Ah, yes, the jackass who described horse reins as “a whip”. Semantics, tool
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Grow up.
I knew I had a reason in the back of my mind to see that username and immediately think negatively so I had a quick search and turns out previous gems include defending the right to call BLM protesters “thugs”, and defending the border patrol agents on horseback attacking Haitian refugees.
So it’s really no surprise to see them jump into this discussion and try to distract from the issues at hand with bullshit and insults.
So it’s really no surprise to see them jump into this discussion and try to distract from the issues at hand with bullshit and insults.
You forgot cannon, I referred to it is a cannon.
Wouldn't that be something though, showing up at a protest with an actual cannon in tow.
Sorry I digress.
Last edited:
Ok, since it did result in two people murdered, that is what I meant when I said he was carrying a killing weapon.
As you said, it's not a point worth sidetracking the thread. Let's move on
Thank you. Saved me a rant and got the point across much more effectively than I could.
I can't believe he resisted the temptation. It was the perfect lay-up for calling a Caf member a 'hoe' without getting an infraction.
Mate, that's the second time you've called her a tool. Well, d'ya know what, tools are useful, you are about as useful as your heel.
I can't believe he resisted the temptation. It was the perfect lay-up for calling a Caf member a 'hoe' without getting an infraction.
This would be a brilliant thread if the topic wasn't so horrid.
2 people died and 1 injured. just to get the facts right.
Non-zero chance Binger gets referred to the Bar for disciplinary after this trial. Also top marks for bad faith mis-characterising a sarcastic rhetorical comment 'I did???' as an admission of guilt
Why is this thread called the Ahmaud Arbery trial? Surely it's the McMichaels or whatever they're called on trial?
Good point. Will change.
well Rittenhouse's testimony, from a factual point of view went horrible for Rittehouse. Ritttenhouse threw out some fake crocodile tears. Then, from Rittenhouse's own alleged explanation, he had no legitimate reason to be wading around the streets by himself with his illegally carried AR-15 at the ready. He got caught out trying to claim he was just looking for boogaloo boi Ryan Balch but video showed him separating himself from Balch.
Most damning though were Rittenhouse's lies both in court and that night. Video showed Rittenhouse falsely claimed to be an EMT. Certainly looks this ill prepared 17-year-old was cosplaying that night and just wanted to walk around with his AR-15, that he believed "looked cool", and feel powerful.
It was established that Rittenhouse did not have to keep shooting after his first shot at the first victim incapacitated the victim. His claim that Rosembaum was "reaching for the gun" is not believable when considering the full set of facts. Much more likely, when the medical examiner is taken into account is that after the first shot the only movement is to stop himself from being shot again, a perfectly natural reaction. The fact he shoots 4 times here doesn't look good for him.
Then Rittenhouse flat out lied in court about what happened after the shooting. Rittenhouse claimed he feared for his life because, right after the shooting, he said the crowd was shouting "get him, get him." This claim was immediately disproved by video that showsed Rittenhouse calmly standing and calling his friend on a cell phone. Counter to Rittenhouse's lie, no one in the crowd was shouting "get him" at this point. In fact, the video showed that when someone asked Rittenhosue why he shot the victim, Rittenhouse lies again and says the victim had a gun. Only when Rittenhouse tries to flee the scene of the crime, that's when the crowd says "get him" and tries to capture him. So some really damning lies from Rittenhouse that break the narrative Rittenhouse has been trying to present.
The other key moment is when Rittenhouse is claiming that he was justified to shoot because he felt threatened by Grosskreutz simply holding a handful but that same logic applies both ways and its clear that Grosskreutz himself could feel threatened by Rittenhouse with his AR-15. That incident looks less like pure self-defense because Grosskreutz himself has a valid claim for self-defense.
Now is that enough for this particular jury which very well could have a bias? Considering that a jury member actually got on the jury before he had to be removed for going over the line with a joke about Jacob Blake, the answer is possibly/probably not. Especially with this judge, with his bible quotes, demand that jurors applaud for veterans, and Trump campaign ring tone playing in the court, clearly has his own massive bias and can't be said to be objective here. When looking at his history, this judge is a massive cnut and not presiding objectively but really preaching his own beliefs from the stand.
Most damning though were Rittenhouse's lies both in court and that night. Video showed Rittenhouse falsely claimed to be an EMT. Certainly looks this ill prepared 17-year-old was cosplaying that night and just wanted to walk around with his AR-15, that he believed "looked cool", and feel powerful.
It was established that Rittenhouse did not have to keep shooting after his first shot at the first victim incapacitated the victim. His claim that Rosembaum was "reaching for the gun" is not believable when considering the full set of facts. Much more likely, when the medical examiner is taken into account is that after the first shot the only movement is to stop himself from being shot again, a perfectly natural reaction. The fact he shoots 4 times here doesn't look good for him.
Then Rittenhouse flat out lied in court about what happened after the shooting. Rittenhouse claimed he feared for his life because, right after the shooting, he said the crowd was shouting "get him, get him." This claim was immediately disproved by video that showsed Rittenhouse calmly standing and calling his friend on a cell phone. Counter to Rittenhouse's lie, no one in the crowd was shouting "get him" at this point. In fact, the video showed that when someone asked Rittenhosue why he shot the victim, Rittenhouse lies again and says the victim had a gun. Only when Rittenhouse tries to flee the scene of the crime, that's when the crowd says "get him" and tries to capture him. So some really damning lies from Rittenhouse that break the narrative Rittenhouse has been trying to present.
The other key moment is when Rittenhouse is claiming that he was justified to shoot because he felt threatened by Grosskreutz simply holding a handful but that same logic applies both ways and its clear that Grosskreutz himself could feel threatened by Rittenhouse with his AR-15. That incident looks less like pure self-defense because Grosskreutz himself has a valid claim for self-defense.
Now is that enough for this particular jury which very well could have a bias? Considering that a jury member actually got on the jury before he had to be removed for going over the line with a joke about Jacob Blake, the answer is possibly/probably not. Especially with this judge, with his bible quotes, demand that jurors applaud for veterans, and Trump campaign ring tone playing in the court, clearly has his own massive bias and can't be said to be objective here. When looking at his history, this judge is a massive cnut and not presiding objectively but really preaching his own beliefs from the stand.
Last edited:
Also, zooming into pics is satanic magic.
Yeah but the judge BRUTALLY CASTIGATED the prosecutor so I’m not sure you are providing enough context here
I dont know a lot about this case. What I found quite interesting though is that I was reading reddit today about it and there was quite a balanced debate, with the majority consensus seeming to be that there was a strong case for self defense, that the prosecutor was doing a pathetic job and potentially deliberately trying for a mistrial just to try to avoid even more embarassment.
Reading a couple of pages of this thread, I have seen an overwhelming view from the majority that he is guilty, and the frequent shutting down of those (mostly @Drainy) who attempt to argue otherwise.
Regardless of the verdict, what I am sure we can all agree on is that the Caf' is an echo chamber, and not representative of a balanced - or accurate - viewpoint.
With all that said, based on what I know, I hope he gets convicted. But based on what I have read, I dont think that will be the case, and I dont think that simply means "corruption!".
Reading a couple of pages of this thread, I have seen an overwhelming view from the majority that he is guilty, and the frequent shutting down of those (mostly @Drainy) who attempt to argue otherwise.
Regardless of the verdict, what I am sure we can all agree on is that the Caf' is an echo chamber, and not representative of a balanced - or accurate - viewpoint.
With all that said, based on what I know, I hope he gets convicted. But based on what I have read, I dont think that will be the case, and I dont think that simply means "corruption!".
Yeah but the democrat appointed judge is a Trump supporter so of course Rittenhouse will win!
Binger is crying about unfairness. After breaching the constitution and being in contempt of court yesterday ffs
He has a good point about procedure, but he's wrong about what his job is and what the correct course should be.
He should be there to pursue justice, allowing a jury to hear that from the first confrontation to reaching the police was less than 3 minutes would be in furtherance of that.
He has a good point about procedure, but he's wrong about what his job is and what the correct course should be.
He should be there to pursue justice, allowing a jury to hear that from the first confrontation to reaching the police was less than 3 minutes would be in furtherance of that.
Yeah, that's been the right-wing media spin all night. Nothing on Rittenhouse's lies, crocodile tears, and broken narrative of course.
Or how the judge has now demonstrated multiple times where his biases lie - the trump campaign ring tone would be hilarious if not SNL levels of Fecked up.
I think a government body breaching the constitution, showing contempt for the judiciary and lying to get what he wants is a big deal.
Its almost neo-fash-light like Trump or BoJo.
Tag him you wuss
Grosskeutz was chasing Kyle in good faith we can presume, had a glock in his hand, pretented to surrender and then pointed his glock at kyle's head which made kyle shoot him in his arm holding the gun. No matter how much you dislike kyle and for good reason that is self defense.
That bit is all on video.
Meaningless distraction. John Paul Stevens was appointed to Fed Appeals by Nixon (Republican) and the Supreme Court by Ford (Republican) and became a reliable member of the liberal wing of the court. Same with Souter. Judges shift their PoV all time and from how this judge has acted solely in this trial, clearly is biased towards the defense and right wing narrative.
Speaking of which, I find it non-trivial that you are spouting the exact talking points as the far-right media and people who also make racist jokes and spam chats with "let's go Brandon". I'm sure the fact that you are here only focusing on those exact same right-wing talking points is purely a coincidence in need of more context.
Last edited:
If a majority agree on something it could be an echo chamber. Could also just be true of course.
We need more context. Though I suppose few groups of people can rival the balanced divinity of the medium that is reddit.
They both have self defence claims against each other at the point of the shot, though Grosskeutz would have to explain why he pulled the gun and pursued him with the mob.
Rittenhouse at least has the corroborated story that he was stopped from going back to the car lot he was originally guarding by the police pushing their line up, he went to the other car lot and got a call saying to put out a fire and that's why he was running with the fire extinguisher, walking occasionally to catch his breath while also looking out for injured people.
People can draw their own conclusion to the believability of any of the people saying that, and certainly Grosskeutz can argue he thought he was pursuing an active shooter, despite not seeing the shooting and being told he was turning himself in.
You're missing the point. The video evidence shows Rittenhouse pointing his AR-15 while Grosskreutz hands are raised and then performs a motion that resembles re-racking. At this point its perfectly sound for Grosskreutz to be in fear of his own life (a point demonstrated during Rittenhouse testimony). The fact that Grosskreutz is also in fear of his own life at this point, grants him perfectly good reason to then point his own gun, haphazardly mind you, at Rittenhouse in self-defense.
That chain of events, backed up by video, lends itself to doubting an iron-clad claim of "it must be self-defense." Of course, it's going to be up for interpretation but when you go slowly through the exact events, self-defense by Grosskreutz in raising his weapon is just as valid as self-defense by Rittenhouse.
So another poster decides to go dirty against someone who disagrees with them.
You decided who was chasing who yet?
It was grosskreutz pursuing Kyle and not the other way around while he was being attacked by a mob, but as we can say it was in good faith. The mob didnt necessarily know that kyle had shot in self-defense and where in their eyes apprehending/neutralising an active shooter. But since its kyle on trial he can reasonably claim self-defense.
Just for the record, this was established in one of my first posts. The NPR description is accurate. Rittenhouse follows and pursues the group charging for no valid reason into the situation then, only after Rittenhouse purses with his AR-15 at the ready, does Rosembaum then charge at Rittenhouse and pursue him briefly. This was already established long ago so your attempt at a gotcha fails yet again.
Now, have you replied to NotThatSoph yet?
Have you posted about all of Rittenhouse's lies?
Why are you only spouting the same talking points of the far-right media and other unsavory characters?
Last edited:
Since you don't seem to have read my first post, I'll paste about Rittenhouse's lies in court and that night:
"Then Rittenhouse flat out lied in court about what happened after the shooting. Rittenhouse claimed he feared for his life because, right after the shooting, he said the crowd was shouting "get him, get him." This claim was immediately disproved by video that showsed Rittenhouse calmly standing and calling his friend on a cell phone. Counter to Rittenhouse's lie, no one in the crowd was shouting "get him" at this point. In fact, the video showed that when someone asked Rittenhosue why he shot the victim, Rittenhouse lies again and says the victim had a gun. Only when Rittenhouse tries to flee the scene of the crime, that's when the crowd says "get him" and tries to capture him. So some really damning lies from Rittenhouse that break the narrative Rittenhouse has been trying to present."
Rittenhouse can certainly claim self-defense but its far from objectively reasonable. Reasonable people can easily disagree on the third count of self-defense as its not definitive.
I didn't respond to NotThatSoph's first post. I did respond to another poster shortly after that made a similar point where I accepted that some of my posting could have been better and expressed regret at not being harsher on the Proud Boy stuff. I accepted that it damaged my credibility by trying to mitigate that to win an internet argument.
The rest of the response noone would be interested in, but I was arguing Rosenbaum's behaviour on the night because it was relevant for who was more likely to start the confrontation, as well as Rittenhouse's state of mind. The posts in respect of Rosenbaum's criminal history was more snarky, and in respect of one person who made a point that noone would have died if Rittenhouse wasn't there and I pointed out that Rosenbaum was a ticking time bomb.
I have mentioned that Rittenhouse's testimony was bad for him, at least a good portion of it was.
Is talking about prosecutorial misconduct a right wing talking point? what are you on about
I'm a strong civil libertarian so of course the prosecutor should be strongly criticised for what he did.
One must bear in mind that bringing a full rifle plus tact gear or tacticool isnt a cause of provocation in the USA. That's norm.
Without that optic which seems strage to us non American Kyle isnt as guilty or at least as cnuty as it looks.
Not saying anything, just that those juries and the judge are seeing it from their point of view.
It's like a scouse supporter got separated from his group, meet a united fans and somehow got a kick in the head, got back up and beat the kickers. But a gun made the whole thing deadly. If there's no guns involved this is just another scuffle. Now we all know the scouse is a cnut etc but does he merit getting mobbed? If he didnt bring a gun and he's got kicked in the head would our optic changed?
If the situation reversed and Kyle is the one that got shot dead would our optic changed?
Without that optic which seems strage to us non American Kyle isnt as guilty or at least as cnuty as it looks.
Not saying anything, just that those juries and the judge are seeing it from their point of view.
It's like a scouse supporter got separated from his group, meet a united fans and somehow got a kick in the head, got back up and beat the kickers. But a gun made the whole thing deadly. If there's no guns involved this is just another scuffle. Now we all know the scouse is a cnut etc but does he merit getting mobbed? If he didnt bring a gun and he's got kicked in the head would our optic changed?
If the situation reversed and Kyle is the one that got shot dead would our optic changed?
I’m not sure you have any right to a self defence argument once you take to the streets with an AR-15. You’re the threat to any and all.
No it's not.