• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Rittenhouse/Kenosha Shooting Split

Metaphor

Contributor
I can envision an event that could spur the passage of more reasonable laws.

If a thousand or so “Antifa” show up at the next Nazi rally carrying AKs and ARs, bait the Nazis into acting in a manner that they all find threatening and proceed to mow down a few thousand Trumpsuckers in “self defense”, we will have such laws under discussion the very next day.

A small price to pay for setting society straight…
The daydreams of the far left are fascinating--and scary.
Today I learned that treating black and white people equally is a "daydream of the far left."
You did not learn that. You learned that one person on the far left has a fantasy that thousands of 'Trumpsuckers' could be 'mowed down' by Antifa.
 

laughing dog

Contributor

Patooka

Veteran Member
I can envision an event that could spur the passage of more reasonable laws.

If a thousand or so “Antifa” show up at the next Nazi rally carrying AKs and ARs, bait the Nazis into acting in a manner that they all find threatening and proceed to mow down a few thousand Trumpsuckers in “self defense”, we will have such laws under discussion the very next day.

A small price to pay for setting society straight…
The daydreams of the far left are fascinating--and scary.
Today I learned that treating black and white people equally is a "daydream of the far left."
I'd argue that has always been a daydream of the far left. Why Metaphor feels that is both fascinating and scary is beyond me however.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

Get that guy--after he had shot someone.

Shootings #2 and #3 are clear self defense if he has the right to use lethal force in self defense--it comes down to shooting #1. And I'm not convinced that was self defense.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

Get that guy--after he had shot someone.

Shootings #2 and #3 are clear self defense if he has the right to use lethal force in self defense--it comes down to shooting #1. And I'm not convinced that was self defense.
Respectfully, that’s the wrong standard. It’s up to those claiming it wasn’t self defense to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only the facts matter. And the facts are actu not that complicated. Rittenhouse never points his weapon at anyone. Just carrying it, doesn’t make him fair game for Rosenbaum to attack him and try to take his gun. Rittenhouse ran away from the confrontation. Rosenbaum pursued him. The only testimony in record was that he lunged fro the gun. Even the prosecution’s own expert witness said that Rosenbaum’s wounds were consistent with that theory.

Im sorry. At that point, Rittenhouse must be acquitted.

Frankly, I think Rosenbaum was suicidal. He’d just been released from a suicide watch earlier that day, his girlfriend had kicked him out, and he was begging for them to shoot him earlier in the evening.
 
But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

Get that guy--after he had shot someone.

Shootings #2 and #3 are clear self defense if he has the right to use lethal force in self defense--it comes down to shooting #1. And I'm not convinced that was self defense.
Respectfully, that’s the wrong standard. It’s up to those claiming it wasn’t self defense to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only the facts matter. And the facts are actu not that complicated. Rittenhouse never points his weapon at anyone. Just carrying it, doesn’t make him fair game for Rosenbaum to attack him and try to take his gun. Rittenhouse ran away from the confrontation. Rosenbaum pursued him. The only testimony in record was that he lunged fro the gun. Even the prosecution’s own expert witness said that Rosenbaum’s wounds were consistent with that theory.

Im sorry. At that point, Rittenhouse must be acquitted.

Frankly, I think Rosenbaum was suicidal. He’d just been released from a suicide watch earlier that day, his girlfriend had kicked him out, and he was begging for them to shoot him earlier in the evening.
The problem is even if he initially lunged for the gun when he finally fell forward from being shot, dying, he was no longer a perceived imminent threat. So the shot to the back was unnecessary.
 

Derec

Contributor
That is subduing him. Grosskreuz had a lot of opportunity to shoot him, but did not. Don't pretend he was hunting him.
*sigh* it wasn't meant to be taken literally. But they were chasing a man who was clearly retreating and who was not a direct threat to the people who were chasing him. It was not their job to try to subdue people.

I do not misunderstand at all. You are simply unaware how obvious your being political is to everyone in the forum.
It's the Politics forum. Of course I am going to be political on here. Why do you pretend that you and people you agree with are not being political?
 

Derec

Contributor
Today I learned that treating black and white people equally is a "daydream of the far left."
Elixir was not talking about "treating black and white people equally" (btw, what is your view on racial preferences?). Elixir was fantasizing about "mowing down a few thousand" people he disagrees with politically.
 

Derec

Contributor
The legacy media tries trolling to garner clicks. Pitiful.

There's nothing more frightening in America today than an angry White man

At least they had the courtesy to put a “W” in white.
Blacks commit murder 5x more often per capita than whites and yet this racist writer (shame on CNN for publishing him!) is ranting about white men.
Oh, and then there is this guy in Waukesha, not to far from Kenosha.

brooks.png


A white man. Probably a Boogaloo Boi too ...
 

SLD

Veteran Member
But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

Get that guy--after he had shot someone.

Shootings #2 and #3 are clear self defense if he has the right to use lethal force in self defense--it comes down to shooting #1. And I'm not convinced that was self defense.
Respectfully, that’s the wrong standard. It’s up to those claiming it wasn’t self defense to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only the facts matter. And the facts are actu not that complicated. Rittenhouse never points his weapon at anyone. Just carrying it, doesn’t make him fair game for Rosenbaum to attack him and try to take his gun. Rittenhouse ran away from the confrontation. Rosenbaum pursued him. The only testimony in record was that he lunged fro the gun. Even the prosecution’s own expert witness said that Rosenbaum’s wounds were consistent with that theory.

Im sorry. At that point, Rittenhouse must be acquitted.

Frankly, I think Rosenbaum was suicidal. He’d just been released from a suicide watch earlier that day, his girlfriend had kicked him out, and he was begging for them to shoot him earlier in the evening.
The problem is even if he initially lunged for the gun when he finally fell forward from being shot, dying, he was no longer a perceived imminent threat. So the shot to the back was unnecessary.
I’d challenge anyone to think that clearly. The three shots came within a second. Saying the third shot was unnecessary is 20-20 hindsight. He didn’t pause between them and think about it. That may be a good reason to outlaw automatic rifles.
 

Metaphor

Contributor


Isn't that what Rittenhouse was? He did shoot three people and admitted to it at the time. What else would you call him?
A killer.


Yes - he killed in self-defense - which was the finding of the jury.
For someone as meticulous as yourself, that is rather sloppy thinking. Technically, the jury found him not guilty. They have not given their reasons at all.
I'd argue that has always been a daydream of the far left. Why Metaphor feels that is both fascinating and scary is beyond me however.
I'd say it is beyond you because you are incapable, or unwilling, to try to imagine the viewpoint of anybody who does not already agree with you. And, of course, that the daydream was Elixir imagining the deaths of thousands of 'Trumpsuckers', not a daydream about 'equality'.
 

Metaphor

Contributor


Isn't that what Rittenhouse was? He did shoot three people and admitted to it at the time. What else would you call him?
A killer.


Yes - he killed in self-defense - which was the finding of the jury.
For someone as meticulous as yourself, that is rather sloppy thinking. Technically, the jury found him not guilty. They have not given their reasons at all.
Rittenhouse shot and killed two people. Nobody disputes that. The jury found him not legally culpable of those killings because they accepted he acted in self-defense.

I'm sure you routinely go about calling Caitlyn Jenner a 'killer', for killing somebody in 2015.
 
But it was clear self defense. You hear someone yell "Get that guy!" in the video and they start chasing him down the street. Rittenhouse is running away at this point, even though he has his rifle. He still didn't want to shoot despite the fact that he was being chased. Then, the people attacked him and he shot them. He then stood up and kept walking through tons of people and still didn't fire the weapon again as he was walking.

He then flagged down the cops and told them someone was injured over there. If those people never attacked him, they would still be alive. If you say that those people attacked Kyle because he had a rifle, why didn't anyone attack the BLM protestors who had rifles at their protests?

Get that guy--after he had shot someone.

Shootings #2 and #3 are clear self defense if he has the right to use lethal force in self defense--it comes down to shooting #1. And I'm not convinced that was self defense.
Respectfully, that’s the wrong standard. It’s up to those claiming it wasn’t self defense to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only the facts matter. And the facts are actu not that complicated. Rittenhouse never points his weapon at anyone. Just carrying it, doesn’t make him fair game for Rosenbaum to attack him and try to take his gun. Rittenhouse ran away from the confrontation. Rosenbaum pursued him. The only testimony in record was that he lunged fro the gun. Even the prosecution’s own expert witness said that Rosenbaum’s wounds were consistent with that theory.

Im sorry. At that point, Rittenhouse must be acquitted.

Frankly, I think Rosenbaum was suicidal. He’d just been released from a suicide watch earlier that day, his girlfriend had kicked him out, and he was begging for them to shoot him earlier in the evening.
The problem is even if he initially lunged for the gun when he finally fell forward from being shot, dying, he was no longer a perceived imminent threat. So the shot to the back was unnecessary.
I’d challenge anyone to think that clearly. The three shots came within a second. Saying the third shot was unnecessary is 20-20 hindsight. He didn’t pause between them and think about it. That may be a good reason to outlaw automatic rifles.
So he had the rifle in automatic mode? That is even more reckless.
 

SLD

Veteran Member
The problem is even if he initially lunged for the gun when he finally fell forward from being shot, dying, he was no longer a perceived imminent threat. So the shot to the back was unnecessary.
People have finite reaction times.
I agree with you, but Previously, SLD said each bullet has to be necessary.
Indeed. The third shot may have been unnecessary. I think a jury though isn’t likely to convict in such a situation. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was unnecessary. It’s the reason why semi automatic rifles should be heavily regulated. And yes you can pull the trigger three times in less than a second. I believe that the expert said that is what happened here, not any kind of full auto. That would be very illegal. If he had a hunting rifle in this situation, Rosenbaum might have been knocked down and he would’ve realized that before the second shot. And then he wouldn’t take it. And Rosenbaum would be alive.

that’s why the military puts a single shot position on the safety. when you’re carrying your weapon before combat the safety is on. You see the target, you bring your rifle up while switching the safety to single shot. If you go full auto you’re likely to go through a clip in a few seconds. Then you’re out. Not good. First time in combat, you will likely panic and put as much down range as you can. Carefully aimed shots are the exception. Best to switch to single shot semiautomatic and fire as you need then waste ammo.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Think about all the minors who have been convicted of weapons possession over the years in Wisconsin. All the case law as well. Do their convictions get overturned? Lawsuits by thousands? For some reason, the statute even with a typo in a different subsection was always understood and used as intended prior to this court case.

Most of them wouldn't be protected by this. What happened in this case is he was carrying a long gun, not a handgun. As the law is worded 16 and 17 year olds are allowed long guns for hunting--but the law doesn't restrict such carrying to only hunting use. I expect the law will be fixed after this, but that's not retroactive. It wouldn't be the first time someone walked on something which the legislature didn't intend to be legal because the law was badly worded.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

The hunting bit explains why the law is the way it is. The legislature intended to allow 16 and 17 year olds to hunt with long guns. In doing so they inadvertently allowed 16 and 17 year olds to open carry long guns most places. Legislative fuck-up, bad guy walks, they'll probably fix it next session. It's not the first time, it's not the last time.
 

laughing dog

Contributor


Isn't that what Rittenhouse was? He did shoot three people and admitted to it at the time. What else would you call him?
A killer.


Yes - he killed in self-defense - which was the finding of the jury.
For someone as meticulous as yourself, that is rather sloppy thinking. Technically, the jury found him not guilty. They have not given their reasons at all.
I'd argue that has always been a daydream of the far left. Why Metaphor feels that is both fascinating and scary is beyond me however.
I'd say it is beyond you because you are incapable, or unwilling, to try to imagine the viewpoint of anybody who does not already agree with you. And, of course, that the daydream was Elixir imagining the deaths of thousands of 'Trumpsuckers', not a daydream about 'equality'.
Projection is a form of narcissism, not analysis.
 

laughing dog

Contributor


Isn't that what Rittenhouse was? He did shoot three people and admitted to it at the time. What else would you call him?
A killer.


Yes - he killed in self-defense - which was the finding of the jury.
For someone as meticulous as yourself, that is rather sloppy thinking. Technically, the jury found him not guilty. They have not given their reasons at all.
Rittenhouse shot and killed two people. Nobody disputes that. The jury found him not legally culpable of those killings because they accepted he acted in self-defense.
We don't know the basis for the jury decision because they did not announce their reasoning, so please stop confusing your conclusions with fact.
I'm sure you routinely go about calling Caitlyn Jenner a 'killer', for killing somebody in 2015.
I had no idea what Cailtyn Jenner has done. But I read up on what happened, and, I would not.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
The problem is even if he initially lunged for the gun when he finally fell forward from being shot, dying, he was no longer a perceived imminent threat. So the shot to the back was unnecessary.

Unnecessary extra shots happen in deadly force situations. The mental cycle time to fire another shot is a lot less than the mental cycle time to decide shooting is no longer necessary. This is an inherently limitation of the human mind, such extra shots should not be considered criminal.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.
article said:
“I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now,” Rittenhouse said. “So I’m hoping one day there will be some — there will be accountability for their actions that they did.”
Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
I'd argue that has always been a daydream of the far left. Why Metaphor feels that is both fascinating and scary is beyond me however.
I'd say it is beyond you because you are incapable, or unwilling, to try to imagine the viewpoint of anybody who does not already agree with you. And, of course, that the daydream was Elixir imagining the deaths of thousands of 'Trumpsuckers', not a daydream about 'equality'.
I have a dream alright. About what it would take to get right wingers’ heads out of their asses.
No surprise that one of them is fascinated and scared by the prospect of being handled in the manner with which they are used to handling their own problems.
The projection above is really hilarious though - the loudly and proudly callous one begging for empathy … delicious.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.
article said:
“I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now,” Rittenhouse said. “So I’m hoping one day there will be some — there will be accountability for their actions that they did.”
Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.
Any context explaining who "they" refers to in that quote? The dead guys?
Tom
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.
article said:
“I have really good lawyers who are taking care of that right now,” Rittenhouse said. “So I’m hoping one day there will be some — there will be accountability for their actions that they did.”
Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.
Any context explaining who "they" refers to in that quote? The dead guys?
Tom
Maybe he is prescient, and talking about the people who are going to give him a dose of the "vigilante justice" he went to Kenosha to dish out.
 
I have already explained that the hunting reference is a red herring and apologetics. The hunting statutes are a different statute than the felony exception. The felony exception is the one that the defense is pointing to, even if there are references later on in the subsection to these other statutes involving hunting. Mentioning hunting is a way to obfuscate the issue. So, again, the exception is a felony exception, like it's a misdemeanor for possession unless the weapon is even worse, then it's a felony.

The hunting bit explains why the law is the way it is. The legislature intended to allow 16 and 17 year olds to hunt with long guns. In doing so they inadvertently allowed 16 and 17 year olds to open carry long guns most places. Legislative fuck-up, bad guy walks, they'll probably fix it next session. It's not the first time, it's not the last time.
That isn't why what happened, happened with the legislation. They forgot a negative in the subsection. The wording starts to get complicated, almost to the level of DeMorgan's Law...which is where they put a felony exception and a hunting non-compliance exception. The felony exception was intended to make a felony for short barrled shotguns and rifles while normal rifles and shotguns and dangerous weapons would be a misdemeanor. The current interpretation of intent that has not been an interpretation at all until this trial means that underage normal rifle possessors have a misdemeanor in one subsection and another subsection removes the misdemeanor PLUS underage short rifle possessors have a misdemeanor in one subsection and also a felony by another referenced statute.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Going from how the ABC reported the interview (because I honestly can't stand more than a minute and a half of Tucker Carlson but that's my problem) here are some key call outs:

Mr Rittenhouse's lawyers have said he is not a white supremacist. "I'm not a racist person. I support the BLM movement. I support peacefully demonstrating,' Mr Rittenhouse told Carlson

Mr Rittenhouse told Carlson he wished the shootings in Kenosha "never would've happened".

"But it did, and we can't change that," he said.

"But how … polarised it became is absolutely sickening, like right or left, people using me for a cause that should never have been used as a cause."

He plans to move from the Midwestern United States, but is not exactly sure where he will go.

"I'm going to go lay low and live my life and enjoy it," he said.

So Mr Rittenhouse believes he isn't a racist, his actions polarised people and he was used for causes he shouldn't have been and now he want's to stay out of the public spotlight. I have a question then; why was his first instinct after he was acquitted to go on Tucker Carlson's show? A show than can charitably be called polarising along with with both the show and the staff having some, shall we say, problematic stances on race.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Perhaps someone can explain to me how Americans use the term racist or white supremacist.
Rittenhouse is called both yet looking at the reports he is white and he shot white people. How is that racist or makes him a white supremacist?

Certainly he is grossly immature idiot and should never be allowed to handle guns. He is not a fit person for such responsibility.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Perhaps someone can explain to me how Americans use the term racist or white supremacist.
Rittenhouse is called both yet looking at the reports he is white and he shot white people. How is that racist or makes him a white supremacist?
If I hang around the leadership of Hillsong and members of the Young Liberals, people could make the assumption that I am a Christian conservative. Rittenhouse socialized with members of the Proud Boys, a group that totally isn't white supremacist because their leader is brown despite SPLC calling them such because Enrique Tarrio has brown skin. They do have an unfortunate tendency to agree and affiliate themselves with white supremacist however. Tucker Carlson has a history of saying extremely vile statements and was somehow unaware that his chief writer was a racist piece of shit (Blake Neff was employed by Carlson for four years by the time this all came out).

I think it's called associative bias and it is something to be mindful about. I don't think Rittenhouse is Asa Carter level racist, but I can also see how some people would jump to that conclusion.

Certainly he is grossly immature idiot and should never be allowed to handle guns. He is not a fit person for such responsibility.

Without supervision. Key phrase you left out. I fired my first gun when I was 12 and by the time I was 16 I think 4 or 5 different types of firearms. Never unsupervised. Having said that, I'm not sure if supervision would have made a difference in this instance because I'm not entirely certain the adults in Rittenhouse's life are responsible to use firearms either.
 
Perhaps someone can explain to me how Americans use the term racist or white supremacist.
Rittenhouse is called both yet looking at the reports he is white and he shot white people. How is that racist or makes him a white supremacist?

Certainly he is grossly immature idiot and should never be allowed to handle guns. He is not a fit person for such responsibility.

I don't believe he is a white supremacist, but don't fall for the identity politics. "he can't murder a white person because he loves white people! Duh! I'm so smart!!!" A white supremacist could absolutely murder a white person. Same with a black supremacist. To think they can't is falling for the trap of identity politics. Both sides fall for identity politics. Don't be that braindead. Hitler loved Germany. Yet, he murdered millions of Germans. Why would he do that if he loves Germany and the German people??
 

TSwizzle

Contributor
{snip}

I think it's called associative bias and it is something to be mindful about. I don't think Rittenhouse is Asa Carter level racist, but I can also see how some people would jump to that conclusion.

Considering how Rittenhouse was portrayed in the MSM and even the POTUS it really is a question of why wouldn't one conclude that Rittnhouse is nothing but a nasty white supremacist. :rolleyes:
 

Trausti

Contributor
{snip}

I think it's called associative bias and it is something to be mindful about. I don't think Rittenhouse is Asa Carter level racist, but I can also see how some people would jump to that conclusion.

Considering how Rittenhouse was portrayed in the MSM and even the POTUS it really is a question of why wouldn't one conclude that Rittnhouse is nothing but a nasty white supremacist. :rolleyes:
He's White and male. A horrendous sin that can't be redeemed. He also crossed state lines! Just an awful person.
 

Metaphor

Contributor
{snip}

I think it's called associative bias and it is something to be mindful about. I don't think Rittenhouse is Asa Carter level racist, but I can also see how some people would jump to that conclusion.

Considering how Rittenhouse was portrayed in the MSM and even the POTUS it really is a question of why wouldn't one conclude that Rittnhouse is nothing but a nasty white supremacist. :rolleyes:
He's White and male. A horrendous sin that can't be redeemed. He also crossed state lines! Just an awful person.
It's true that he's white and male and that is a horrendous sin. But he's almost certainly a cishet white male, and that's 9th circle of hell territory.
 

blastula

Contributor
Going from how the ABC reported the interview (because I honestly can't stand more than a minute and a half of Tucker Carlson but that's my problem) here are some key call outs:

Mr Rittenhouse's lawyers have said he is not a white supremacist. "I'm not a racist person. I support the BLM movement. I support I support.peacefully demonstrating,' Mr Rittenhouse told Carlson

Ouch, such a betrayal, that oughta trigger a lot of people. Like Tucker Carlson.
 

Derec

Contributor
Meanwhile Rittenhouse continues to show no signs of any remorse for the killing of human beings.

How does not liking being defamed by powerful figures in media and politics have anything to do with how he feels about having had to use deadly force to defend himself?

Yes, Kyle, you are the true victim in all this.
He is indeed a victim of a partisan witch hunt that btw still persists among the likes of Jerry Nadler, the Squad and media figures like Joy Reed.
 

Derec

Contributor
Any context explaining who "they" refers to in that quote? The dead guys?
Tom
No. It refers to the people who were spreading defamatory statements, like that he was a "white supremacist" or that he "crossed state lines armed with a weapon of war".
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
I guess right wingers have a different definition of laying low.


Fuck it is such a mystery how some people thought Rittenhouse is a white supremacist when professional cunts like Trump and Lin Wood are grooming the guy to be every alt-righter's wet dream. If you're going to act like a provocative fuckwit, you don't get to cry foul when people say mean things about you.
 

Arctish

Contributor
Any context explaining who "they" refers to in that quote? The dead guys?
Tom
No. It refers to the people who were spreading defamatory statements, like that he was a "white supremacist" or that he "crossed state lines armed with a weapon of war".
Indeed.

Kyle Rittenhouse hangs out with White Supremacists and poses for nice, friendly pictures with them. That doesn't mean me is one. He's merely White supremacist adjacent.

And he didn't cross state lines armed with a weapon of war. He crossed state lines to go to the house where his friend stored the weapon of war he had bought for Kyle, at Kyle's request and using Kyle's money, because Kyle was under the legal age to own or possess it himself.
 
Any context explaining who "they" refers to in that quote? The dead guys?
Tom
No. It refers to the people who were spreading defamatory statements, like that he was a "white supremacist" or that he "crossed state lines armed with a weapon of war".
Indeed.

Kyle Rittenhouse hangs out with White Supremacists and poses for nice, friendly pictures with them. That doesn't mean me is one. He's merely White supremacist adjacent.

And he didn't cross state lines armed with a weapon of war. He crossed state lines to go to the house where his friend stored the weapon of war he had bought for Kyle, at Kyle's request and using Kyle's money, because Kyle was under the legal age to own or possess it himself.
This.

Also, he said he wanted to shoot people, at least some of whom, and possibly all of whom, were looters. If any were not looters, then certainly their proximity to looters and going in and out of a business made them accomplices. We know most people in this forum do not support looting, but the question isn't one about being either for or against looting, but what kind of frame of mind does a person establish when it can be deduced that they find it acceptable to shoot someone for misdemeanor theft of someone else's property.

None of this particular tangent of discussion is meant to be adequate evidence for conviction but it certainly doesn't portray the Angel Hero Manboy that Reich-wingers are horny happy over on the Internet.
 
Top Bottom