Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

Roar87 said:
He works in Kenosha, his Dad lives in Kenosha, he has friends and family in Kenosha, 20 miles in a car is hardly the other side of the country, it's completely irrelevant. How far is allowed? Should we wait until the riots are on our doorsteps, are our places of work not sufficient enough to want to look after?
Click to expand...

Yes literally, that's what police and government insurance is for.

He killed 3 people, the only person to have killed anyone in the event.

If he had just stayed home 3 people would be alive and nothing else would be different.

3 people are dead because he wanted to LARP.
 
Tefal said:
Illegally carrying a firearm having traveled to the scene to participate in armed unrest?
Click to expand...

Nope, that's false, he was over 16 and legally open carrying a long-barreled rifle that is looked after/stored in that state by his friend and registered in his friend's name because he's not yet 18. If he'd had a concealed carry pistol that would be illegal.

It was they who traveled there to participate in unrest not Kyle, he's claimed and there is plenty of evidence to support it, that he was there to protect local businesses, the unrest moved to the locations he and his buddies were protecting when the mob moved along.

Tefal said:
Surely that invalidates everything else?
Click to expand...

no not at all, invalidates how even? He's got as much right to be there as any other American - arguably none of them should have been there and he wasn't the one who attacked.

Surely you could flip around that logic - Rosenbaum traveled there after release from a mental hospital, he's a known felon/pedophile, he deliberately went out to actually participate in unrest, is seen participating in arson, making threats and generally being belligerent - this mental case/pedophile then chased after and attacked a minor/boy... surely that invalidates everything else?

Tefal said:
If I take a sword to a football match to prevent the other teams fans being violent and stab a bunch of of opposing fans as they try to take my sword off me because they fear for thier lives am I defending myself?

Or should I have not been there?

Should I have not had an ilegal weapon?

*illegal as he was underage for the state to be armed
Click to expand...

You shouldn't take a sword to a football match, you'll probably be arrested if you do, I'm not sure what your point is there.

Tefal said:
After traveling 21 mile to place himself in danger?
Click to expand...

His choice, it's a dumb thing for a 17-year-old to do, he wanted to help the community where his family live/where he works etc.. but it was very silly for him to be out there at night, still taking personal risk isn't against the law.

What's worse perhaps is the people who traveled there to deliberately create that danger in the first place, that includes people who proceeded to attack Kyle.
 
Last edited:
Prosecution right now is going over what Dowie didn't seem to be able to understand earlier (the difference between what Kyle thought, and what a reasonable person would think etc)

FYI
 
Mason- said:
People just coming in this thread spewing ignorant tripe. How is this not trolling?
Click to expand...

I think they're genuine re: the ignorance, I'm surprised we haven't had more: but but muh state lines arguments then, of course, no follow up when questioned about what the point they're making is/whether they can be specific about why that is relevant.

Instead, there have been other dubious arguments and then a move to deflect/avoid when asked for specifics or clarification etc..

I'm not sure where people think they're going with the he shouldn't have been there line, certainly doesn't invalidate anything as it applies even more so to the attackers, especially given they were there for even more dubious (criminal) reasons and they attacked him.
 
Jono8 said:
Prosecution right now is going over what Dowie didn't seem to be able to understand earlier (the difference between what Kyle thought, and what a reasonable person would think etc)

FYI
Click to expand...

LOL cope...

This is just wildly untrue, I understood perfectly well, for example, the claim that the skateboarder might have been trying to apprehend him etc.. my question to you was re: what your point was - assume that to be true then what? You had no answer for me and just deflected/avoided it.

I'll point out again that the guy with the skateboard is dead, he's not on trial, Kyle is.

If you want to clarify then please do go ahead but I suspect, again, you won't have anything. Likewise, you won't answer the query between your contradictory assertions re: excessive force, a lack of belief that he had any danger of serious injury or death while simultaneously trying to hedge your bets by claiming to see the self-defence angle - that simply doesn't add up and you cant' even specify which incident you think was excessive and why?
 
OspreyO said:
We might think its crazy but is that a crime though in their laws?
Click to expand...
I suppose that's what thw court case is for.

Here obviously yes it would have been illegal and a crime but there it's to be determined.

I think here the argument is less over American legal specifics but our own British view of right and wrong
 
Jono8 said:
You clearly didn't, because you kept asking stupid questions about it.
Click to expand...

Sure enough, you can't answer/can't provide any clarification... deflection Jono strikes again. :D

you even crop out a tiny snippet of my post to reply/avoid the questions

dowie said:
This is just wildly untrue, I understood perfectly well, for example, the claim that the skateboarder might have been trying to apprehend him etc.. my question to you was re: what your point was - assume that to be true then what? You had no answer for me and just deflected/avoided it.
Click to expand...
 
Longbow said:
The police were doing nothing, and insurance often does not cover, or limits cover with riots.

He was allowed to be there, with the rifle.
Click to expand...
Riots the government cover.


The case atm is was he legally there defending himself or were the other people legally defending themselves from him
 
dowie said:
Sure enough, you can't answer/can't provide any clarification... deflection Jono strikes again. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe you need to ask yourself why you keep needing constant clarification (not just in this particular matter, but in most matters on this forum you find yourself involved in)

Perhaps you just don't understand what is being clearly said or understand the concepts involved (which you clearly didn't in this case).
 
Jono8 said:
Maybe you need to ask yourself why you keep needing constant clarification (not just in this particular matter, but in most matters on this forum you find yourself involved in)

Perhaps you just don't understand what is being clearly said or understand the concepts involved (which you clearly didn't in this case).
Click to expand...

Sure enough more deflection, perhaps ask yourself why you are unable to back up your assertions/keep on replying with deflection when challenged on them...

If you think I don't understand or have missed something then it should be super easy for you to point it out but you don't seem to be able to do so.
 
dowie said:
Sure enough more deflection, perhaps ask yourself why you are unable to back up your assertions/keep on replying with deflection when challenged on them...
Click to expand...

I have. Multiple times.

Its quite a simple concept. A concept the prosecutor literally just explained a moment ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom