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

nimic said:
It was a non sequitur. The point he was originally making was only about why the law was the way that it was, which directly relates to why the charges were seemingly arbitrarily dropped. You brought up the Taliban for some reason, even though they are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You invented an argument where one didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I drew a comparison that the argument needed
 
oates said:
When I first replied to @Suedesi it was in response to him calling the victim a nut job. I don't like the terminology and commented that he was mentally ill, had got out of hospital that day after attempting suicide, I see calling someone a nut job as attempting to de-humanise a person, it's uncalled for. We went on to the point that I responded that he'd been abused as a child when that was not included in Suedesi's 'rap sheet'.

Why would I need to explain every time child sex offenders are discussed that I cannot abide them, that in my opinion no child sex offender should get the opportunity to offend again? I've certainly said it before, in fact it was my job and is now my business to work with abused children. And yet I will not de-humanise any sex offender or for that matter any abuser of which there are several types. When I work with kids who have been abused for much of my working life they are the victims, if I fail them and they abuse someone they cross a line, one side where they deserve compassion to another whereupon they are reviled by society and rightly so but my way is to believe in compassion. To me who cannot ever know what or who failed them, parent, counsellor, social worker, themselves, myself, they are still human beings. I have to accept this or I could not also work with the parent who might be the abuser. The details are probably boring you but as I've said, I cannot abide them or their crime but because they were once innocent I still know they are human. I have to show and believe in compassion or I would fail before I ever started. Some cannot be fixed, I cannot tell which ones when I meet them.

It's despicable to bring their history as whatever into the argument here in any case because it has nothing to do with why he was killed. It is simply a desire to de-humanise. Maybe an attempt to say that they deserved killing by a young man who knew nothing about him.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean now. I was genuinely baffled when you replied that he was sexually abused in response to his pedophelia rap sheet, perhaps wrongly assuming that you were somehow correlating the two.

Not trying to use 'nut job' as a pejorative term to de-humanize him. Just a comment that would apply universally to anyone going after and harassing someone holding a shotgun. I mean not a great risk/reward ratio
 
Suedesi said:
I see what you mean now. I was genuinely baffled when you replied that he was sexually abused in response to his pedophelia rap sheet, perhaps wrongly assuming that you were somehow correlating the two.

Not trying to use 'nut job' as a pejorative term to de-humanize him. Just a comment that would apply universally to anyone going after and harassing someone holding a shotgun. I mean not a great risk/reward ratio
Click to expand...
What can I say? This little episode caused one person to lose his temper and start throwing out insults, God knows we don't need to set off part II but personally as I've said I think it appears to be on the face of it a derogative term, 'Nut-Job' in a similar vein to 'Spazzo' or 'Retard' which aren't usually considered satisfactory to use here. Certainly I think he had mental problems which I can well imagine leading him to do what he did, maybe he was so affected by what he saw during the protest, maybe having recently attempted suicide he did not care what happened to him, and maybe we'll never know. It certainly kicked off a tragedy for another and their family and friends and injury for one more. I'm just of the opinion that the loss of life was a tragedy and they had people who cared for them.

Me adding 'He was abused as a child' was merely me adding to the history you were posting about as a by the by, something quite typical in his background but none of it relevant to his death, however my comment was seen as something else, best let sleeping dogs lie.


There's not much that I really understand about American Gun Culture,, as a British person we can have our opinions but getting our heads round it isn't simple. I think if we tried to relate the protest and attendance of the Militia's, their callout for individuals to come and bolster their numbers then I would think of the protests and riot in Croydon, Surrey (South London) a few years ago now and as a place that I worked in during the 80s and 90s an area I knew and was familiar with, a family owned business of decades burned down just around the corner from where I worked, and I can't imagine any authoritative body apart from the Police, or the Fire Brigade and Paramedics having legitimacy to respond, the vast percentage of the police wouldn't bear firearms, we certainly don't have militias in the UK and if we did it might mostly be farmers with shotguns and pitchforks they could maybe call upon, it might take several days for them to arrive driving tractors.

I'm afraid all that comes to mind having groups with their own agendas calling armed individuals to join them under what authority's tactics and control (?) is just insanity.
 
Mental that so many people online are trying to push the possibility of lawsuits for defamation.

It's obvious that any negative commentary is protected under the 1st Amendment and any lies will not have caused damages that the court can compensate for.

No doubt the evidence shows that he was innocent of murder because it was self defense, but killing 2 people and maiming a third is what has damaged his reputation, along with the prosecution, whether justified or not is going to cause damage.

It's a question of further lies preventing the rehabilitation of perception from this point that would be actionable.
 
Last edited:
:lol:

giphy.gif


RWNJs and others in the conservative world upon hearing this comment.

ConcernedAshamedBarnswallow.webp
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
On balance we also have:
  • All his character witnesses for being nice that day were from people biased to his side - boogaloo boi Ryan Balch and other members of his ad-hoc militia group, right-wing website contributor from Daily Caller, his own long-time friend who he traveled there with - hardly objective observers and all people with the incentive to paint Rittenhouse in the best light possible.
  • Private militia groups are technically illegal. It's a bit grey area for ad-hoc groups like the boogaloo bois and Kenosha Guard that night but they do violate the intent of established law at the least. As the woman said on video "protect your property, not the streets." This group was essentially an armed gang that could easily provoke reactions as noted. Anyone in that position should have known that or that no business being out there.
  • Rittenhouse had no training or experience to operate safely in such an environment.
  • He lied about being EMT that night.
  • He admitted no one actually asked him for medical help that night (he supplied some gauze earlier that day).
  • As photos show, his tiny "medical" bag isn't prominent and was completely irrelevant with him marching around with an AR-15 at the ready.
  • He lied about what he was even doing before any of the incidents claiming he was just looking for Balch but the video evidence contradicts this.
  • He had no valid reason for any of his actions prior to the incidents when he knew his mere presence with an AR-15 at the ready would threaten, intimidate and provoke the protestors especially when he was following a group that allegedly already threatened him. Why follow such a group? He had no valid explanation or reason.
  • He admitted he couldn't even provide "medical assistance" while maintaining his AR-15 and only planned to provide medical when someone else could "protect" him, which means he had no business walking around alone that night with an AR-15 at the ready before the incidents.
  • He didn't have to shoot the first victim a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time because he had already incapacitated the victim after the first shot.
  • He lied on the witnesses stand about the crowd saying "get him" after the incident when in fact that did not happen and he had time to make a phone and stand over the victim NOT providing medical assistance as he claims he was there to do.
  • He lied that night when he said the victim had a gun.
  • The crowd only tried to capture him when he fled from the scene of the crime, not an unreasonable or unexpected reaction considering what just happened.
  • Rosenbaum might have been a bad person but 17-year-old Rittenhouse was as well, physically punching a woman in the back, wishing he had an AR-15 to shoot shoplifters, posted on social media being completely brainwashed by Fox News, and posing afterward with the Proud Boys flashing white power hand signals.
  • Beyond the facts of this case, which establish reckless homicide and reckless endangerment, there are other dangers here beyond just this case.
So he has lied multiple times to make himself look better both that night and on the stand. Impossible to take anything he says as truthful after so many lies and his fake crocodile tears.

Allowing "self-defense" to get him off on all charges also sets a dangerous precedent. What happens if two armed groups of private militia (say the boogaloo bois and the NFAC have an armed stand-off? The precedent here would be that both sides could just shoot at the other with impunity because both sides "feel" threatened and in danger of their lives.
Click to expand...
About self defense, no it doesnt. One of those would have to charge or raise a gun or do something like Rosenbaum did. That’s a very poor argument
 
Kind of how I felt it was obvious he wouldn't go down and would be deemed self defence. especially when the dude admitting Kyle did not fire until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at him from 5 feet away. To me it was a "slam dunk." I also hate how politicised this has become as opposed to focusing on the legal. Also how many white people aren't even mad he popped 3 white dudes and its turned into a "black issue."

 
Achilles McCool said:
BLM is nothing more than regurgitated Marxist garbage, but that should be for another thread, no?
Click to expand...
You are a fool, or at least your post is. Criticise the post, not the poster. I'll take the infraction.
Achilles McCool said:
If you think it’s a bad “political take” then let’s go to a different thread to discuss.

As for BLM being Marxist, it’s very easy to verify
Click to expand...
Verify it then.
OutlawGER said:
No, i said he would have fallen for their propaganda. I was not comparing him to them.

But on the other hand, how is comparing someone to Nazis connected to white supremacy? Isn't the left wing especially calling most right wingers exactly that?
Click to expand...
By saying he would have fallen for it, you are literally comparing the situations and mindsets. Just cos you're saying you're not doesn't mean you aren't.
Achilles McCool said:
Thread focus has been lost. Let’s take the “militia/arms/BLM” discussion somewhere else
Click to expand...
You took it there with your weak assed arguments
 
Peter van der Gea said:
You are a fool, or at least your post is. Criticise the post, not the poster. I'll take the infraction.

Verify it then.

By saying he would have fallen for it, you are literally comparing the situations and mindsets. Just cos you're saying you're not doesn't mean you aren't.

You took it there with your weak assed arguments
Click to expand...
He's not gonna be able to respond.
 
Drainy said:


Watching Jimmy Dore and saw this documentary basically setting out the events

Holy crap he got it spot on 7 months ago
Click to expand...

I remember people were claiming Rosenbaum said the n-bomb and it was being denied on twitter. He seems a bit unhinged.
This video seems to show Kyle helping people and protecting his city from rioters but I am seeing in this thread and the "liberal media" that he was there purely to protest BLM and support white supremacy. this video makes him look innocent as feck.
 
Last edited:
Drainy said:
Mental that so many people online are trying to push the possibility of lawsuits for defamation.

It's obvious that any negative commentary is protected under the 1st Amendment and any lies will not have caused damages that the court can compensate for.

No doubt the evidence shows that he was innocent of murder because it was self defense, but killing 2 people and maiming a third is what has damaged his reputation, along with the prosecution, whether justified or not is going to cause damage.

It's a question of further lies preventing the rehabilitation of perception from this point that would be actionable.
Click to expand...
high profile politicians were calling him a white supremacist and stating he went there to prevent BLM from having a protest and then killed 2 'heroes' who were on the side of justice. Probably has a case
Drainy said:
:lol: Idiots.

Thanks for sharing
Click to expand...
They turned on Trump when he told them that storming capitol = bad
 
Stacks said:
high profile politicians were calling him a white supremacist and stating he went there to prevent BLM from having a protest and then killed 2 'heroes' who were on the side of justice. Probably has a case

They turned on Trump when he told them that storming capitol = bad
Click to expand...

He absolutely doesn't have a case for anything that was said so far.

His mother might due to the smears being factual and damaging (saying she drove him with his gun to a riot), rather than a matter of opinion (white supremacist and reason why he was there), but even then she is probably a limited purpose public figure so they would have to prove actual malice.

With Rittenhouse, even if they were lies he is a public figure, its public interest to discuss him and its very arguable that he is incapable of being defamed since his reputation is so shot by charged with murder. Additionally politicians get protections from their office (like how in the UK something said in parliament isn't actionable) from what I understand.
 
Drainy said:
He absolutely doesn't have a case for anything that was said so far.

His mother might due to the smears being factual and damaging (saying she drove him with his gun to a riot), rather than a matter of opinion (white supremacist and reason why he was there), but even then she is probably a limited purpose public figure so they would have to prove actual malice.

With Rittenhouse, even if they were lies he is a public figure, its public interest to discuss him and its very arguable that he is incapable of being defamed since his reputation is so shot by charged with murder. Additionally politicians get protections from their office (like how in the UK something said in parliament isn't actionable) from what I understand.
Click to expand...
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
 
Stacks said:
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
Click to expand...

I've watched enough drama LOLsuits on the internet to know how US defamation works now :lol:

He doesn't have a case for the reasons I have previously stated and depending on which state he sues in could end up paying fees and costs due to anti-SLAPP legislation.

People think he has a lot of money that was raised, but $2m belongs to the MAGA lawyers, or will be returned to donors, and the $600k will all be going to Richards and Chirafisi.

He's going to be broke for a long time unless he does a lot of media shit and then will probably have additional fees to pay with the expectation that he's going to have civil cases brought at least by Huber's family.
 
Stacks said:
It matters as his opposition have framed him as a Nazi who was there to stop BLM and ended up killing their supporters out of hate. Joe Biden compared him to a white supremacist, Colin Kaep mentioned it, Representative Ayanna Pressley called him that. you can't just throw labels on people ESPECIALLY as a politician because you rile people up even more and create an environment where people will not look at the legal aspect and see this as a simple fight against white supremacy. People are literally marching now claiming "white supremacy wins again" and the politicians stoked these flames. Its not their job. Thats not what you get hired for. Sowing seeds of division
Click to expand...

Build Back Bitter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.