Murderer's Mother Receives Standing Ovation from GOP

[Angry Floof]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

Why do right wing authoritarian followers find it so hard to understand the difference between attack and defense? Considering what that deluded kid did to be "fighting back" is nothing short of psychopathy.

If a kid is bullied the entire school year and then one day fights back, right wing morons consider, at best, that "both sides are the same" because they both committed violence, but most likely will consider the defense to be "attack" after having turned a blind eye to the bully all year.

What is the source or reason for this spectacular perceptive or cognitive deficiency? This is the reason so many people of humane values and principles and education and intelligence consider right wing ideology to be truly harmful to the brains of those who engage in it.

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

Are you talking about the shot into the air? This kid came to this place specifically to shoot people. Fuck your QAnon white supremacist imaginings that it was anything but.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

Why do right wing authoritarian followers find it so hard to understand the difference between attack and defense? Considering what that deluded kid did to be "fighting back" is nothing short of psychopathy.

If a kid is bullied the entire school year and then one day fights back, right wing morons consider, at best, that "both sides are the same" because they both committed violence, but most likely will consider the defense to be "attack" after having turned a blind eye to the bully all year.

What is the source or reason for this spectacular perceptive or cognitive deficiency? This is the reason so many people of humane values and principles and education and intelligence consider right wing ideology to be truly harmful to the brains of those who engage in it.

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

The videos start after the confrontation was underway.

Something caused Rittenhouse to run. Something caused Rosenbaum to chase after him. Something caused the third guy to fire a round that was not aimed at either of the other two. We don't yet know what that something was because we have not seen the statements of people who were in the vicinity when the confrontation began.

There are some allegations that Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at at least one protester, perhaps Rosenbaum. And there's also the matter of it being against Wisconsin law for a 17 year old to have a firearm, and that he carried it across state lines and perhaps violated a law or two right there. If Rittenhouse was in the act of committing a felony and someone died as a direct result, he can be charged with felony murder.

It is interesting to see how differently people are reacting to this 17 year old compared to another one in the news a few years back. Rittenhouse was armed while the other one wasn't. Rittenhouse was seeking to place himself at the center of a conflict while the other one wasn't. They both ran but only in Rittenhouse's case is this considered strong evidence of a desire to avoid a fight. They both were caught fighting at school, but Rittenhouse is excused for punching people out of anger while the other one, whose fight was a pre-arranged boxing match with timed rounds and a referee, is called a thug. Rittenhouse claims he was acting in self defense when he fought and killed the unarmed man pursuing him and this is accepted as legitimate, while the other one's defenders saying he was acting in self defense when he fought the armed man pursuing him are told that claim is invalid for <reasons> . One's mom is vilified and mocked when she speaks out against violence, while Rittenhouse's mom gets a standing ovation despite her being an accessory to a homicide.

I'm not surprised at the double standards but I wish I could be.

 

[Toni]

I thought the argument was that the white guy is the one using self defense.

A teenager crosses state lines illegally carrying a firearm and goes into a mob of people. Why? He thought he'd be a hero by killing some. And Axulus and his buddies are ready to crown him a hero. What he did was not different than any school shooter, except that his targets were explicitly black, he crossed state lines and HIS MOMMY HELPED HIM. Definitely the stuff of heroes.

Bullshit, Toni. Indeed, none of the people he shot were black, they were all white. And he didn't "target" anyone, he was attacked. In fact, he was even attacked with a gun, twice. Again. All of these facts are part of the public record. You repeating pure falsehoods driven by an ideological narrative.

Nobody has claimed he was a good shot.

 

[J842P]

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

The videos start after the confrontation was underway.

Something caused Rittenhouse to run. Something caused Rosenbaum to chase after him. Something caused the third guy to fire a round that was not aimed at either of the other two. We don't yet know what that something was because we have not seen the statements of people who were in the vicinity when the confrontation began.

Yes, we've been over this. If you are interested, a new video has recently been released that purports to show that
1) Rittenhouse was running to put out a fire.
2) Rosenbaum was starting fires.
3) Rosenbaum was acting aggressively to another person, who was wearing similar clothes to Rittenhouse, so it may have been a case of mistaken identity.

To me, it seems, Rittenhouse was running to put out the fire, and Rosenbaum was angry because he was trying to start fires. But there isn't a complete picture as of yet, but I stand by the claim that as of the video evidence available right now, it is very reasonable to conclude that Rittenhouse was likely acting in self-defense.

There are some allegations that Rittenhouse pointed his weapon at at least one protester, perhaps Rosenbaum. And there's also the matter of it being against Wisconsin law for a 17 year old to have a firearm, and that he carried it across state lines and perhaps violated a law or two right there. If Rittenhouse was in the act of committing a felony and someone died as a direct result, he can be charged with felony murder. And his Mom can be charged as an accomplice.

Rittenhouse was not in the act of committing a felony. Open-carrying a rifle in Wisconsin under-aged is not a felony, but a misdemeanor.

It is interesting to see how differently people are reacting to this 17 year old compared to another one in the news a few years back. Rittenhouse was armed while the other one wasn't. Rittenhouse was seeking to place himself at the center of a conflict while the other one wasn't. They both ran but only in Rittenhouse's case is this considered strong evidence of a desire to avoid a fight. They both were caught fighting at school, but Rittenhouse is excused for punching people out of anger while the other one, whose fight was a pre-arranged boxing match with timed rounds and a referee, is called a thug.

I'm not surprised at the double standards but I wish I could be.

Who are you talking about? Are you talking about Trayvon Martin? Why don't you go back to those threads and read my arguments instead of whatever you are imagining I said.

 

[J842P]

I thought the argument was that the white guy is the one using self defense.

A teenager crosses state lines illegally carrying a firearm and goes into a mob of people. Why? He thought he'd be a hero by killing some. And Axulus and his buddies are ready to crown him a hero. What he did was not different than any school shooter, except that his targets were explicitly black, he crossed state lines and HIS MOMMY HELPED HIM. Definitely the stuff of heroes.

Bullshit, Toni. Indeed, none of the people he shot were black, they were all white. And he didn't "target" anyone, he was attacked. In fact, he was even attacked with a gun, twice. Again. All of these facts are part of the public record. You repeating pure falsehoods driven by an ideological narrative.

Nobody has claimed he was a good shot.

Ah, so you just like slandering random people. You are just lying now. Whole-cloth. You don't care about the truth.

 

[J842P]

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

Are you talking about the shot into the air? This kid came to this place specifically to shoot people. Fuck your QAnon white supremacist imaginings that it was anything but.

I am talking about the shot in the air and the person shot in the arm, who was about to shoot Rittenhouse, by his own admission.

Fuck your hysterical accusations of white supremacy. They are the deranged imaginings. I'm neither white, nor least of all, a white supremacist. I think telling the truth is important. I see you couldn't care less, and would rather spout accusations to fit some narrative due to some pet psychological theory about "authoritarian followers" that you use a cudgel and a shield to be a shitty person, ironically, behaving in ways that are exactly like those you purport to denounce.

 

[Angry Floof]

Are you insane? Of course he was defending himself. Have you seen the videos? Is everyone just ignoring the videos that exist for all to see? Rittenhouse was actually shot at before he even shot the first guy, by another guy with the first guy who were both chasing him. He turned around and the first guy was trying to tackle him. It is clearly self-defense.

Are you talking about the shot into the air? This kid came to this place specifically to shoot people. Fuck your QAnon white supremacist imaginings that it was anything but.

I am talking about the shot in the air and the person shot in the arm, who was about to shoot Rittenhouse, by his own admission.

Fuck your hysterical accusations of white supremacy. They are the deranged imaginings. I'm neither white, nor least of all, a white supremacist. I think telling the truth is important. I see you couldn't care less, and would rather spout accusations to fit some narrative due to some pet psychological theory about "authoritarian followers" that you use a cudgel and a shield to be a shitty person, ironically, behaving in ways that are exactly like those you purport to denounce.

Yeah, that's the ticket. TOTALLY believe you. Keep sticking up for violent, white supremacist QAnon morons and justifying the murder and abuse of unarmed innocents.

By the way, slightly off topic, but in the police brutality thread there's a story of a cop who shot himself and pretended he was "ambushed" and someone else shot him. I'm sure there's a way you can try to make that seem not true, even though the police themselves reported the fact that he lied.

 

[laughing dog]

"Huge shoutout sent from all of us in WI to warrior @LLinWood. I was able to talk to Kyle by phone & THANK HIM for his courage! #fightback."

Now cold blooded murderers are the heroes of the "Party" (Junta) of the President, the Senate. the DOJ and coming soon, the SCOTUS.
Sickening.

He isn't a cold blooded murderer. Indeed, he isn't a murderer at all. The videos are there for all to see, and we've been over this, the kid only shot in self-defense.

The kid went to fight armed. For all you know, his victims were afraid of him and acting in self-defense.

 

[J842P]

I am talking about the shot in the air and the person shot in the arm, who was about to shoot Rittenhouse, by his own admission.

Fuck your hysterical accusations of white supremacy. They are the deranged imaginings. I'm neither white, nor least of all, a white supremacist. I think telling the truth is important. I see you couldn't care less, and would rather spout accusations to fit some narrative due to some pet psychological theory about "authoritarian followers" that you use a cudgel and a shield to be a shitty person, ironically, behaving in ways that are exactly like those you purport to denounce.

Yeah, that's the ticket. TOTALLY believe you. Keep sticking up for violent, white supremacist QAnon morons and justifying the murder and abuse of unarmed innocents.

I'm not sticking up for QAnon, they are dangerous morons. I've been on this board for decades, and started posting when I was like 16 or 17. You think I've just been lying about being Guatemalan this entire time to act as a cover because I know that some day 15 years from when I started posting, mostly about religion, I could pretend not to be white to defend QAnon? That is entirely deranged. Again, you displaying the exact behaviors that QAnon crazies would display - classic projection.

Note also, Rittenhouse didn't shoot unarmed innocents. Every single person he shot was attacking him, one of them was even armed with handgun, and was about to shoot him. The first person he shot, Rosenbaum, was trying to tackle him, and the person who was chasing Rittenhouse with Rosenbaum, Alexander Blaine, discharged his handgun, which is when Rittenhouse turned around, realized he was being chased, and Rosenbaum tried to tackle him multiple times. These are all verifiable facts, caught on video. You are the one denying them, against all evidence. Exactly like a QAnon conspiracy theorist.

By the way, slightly off topic, but in the police brutality thread there's a story of a cop who shot himself and pretended he was "ambushed" and someone else shot him. I'm sure there's a way you can try to make that seem not true, even though the police themselves reported the fact that he lied.

What? Why would I make that seem not true? I'm on record multiple times on this board for my dislike of police generally. I think they are bastards. Not a case of a few bad apples, but mostly outright bastards. A gang with the authority of the state.

 

[J842P]

"Huge shoutout sent from all of us in WI to warrior @LLinWood. I was able to talk to Kyle by phone & THANK HIM for his courage! #fightback."

Now cold blooded murderers are the heroes of the "Party" (Junta) of the President, the Senate. the DOJ and coming soon, the SCOTUS.
Sickening.

He isn't a cold blooded murderer. Indeed, he isn't a murderer at all. The videos are there for all to see, and we've been over this, the kid only shot in self-defense.

The kid went to fight armed. For all you know, his victims were afraid of him and acting in self-defense.

Are you purposefully dense? Like is this another one of those times where you are going to feign obtuseness to drag out some irrelevant point that doesn't change anything?

Even if I grant for the sake of argument that the people he shot were afraid, that doesn't change that Rittenhouse himself wasn't acting in self defense. Those two things can be true at the same time.

Of course, I don't think you can make that case for Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was literally running away from him, and Rosenbaum and another, armed guy, Blaine, chased him down. Now it seems likely, given the videos that exist, it was because they didn't want Rittenhouse to keep putting out fires, or perhaps, because they mistook him for some other guy whom Rosenbaum had had a confrontation with earlier. That is not a case of self-defense under any jurisdiction that I know of in the United States.

A case can be made for the skateboarder who died, I forget his name, and the guy who got shot in the arm. But even then, they actually chased him and attacked him, so you can't really claim self-defense. But maybe a case could be made. Regardless, it is irrelevant.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you purposefully dense? Like is this another one of those times where you are going to feign obtuseness to drag out some irrelevant point that doesn't change anything?

Why would I use your flailing MO?

Even if I grant for the sake of argument that the people he shot were afraid, that doesn't change that Rittenhouse himself wasn't acting in self defense. Those two things can be true at the same time.

True.

Of course, I don't think you can make that case for Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was literally running away from him, and Rosenbaum and another, armed guy, Blaine, chased him down. Now it seems likely, given the videos that exist, it was because they didn't want Rittenhouse to keep putting out fires, or perhaps, because they mistook him for some other guy whom Rosenbaum had had a confrontation with earlier. That is not a case of self-defense under any jurisdiction that I know of in the United States.

Unless there is a video from the time Rittenhouse left his mommy's car to the time he surrendered to the police, no video can be conclusive. For all you know, the two felt threatened by Rittenhouse, deemed him a threat and decided to act in self-defense.

A case can be made for the skateboarder who died, I forget his name, and the guy who got shot in the arm. But even then, they actually chased him and attacked him, so you can't really claim self-defense.

See above - maybe they were acting in self-defense. More importantly, now can an out of towner who willingly goes to a protest/riot with firearm unasked credibly argue they were afraid. of unarmed people (the skateboarder and the victim shot in the arm)?

Please note I am not calling Rittenhouse a murderer. I His poor choices and actions played a significant role in these shootings. MO, he is not an innocent.

However, I think his mother is a real criminal. Really, driving your armed child to a riot?

 

[Trausti]

However, I think his mother is a real criminal. Really, driving your armed child to a riot?

That's a fair criticism. If my son grab a gun and asked me to drive him to a riot, the answer would be no, no, no. Bad parenting, yes. But that doesn't make him a murder.

 

[Angry Floof]

However, I think his mother is a real criminal. Really, driving your armed child to a riot?

That's a fair criticism. If my son grab a gun and asked me to drive him to a riot, the answer would be no, no, no. Bad parenting, yes. But that doesn't make him a murder.

It doesn't make him a murderer. It's encouragement for him to go out and make himself a murderer.

 

[Derec]

All Jewish, IIRC...

How do you know? German names aren't necessarily Jewish.

I would be very surprised if somebody with a name Grosskreutz turned out to be Jewish.

 

[Trausti]

All Jewish, IIRC...

How do you know? German names != Jewish.

I would be very surprised if somebody with a name Grosskreutz turned out to be Jewish.

It's repoman. That's his shtick.

 

[Toni]

However, I think his mother is a real criminal. Really, driving your armed child to a riot?

That's a fair criticism. If my son grab a gun and asked me to drive him to a riot, the answer would be no, no, no. Bad parenting, yes. But that doesn't make him a murder.

It doesn't make him a murderer. It's encouragement for him to go out and make himself a murderer.

Taking a gun to a riot sounds like premeditation to me.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It doesn't make him a murderer. It's encouragement for him to go out and make himself a murderer.

Taking a gun to a riot sounds like premeditation to me.

Yea, I agree with this. He was looking for trouble. I'm pro gun rights (but follow the law and common gun safety). I have a conceal carry permit. But everyone who's interested in protection and gun rights know that a person who carries in plain sight is an idiot and probably looking for trouble. We mock people like him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him.

You're assuming he was acting in self defense. We have multiple examples of the alt-right protesters engaging in actions that approach or even cross the threshold for permitting lethal force in self defense. I strongly suspect this is another such example but without video I doubt we will ever know.

And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

And how many are in the alt-right groups? Oops, they're mostly not felons because the cops are willfully blind to the felonies.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The self-defense argument works both ways. Rittenhouse is armed and he is claiming he had to kill people who were trying to take his firearm because he feared they would kill him. That boggles my mind. It is almost as bad as the killer of one's parents asking for mercy because they are an orphan.

Now, the people who were trying to take his gun away may have also feared for their lives which is why they tried to take his gun away. According to people like Trausti, those victims do not have the right to self-defense because they were felons.

It's certainly possible--someone trying to take your gun generally is considered a valid reason to shoot. The important thing is what came before--did he have clean hands or not? Given what we know about the situation I strongly suspect he did not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, he should have let the felons kill him. And why are there so many felons in these antifa/BLM mobs?

Why do right wing authoritarian followers find it so hard to understand the difference between attack and defense? Considering what that deluded kid did to be "fighting back" is nothing short of psychopathy.

If a kid is bullied the entire school year and then one day fights back, right wing morons consider, at best, that "both sides are the same" because they both committed violence, but most likely will consider the defense to be "attack" after having turned a blind eye to the bully all year.

What is the source or reason for this spectacular perceptive or cognitive deficiency? This is the reason so many people of humane values and principles and education and intelligence consider right wing ideology to be truly harmful to the brains of those who engage in it.

You do not have the right of self-defense based on past actions, only about the current situation. (However, the past can be relevant to the evaluation of the current situation.)