• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

Because Rosenbaum was already agitated, already aggressive, and Rittenhouse made a good target for him, I suppose.
No, people were chasing Rittenhouse AFTER they saw him shoot someone.
How is that a response to the comment about Rosenbaum you were replying to? Yes, Ritt shot him, but only after being attacked.

You do not know what the members of the mob who chased Ritt saw or did not see. And I do not think Huber and Grosskreutz in particular observed this self-defense shooting at all.
You post like you don't remember the videos of Rittenhouse before and after he shot Rosenbaum.

What "mob" chased him?

I don't know it it qualifies as a "mob" but the reporter states that "others in the crowd" chased Rittenhouse including Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard which is clearly seen in the video. Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself from this lunatic.
Rittenhouse was not "entitled" to shoot anyone. He's not a Prince in an absolute monarchy.

He had a “mob” chasing him, that is evident from your own link. He’s entitled to defend himself as necessary.

The word "mob" implies a group of people moving together with a common purpose. The video shows 2 people running after Rittenhouse as he fled the scene of the homicide he had just committed and Huber coming in from another direction. Huber then is seen hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard after Rittenhouse fired 2 shots at the guy in light colored pants.

That's not a mob.

The use of the word "mob" is utterly dishonest. Even if you include Huber, that's only 3 people and Huber had immediate knowledge of Rittenhouse attempting to shoot someone. Frankly, it looks like propaganda you either bought or you're peddling, maybe both.
Our society recognizes a Right of self defense. Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty of murder despite his own contributions to the conflict that resulted in two deaths. That doesn't mean the people trying to prevent him from fleeing the scene of a homicide or to disarm him were wrong to do so, or that any of them were lunatics.

Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry “mob” couple of witnesses and was assaulted when one of the “mob” witnesses caught up with him. His life He was undoubtedly in danger of being disarmed and perhaps detained, he did the right panicky teenager with an AR-15 thing within the law and compounded the poor choices and violations of other people's Rights he had already committed.

FYP
These assholes learned a valuable lesson that day, fuck them.
What assholes?

The ones who tried to stop an active shooter? The ones who put themselves in danger to protect others?

Are you calling them assholes because you don't like what you presume you know about their politics, or are you just generally in favor of vigilantism and teenagers with AR-15s shooting people, and don't like people who try to stop that Rambo LARPer shit?
 
Last edited:
Because Rosenbaum was already agitated, already aggressive, and Rittenhouse made a good target for him, I suppose.
No, people were chasing Rittenhouse AFTER they saw him shoot someone.
How is that a response to the comment about Rosenbaum you were replying to? Yes, Ritt shot him, but only after being attacked.

You do not know what the members of the mob who chased Ritt saw or did not see. And I do not think Huber and Grosskreutz in particular observed this self-defense shooting at all.
You post like you don't remember the videos of Rittenhouse before and after he shot Rosenbaum.

What "mob" chased him?

I don't know it it qualifies as a "mob" but the reporter states that "others in the crowd" chased Rittenhouse including Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard which is clearly seen in the video. Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself from this lunatic.
Rittenhouse was not "entitled" to shoot anyone. He's not a Prince in an absolute monarchy.

He had a “mob” chasing him, that is evident from your own link. He’s entitled to defend himself as necessary.

The word "mob" implies a group of people moving together with a common purpose. The video shows 2 people running after Rittenhouse as he fled the scene of the homicide he had just committed and Huber coming in from another direction. Huber then is seen hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard after he fired 2 shots at the guy in light colored pants.

That's not a mob.

The term “mob” is a quibble but the news report in the link YOU provided states a “crowd” was chasing Rittenhouse. It was a short clip, probably edited for brevity but whether it is two or more doesn’t matter. These two clowns had violence on their mind. One of them actually had a gun and they “fucked around and found out” as the kids say. A couple of fucking assholes that won’t be missed.

The use of the word "mob" to describe two guys is utterly dishonest. Even if you include Huber, that's only 3 people and Huber had immediate knowledge of Rittenhouse attempting to shoot someone. Frankly, it looks like propaganda you either bought or you're peddling, maybe both.

Yeah right, a couple of concerned citizens trying to do their civic duty. What utter nonsense.

Our society recognizes a Right of self defense. Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty of murder despite his own contributions to the conflict that resulted in two deaths. That doesn't mean the people trying to prevent him from fleeing the scene of a homicide or to disarm him were wrong to do so, or that any of them were lunatics.

Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry “mob” couple of witnesses and was assaulted when one of the “mob” witnesses caught up with him. His life was undoubtedly in danger of being detained, he did the right panicky teenager with an AR-15 thing within the law.

FYP

Fuck off with that shit.
These assholes learned a valuable lesson that day, fuck them.
What assholes?

The ones who tried to stop an active shooter? The ones who put themselves in danger to protect others?

Protect others? Behave yourself. These assholes we’re out destroying property.
Are you calling them assholes because you don't like what you presume you know about their politics,

I’m calling a spade a spade. They are assholes.
or are you just generally in favor of vigilantism and teenagers with AR-15s shooting people and don't like people who try to stop that Rambo LARPer shit?

I’m in favor of citizens defending themselves from violent assholes. Fuck these assholes, they won’t be missed.
 
Because Rosenbaum was already agitated, already aggressive, and Rittenhouse made a good target for him, I suppose.
No, people were chasing Rittenhouse AFTER they saw him shoot someone.
How is that a response to the comment about Rosenbaum you were replying to? Yes, Ritt shot him, but only after being attacked.

You do not know what the members of the mob who chased Ritt saw or did not see. And I do not think Huber and Grosskreutz in particular observed this self-defense shooting at all.
You post like you don't remember the videos of Rittenhouse before and after he shot Rosenbaum.

What "mob" chased him?

I don't know it it qualifies as a "mob" but the reporter states that "others in the crowd" chased Rittenhouse including Anthony Huber, who struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard which is clearly seen in the video. Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself from this lunatic.
Rittenhouse was not "entitled" to shoot anyone. He's not a Prince in an absolute monarchy.

He had a “mob” chasing him, that is evident from your own link. He’s entitled to defend himself as necessary.

The word "mob" implies a group of people moving together with a common purpose. The video shows 2 people running after Rittenhouse as he fled the scene of the homicide he had just committed and Huber coming in from another direction. Huber then is seen hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard after he fired 2 shots at the guy in light colored pants.

That's not a mob.

The term “mob” is a quibble but the news report in the link YOU provided states a “crowd” was chasing Rittenhouse.

It is now obvious you don't remember the details and haven't bothered to refresh your memory.

If you think you can substantiate the claim you got secondhand from Derec, then do it. Show us this "mob" and provide an estimate of the number of people involved.
It was a short clip, probably edited for brevity

It was a short clip of him fleeing the scene because Rittenhouse didn't run far before he fell , as he testified on the stand (linked previously in this thread).
but whether it is two or more doesn’t matter.
Then why call it a "mob" when it wasn't?

These two clowns had violence on their mind. One of them actually had a gun and they “fucked around and found out” as the kids say. A couple of fucking assholes that won’t be missed.
The two guys pursuing him in the video?

Sure, it's very likely they had the violence that Rittenhouse had just done on their minds when they chased him, and they most certainly had Rittenhouse's shooting a couple rounds in their direction on their minds, too, but you're implying they were planning to do more than tackle Rittenhouse and get the gun away from him. How do you know that?

The guy nearby who had a gun (Grosskreutz) wasn't chasing Rittenhouse and didn't get close to him.

The weird thing about your post is that Rittenhouse “fucked around and found out” but you don't seem to realize it. He brought the whole shitshow on himself through his own teenaged cluelessness and immaturity but all your outrage is focused on the people who tried to prevent more killing.



The use of the word "mob" to describe two guys is utterly dishonest. Even if you include Huber, that's only 3 people and Huber had immediate knowledge of Rittenhouse attempting to shoot someone. Frankly, it looks like propaganda you either bought or you're peddling, maybe both.

Yeah right, a couple of concerned citizens trying to do their civic duty. What utter nonsense.

If you have an alternate hypothesis on why they intervened in an active shooter situation, then spell it out.
Our society recognizes a Right of self defense. Rittenhouse was found Not Guilty of murder despite his own contributions to the conflict that resulted in two deaths. That doesn't mean the people trying to prevent him from fleeing the scene of a homicide or to disarm him were wrong to do so, or that any of them were lunatics.

Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry “mob” couple of witnesses and was assaulted when one of the “mob” witnesses caught up with him. His life was undoubtedly in danger of being detained, he did the right panicky teenager with an AR-15 thing within the law.

FYP

Fuck off with that shit.
These assholes learned a valuable lesson that day, fuck them.
What assholes?

The ones who tried to stop an active shooter? The ones who put themselves in danger to protect others?

Protect others? Behave yourself. These assholes we’re out destroying property.

Ah, now it becomes clear.

In your view, property is more important than lives, so someone protecting property is a hero and someone protecting lives is an asshole, amirite?
Are you calling them assholes because you don't like what you presume you know about their politics,

I’m calling a spade a spade. They are assholes.
or are you just generally in favor of vigilantism and teenagers with AR-15s shooting people and don't like people who try to stop that Rambo LARPer shit?

I’m in favor of citizens defending themselves from violent assholes. Fuck these assholes, they won’t be missed.
What makes Huber, the guy in light colored pants, and the third guy assholes? Is it what you presume to know about their political beliefs? Or is it because they tried to stop the teenage shooter you have chosen to support for unexplained reasons?
 
Last edited:
It is now obvious you don't remember the details and haven't bothered to refresh your memory.

If you think you can substantiate the claim you got secondhand from Derec, then do it. Show us this "mob" and provide an estimate of the number of people involved.

I have consistently put “mob” in quotes and said I don’t know if “mob” is an appropriate description. But YOUR link states Rittenhouse was being chased by a “crowd”. But in any event, Rittenhouse was being pursued by AT LEAST two people. I’m not fixated on the word “mob”.


Sure, it's very likely they had the violence that Rittenhouse had just done on their minds when they chased him, and they most certainly had Rittenhouse's shooting a couple rounds in their direction on their minds, too, but you're implying they were planning to do more than tackle Rittenhouse and get the gun away from him. How do you know that?

ffs, the first thing one of the assholes did was clobber Rittenhouse with a skateboard and the other one had a gun.

The guy nearby who had a gun (Grosskreutz) wasn't chasing Rittenhouse and didn't get close to him.
Didn’t he got shot in the arm?

The weird thing about your post is that Rittenhouse “fucked around and found out” but you don't seem to realize it. He brought the whole shitshow on himself through his own teenaged cluelessness and immaturity but all your outrage is focused on the people who tried to prevent more killing.

lol, I’m far from outraged. I’m satisfied with the outcome.


Ah, now it becomes clear. In your view, property is more important than lives, so someone protecting property is a hero and someone protecting lives is an asshole, amirite?

Rittenhouse was actually defending his life.


What makes Huber, the guy in light colored pants, and the third guy assholes? Is it what you presume to know about their political beliefs? Or is it because they tried to stop the teenage shooter you have chosen to unswervingly support for unexplained reasons?

They are assholes because they were out destroying other people’s property. It’s not like they were out peacefully walking the dog and Rittenhouse wasted them. Anyway, it turns out they were assholes generally. Funny how this sort of thing attracts assholes.
 
It is now obvious you don't remember the details and haven't bothered to refresh your memory.

If you think you can substantiate the claim you got secondhand from Derec, then do it. Show us this "mob" and provide an estimate of the number of people involved.

I have consistently put “mob” in quotes and said I don’t know if “mob” is an appropriate description. But YOUR link states Rittenhouse was being chased by a “crowd”. But in any event, Rittenhouse was being pursued by AT LEAST two people. I’m not fixated on the word “mob”.

Then it's best to stop using the word "mob" and talk about the man in light colored pants, the man in dark pants, and Huber. They are the only ones seen in the video doing anything that could be described as chasing Rittenhouse after he shot Rosenbaum.
Sure, it's very likely they had the violence that Rittenhouse had just done on their minds when they chased him, and they most certainly had Rittenhouse's shooting a couple rounds in their direction on their minds, too, but you're implying they were planning to do more than tackle Rittenhouse and get the gun away from him. How do you know that?

ffs, the first thing one of the assholes did was clobber Rittenhouse with a skateboard and the other one had a gun.

If those are the two men you are talking about then only one of them, Huber, could be said to have chased Rittenhouse, and even then it was more like he intercepted him.

He did clobber Rittenhouse with his skateboard after Rittenhouse had fatally shot Rosenbaum and fired off two rounds at the guy in light colored pants.

Huber attempted to stop an active shooter. This is the part you keep ignoring. Rittenhouse wasn't just walking down the street talking to a friend on the phone like Trayvon Martin was. He wasn't even playing Rambo in the park like Tamir Rice. He killed a guy who assaulted him and then ran. He was a scared teenager using his AR-15 to shoot his way out of a situation he didn't know how to escape or otherwise deal with. He shot two more people and shot at a third because he was panicking. That's what made him dangerous. That's what put other lives at risk. That's why people tried to stop him.

I don't know why you feel the need to trash Huber and Grosskreutz or the other two men who tried to intervene but it's ridiculous. It appears to be black-or-white, either-or extremist thinking that doesn't allow for logic or fair mindedness.
The guy nearby who had a gun (Grosskreutz) wasn't chasing Rittenhouse and didn't get close to him.
Didn’t he got shot in the arm?

Yes. But he didn't get close. Rittenhouse in his running came somewhat close to where Grosskreutz was but not as close as the other 3 men got to Rittenhouse.
The weird thing about your post is that Rittenhouse “fucked around and found out” but you don't seem to realize it. He brought the whole shitshow on himself through his own teenaged cluelessness and immaturity but all your outrage is focused on the people who tried to prevent more killing.

lol, I’m far from outraged. I’m satisfied with the outcome.

You are satisfied that Rittenhouse "fucked around and found out", that he brought the whole shitshow on himself through his own teenaged cluelessness and immaturity, that he was waaaaaay out of his depth at that protest? You are satisfied that two people are dead and another was gravely wounded?

I'm not asking because I'm surprised or can't believe you would say that. I'm asking for the purpose of clarity. You are satisfied that a 17 year old with an AR-15 killed people at a street protest.

Ah, now it becomes clear. In your view, property is more important than lives, so someone protecting property is a hero and someone protecting lives is an asshole, amirite?

Rittenhouse was actually defending his life.

Plausibly from Rosenbaum but not certainly.

The guy in light colored pants didn't threaten Rittenhouse's life. Huber threatened his safety but that appears to have been an attempt to disarm him. We can both review the video to get a good look at whatever threat Grosskreutz presented, if any.

And we can also keep in mind that if Rittenhouse wasn't panicking he could have stripped the magazine from his AR-15 and emptied the chamber, or at least shouldered his weapon and then called 911. That's a lot to expect from a teenager, much less a frightened one, but it is something he could have done in the immediate aftermath of killing Rosenbaum

What makes Huber, the guy in light colored pants, and the third guy assholes? Is it what you presume to know about their political beliefs? Or is it because they tried to stop the teenage shooter you have chosen to unswervingly support for unexplained reasons?

They are assholes because they were out destroying other people’s property. It’s not like they were out peacefully walking the dog and Rittenhouse wasted them. Anyway, it turns out they were assholes generally. Funny how this sort of thing attracts assholes.
Please present your evidence Huber, Grosskreutz, or the guy in light colored pants destroyed other people's property.

It's clear you are satisfied Rittenhouse shot them, or shot at them, because you don't like what you presume to know about their politics, not for anything they actually did.

And it's clear you are comfortable with a teenager with no weapons training or experience in handling confrontations carrying an AR-15 into a protest that was likely to become a riot. Personally, I think that's stupid. It's a recipe for disaster even without the protest/riot. There's a good reason why we don't allow teenagers to go around armed with long guns, or handguns for that matter, without adult supervision. But apparently you like the ends (bloodshed and death) so you don't care about the means ( 1 traumatized teenager, 2 corpses, a badly wounded individual and some grieving families).
 
Last edited:
It is now obvious you don't remember the details and haven't bothered to refresh your memory.

If you think you can substantiate the claim you got secondhand from Derec, then do it. Show us this "mob" and provide an estimate of the number of people involved.

I have consistently put “mob” in quotes and said I don’t know if “mob” is an appropriate description. But YOUR link states Rittenhouse was being chased by a “crowd”. But in any event, Rittenhouse was being pursued by AT LEAST two people. I’m not fixated on the word “mob”.

Then it's best to stop using the word "mob" and talk about the man in light colored pants, the man in dark pants, and Huber. They are the only ones seen in the video doing anything that could be described as chasing Rittenhouse after he shot Rosenbaum.

As I already said, I’m not fixated on “mob”. And chasing Rittenhouse they were. And the wider context is that there was a mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever, destroying property.

He did clobber Rittenhouse with his skateboard

Yeah, fucked around and found out, lol.

Huber attempted to stop an active shooter.

Sure, Jan.

This is the part you keep ignoring. Rittenhouse wasn't just walking down the street

And the dead assholes weren’t just out walking the dog and Rittenhouse wasted them for no reason.

And it's clear you are comfortable with a teenager with no weapons training or experience in handling confrontations carrying an AR-15 into a protest that was likely to become a riot. Personally, I think that's stupid. It's a recipe for disaster even without the protest/riot. There's a good reason we don't allow teenagers to go around armed with long guns, or handguns for that matter, without adult supervision. But you like the ends so you don't care about the means.

Well when people play stupid games they get stupid prizes. The moral of the story is, don’t play stupid games.
 
It is now obvious you don't remember the details and haven't bothered to refresh your memory.

If you think you can substantiate the claim you got secondhand from Derec, then do it. Show us this "mob" and provide an estimate of the number of people involved.

I have consistently put “mob” in quotes and said I don’t know if “mob” is an appropriate description. But YOUR link states Rittenhouse was being chased by a “crowd”. But in any event, Rittenhouse was being pursued by AT LEAST two people. I’m not fixated on the word “mob”.

Then it's best to stop using the word "mob" and talk about the man in light colored pants, the man in dark pants, and Huber. They are the only ones seen in the video doing anything that could be described as chasing Rittenhouse after he shot Rosenbaum.

As I already said, I’m not fixated on “mob”. And chasing Rittenhouse they were. And the wider context is that there was a mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever, destroying property.

You're not fixated on "mob" but you keep using it.

Please link to the evidence that shows this "mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever" destroying property shortly before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. What exactly was destroyed? As far as I know, all that was destroyed was the trash in a dumpster someone had set on fire.
He did clobber Rittenhouse with his skateboard

Yeah, fucked around and found out, lol.

Huber attempted to stop an active shooter.

Sure, Jan.

You know your scoffing isn't really a counterargument, right? Here, I'll help you.

Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.

Huber tried to stop Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.
This is the part you keep ignoring. Rittenhouse wasn't just walking down the street

And the dead assholes weren’t just out walking the dog and Rittenhouse wasted them for no reason.

I have been very clear about why IMO the man in light colored pants, and man wearing dark pants, and Huber ran towards Rittenhouse.

And it's clear you are comfortable with a teenager with no weapons training or experience in handling confrontations carrying an AR-15 into a protest that was likely to become a riot. Personally, I think that's stupid. It's a recipe for disaster even without the protest/riot. There's a good reason we don't allow teenagers to go around armed with long guns, or handguns for that matter, without adult supervision. But you like the ends so you don't care about the means.

Well when people play stupid games they get stupid prizes. The moral of the story is, don’t play stupid games.
Tell that to Rittenhouse and the next stupid teenager who thinks having an AR-15 in his hands means he knows how to safely carry or use it, or magically deputizes him to uphold the law in his or someone else's community.
 
Last edited:
You're not fixated on "mob" but you keep using it.

Behave yourself.

Please link to the evidence that shows this "mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever" destroying property shortly before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. What exactly was destroyed? As far as I know, all that was destroyed was the trash in a dumpster someone had set on fire.

Ah yes, a “mostly peaceful” protest. :rolleyes:

You know your scoffing isn't really a counterargument, right? Here, I'll help you.

Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.

Huber tried to stop Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.

Huber fucked around and found out. And the counter argument is Rittenhouse was tried and found not guilty.

I have been very clear about why IMO the man in light colored pants, and man wearing dark pants, and Huber ran towards Rittenhouse.

Your opinion is wrong. Refer to trial.

Jeezus, this happened years ago and you are still obsessing over it? Get a life bro.

Ta, ta :wave2:
 
You're not fixated on "mob" but you keep using it.

Behave yourself.

Please link to the evidence that shows this "mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever" destroying property shortly before Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. What exactly was destroyed? As far as I know, all that was destroyed was the trash in a dumpster someone had set on fire.

Ah yes, a “mostly peaceful” protest. :rolleyes:
Do you have evidence that destruction of property was happening that night before the shooting, or not?

Because if you don't then your arguments about a "mob/crowd/collection of people or whatever" destroying property is empty rhetoric and a bullshit excuse to call everyone Rittenhouse shot, or attempted to shoot, an asshole.
You know your scoffing isn't really a counterargument, right? Here, I'll help you.

Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.

Huber tried to stop Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was an active shooter. If you disagree, present your counterargument.

Huber fucked around and found out. And the counter argument is Rittenhouse was tried and found not guilty.

The charges against Rittenhouse can be found here. The definition of an active shooter can be found here.

From the second link:
The FBI defines an "active shooter" as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.

If you follow the links and read the information they contain you will notice it is possible for someone to be an active shooter but not actually a murderer under Wisconsin State law. However, that is a distinction that can only be made after an investigation and judicial review. In the moment that it is happening, the person with the weapon who is shooting people in a populated area is an active shooter regardless of whether they are later found to be Not Guilty of murder, attempted murder, reckless endangerment, etc.

I have been very clear about why IMO the man in light colored pants, and man wearing dark pants, and Huber ran towards Rittenhouse.

Your opinion is wrong. Refer to trial.

I already did. And I posted links to testimony presented there. Did you even bother to read any of it?
Jeezus, this happened years ago and you are still obsessing over it? Get a life bro.

Ta, ta :wave2:
I do get a little bit obsessive about keeping the facts straight and calling out bullshit. I take it that you don't care if your opinion is based on unreliable narratives and propaganda.

Whatever.

You do you. :wave2:
 
Last edited:
A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

:wave2:
 
A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

:wave2:
Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?
 
A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

:wave2:
Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?

You’re still crying about something that has been settled for years. 😂

Dry your eyes and move on.
 
Rittenhouse was entitled to defend himself from this lunatic.
Once again, if those commies had only had the common sense to feel threatened by a punk brandishing an AR, they would have simply blown his stupid head off and saved at least one life.
I’m in favor of citizens defending themselves from violent assholes.
Amen, brutha!! Thank you for agreeing that they should have had the common sense to shoot that little fucker the second they felt threatened!
I hope you live long enough to see the day when justice is meted out on the spot like that!*

* it’s bound to expose your hypocrisy
 
Rittenhouse was actually defending his life.
Which was in genuine danger because
HE MADE THEM FEEL THREATENED.

If they weren’t all leftist pussies they would have/should have blown his fucking head off.
 
That may be, and if so that would reflect poorly on him indeed. But there is a world of difference between saying someone is indifferent to someone else being killed and suggesting that 'all people in category X DESERVE to die violet deaths' !
Well, I would suggest there's also a world of difference between not caring if a child dies and not caring if an adult dies, that's my opinion though.
Here, let me break your brain.

I don't care if some random child half a continent away dies. And neither do you. At best, you have some philosophical notion of such a death possibly being an injustice - and you care about justice. But you don't know the kid, you have no personal connection to them. You don't actually really care. You're not grieving for that child's death - at best you're using that child's death as a hammer so you can pound on whatever point you're trying to win. But you don't feel any real emotion for the death of that child.

Seriously, it's vital to mental well being and personal honesty to understand that you can care about a cause or about justice without actually caring about the individual people involved. If you can't maintain that separation, it'll drive you mad.
I understand that you are writing about your own personal way of coping with knowledge of deaths you cannot prevent of children you do not know.

But your personal way of coping is not universally held nor is it the only way to cope. The fact that you cannot imagine others feeling differently is, imo, a personal failing. Not a criticism of your way of handling tings but a criticism of th e failure of your imagination and your inability to see through any lens other than your personal lens.
If you are personally heartbroken every time a child anywhere on the planet dies, then you're never going to have time to get anything done in your life. I know it sounds very empathetic and caring to *say* that you care about a complete stranger's death... but it's performative. You can look down your nose at me as much as you want, and win yourself some internet points or whatever the fuck you think you're doing... but at the end of the day you are not actually grieving that Arius Thompson died three days ago. You don't even know who that is, and you sure as hell didn't care about Arius. You still don't care about Arius.

At best, there's a shared human understanding that the death of a child is abstractly sad. That does not in any way imply that you personally feel sad that a child you aren't even aware of has died.
Here’s what I really don’t care about: your assessment of me or of my critique of your posts.

If any child, anyw hurt ere dyes, under any circumstances, nothing that anybody can do. No matter how much they want to or how much expertise, money or power they have, nothing will bring the life of that child back. Nothing.

But every day, people everywhere are doing their best to improve the circumstances and situation of children ( and other people) who die in childhood. You can choose to find a way to help those efforts—or you can throw up your hands and say nit CECOT no here that I can do. You can even decide that these deaths, because they are not the deaths of children you know and care about, mean nothing…,to you. But you cannot decide what they mean to other people, however arrogantly you try to impute your motivations and attitudes onto other people.
 
Which was in genuine danger because
HE MADE THEM FEEL THREATENED.
Again, Ritt was the one who was attacked. First by Rosenbaum, then by Huber and Grosskreutz.

If you want to argue that he was per se threatening because he had a rifle on him, do you extend that to all the leftists who march, protest or occupy so-called "autonomous zones" in places like Atlanta, Seattle, Austin etc.?
If they weren’t all leftist pussies they would have/should have blown his fucking head off.
So, people would be justified to "blow [the] fucking heads off" all the armed leftist protesters, right?
Like those for example:
SUfOjQxl15mMvSjmE3wHmrMwtsbt57ScKMqxcmeLHvQ.jpg
 
Which was in genuine danger because
HE MADE THEM FEEL THREATENED.
Again, Ritt was the one who was attacked. First by Rosenbaum, then by Huber and Grosskreutz.

If you want to argue that he was per se threatening because he had a rifle on him, do you extend that to all the leftists who march, protest or occupy so-called "autonomous zones" in places like Atlanta, Seattle, Austin etc.?
Are you just now catching on to the whole open carry is a bad thing idea? I remember seeing what appeared to an assault like rifle in a car waiting to go into the parade of cars leaving the Jayland Walker service. Wasn't happy to see that.

Why do folks mock people for not liking open carry, and then point to this situation as an example as to why open carry is stupid, particularly in an urban (or suburban) setting.
If they weren’t all leftist pussies they would have/should have blown his fucking head off.
So, people would be justified to "blow [the] fucking heads off" all the armed leftist protesters, right?
Are there that many?
 
Jeezus, this happened years ago and you are still obsessing over it? Get a life bro.
Who brought up the twerp in this thread?
If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.
I mean in the sense that Joseph Rosenbaum would probably not have attacked him, yes, but the fault still lies with Rosenbaum.
Yes, no doubt. Failure of a lib person to bear arms and use them when feeling threatened by an adolescent punk with a AR other person, is currently held to indemnify the punk threat, should that person go through with killing the threatened party who should have defended Themself.
Rosenburg should have shot him for sure.
Saved Huber's life and his own. A Twofer.
It's fucked up, fer sure.
Again, Ritt was the one who was attacked
Again, It's fucked up, but it's simple.
Ritt was the one who was attacked first, by a person who felt threatened by him. Never bring a knife to a gunfight, y'know. Rittenhouse won an armed encounter with superior weaponry.
I'm not sure what happened later with Grosskreutz, but neutralizing the threat initially, would have saved him some trauma too.
Of course Ol' Rosenburg would probably still have ended up in jail, given the political climate. A jury would surely side with the poor little boy murdered "unprovoked" by a random commie lib.

Anyhow, let's please get back to the CK comedy murder drama. It's a fascinating glimpse at the seamy underside of the current Republican Party.
 
Last edited:
A jury weighed two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment, and found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges.

0/5.

:wave2:
Yes.

I know.

I also know that one of the jurors said in an interview that the jury was very conscientious, reviewed each video several times, and went over the judge's instructions very carefully.

What is your point?

You’re still crying about something that has been settled for years. 😂

Dry your eyes and move on.
You're projecting.

I'm not crying about the results of the trial. I am attempting to correct your misconceptions about it and about the events in Kenosha by providing facts and accounts from reliable sources. I am pointing out the obvious bits of propaganda and the lack of supporting evidence for some of the claims being made.

I think getting the facts straight is important, especially when one is drawing conclusions from what one remembers about an event. Other people prefer to focus on one set of facts (using a truncated timeline, for example) and ignore the rest. And some folks really like using fallacies and propaganda to avoid challenging their preconceptions and prejudices. We see all three types in discussions around here.
 
Back
Top Bottom