for the "Kenosha Guard", he had no other lawful purpose to be there other than his premeditation spurred on by his online comrades in arms.

This is almost similar to a person walking by a bar as a mass scale fight is breaking out.
If the person stays out of the action, and another patron exits the fight and comes after him, he has a right to defend himself but if he injects himself into the middle of the mass brawl and shoots a person, he forfeits his right to claim self defense because he premeditated on injecting himself into the brawl when his presence was neither called for or otherwise warranted.

cd18cfff-2dbd-4598-b12b-9ac1efdfe760_image.jpg
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,767
Reaction score
82,448
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Good because we wouldn't want anyone to get confused here, like yourself, for instance.
Rittenhouse was not a Roof Korean or a business owner, or even a homeowner, or a tenant, or even a duly authorized agent of any of those above.
The only reason he went there was to shoot someone, which he did, twice.

His actions will never live in a vacuum in a court trial, because his actions stem from motivations, and those don't exist apart from his actions, as they are irrevocably intertwined. Absent any connection to this town other than his excitement at reading a call to arms from the Facebook page for the "Kenosha Guard", he had no other lawful purpose to be there other than his premeditation spurred on by his online comrades in arms.

This is almost similar to a person walking by a bar as a mass scale fight is breaking out.
If the person stays out of the action, and another patron exits the fight and comes after him, he has a right to defend himself but if he injects himself into the middle of the mass brawl and shoots a person, he forfeits his right to claim self defense because he premeditated on injecting himself into the brawl when his presence was neither called for or otherwise warranted.

cd18cfff-2dbd-4598-b12b-9ac1efdfe760_image.jpg

this is a classic case where one's politics interferes with their understanding or at least discussion of a topic. You are making up his motivations based on your desire to put him in a bad light because he is a Trump supporter. SO the rest of your silly argument is dismissed since it is based on unsupported speculation
 

CaughtInThe

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
45,019
Reaction score
28,520
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
was Kyle carrying illegally?
 

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
15,989
Reaction score
6,925
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
was Kyle carrying illegally?

Apparently not.

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)
This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

941.28 Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1) In this section:

(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
History: 1979 c. 115; 2001 a. 109.
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1)
29.593(1)(a)(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
He appears to have been in compliance with 941.28, 29.304 and 29.593, so the age restrictions in 948.60 don't apply to a 17 year old.
 

Checkerboard Strangler

💉COVID Longhaul ZOMBIE 😓
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
47,901
Reaction score
29,261
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
this is a classic case where one's politics interferes with their understanding or at least discussion of a topic. You are making up his motivations based on your desire to put him in a bad light because he is a Trump supporter. SO the rest of your silly argument is dismissed since it is based on unsupported speculation

Can you show me where I mentioned Trump?
Must be the fact that Trumpers love vigilantism and other forms of paramilitary nonsense so much that you assumed I was talking about Trump.
The problem predates Trump, actually.
It even predates Zimmerman.

It's frustrated nerdy little incel punks who dream of being big time enforcers, and their dysfunctional parents who egg them on.
It's angry small peen redneck boys who agonize over their impotency and resolve to become big time rebels, and their dysfunctional parents who egg them on. Up against the wall, redneck mother.

This kid's motivations were clear as crystal.
Yours, surprisingly, are not.
 

Artymoon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
981
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You decided to listen to nothing else because you heard something you didn't like?


After hearing that at the opening, I presumed it was not to be an objective piece. Especially at over 30mins long. Feel free to post some highlights or your thoughts as this is your thread.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
264,767
Reaction score
82,448
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Can you show me where I mentioned Trump?
Must be the fact that Trumpers love vigilantism and other forms of paramilitary nonsense so much that you assumed I was talking about Trump.
The problem predates Trump, actually.
It even predates Zimmerman.

It's frustrated nerdy little incel punks who dream of being big time enforcers, and their dysfunctional parents who egg them on.
It's angry small peen redneck boys who agonize over their impotency and resolve to become big time rebels, and their dysfunctional parents who egg them on. Up against the wall, redneck mother.

This kid's motivations were clear as crystal.
Yours, surprisingly, are not.

you're just making things up
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gotta be honest, listened to the first 1:30 and bailed. In the opening monologue, he stated his position that the cop committed homicide so I made a guess on how the rest of the audio was to go. Can you provide the cliff notes version?

He did say it's own separate coverage. But the audio podcast was good. WE know what went down but THEY would rather be blind to it.
 

zsu2357

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
6,763
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Great state of (cough,cough)Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quote Originally Posted by Masterhawk View Post
You decided to listen to nothing else because you heard something you didn't like?

After hearing that at the opening, I presumed it was not to be an objective piece. Especially at over 30mins long. Feel free to post some highlights or your thoughts as this is your thread.

Come on Artymoon, I agree with Masterhawk. What's 30 mins. if you don't like it?
 

Artymoon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,242
Reaction score
981
Location
U.S.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Come on Artymoon, I agree with Masterhawk. What's 30 mins. if you don't like it?

Not against listening to anything. I'm at work though and dedicating 30+mins doesn't always sit well with the boss. Who knows, maybe if I'm super bored when I get home.
 
Top Bottom