Ongoing Adventures of Kyle Rittenhouse

[BobTheCoward]

Kyle Rittenhouse intended to put out the fire in the SUV. (dubbed "The Duramax")
As he came upon the flaming vehicle, Joshua Ziminski confronted him with a handgun drawn, as Joseph Rosenbaum ran up from his hiding spot behind cars and Kyle instantly realized what these men were intending, namely, a brazen armed robbery of his AR15.
And potentially his own demise.

That is what happened.
That is why the jury found him Not Guilty of 'murdering' Rosenbum. (the 'someone' you referred to).

Is that a situation that warrants deadly force?

 

[dann]

Definitely! You should always be armed with an AR15, so you can defend yourself in case somebody tries to steal it from you. In fact, you should probably have two, just in case. And maybe an explosive belt for deterrence.

 

[plague311]

How else do you explain Rosenbaum's explicit death threat to Rittenhouse and the other defenders? "If I catch any of you [people protecting the town] alone, I'll kill you" is pretty clear, and pretty clearly exactly what they were attempting to do. But no, let's just ignore that and assume they must have had a good reason to attack Rittenhouse when he was lured away and separated from the other defenders. It can't have anything to do with the prior death threats.

pffhahahahahaha that is knee slappingly funny. I mean, coffee out my nose type of funny.

I guess we just get to add whatever we want in to statements now, right? Let me do one:

"If I catch any of you [feeding a stranger in the alps] alone, I'll kill you"

How about:

"If I catch any of you [feigning to be here to protect the town instead of the real reason, personifying tiny penis syndrome,] alone, I'll kill you"

 

[webfusion]

Is that a situation that warrants deadly force?

The jury of 12 felt it was, indeed, yes.

also --- thaiboxerken: Nonsense. Rittenhouse was attacked because he provoked the crowd for the purpose of having an excuse to "defend himself" with deadly force.

The 'crowd' was not provoked into attacking him. This is actually you spouting nonsense here.
Did you even watch ANY of the trial? It seems not.

By the way, I notice that D-A Michael Graveley in Kenosha is seeking further information from the public regarding rioters.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_f8628dd7-c600-513d-93ec-640898025bf2.html
A new website will be launched in January that will include all the pending cases, with photographs, more than 100, of those who have yet to be identified. Visitors to the site will be able to view all the photographs, and if they have information, a direct link will take them to the Kenosha Police Department Detective Bureau.

One notable case that is already going to trial -- Joshua J. Ziminski, 3400 block of Ivy Lane, Racine, WI; felony arson, misdemeanor disorderly conduct, misdemeanor obstructing.
His jury selection will begin Jan. 31.

 

[cmikes]

Nonsense. Rittenhouse was attacked because he provoked the crowd for the purpose of having and excuse to "defend himself" with deadly force.

Well, you're right in the sense that Rittenhouse "provoked" the crowd by putting out the fires that they were setting.

But the second part of your claim doesn't make any sense. If Rittenhouse's motive in provoking the crowd by putting out the fires they were setting was having an excuse to defend himself, why didn't he at first? If the point of putting out the fires wasn't to protect the town, but to have an excuse to shoot people, why was his first reaction to the ambush to run away towards the police line? If he wanted to shoot people, why run away and try to get to safety and only defend himself when he was cut off and knocked to the ground? Why not defend himself in the first place and not wait until he was literally seconds from being killed?

 

[cmikes]

pffhahahahahaha that is knee slappingly funny. I mean, coffee out my nose type of funny.

I guess we just get to add whatever we want in to statements now, right? Let me do one:



How about:

Is your claim that Rosenbaum threatened to kill the people trying to defend the town because they were going to feed strangers in the Alps? Or did he threaten to kill any of them that he found alone because they were trying to keep him and his pals from destroying the town?

Did you follow the trial and the evidence at all or you just making it up as you go along?

 

[webfusion]

pffhahahahahaha that is knee slappingly funny. I mean, coffee out my nose type of funny.
I guess we just get to add whatever we want in to statements now, right?

That statement about people being there protecting property was provided on the stand by JoAnn Fiedler, who carried her own handgun (in a holster on her hip, openly) as she stood guard at CarSource.
I am not sure why you find her testimony to be "knee slappingly funny" --- it seemed more to me that it was quite heart-felt and honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx2oFLYRym0 40 minutes of her testimony

She heard Rosenbaum threaten to kill these citizens. Specifically.
(from timestamp 14:30 she begins the narrative and at 16:25 JoAnn expounds on Rosenbaum's expletive-laden words and his violent action --- of throwing a chemical bomb).

plague311, I don't know what you are still doing here, making excuses and trying to handwave the reasons various citizens chose to carry their personal weapons that night.

 

[Thermal]

Whelp. I guess we're gonna become Knox Thread people over this little putz.

 

[plague311]

Is your claim that Rosenbaum threatened to kill the people trying to defend the town because they were going to feed strangers in the Alps? Or did he threaten to kill any of them that he found alone because they were trying to keep him and his pals from destroying the town?

Did you follow the trial and the evidence at all or you just making it up as you go along?

Check this out, I'm going to blow your ******* mind. How about if Rosenbaum threatened to kill people because he felt threatened by people carrying guns around? Or, how about, we don't know Rosenbaum was thinking because he obviously had mental issues that were apparent that night?

You're the one inserting your narrative into it. You added the statement. I didn't. Show your work.

plague311, I don't know what you are still doing here, making excuses and trying to handwave the reasons various citizens chose to carry their personal weapons that night.

Strawman. I don't what you're still doing here, either. So there, we're both confused by each others actions.

 

[webfusion]

Well, you're right in the sense that Rittenhouse "provoked" the crowd by putting out the fires that they were setting.

But the second part of your claim doesn't make any sense. If Rittenhouse's motive in provoking the crowd by putting out the fires they were setting was having an excuse to defend himself, why didn't he at first? If the point of putting out the fires wasn't to protect the town, but to have an excuse to shoot people, why was his first reaction to the ambush to run away towards the police line? If he wanted to shoot people, why run away and try to get to safety and only defend himself when he was cut off and knocked to the ground? Why not defend himself in the first place and not wait until he was literally seconds from being killed?

A few points of order, cmikes.
1. Rittenhouse was not engaged in putting out any fires, prior to him grabbing a fire extinguisher from someone at Ultimate location and going down Sheridan Road to deal with the increasingly volatile situation at CarSource3 (where he was then ambushed by the Ziminski couple -- 'Bonnie & Clyde' -- and Rosenbaum)

2. Immediately upon facing the armed Ziminski, his first reaction was to set down/drop that fire extinguisher and get both hands on his rifle. Rosenbaum suddenly appeared from behind parked cars, and Kyle ran away from these threatening actors, racing across the parking lot (not towards the police lines) with Rosenbaum in hot pursuit (and throwing the bag) while Ziminski opened fire with his own gun.

3. After Rosenbaum was neutralized, Kyle stopped for a few seconds to review the scene, quickly called Black to say he had shot someone -- "I had no choice" and then within that commotion (including more gunshots echoing) he started to move quickly northbound up Sheridan Road, towards the police Bearcats at the Ultimate location at 60th street.

4. It was during this run that he was struck in the head by a chunk of rock (his hat flew off); hit by Huber's skateboard the first time; attacked by Maurice Freeland's flying kick; sliced in the neck/shoulder by Huber's second attempt at 'cranium-ing" him; and then having Grosskreutz come right up to him with a drawn handgun.

Let us remember one thing, there was an individual right alongside Grosskreutz, who initially was moving towards the prone/sitting Rittenhouse, and he backed off, and thus no shots were fired at him.

 

[webfusion]

plague311, these citizens carrying guns were engaged in legal activity. Both by Wisconsin Statute and by the United States Constitution - Bill of Rights.
Rosenbaum and Ziminski were breaking laws that night by making death threats and committing arson and throwing chemical bombs and brandishing/firing illegal handguns --- not the citizens.

I am here to keep correcting the record, which you persist on falsifying.

 

[plague311]

plague311, these citizens carrying guns were engaged in legal activity.

No, they weren't. There was a curfew in effect.

Both by Wisconsin Statute and by the United States Constitution - Bill of Rights.

*checks bingo card for 'Constitution and Bill of Rights' spots*

Awesome, if you could just bring up "mah freedumz" I'll have a bingo.

Rosenbaum and Ziminski were breaking laws that night by making death threats and committing arson and throwing chemical bombs and brandishing/firing illegal handguns --- not the citizens.

Uh, wasn't Kyle's gun illegal? You are ******* terrible at stating facts so far.

I am here to keep correcting the record,

You're doing a **** job, if I do say so myself.

which you persist on falsifying.

Riigghht

 

[carlitos]

plague311, these citizens carrying guns were engaged in legal activity. Both by Wisconsin Statute and by the United States Constitution - Bill of Rights.

......

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't just violating the riot curfew; he was only 17 years old, so he was in violation of the regular weeknight curfew in Kenosha, which is 10:30 on weekdays.

I am here to keep correcting the record, which you persist on falsifying.

Hahahahahahahaha, nope.

 

[webfusion]

No, they weren't. There was a curfew in effect.

In the trial, this item was dismissed. Have you not been paying attention?

*checks bingo card for 'Constitution and Bill of Rights' spots*
Awesome, if you could just bring up "mah freedumz" I'll have a bingo.

Poisoning the well, and ridicule of the US Constitution, nice going.

Uh, wasn't Kyle's gun illegal? You are ******* terrible at stating facts so far.

Uh, no.
It wasn't his gun, it was legally Dominick Black's (that court case is open and has not yet been adjudicated, so we have to assume Black is innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty) Furthermore, Kyle had the presiding judge in his case decide it WAS NOT illegal for him to carry around.
In Rittenhouse's trial, this item was dismissed. Have you not been paying attention?

You're doing a **** job, if I do say so myself.

Well, I have offered links, video evidence, detailed descriptions of known facts, and corrected the overt misstatements and errors of facts, so you can say whatever you want, but I'll stick to my proper course of action, regardless of your opinion.

 

[webfusion]

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't just violating the riot curfew; he was only 17 years old, so he was in violation of the regular weeknight curfew in Kenosha, which is 10:30 on weekdays.

As it happens, the City Ordinance 11.05 you quoted has an exception--
"This Section shall... not apply in circumstances in which the
minor was exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution or the Wisconsin Constitution, including freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion and/or the right of assembly."

Go fish.
This is all just a red herring, as the charge was dismissed and you can't say "He was violating 11.05" because the Kenosha Court found otherwise, sui juris.

 

[plague311]

In the trial, this item was dismissed. Have you not been paying attention?

It being dismissed does not mean that there wasn't a curfew in effect, and that these people weren't out past curfew. Have you not been paying attention?

Poisoning the well, and ridicule of the US Constitution, nice going.

**** the US Constitution. Also, learn what "poisoning the well" means, because I have no idea how it would pertain to my statement. If you think I have the same hard-on for the Constitution that you guys do, you're sadly mistaken. Even the founding fathers said that it should change periodically. If you think it bothers me that I "ridicule(d) the Constitution" then you're just wrong.

Uh, no.
It wasn't his gun, it was legally Dominick Black's (that court case is open and has not yet been adjudicated, so we have to assume Black is innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty)

Did Kyle pay for it? Was Kyle carrying it? Then it was Kyle's gun.

Furthermore, Kyle had the presiding judge in his case decide it WAS NOT illegal for him to carry around.
In Rittenhouse's trial, this item was dismissed. Have you not been paying attention?

Well, then. As we know, judges never get anything wrong, ever. That's why there is no such thing as an appeals process, because judges are right 100% of the time.

Well, I have offered links, video evidence, detailed descriptions of known facts, and corrected the overt misstatements and errors of facts, so you can say whatever you want, but I'll stick to my proper course of action, regardless of your opinion.

Stick to whatever you want. I really don't care what you think or what your opinion is and it means little to me that we disagree. You're way, Way, WAY more invested in the Kyle bull **** than I am. None of this means anything to me at all, but to be frank there isn't a lot going on around here, and I wanted to see what the mouthbreathers in the right wing media were saying\doing with Rittenhouse lately.

 

[Warp12]

Whelp. I guess we're gonna become Knox Thread people over this little putz.

It is the ISF way. Argue continuously over the same points, sometimes for years, while knowing damn well that nobody is going to change their mind.

But really, I think most of this argument belongs in the existing thread on the trial. The mods already did one clean up, here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Kyle's killing of people was in self-defense, why are right-wingers celebrating his killing of all the libruls? Why is he a hero?

 

[BobTheCoward]

If Kyle's killing of people was in self-defense, why are right-wingers celebrating his killing of all the libruls? Why is he a hero?

Why are people that fought imperial Japan at Pearl Harbor heroes? That was in self defense.

 

[webfusion]

If Kyle's killing of people was in self-defense, why are right-wingers celebrating his killing of all the libruls? Why is he a hero?

The word "IF" is not appropriate here.

Kyle shot one raging man who was literally clinically insane, and did so because he feared for his own life while facing an attack.

He then had to defend himself (lawfully) against further attacks, from men named Maurice Freeland, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz. Two of them were not killed, one was.

Kyle did not shoot nor kill 'all the libruls' on the night of August 25th. Why is he a hero? Because he used the weapon appropriately and within the bounds of law.

He is looked up to by many in America because he has been vindicated by the manner he handled himself in the face of clear and present threats.

The mere presence of this thread in the Forum indicates 'sour grapes' on the part of carlitos, and others.