Kyle Rittenhouse Trial - Update: Acquitted On All Charges

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

If you don't understand or want to understand how the media's lying and desire for pitting sides against each other plays out in the public's understanding of the case, that's on you.

It is pretty incredible that a lot of outlets still can’t bring themselves to use the word “riot” to describe an event where three city dump-trucks were torched, 40 buildings were destroyed, and the National Guard had to be brought in to stop the courthouse from being overrun.

In an era when our guys only ‘protest’ and the other side riots, it takes a dismaying amount of work - sometimes a half-dozen or more sources - just to figure out what actually happened in these sorts of contentious events.

But for those who haven’t done the work:

The shootings didn’t happen at a protest. They happened on the third night of violent rioting, after a curfew had been imposed, when mobs of looters and arsonists were roaming the streets alongside thrill-seeking idiots bored of being cooped up during the pandemic.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You should throw up a Glenn Greenwald post now.

I'll read anything from anyone if it's well written and makes valid points.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I’m not condoning it either. But stupid =/= malicious.

And everyone out on the street at 10:45 that night in Kenosha was willingly putting themselves in a violent, dangerous situation.

I think that if you are going out with a loaded firearm, you are looking for a physical confrontation. And while it may technically be self defense, and I don't fault a jury for finding him not guilty as the burden of proof for a criminal court is rightfully very high.

I think his actions are morally reprehensible and lead to people's deaths. In a land where there are many people treating life like a game of call of duty, mass shootings are commonplace, and the weapon of choice is an AR15. Is it any shock that people responded negatively to someone walking down the street with the exact weapon
we have heard about time and time again on the news. Self defense works both ways... Those people who were murdered had a more than reasonable expectation that they were put in harms way by his abborant and irresponsible actions.

[FlamesAddiction]

I recall a couple of years ago. there was an armed man in a Wal-Mart disarmed and apprehended by an off-duty fire fighter in Missouri. People were on edge because it was right after the El Paso shooting. The man claimed he was just testing rights and was subsequently charged with a misdemeanor because they said he was purposely trying to cause a panic.


Nice to know the potential shooter could have just killed the fire fighter and it would have been self-defense.

[GirlySports]

That's different. You can't carry a gun openly into a Walmart so that would cause alarm. Like you have to wear shoes.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's different. You can't carry a gun openly into a Walmart so that would cause alarm. Like you have to wear shoes.

Wal-mart didn't enact that rule until a month after that, so at the time he was allowed to open carry in a Wal-Mart (Springfield arrest was in August 2019, open carry rule changed in September). The guy who did the El Paso shooting was legally exercising his rights until the moment he pulled the trigger as well. No one could have disarmed him and he would have been justified in killing anyone who tried.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...on-ncna1054396

Walmart’s decision, though, makes sense. On August 3, a mass shooting in Walmart’s El Paso store killed 22 and wounded 24 more, and that came just days after a disgruntled employee murdered two co-workers and attempted to murder a police officer in a Mississippi store. Since those events and the national outcry that followed — but before the bans — at least one open-carry enthusiast in Missouri did what he called a “social experiment” testing Walmart’s dedication to the right to keep and bear arms, causing a panic; other people made threats leading to panicked evacuations that alarmed their staff and their customers, who feared they might be the next Americans to die in a mass shooting.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Another good piece on the media's deceit on this case from a centre-left viewpoint. Media, as always, pushing for more division and destruction to their own benefit.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the...le-rittenhouse

Bari Weiss is a conservative for what it is worth. Big Brett Kavanugh fan who thought he did rape those women but it happened a long time ago so it should not disqualify him. To describe her as center-left would mean that Fox News is center and the my pillow guy is center-right.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I recall a couple of years ago. there was an armed man in a Wal-Mart disarmed and apprehended by an off-duty fire fighter in Missouri. People were on edge because it was right after the El Paso shooting. The man claimed he was just testing rights and was subsequently charged with a misdemeanor because they said he was purposely trying to cause a panic.


Nice to know the potential shooter could have just killed the fire fighter and it would have been self-defense.

There is no evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

Bari Weiss is a conservative for what it is worth. Big Brett Kavanugh fan who thought he did rape those women but it happened a long time ago so it should not disqualify him. To describe her as center-left would mean that Fox News is center and the my pillow guy is center-right.

Labels such as these are pretty much useless nowadays.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by btimbit

If I'm Rittenhouse I absolutely pursue a Defamation case

Try to win that to offset the millions you will pay in the wrongful death case. Not a bad strategy, though I suspect the first amendment and his hanging out with white supremacists like the Proud Boys will make his defamation case harder.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Labels such as these are pretty much useless nowadays.

I was just responding to a post (that you liked) that used a "useless" label of center-left to describe Weiss. PeteMoss is the most accurate in describing an article like this as her shtick.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is no evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks.

Just the nature of a kid carrying an AR15 in public is provocative.

Just like in the Springfield incident where the fire fighter disarmed the man. The armed man didn't wave it around or do anything to prompt the action to disarm him, but his presence in public at that particular time was seen as provocative enough to take action, being in the wake of the El Paso shooting.

This is just my personal opinion, but I think the people around Rittenhouse were justified in feeling threatened by his presence.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Isn’t being a threat the entire purpose of open carry? To be a known threat?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Isn’t being a threat the entire purpose of open carry? To be a known threat?

This is like a philosophical equivalent of an MC Escher drawing.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just the nature of a kid carrying an AR15 in public is provocative.
.

now we're back to the short skirt argument.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just the nature of a kid carrying an AR15 in public is provocative.

Just like in the Springfield incident where the fire fighter disarmed the man. The armed man didn't wave it around or do anything to prompt the action to disarm him, but his presence in public at that particular time was seen as provocative enough to take action, being in the wake of the El Paso shooting.

This is just my personal opinion, but I think the people around Rittenhouse were justified in feeling threatened by his presence.

The people around KR that night probably shouldn't have been there either. It was the 3rd night of rioting. It's not like KR was strolling through a peaceful park with people enjoying the weather.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There is no evidence that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks.

Other than carry an assault rifle in the middle of a riot. Now I'm sure that you will argue that he had the legal right to be there, and I agree with that. However every reasonable action for a person to take he failed to do so. He willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Other than carry an assault rifle in the middle of a riot. Now I'm sure that you will argue that he had the legal right to be there, and I agree with that. However every reasonable action for a person to take he failed to do so. He willingly placed himself in a dangerous situation.

It is not his obligation to take "reasonable action" to avoid anything.

It is the obligation of Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz to not attack him.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

now we're back to the short skirt argument.

Only because a few scumbags are being absolute pieces of #### by pretending wearing a skirt in public is similar to carrying an assault rifle around a public place.

Pardon my language.

You guys are either completely idiotic trying to pretend open-carrying an assault rifle is as innocent as a standard piece of women’s clothing, or you are misogynist pricks. I’m not actually curious which it is, but this is a really stupid and ignorant analogy and it’s getting tiring having you bring it back up again and again.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think one side acting in self-defense or defense of others excludes the other party of acting in self-defense. I can see why Rittenhouse's self-defense argument worked from a legal stand point, but I also think removing an assault weapon from a kid at a riot was a reasonable action. These don't have to be mutually excusive concepts.

The real issue is the gun culture that exists in the first place.