• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,706
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Seriously? You think that was incoherent? Do you understand how serious what the prosecution did here is?
Fuck yeah that was incoherent. The judge didn't explain what the prosecutor did wrong or the precedents involved. I have no idea what the prosecutor did as that context wasn't provided and the Judge's rant didn't help. So yeah, incoherent.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,706
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way,
That can too easily turn to making a scapegoat. Personally, I would have thought manslaughter is appropriate, but more importantly the adults who gave Rittenhouse the equipment to orchestrate this definitely need to be called to account. I guarantee the next Rittenhouse will be groomed by people who should fucking know better. I mean an argument can be made right wingers are making literal child soldiers in their culture war against CRT and Big Bird.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,409
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Seriously? You think that was incoherent? Do you understand how serious what the prosecution did here is?
Fuck yeah that was incoherent. The judge didn't explain what the prosecutor did wrong or the precedents involved. I have no idea what the prosecutor did as that context wasn't provided and the Judge's rant didn't help. So yeah, incoherent.
I understand it. The prosecutor tried to get a line of questioning in use that had already been barred by the judge. The reasoning behind wanting to get it used based on previous testimony was imho quite valid, but he should have asked first. That was the problem. If he had asked first the judge might have agreed but pissing a judge off by defying orders isn't a good way to accomplish that.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way,
That can too easily turn to making a scapegoat. Personally, I would have thought manslaughter is appropriate, but more importantly the adults who gave Rittenhouse the equipment to orchestrate this definitely need to be called to account. I guarantee the next Rittenhouse will be groomed by people who should fucking know better. I mean an argument can be made right wingers are making literal child soldiers in their culture war against CRT, covid mask sex toys, and Big Bird.

FIFY.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
I was thinking along similar lines. If Rittenhouse is not held accountable in some way,
That can too easily turn to making a scapegoat. Personally, I would have thought manslaughter is appropriate, but more importantly the adults who gave Rittenhouse the equipment to orchestrate this definitely need to be called to account. I guarantee the next Rittenhouse will be groomed by people who should fucking know better. I mean an argument can be made right wingers are making literal child soldiers in their culture war against CRT and Big Bird.
I don't really think that holding people accountable for their actions is scapegoating. I do also believe that whoever supplied the weapon to Rittenhouse should be facing charges.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,706
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
I understand it. The prosecutor tried to get a line of questioning in use that had already been barred by the judge. The reasoning behind wanting to get it used based on previous testimony was imho quite valid, but he should have asked first. That was the problem. If he had asked first the judge might have agreed but pissing a judge off by defying orders isn't a good way to accomplish that.
Ok, then in that case this guy should never had been put in the position of judge in the first place. Of all the people involved in a trial (prosecutor, defence, clerk, jury etc) the judge must be held to the strictest standards that quite frankly disqualify a significant amount of people to do the job. This guy clearly lacks the self control required to do his job adequately.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
The jury wasn't in the room, it's not a big deal. The prosecutor earned it.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic

Fact checking Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony in Kenosha murder trial


There is not really a lot of meat to this article and at first glance, the things they are covering seem pretty insignificant. However, they do speak to dishonesty and when one considers further and in the greater context, his motivations maybe are illuminated by where and when he makes up stories.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
He didn't cry. That wasn't spontaneous. He was being questioned by the Defense. And all of that questioning is practiced. High profile defense case like this, being questioned by his own attorney, it is theater.

This was nothing but a dirty ploy to make it seem that Rittenhouse is anything but a sociopath, who allegedly went to Kenosha to help as an EMT,

Agreed. I watched all his testimony, and it was all very rehearsed with his attorney (including his lie that he was only being sarcastic when he admitted on video earlier that night that he pointed his gun at someone), and lots of canned sound bites to the prosecutor (like "If Rosenbaum took my gun, he would have killed me with it and probably killed more people too"). One of the things Binger was yelled at by the judge for was for starting to ask him how this testimony is the first time he's given his story publicly since that night, which would be questioning his right to remain silent. Binger wanted to show that KR has had all this time to watch all the various videos and commentary and trial testimony since then to now tailor his answers to, which is true (not just in this case, of course), even if he can't say it out loud to the jury. KR didn't give a police interview that night that would have locked him into anything. If he had given an interview then, I'm sure his answers would be much different. And which is a good lesson why you NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE.

For example, when KR would be testifying about things he heard said in the street, it's obvious most of it was just from he what he saw on video, not things he remembers hearing himself. In fact, he had testified to Binger that he KR the hero EMT™ didn't stop to help Rosenbaum after he had shot him (when he instead called a friend, not 911, and took off) was because people were yelling "get him" and so he had to run for his safety. But Binger played video showing nobody was saying that then.

I am wondering now about whether sociopathy is why he is even testifying, that the choice to take the stand was likely his idea alone against the wishes of his attorneys.

yet ended up shooting three people and not even confessing about his self defense shootings to the cops he talked to immediately after the shooting.

Disagree on that part, he did go up to the police, and they peppered sprayed him and told him to leave.


 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I agree that Rittenhouse will not learn anything from this trial if he is found not guilty. Look how much George Zimmerman learned from his "ordeal".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The jury wasn't in the room, it's not a big deal. The prosecutor earned it.
Agreed. Still, a bit odd getting angry at the prosecution for trying to find the shooter guilty. The judge is acting more like a defense attorney than a judge.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,007
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It is assholes like Rittenhouse — or the adults who filled him with hatred and gave him access to a gun — who have helped turn the U.S.A. into a shit-hole country.

No, it is assholes like Rosenberg, Huber and Grosskreutz, as well as elsewhere assholes like Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman that are threatening to turn this country into a shithole country with their regular violent rioting whenever they feel upset about something.

If there weren't violent unrests in Kenosha over several days, Rittenhouse would have just chilled and we all would not know his name
If cops hadn’t shot up some unarmed guy whose small children were in the back of the car, there wouldn’t have been unrest in Kenosha. If there were not dozens and dozens and dozens of other instances of cops shooting unarmed people, there would not be these demonstrations and protests that turn into riots with collateral damage, both property and human.

It is hard to have peace without justice.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,007
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
Nobody said it was?

When the world seems unjust, when those charged with keeping law abs order, with keeping the peace seem unfair, unjust, anger builds and boils over.

Perceived (and actual) injustice sometimes leads to unrest which sometimes leans into destruction of property and sometimes, loss of life.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.
Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

So clearly and unambiguously self defense that when Rittenhouse immediately sees a police car, he tells then about him shooting of three people and surrenders.
Anti-rape activists often say 'there's no one way for a trauma victim to behave', meaning victims may engage in behaviours that to rational people seem incompatible with having been raped (e.g. messaging the alleged raper the next morning to see if they want to hang out that day, pursuing them romantically and sexually for weeks afterwards)

Take yourself out of this Rittenhouse case--which you've already judged--and imagine a circumstance where you have shot and killed two people in self-defence. Do you think you'd be A-OK afterwards, and act like the 'perfect self-defense victim'? Do you think everybody would?
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?

Umm...to get the dinosaurs back for murdering all those prehistoric God-fearing Christians, duh.

ark-kinds.jpg
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
For fuck sakes! I went to help... with my gun. Just like when the ambulance showed up when my Dad was suffering a seizure, the medics carried in their medical equipment and several guns.
Your dad had a seizure in the middle of some violent riots?

So clearly and unambiguously self defense that when Rittenhouse immediately sees a police car, he tells then about him shooting of three people and surrenders.
Anti-rape activists often say 'there's no one way for a trauma victim to behave', meaning victims may engage in behaviours that to rational people seem incompatible with having been raped (e.g. messaging the alleged raper the next morning to see if they want to hang out that day, pursuing them romantically and sexually for weeks afterwards)

Take yourself out of this Rittenhouse case--which you've already judged--and imagine a circumstance where you have shot and killed two people in self-defence. Do you think you'd be A-OK afterwards, and act like the 'perfect self-defense victim'? Do you think everybody would?
Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts. What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else. You made up your mind about this before the first moment of the trial. I would hope the selected jury has not.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.
They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.
What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.
If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.
You made up your mind about this before the first moment of the trial. I would hope the selected jury has not.
Now that is an interpretation!
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.
What does that have to do with what I posted?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.
They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.
You have not established as fact that he 'faked crying', nor would fake crying on the stand mean he did not shoot in self-defense.

What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.
If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.
So....let's say I believe you (I don't), but let's say I do. Is using a tactic in your own defense mean that you are guilty of a crime?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.
What does that have to do with what I posted?
Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Most likely, I'd be suffering trauma. This person didn't seem to show any signs of mental trauma. In fact, he continues to act like nothing wrong happened. He faked crying while under questioning by his own lawyer. He has no remorse at all. This is how a sociopath acts.

These are your interpretations of his actions, not facts.
They are actually are mostly facts, though the interpretive part is factual as well.
You have not established as fact that he 'faked crying', nor would fake crying on the stand mean he did not shoot in self-defense.

What you believe is 'fake crying' could be actual crying, or a panic attack, or something else.
If the prosecution was questioning him, and he got defensive... yeah, I could still think it was fake, but there would have to be an opening that could allow for legitimate tears. This kid was being questioned by his own attorney, something that was rehearsed and practiced... what you say, who you are looking at when saying it, how you are saying... it is all theater. His entire defense rests on his own safety being at risk. That he starts crying when he testifies about being cornered and about to be killed with his own gun.... So the tears, no. He wasn't crying because he was reliving the moment. He was crying to sell that he felt his life was about to end... which is why he shot the person.
So....let's say I believe you (I don't), but let's say I do. Is using a tactic in your own defense mean that you are guilty of a crime?
Of course not. Definitely goes a long way to showing he has no remorse for his actions, which is telling because killing someone isn't an easy thing to get over. It causes many people life long trauma.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Of course not. Definitely goes a long way to showing he has no remorse for his actions, which is telling because killing someone isn't an easy thing to get over. It causes many people life long trauma.
Again, you are merely inventing a 'correct trauma response' and applying it to Rittenhouse. I know people who have gone through severe trauma but did not cry even when relaying that trauma. I also believe that the clip you are referring to looks like an anxious panic attack to me, not 'fake crying'.
 

none

Banned
Banned
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
3,331
Location
outside
Basic Beliefs
atheist/ignostic
maybe he was realizing he had to either grunt the truth or portray for the sympathies of those observing him.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,284
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.
What does that have to do with what I posted?
Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?
If the crying shows remorse then that would seem to be more of an issue for sentencing rather than trial, which should stick to the facts of the case and the incident in question.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic

Fact checking Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony in Kenosha murder trial


There is not really a lot of meat to this article and at first glance, the things they are covering seem pretty insignificant. However, they do speak to dishonesty and when one considers further and in the greater context, his motivations maybe are illuminated by where and when he makes up stories.

No one responded. Sorry, I probably should have quoted some of the issues with his testimony...

Here is one fact-check:
"Testimony: Kyle Rittenhouse said he is a student at Arizona State University
In the opening minutes of his testimony, Rittenhouse told the jury he was a “college student studying nursing at Arizona State University.”
An ASU spokesman, however, said Rittenhouse “has not gone through the admissions process with Arizona State University and is not enrolled in the Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.” Instead, he started a nondegree seeking online program Oct. 13 — less than three weeks before the trial began.
"

Another:
"Kyle Rittenhouse said he was issued his bulletproof vest by the Grayslake Police Department"

Apparently, this is not true. He may have gotten it for purposes of some kind of police training, but he bought it on his own according to the police.

Another:
"Kyle Rittenhouse said he didn’t look at social media between the shootings and the time he turned himself in to Antioch police"

And you guessed it. Yes, he looked at social media.

Like I wrote, these questions are seemingly insignificant. I'd like to see them tackle the question of whether KR was aware of "friction" present between persons and his group. He claimed in testimony there was no friction.

That was a big lie. He was aware of the friction. The prosecutor pointed out that people said to stay on the property not the street. Elsewhere, there was a guy moving the dumpster who allegedly made threats. Is that one of the guys he shot? In any case, clearly KR knew he was putting himself into a situation where he might end up shooting someone.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Of course not. Definitely goes a long way to showing he has no remorse for his actions, which is telling because killing someone isn't an easy thing to get over. It causes many people life long trauma.
Again, you are merely inventing a 'correct trauma response' and applying it to Rittenhouse. I know people who have gone through severe trauma but did not cry even when relaying that trauma. I also believe that the clip you are referring to looks like an anxious panic attack to me, not 'fake crying'.
You are merely inventing a "correct trauma response" and a "correct panic attack" and applying it to Rittenhouse.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
Personally I don't think crying in the drivers seat when you were exceeding the speed limit should get one out of a traffic ticket, nor do I think that crying on the witness stand should get one out of murder.
It's true that if you already believe he is guilty, all his behaviour afterwards is compatible with being guilty.
What does that have to do with what I posted?
Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?
If his crying on the stand isn't an indication of his guilt or innocence, why are we talking about it?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You are merely inventing a "correct trauma response" and a "correct panic attack" and applying it to Rittenhouse
No, I'm not. I did not say it was a fact that he was crying or having a panic attack. I did not say he was having the 'correct' trauma response, nor an 'incorrect' one. I said it looked like to me that nothing he has done is incompatible with having shot two people in self-defense.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,095
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You are merely inventing a "correct trauma response" and a "correct panic attack" and applying it to Rittenhouse
No, I'm not. I did not say it was a fact that he was crying or having a panic attack. I did not say he was having the 'correct' trauma response, nor an 'incorrect' one. I said it looked like to me that nothing he has done is incompatible with having shot two people in self-defense.
Yessss, and how did you reach that conclusion? Hmmmm.
 

KeepTalking

Code Monkey
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
4,641
Location
St. Louis Metro East
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Secular Humanist, Pastifarian, IPUnitard
If his crying on the stand isn't an indication of his guilt or innocence, why are we talking about it?
Ask the people who brought it up and called him a remorseless sociopath for doing it.
I brought it up to the entire thread, for some reason you took exception. I don't think his crying should matter either way.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,635
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Yessss, and how did you reach that conclusion? Hmmmm.
By recognising there is no correct way to experience trauma.

So, the exact opposite of inventing a 'correct trauma response'.

Ahah! This proves you are a left-wing communist post-modern psychoanalyst in disguise. The ONLY way to experience trauma after shooting people unnecessarily is to wear a Free As Fuck T-shirt to a bar with your mom and take pictures with Proud Boys while flashing a white supremacy OK symbol and then crying later on when giving testimony to the jury.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,821
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Ahah! This proves you are a left-wing communist post-modern psychoanalyst in disguise. The ONLY way to experience trauma after shooting people unnecessarily is to wear a Free As Fuck T-shirt to a bar with your mom and take pictures with Proud Boys while flashing a white supremacy OK symbol and then crying later on when giving testimony to the jury.
If you say so.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Nobody believes that crying on the witness stand should get you out of murder, or crying after getting a speeding ticket should get you out of the fine. Why do you think anyone believes that?
If his crying on the stand isn't an indication of his guilt or innocence, why are we talking about it?
Because it is a manipulative maneuver to sell how scared he was and why he had to kill one person. Calling it manipulative BS is calling a spade a spade.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,263
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Fact checking Kyle Rittenhouse’s testimony in Kenosha murder trial


There is not really a lot of meat to this article and at first glance, the things they are covering seem pretty insignificant. However, they do speak to dishonesty and when one considers further and in the greater context, his motivations maybe are illuminated by where and when he makes up stories.

No one responded. Sorry, I probably should have quoted some of the issues with his testimony...

Here is one fact-check:
"Testimony: Kyle Rittenhouse said he is a student at Arizona State University
In the opening minutes of his testimony, Rittenhouse told the jury he was a “college student studying nursing at Arizona State University.”
An ASU spokesman, however, said Rittenhouse “has not gone through the admissions process with Arizona State University and is not enrolled in the Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.” Instead, he started a nondegree seeking online program Oct. 13 — less than three weeks before the trial began.
"
Are you fucking kidding me?!
Another:
"Kyle Rittenhouse said he was issued his bulletproof vest by the Grayslake Police Department"

Apparently, this is not true. He may have gotten it for purposes of some kind of police training, but he bought it on his own according to the police.
Issued, purchased... what's the diff?
Another:
"Kyle Rittenhouse said he didn’t look at social media between the shootings and the time he turned himself in to Antioch police"

And you guessed it. Yes, he looked at social media.
*shocked face*
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,006
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
That scans.

I thought it was weird that he said he was going to ASU when he had also said he graduated from an online high school. I looked up the school and it charges about $900 for a diploma.
 
Top Bottom