I don't care about whatever shitty US justice system technicalities are involved, it's absolutely bonkers from a moral standpoint to suggest he has just acted in self defence and that's it. He has put himself in this extremely volatile situation with a bloody assault rifle, he does not just get to do whatever he deems necessary once shit hits the fan and call it self defence. I don't know why you are choosing this hill to die on, maybe it is due to you having past experiences that you are likening to this(incorrectly, from what you've explained anyway).
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
Because I don't think that you can have a system where something is legal (though obviously Rittenhouse was not legally possessing the firearm, the protesters do not know that) and then others can attack you for doing that (not that Rosenbaum was motivated by that but going from the narrative) because they don't like it and you can't defend yourself and when you do defend yourself yourself people who similarly don't like what you were legally doing attack you for being the victim of an assault and defending yourself, and the reporting of events get misrepresented to make you seem worse than the evidence shows.
I've said many times he's guilty of possession and curfew violations. Those are the crimes he is legally and morally culpable for and the militia, crossed state lines or white supremacist stuff is fluff that is not within what's triggered my ocd about the situation.
You need to have a long hard look at yourself if you think that's the only moral crime he's culpable of. Except that it's more likely that you don't and have just been here to troll.
Good point. I'd also add to the second para AB Kyle's actions are the real-world effect of indoctrination through echo chambers, peers and social media.
@Drainy
We can also go through your "basic critical thinking", in addition to the things I mentioned in #352:
We can also go through your "basic critical thinking", in addition to the things I mentioned in #352:
- Was he there on the advice of his handlers? No, obviously his handlers, whatever that means, didn't advice an 18-year old to go out drinking with the Proud Boys in a country where the legal drinking age is 21 and where the Proud Boys is a far right organization.
- Was he asked by someone there to do the ok sign? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows, but why would it matter? You don't do white supremacist symbols of your own volition, and you don't do it upon request. This is not complicated.
- Was he aware that was becoming a controversial symbol online? Yes, obviously. It was 2020, not 2017.
- Did he know who the proud boys are? Yes, obviously.
- If so what was they public platform at the time? A well-known violent far right organization.
- Had they been violent at this point? Yes.
- etc. Etc. Etc what?
If he had a genuine belief his life was in danger why would he be morally culpable? He would be a victim defending himself.
The only person I attempted to troll was oneniltothearsenal because he or she is more unreasonable than the young turks on this. That's just funny to me.
I did get overly emotional and snarky about Rosenbaum 's conviction on reflection. If there was a redo I would use stronger language to condemn the picture with the proud boys, which while irrelevant to the case and brings serious questions about him and his handlers even if it was for money. I do accept my failure to fully condemn the picture further damaged people's perception of the intent of my posts in this thread and undermined how credible I appear on the subject.
Rittenhouse shouldnt have been there with an assault rifle, but once someone tried to seize it - who said he'd kill him none the less, should he just had let them take the rifle and hope for the best? He heard shots fired just before so he had good reason to fear for his life.
His former lawyer said that he didn't know who they were. Not sure how credible he is given some of his clientelle but take it for what it's worth.
I don't think it's in doubt he was a republican who wanted to be a police when he was able.
Were the bugaloo boys actually there or was that just the protesters calling them that? I heard Grosskreutz call Rittenhouse 's group that while verbally abusing them. I missed a lot of yesterday's trial so maybe it came out then?
Thanks Soph, you put that well
People don't think they are heroes, they think they were murdered
You mean the man dressed as an agitator, with the gun, in ready position, following them, increasing in pace, shouting something that may or may not have been heard as medical. Whether he has a fire extinguisher or not is irrelevant, because as you say, if a skateboard can be a lethal weapon, so can a fire extinguisher, in fact probably more so as it can be wielded one handed.
There's no doubt he had "shitty" affiliations, there is photographic evidence, which you seem to be minimising. The Proud Boys are a well known white supremacist group, and have been known for many years. He didn't have to take their money and he didn't have to allow them to make him their hero. You say "may have", despite solid evidence that he "does have"
And as a 17 year old, I'm assuming he was computer savvy, so he will have known what the a ok sign means, my daughter does and she's 9 living in the UK.
You say that there is clear evidence that he committed murder in self defence. And it is "murder in self defence", not just "self defence", because at 17, there is no way he had been vetted to kill unlike a soldier or executioner. And you have refuted the one main point that countless posters have asked you, why was he following them and why did he accelerate towards them if he was scared of them?
And to your point about his genial attitude to aggression directed towards him earlier, you make a point of saying it happened on numerous occasions. I think you're either trolling or you are a white supremacist. Now, if numerous people call you mother fecking white supremacist scum, how long would it take you to get angry?
You are sure how credible it is, as in it's not at all. This is as obvious as the fact that people in hearings do in fact recall even if they say they don't. Again, head in sand.
Ryan Balch is a self-described Boog. He was in Rittenhouse's group, and he was not alone. Rather, Rittenhouse was in their group.
The lowest post in redcafe history.
Literally calling on people to harass a poster they disagree with.
It didn't even take a single person doing that to set him off.
Literally neither did I call you or encourage others to call you anything, I asked how long it would take, hypothetically for you to react angrily in those circumstances. Try reading it again buddy, a bit slower this time.
How many posts would it take to get you angry in the circumstances of trying to argue your view against the flow of opinion and out of nowhere some says you nudge nudge wink wink might be one of the worst things you can be and wouldn't it be interesting to see how angry they will get *cough*?
I'm not angry, I'm pretty upset about it.
I've set out my political opinions so people can try to see the angle I'm coming from. Reflected on where I went too far and where I haven't gone far enough and tried to be open about where I have been having a wind up or not, and where I should do better.
I was enjoying the debate last night and some of the banter has been funny but your post was appalling, in my opinion.
Good post.
I'm done with the thread outside of McMichaels case stuff which should kick off in the later part of the week and we'll all probably agree more on that one.
Sorry to the people who don't give a shit about the Rittenhouse trial that the thread got hijacked.
Sorry to the people who don't give a shit about the Rittenhouse trial that the thread got hijacked.
If this piece of shit does get off , does the victims families have any hope of success going through the civil route?
I love this place. It has certain aspects that are undesirable, but so much that is wonderful. I have lived in Hawaii, Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Central America and I can find faults with all of those places too. One of the things I love about it is the diversity of ecosystems and cultures. Also that my culture dates back 13,000 years here.
Yeah, I guess I should clarify that I am frustrated the way we have been divided and the visible rise of hatred and bigotry. I have lived in SoCal, Bama, and now Wisconsin (essentially 3 separate countries
) and I have known great people in all of them, but I have also seen incredible cruelty and disregard for life as well. I just wish there was some way to shatter the wall of division that the greedy few have created to keep us divided so as to remain in power.Edit: Also, the lack of respect for life is depressing as feck.
It's not so simple. As one of the legal experts mentioned at the start, the defense obviously wants people to solely focus on the few seconds before Rittenhouse started shooting, which would favor his claim of self-defense. The prosecution should want people to focus on the full chain of events - essentially expanding the timeline - so include the fact that rittenhouse follows the group and acts reckless to eventually run after them (which I personally would deem a pursuit or chase). Rittenhouse had countless opportunities to abandon his course of action and return to safety where his own friend was posted up doing what they claimed to be doing.
Here is another shot of Rittenhouse that night.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/67323843/73d55410_b9ab_46c6_97d3_e7a6949fb0de_AP_APTOPIX_Police_Shooting_Wisconsin.0.jpg)
This photo shows how Rittenhouse looked when patrolling. He has an AR-15 strapped to his body, holds it at a ready position with his finger right next to the trigger. The notion, as some with an agenda have suggested, that the"medical bag" strapped to his back somehow makes this person appear non-threatening or confirm his completely innocent intend is absurd. If this man here is following me, I would deem it an extremely threatening situation. It's quite reasonable that people would not even conclude that is a medical bag but a bag with more weapons. No reasonable person is going to look at how he was dressed and think "oh just a medic."
The second takeaway here: who is that second person? It's one of the witnesses called by the state, Ryan Balch. Who is Ryan Balch? An avowed boogaloo boy. 32 boogaloo boys were at Kenosha that night. They are either pure white supremacists or as Balch describes himself, simply a radical librarian or anarchist who believes a civil war is “imminent.” Balch himself has posted far-right imagery and even a video called "The Truth Will Triumph Adolf Hitler" but Blach claims he was just looking for good memes and just "posing" as a member of the alt-right.
So this is who Rittenhouse was rolling with that night. A group that, at best, is simply radical anarchists that are anti-government and anti-liberal and at worst are white supremacists. It's hardly crazy for people to feel threatened by the presence of someone that looks like this rolling around with a group of boogaloo bois.
For the gunshot, it's been presented a certain way but for more context, let's look at a picture:
While you are right that it's not unreasonable to feel threatened if you hear a gunshot, when you look at the positioning it really begs the question of why Rittenhouse didn't run the other way, away from this group of people that some say were definitely setting up an ambush? There were many cars and a good distance between this handgun and Rittenhouse. At many points, before the victim charged at Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse could and should have simply turned around and gone the other way which is what I believe any reasonable person looking to avoid a confrontation would have done. Of course, if we only focus on the precise few seconds before the shooting, it's perfectly reasonable to argue a person has a right to defend himself. The point of many in this thread is that no reasonable person would have placed themselves in this position to begin with because he easily could and should have avoided getting into this position. On the other hand, it's also reasonable for people to feel threatened by someone decked out like Rittenhouse and patrolling with people like the boogaloo bois.
Last edited:
It’s the power imbalance that gets me. One can bring a long gun to an event, be a potential threat to anyone, but have the ability to use deadly force if the weapon might be taken from them. The power is all in the hands of the carrier of the weapon, in this case illegally. How can it be justifiable when it’s literally just a possibility that the weapon could be turned on someone when it allows for potential certainty of judgement if the holder of the weapon engages with it.
It’s bizarre, but it’s highly likely that this little cnut might get off on the more serious charges.
Yup. And it's important to remember the judge was quoting the bible which is fecking bizarre in itself and definitely demonstrates some bias and one of the jurors got thrown out for making a joke about "why was Blake shot 7 times? Because they ran out of bullets." Yes, that juror was kicked off, but it's very telling that he even made it onto the jury to begin with and makes me wonder what other biases the jury might have but not be stupid enough to put out publicly.
What did the judge say in relation to the bible?
https://abovethelaw.com/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-judge-gives-impromptu-sermon-on-biblical-hearsay/
The article also contains some interesting facts about the judge so worth a full read.
Exactly, so being genial earlier on does not mean he wasn't aggressive and upset later on.
Mate, I'm sorry about the upsetting way I got you to demonstrate my point, but you've repeated that he wasn't aggressive before as some kind of golden key for him not being aggressive later on. You yourself balked at hypothetically being called a WS once, he was called it all day
I have enjoyed the debate and banter in this thread and I'm glad you've been giving us your perspective. However, you can pretend I was insulting you or you can admit it was a hypothetical to prove a point about the evidence you are presenting.
Would have preferred if he quoted the ten commandments and said thou shall not kill
Eurgh...seems to be one of those judges who wants to make a name for himself, and be the centre of attention rather than, you know, judge!
Good point, it certainly would have sounded less crazy.
Absolutely. He has a bit of a reputation and seems to do theatrical things like asking potential jurors to applause any veterans.
Just because he gets off on one of the murders with a self defense argument... Does that mean he walks? Didn't he kill 3 people and injure another? Is the claim really that all 4 acts were in self defense?
It's not so simple. As one of the legal experts mentioned at the start, the defense obviously wants people to solely focus on the few seconds before Rittenhouse started shooting, which would favor his claim of self-defense. The prosecution should want people to focus on the full chain of events - essentially expanding the timeline - so include the fact that rittenhouse follows the group and acts reckless to eventually run after them (which I personally would deem a pursuit or chase). Rittenhouse had countless opportunities to abandon his course of action and return to safety where his own friend was posted up doing what they claimed to be doing.
Here is another shot of Rittenhouse that night.
This photo shows how Rittenhouse looked when patrolling. He has an AR-15 strapped to his body, holds it at a ready position with his finger right next to the trigger. The notion, as some with an agenda have suggested, that the"medical bag" strapped to his back somehow makes this person appear non-threatening or confirm his completely innocent intend is absurd. If this man here is following me, I would deem it an extremely threatening situation. It's quite reasonable that people would not even conclude that is a medical bag but a bag with more weapons. No reasonable person is going to look at how he was dressed and think "oh just a medic."
The second takeaway here: who is that second person? It's one of the witnesses called by the state, Ryan Balch. Who is Ryan Balch? An avowed boogaloo boy. 32 boogaloo boys were at Kenosha that night. They are either pure white supremacists or as Balch describes himself, simply a radical librarian or anarchist who believes a civil war is “imminent.” Balch himself has posted far-right imagery and even a video called "The Truth Will Triumph Adolf Hitler" but Blach claims he was just looking for good memes and just "posing" as a member of the alt-right.
So this is who Rittenhouse was rolling with that night. A group that, at best, is simply radical anarchists that are anti-government and anti-liberal and at worst are white supremacists. It's hardly crazy for people to feel threatened by the presence of someone that looks like this rolling around with a group of boogaloo bois.
For the gunshot, it's been presented a certain way but for more context, let's look at a picture:
While you are right that it's not unreasonable to feel threatened if you hear a gunshot, when you look at the positioning it really begs the question of why Rittenhouse didn't run the other way, away from this group of people that some say were definitely setting up an ambush? There were many cars and a good distance between this handgun and Rittenhouse. At many points, before the victim charged at Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse could and should have simply turned around and gone the other way which is what I believe any reasonable person looking to avoid a confrontation would have done. Of course, if we only focus on the precise few seconds before the shooting, it's perfectly reasonable to argue a person has a right to defend himself. The point of many in this thread is that no reasonable person would have placed themselves in this position to begin with because he easily could and should have avoided getting into this position. On the other hand, it's also reasonable for people to feel threatened by someone decked out like Rittenhouse and patrolling with people like the boogaloo bois.
I agree that Kyle should just have got the feck out of there once he was targeted.
2 people died. Rosenbaum first who threatened to kill him, and then the after that the guy for tried to grab his rifle while the mob was on him. The 3rd guy with the glock got part of his arm shot off after he pretended to surrender and then aimed his glock at Kyle's face.
Thank you I'll take note of your comment and awaited verdict
Rittenhouse's testimony there. Rewind about 30 mins from this post to see the waterworks.
Poor Kyle.
Looked like crocodile tears to me.
"Participants also exhibited more speech hesitations while expressing deceptive relative to genuine remorse. In general, the results suggest that falsified remorse may be conceived as an emotionally turbulent display of deliberate, falsified expressions and involuntary, genuine, emotional leakage."
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-25662-001
This judge is hilariously bad.
I think the point of carrying a assault rifle is its a massive deterrent rather than a concealed handgun.