# Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

#### thebeave

##### Veteran Member
I guess I'm a little bit out of the loop these days wrt slang. What exactly does it even mean that Ben's wife is "dry"? She's in menopause?
I assumed it meant her vagina is dry, because Ben Shapiro does not sexually excite her.

Of course, that would be an unkind thing to say, and we know the left is always kind.
It is a reference to Shapiro going on a tear badmouthing the Cardi B song WAP (Wet Ass P****y). One statement he posted on twitter was that his wife said that is a sign of an infection. Which led people to believe he has never gotten his wife wet.
OK, that clears things up a bit. I was thinking dry, as in her eggs are "dried up" due to advancing age. I found this on Ben's Twitter feed:

Ben Shapiro's wife is dry?

As I also discussed on the show, my only real concern is that the women involved -- who apparently require a "bucket and a mop" -- get the medical care they require. My doctor wife's differential diagnosis: bacterial vaginosis, yeast infection, or trichomonis.

I don't see the connection, though, between his doctor wife's medical diagnosis of excessive vaginal fluid (not sure if its true, maybe some of the ladies can chime in here) and her not getting aroused by her husband. It doesn't follow.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

Oh sorry... I thought I this was another thread.

*pops back out*

#### marc

##### Veteran Member
I don't see the connection, though, between his doctor wife's medical diagnosis of excessive vaginal fluid (not sure if its true, maybe some of the ladies can chime in here) and her not getting aroused by her husband. It doesn't follow.

The connection is he was bashing a song that was entirely about female sexuality, with 'wet' right in the title, and frequent used in the lyrics. His criticism talked about wetness as a sign of medical issues, which has nothing to do with the song and kinda indicating he is completely unfamiliar with wetness being a part of female arousal. Sure, he was trying to make a stupid joke, but he is a major asshole so why not mock him back?

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
I think the point is being missed and the focus is perhaps wrong. There is an allegation that it was fake crying because his eyes were dry. I am unsure if it were fake crying or not, but based on his picture having fun with Proud Boys wearing his freedom shirt, I deduce his crying, if it WAS real at all, was for himself rather than out of any kind of remorse. Whether or not his eyes were dry and whether or not if so that might mean he was faking it is unknown to me....because again, I am thinking more about his other behaviors in relation to the follow-up crying episode.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
Previously, curfew charge was dismissed. Just now, weapons charge has been dismissed.

Will this have a ripple effect to other charges since some interpretations of recklessness and privilege of self-defense may have logical dependencies on whether someone is doing something illegal?

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
I allege it was fake because he was crying when his attorney was questioning him.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
Previously, curfew charge was dismissed. Just now, weapons charge has been dismissed.

Will this have a ripple effect to other charges since some interpretations of recklessness and privilege of self-defense may have logical dependencies on whether someone is doing something illegal?

### Judge dismisses weapons charge against Kyle Rittenhouse​

"The underage weapon charge was punishable by up to nine months in jail.

There is no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha and used it.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. After prosecutors conceded on Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the charge.
"

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
Man, having the judge as your lawyer is awesome!

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
Kelly Ziminski was convicted of curfew violation. Could someone explain why she was convicted, and they won't even charge Kyle of it.

#### southernhybrid

##### Contributor
I'm watching the closing arguments. I think the prosecutor is doing a pretty good job of explaining why what Rittenhouse did was murder and not self defense. Of course, I've not watched the entire trial and I'm not on the jury so others may not see it that way.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
Man, having the judge as your lawyer is awesome!
Obviously a MAGA judge since his phone has rung several times during the trial playing the song used when Trump comes onstage. Anyone elses phone goes of during a trial would be immediately ejected but this moron doesn't know how to turn his phone off.

Hell, no one is allowed to even bring a cell phone into our county courthouse.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
I'm watching the closing arguments. I think the prosecutor is doing a pretty good job of explaining why what Rittenhouse did was murder and not self defense. Of course, I've not watched the entire trial and I'm not on the jury so others may not see it that way.
Yup, showing pretty clearly KR instigated this.

##### Veteran Member
I allege it was fake because he was crying when his attorney was questioning him.
His lawyer probably told him that if he didn’t have any emotional response while testifying that he would look like a sociopath and more likely get convicted.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.

#### The Sage of Main Street

##### Member
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
Thughuggers Commit Capital Treason

A riot is a state of war. Every citizen has an obligation to use his gun to kill the rioters. They are the enemy; merely arresting them would just encourage more riots. Also, during wartime regulations about illegal possession of weapons are waived.
Where do I find this in the law?
One Riot, One Ranger

It's the natural law, which had protected civilization for millennia until the thughuggers took over. Your "rule of law" is the law of your rulers. Patriots must take the law back into our own hands.
How do we know YOU are a patriot? You sound like a fascist.
The University's Cloistered Clusterfuck

Both the Left and the Right use that empty word against everybody they don't understand They share the same ignorant sphere of mental ineptitude.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.
Would you bet your life on that?

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.
Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.
Would you bet your life on that?
If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.
Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.
No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes. It is a subsection of the provocation part of the statute.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.
Would you bet your life on that?
If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.
That is not what I asked.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So what? Predacious little fuckers should not be able to hunt and kill people, then get consideration for having pretended to want become an EMT.
Rittenhouse did not hunt anybody.
Would you bet your life on that?
If we are speaking about the people shot that he is being charged for, based on the video evidence, the eyewitness testimony, yes, I think it is clear.
That is not what I asked.
Then sorry, LD, I don't know what you are asking.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.
Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.
No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.
Much like the guy who was reacting to a gun pointed at him was acting in a clear-cut case of self-defense?

#### The Sage of Main Street

##### Member
I allege it was fake because he was crying when his attorney was questioning him.
Psychology Without Experience Is Babbling Quackery

I cried twice after deadly combat in Vietnam. Neither time had anything to do with that, so it was long-delayed and suppressed. It was triggered by unrelated stress fractures.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.
Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.
No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.
Much like the guy who was reacting to a gun pointed at him was acting in a clear-cut case of self-defense?
What guy? And how is it relevant?

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Yes, brandishing a weapon would be an example. I don't think that was established in this case. It was alleged by the prosecution based on pretty bad video evidence.

Being out during a curfew? No, definitely.

#### Elixir

I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.

#### Don2 (Don1 Revised)

##### Contributor
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Not just that...but the curfew violation was also dropped and his pointing the gun in a video at someone has been disallowed from zooming in (sort of--I am confused on this) and so it seems like all claims of self-defense will become valid because any that were invalid due to committing a crime can't be invalid since all crimes are dismissed or risk of having committed them has been mitigated by minimizing evidence.
His claim to self defense was never invalidated by having been committing those crimes. But I guess the point is moot now that they've been dropped.
There was more than one claim of self-defense and not all of them were equally valid or invalid, but all of them are nuanced and some of them are dependent upon whether one is committing a crime to a certain extent:
"939.48(2) (2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
"
Right, although in that particular case it is referring to illegal behavior that provokes.

Such as pointing at someone with an illegally obtained weapon during a curfew you are not supposed to be out in?
Yes, brandishing a weapon would be an example. I don't think that was established in this case. It was alleged by the prosecution based on pretty bad video evidence.

Whether or not you think it was established, it's an illegal thing that impacts a self-defense claim in nuanced ways.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
It is hard to have peace without justice.

How is burning down the Dinosaur museum “justice”?
About as much as shooting at four people, because you want to help people. Committing to an act of destruction isn't carte blanche for a third party to kill them.
That isn't what happened.
Kyle Rittenhouse committed several acts of negligence and is going to get away with killing multiple people for several illegitimate reasons. That is fucked up.
No, he killed people in clear-cut cases of self-defense. It isn't fucked up. It is justice.
Rittenhouse was pointing his AR15 at people before anyone accosted him. That rightly pisses people off. That was provocation which, as the statute that was posted, disqualifies KR from the right to claim self-defense.

#### KeepTalking

##### Code Monkey
I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.

I have a quote prediction from a future conservative post in a thread regarding the next mass shooting at a protest/rally/riot/whatever:

"Why are you guys bringing up Rittenhouse?"

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The Young Jerks, I mean The Young Turks, have walked back their prior position on KR now that they've seen what came out during the trial. They are no longer convinced of his guilt and think it might be possible that maybe he acted in self defense.

I think it's pretty clear he acted in "self defense". The question is whether his actions are legal self defense.

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Watching the defense attorney's final statement, he's asking the jurors to not believe the witnesses, whether they be police officers, the FBI transcipt of their KR interview, nor their own eyes. He doesn't seem to be doing a great job of breaking down the prosecutor's arguments. I guess when all you've got are fantacies, that's what you go with.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Who said he was stealing a car? Who said he was kidnapping.....his own children?

He didn't own the car, he didn't have permission to drive it, he was taking the kids contrary to a custody agreement. Thus grand theft auto and kidnapping.

I’ve never claimed that Blake us a good guy. As far as ‘non-custodial ‘abduction’ of his children, that is not something I’ve heard before.

Nonetheless, the police grossly and needlessly endangered 3 young children.

Letting him go could have been a danger to them, also. And the information was brought up at the time, it shouldn't be a surprise.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
So a minor in Wisconsin was legally in open carry possession of a semi-automatic rifle? Wisconsin sucks!

Apparently he fits in the niche the legislature intended for hunting. Lousy law but sometimes it takes an edge case to expose legislative errors.

#### Metaphor

##### Sjajna Zvijezda
939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant."
To be honest, I thought this was already the 'background' standard you needed for self-defense, with or without 'provocation' - you need to be at risk of great bodily harm or death and you can't get out of it another way.

#### Metaphor

##### Sjajna Zvijezda
I wonder if all these Rittenfans would be pleased if “Antifa” and BLMers started policing Trump rallies with AR15s.

See January 6th.

#### SigmatheZeta

##### Senior Member
At the Black Lives Matter protest I went to, the police were more trouble than the protesters. After the big march, I just wanted to step into a local coffee shop I liked, but the cops kept setting off tear gas. They were turning it into a war, so I went out to help the protesters hold the line some more. Retrospectively, I wish I had brought more water to help flush out that poison. If anything like that happens again, I'm bringing gallon jugs.

#### SigmatheZeta

##### Senior Member
By the way, the Black Lives Matter protests were not a riot. They were a full-fledged civil uprising. In my opinion, the police lost.

#### Elixir

I wasn't aware that Trump rallies end up in rioting, arson and grafitti resulting in $50m property damage a pop. Add it to the burgeoning list of things of which you are unaware. As of Feb 24: The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped$30 million and will keep rising (NPR)

To be fair, I was unaware of the multiple different "antifia" rallies that ran up costs over 50M each. Or even one of them. If I didn't know how forthright right wing extermists were, I'd suspect you pulled that number our of your ass. Can you list those protests, and link to whoever produced those damage estimates? Definitely don't want to get into cop-killing/maiming comparisons, though.... the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE is so much more important.

#### Metaphor

##### Sjajna Zvijezda
Add it to the burgeoning list of things of which you are unaware.
Everybody in the universe is unaware of most events in the universe.
As of Feb 24: The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped \$30 million and will keep rising (NPR)

To be fair, I was unaware of the multiple different "antifia" rallies that ran up costs over 50M each. Or even one of them. If I didn't know how forthright right wing extermists were, I'd suspect you pulled that number our of your ass. Can you list those protests, and link to whoever produced those damage estimates? Definitely don't want to get into cop-killing/maiming comparisons, though.... the dreaded PROPERTY DAMAGE is so much more important.

"Right wing extermist (sic)". Oy gevalt.

Also, you evidently seem to think property damage is vanishingly unimportant, as if fires cannot negatively affect intangible cultural and personal heritage when they burn away tangible objects and buildings. The people who had their property damaged and destroyed have stories too.