You’ve avoided addressing it at all. Now you’re just quoting something and saying that’s your point. Keeping it all vague as usual… No one disputed that there is a difference between the first and second incident.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
You’ve avoided addressing it at all. Now you’re just quoting something and saying that’s your point. Keeping it all vague as usual… No one disputed that there is a difference between the first and second incident.
Yeah, I think the self-defence claim is total bunk there but the other poster just deflects/avoids getting into any specifics there. I did suggest to him that the skateboard guy might have been trying to arrest/apprehend Kyle to try and get past that and onto whatever point he was trying to make but it's still not clear and he doesn't seem to want to clarify after several attempts to ask.
Could keep it vague even - supposing @Jono8 , for the sake of argument, that the skateboarder had some *good reason* to chase after Kyle... then what? What's the argument? Do you think that nullifies Kyle's right to self defence?
I've not once asked you to do that - I've been quite specific with my questions... with all the replies you've thrown in where you attempt to deflect/avoid you could have simply answered but you don't... rather telling.
Yet you're unable to articulate why... you edit out the rest of the post which includes a direct question and just respond with an assertion.
I've read the thread thanks, my questions have been in direct response to claims/statements you've made.
for example, you made a claim in relation to me and you've not backed it up - apparently, it's blindingly obvious but you can't answer when questioned:
I don't think there will be much clarification from him tbh... the arguments/claims aren't clear and seem a bit weak, keeping them vague and deflecting is probably the best way of maintaining them.
Anyway, more on the first shooting - some commentary mentions the first attacker being shot in the back, but there is evidence today pointing out that that is from him being bent forwards, which ties in well with the defence claim of him rushing at Kyle/going for the rifle (also supported by the key witness to the shooting).
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/09/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-tuesday/index.html
Note I asked the below re: the second person shot but apply it to the first case if you like, let's assume, for the sake of argument, there was good reason to chase after Kyle - then what?
Eh? I've asked you several direct questions which you've then deflected from. Do you want me to preface them with "this is vague so here is a question"?
There we go again with the deflection..
Where did you answer this one which relies on a condiction/hypothetical I've put in in order to try and get some sort of point from you?
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35227259/
I like the new deflection reason, now it's that the posts weren't "interesting" rather than the questions haveing already been addressed... Anything to avoid answering.
He avoids things that might be too critical or highlights any weaknesses in his vague arguments and some of the unsubstantiated claims he's made.
If anyone else can highlight where Jono8 has highlighted a double standard by me in relation to this case either today or yesterday then please do post it here, I've not seen him address that point with anything specific nor the other direct questions asked of him. Bit ironic to spend multiple posts deflecting instead of simply posting the example of the thing you said was obvious.
What is ironic about it? We are all completely wasting our time doing this as no one is changing their minds anyway.
I just like to see how deep you go (ooo er matron)
Sure, seems like just more excuses - seems you like to deflect to avoid scrutiny of your vague arguments and the claims you throw in that you can't back up.
Also... suppose everyone accepts, for the sake of argument, that that guy has some good reason to chase Kyle... then what? Does that nullify Kyle's right to defend himself when attacked/when the guy apparently made a grab for his rifle?
The guy is dead, as is the second guy and the third person shot hasn't been charged/isn't on trial. In fact, the third guy has tried to provide some justification for his actions while testifying but also confirmed he pointed his gun at Kyle immediately prior to being shot and that he wasn't shot initially, had his hands up, Kyle pointing his rifle at him and not shooting.
Firstly he was cut off from his other armed buddies as the police line had moved secondly it's been said that he put out a bin fire which upset him:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/09/08/kyle-rittenhouse-fire-extinguisher/
You're either selectively ignoring things here or you're perhaps unaware of some of the evidence.
LOL sure... but supposing that is true - so what? From Kyle's perspective, you still have this crazy guy chasing and attacking him who had caught him alone and who had literally stated earlier:
“If I catch any of you guys alone tonight I'm going to ****ing kill you!”
then when he caught up with Kyle, the closest eye witness has testified:
"Well, he said '**** you' and he reached for the weapon."
But let's assume there was good reason in his mind for him to chase Kyle and he did it to make himself "feel safe"
as you've proposed... then what?He wasn't attending the protest he was standing with a group apparently looking out for a local business (or so they claim) and had the weapon for self defence. The other guy with a firearm seems to have a similar reason for carrying; self-defence.
That they both seem to have been carrying illegally is perhaps moot re: anything else that occurred as it's 'merica and no one else necessarily knows they're illegally carrying those weapons.
This is also interesting - this suicidal guy who made explicit death threats if he caught any of them alone, then did indeed catch one of them alone, is seen with a chain moments before the encounter - not sure if he still had it on him or not when the initial incident between him and Kyle took place:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/09/09/joseph-rosenbaum-chain/
Kyle's testimony, which apparently is going to happen, will certainly be very interesting.
Update - the judge has dismissed the curfew violation charge on the basis that the prosecution has presented no evidence there even was a curfew! That's pretty dodgy of them - I'd assumed that surely that's pretty basic, pretty much took it as that and the weapons charge being the ones with the highest chance he'd be convicted. didn't consider that they'd just either make up a charge or simply not present any evidence for it.
I think the defence for the weapon's charge is going to be some convoluted 2nd amendment stuff or an attempt to use some sort of hunting exemption etc.. which all, at face value, seems a bit sus but that's 'merica...
They do seem to have some solid defences for the three shooting-related charges though. The witness/attacker in the third incident has helped them with that one., the first one seems clear enough too it might be the second incident that is riskiest though.
See this is why specifics are often needed, he said that or rather “Don’t point no mother ****ing gun at me!” and “Shoot me” at the convenience store, along with the "n word" as in "shoot me [n-word]" which he repeated multiple times. There is video footage of that encounter, there were multiple armed people and he was the belligerent one there, which you'd see quite easily if you simply watch the video instead of imagining what might be implied by reading a single quote etc..
I think the defence for the weapon's charge is going to be some convoluted 2nd amendment stuff or an attempt to use some sort of hunting exemption etc.. which all, at face value, seems a bit sus but that's 'merica...
They do seem to have some solid defences for the three shooting-related charges though. The witness/attacker in the third incident has helped them with that one., the first one seems clear enough too it might be the second incident that is riskiest though.
See this is why specifics are often needed, he said that or rather “Don’t point no mother ****ing gun at me!” and “Shoot me” at the convenience store, along with the "n word" as in "shoot me [n-word]" which he repeated multiple times. There is video footage of that encounter, there were multiple armed people and he was the belligerent one there, which you'd see quite easily if you simply watch the video instead of imagining what might be implied by reading a single quote etc..
Last edited:
Yeah, that's bizarre. I think most people can see it is unhinged for a 17-year-old to be out on the streets with a military-style rifle when there is unrest occurring nearby, he's one of those kids who is too into guns etc.. (plenty of adults like that in the US). But he's more comparable to the say general protestors & rioters than to Rosenbaum.
Suicidal Rosenbaum who hadn't taken his meds, was released from a mental facility that morning, who had made explicit threats to kill any of the armed guys if he caught them alone and who was the guy causing most of the trouble/attention in the earlier footage - getting very heated, kicking off at people etc..
This was a violent paedophile who had anally raped several young boys, who is shown as the aggressor in the footage and who witnesses state became enraged with Kyle when he put out a bin fire. It seems so far from the evidence that he's the instigator that sparked the series of shootings. It seems like a odd thing to try and equate them - well actually... Kyle was bad too because he stepped into a fight that involved his sister or he's too into guns etc.. was venting about wanting to shoot shoplifters to a buddy etc.. Sure, Kyle is worrying too but it's just not in the same league.
So a 17-year-old could see the risk along with some gun-toting militia types (who let's face it aren't generally known for their intelligence) but it would require the authorities to be omniscient to see that after one night of rioting which lead to arson and destruction a second night would likely bring more of the same?
This was political (as was the decision to not charge the 3rd guy who was shot and carrying an illegal firearm), note how after the shooting the authorities called in lots of national guard troops, something they could have done the day before to help prevent both incidents like this and of course all the arson/trashing of the town etc..
Interesting stuff in the testimony - he had a bulletproof vest (issued to him by the police department when he was a cadet - but he gave it to someone else to use that night because they'd need it more/he was just there to provide medical care etc...)
------------------
Also, contrast what actually happened and his testimony with these talking heads and the narrative they spun some of which seems to have been sucked up by people in this thread too:
His weapons charge is perhaps going to stick and maybe the second person he shot could be the harder one to defend (some risk of guilty there but seemingly more likely not)... I suspect there are some potential defamation lawsuits from the comments in those clips - in some cases they make it sound like he was some mass shooter who just turned up and started shooting protestors.
------------------
Also, contrast what actually happened and his testimony with these talking heads and the narrative they spun some of which seems to have been sucked up by people in this thread too:
His weapons charge is perhaps going to stick and maybe the second person he shot could be the harder one to defend (some risk of guilty there but seemingly more likely not)... I suspect there are some potential defamation lawsuits from the comments in those clips - in some cases they make it sound like he was some mass shooter who just turned up and started shooting protestors.
So some more info about the initial encounter - according to his testimony the guy who fired the first shot (Joshua Ziminski) also first stepped out to confront Kyle with a pistol, Kyle then tried to get away from the guy with the pistol... (note he didn't shoot at him but proceeded to flee) that's when he was pursued by the guy with the pistol + Rosenbaum and the guy with the pistol fired (into the air behind Kyle) then Rosenbaum managed to catch up with Kyle... which is where he lunges for the rifle and is shot.
The prosecution is going to have a difficult time with that first shooting instance.
The prosecution is going to have a difficult time with that first shooting instance.
Another new bit of info - he had an initial encounter with the person he shot third... while trying to get away, he didn't shoot him because he didn't see him as a threat to his life. It's only in the later encounter and after that person pointed a pistol at him that he fired.
also dubious testimony from that guy yesterday - he claims the rifle was "re-racked" but the defence gets kyle to point out that had happened then a live round would be ejected.
Kyle testifies that he shot him once (in the arm) and then doesn't shoot him again as he is no longer a threat... doesn't look like the attempted homicide charge there is too strong either.
also dubious testimony from that guy yesterday - he claims the rifle was "re-racked" but the defence gets kyle to point out that had happened then a live round would be ejected.
Kyle testifies that he shot him once (in the arm) and then doesn't shoot him again as he is no longer a threat... doesn't look like the attempted homicide charge there is too strong either.