Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

VorZakone said:
Quote who and what exactly? There is no trial involving a black kid and a corresponding thread about it.
Click to expand...

No doubt. Almost everybody makes this case about race. It's disgusting, no matter from which biased side it comes.

Edit:
I meant that part that you wrote: "But I'm actually 100% confident a black kid would get the same sympathy as Rittenhouse on Redcafe."
 
VorZakone said:
Quote who and what exactly? There is no trial involving a black kid so I can look up the comments. But I'm actually 100% confident a black kid would get the same sympathy as Rittenhouse on Redcafe.
Click to expand...

Wow, you honestly think people would defend a killer just because he is black? Or because he killed maga folks? I don't know what to say...
 
Raoul said:
Trouble is, most people have a difficult time leaving out their cultural and political views when analyzing a situation like this. Instead of looking just at the legal issues, most privilege their preferred moral outcome over the facts.
Click to expand...
It is a bit difficult to find the equivalent of the situation in the UK. The closest I can think of is if I went onto a London Street dressed as Michael Myers from Halloween and had a machete on me. To be honest I would expect my head to be bashed in for sure. And unlikely to get off on a self defense if I stabbed someone.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s not what I mean. It paints you as someone with a very black and white, fixed way of thinking. Leaping to extreme conclusions based on not much evidence.
Click to expand...

Fair enough I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I guess we disagree on the evidence then.
 
Raoul said:
Trouble is, most people have a difficult time leaving out their cultural and political views when analyzing a situation like this. Instead of looking just at the legal issues, most privilege their preferred moral outcome over the facts.
Click to expand...

Legal issues like a judge bending his interpretation of existing law that would in no way apply to the situation to ensure that someone doesn't go down on a charge that should have been open and shut?
 
maniak said:
OK I misinterpreted it then, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

I, personally, think that he went there with a certain expectation and was probably ready to kill. I mean, that's why you have a deadly weapon with you, right? But even if so, his intent before said situation occured is not relevant, as his new intent was formed once he was himself confronted with the possibility of deadly assault.
 
maniak said:
Fair enough I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I guess we disagree on the evidence then.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I’m just wading in without knowing a whole load of detail about the case. So no need to apologise! Based on what I have read, though, it seems like a hell of a stretch to be absolutely 100% certain he went there intending to kill someone.
 
maniak said:
Wow, you honestly think people would defend a killer just because he is black? Or because he killed maga folks? I don't know what to say...
Click to expand...
He'd get a lot more sympathy I expect. Example:

MarylandMUFan said:
That's actually an interesting point. If a black kid did that and killed a couple of white Trump supporters (in the same manor, but lets say he had a pistol instead), I would have probably been much more sympathetic which does show my bias.
Click to expand...
 
Rektsanwalt said:
I, personally, think that he went there with a certain expectation and was probably ready to kill. I mean, that's why you have a deadly weapon with you, right? But even if so, his intent before said situation occured is not relevant, as his new intent was formed once he was himself confronted with the possibility of deadly assault.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer. If the law allows for that to happen, it's just absurd. You go into a place with a gun to stir shit up, when someone responds then you're just defending yourself? OK then...
 
MarylandMUFan said:
That's actually an interesting point. If a black kid did that and killed a couple of white Trump supporters (in the same manor, but lets say he had a pistol instead), I would have probably been much more sympathetic which does show my bias.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't make a difference for me (assuming all the important facts, etc were the same).

If you go somewhere with a weapon (you shouldn't have), pretend to be an EMT, get involved in a decision you could have easily avoided and end up killing/injuring people, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
To be honest, I’m just wading in without knowing a whole load of detail about the case. So no need to apologise! Based on what I have read, though, it seems like a hell of a stretch to be absolutely 100% certain he went there intending to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Dont think its a stretch at all. I think its pretty hard to interpret in any other way. Cant be 100% certain obviously, maybe he's just braindead stupid and didn't expect the reaction he got, but it was a pretty predictable reaction.
 
maniak said:
I'm not a lawyer. If the law allows for that to happen, it's just absurd. You go into a place with a gun to stir shit up, when someone responds then you're just defending yourself? OK then...
Click to expand...

That is not how it went down.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
To be honest, I’m just wading in without knowing a whole load of detail about the case. So no need to apologise! Based on what I have read, though, it seems like a hell of a stretch to be absolutely 100% certain he went there intending to kill someone.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was convinced having an intimidating weapon would be enough for him to feel like a big man and people would just run off scared, but surely it must have crossed his mind someone might attack him and he'd need to shot them.
 
Defense attorney interview is right now. He said the prosecutor said Rittenhouse chased his victims down. That was something we could go after.
 
VorZakone said:
You're asking if most people here (Redcafe you mean?) would be defending a black guy doing the same as Rittenhouse did? I'm pretty sure they would.
Click to expand...
Without anything to back that up, that's just assumption and generalising. What some posters are being accused of with their comments about why Rittenhouse was there.

There's always a variety of views but I think most people critical of Rittenhouse are critical because (based on not a lot of information granted), he comes across as a scummy tw@t who wants to be Billy Big Bollocks... be interesting to see how he acts in coming days, weeks, months...

... if he gets the chance to.
 
BeforeKeanetherewasRobson said:
Without anything to back that up, that's just assumption and generalising. What some posters are being accused of with their comments about why Rittenhouse was there.

There's always a variety of views but I think most people critical of Rittenhouse are critical because (based on not a lot of information granted), he comes across as a scummy tw@t who wants to be Billy Big Bollocks... be interesting to see how he acts in coming days, weeks, months...

... if he gets the chance to.
Click to expand...
If I'm Rittenhouse I'd be laying low for a looooooooong while.
 
Fecking mental he killed 3 people and got off scot free, not in any world is that okay, if that’s a black guy he’s dead before he gets in a cop car…
 
Rektsanwalt said:
You are oversimplifying heavily. Reality and the law is about many details and complex reality.
Click to expand...

I've already said I'm not a lawyer, of course I'm oversimplifying. I just watched him and his buddies preparing for a fight, getting one and then claiming self defence. It sounds absurd.
 
Admittedly don't know a great deal about this case. Hard to find a view online which isn't extremely polarised one way or the other. Could anyone explain why the charge of illegally owning a firearm was dropped?
 
Can’t help but feel like this becomes the benchmark for when these sorts want to live out their cosplay soldier fantasies. Go somewhere armed and provoke people, then kill and claim self defense. What a disgusting set of laws to govern a country with.
 
Flamingo Purple said:
Admittedly don't know a great deal about this case. Hard to find a view online which isn't extremely polarised one way or the other. Could anyone explain why the charge of illegally owning a firearm was dropped?
Click to expand...
The defense attorney just addressed that and he said that they went through that law piece by piece and it did not apply to his client.
 
Is this particularly due to Wisconsin laws or is it for the whole country. For example if he had done this in California would he still be able to claim self defense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.