Left wing terrorists are getting ready to riot again in Kenosha.
Rittenhouse Trial
Posts
Total:
189
-->
@thett3
All of the people defending the State here are literal fascists.
-->
@Double_R
Complete strawman and false equivocation. Any 19 year old girl should reasonably expect that if they walk into a bar they won’t be sexually assaulted.
You're right...but she should know better than to walk down a dark alley, right? Some parts of the city should simply be off limits to women if they aren't being escorted by a man. After all, they should know not to provoke sexual assault by wearing short skirts. They should not be placing themselves in a dangerous situation where it's predictable that they may be attacked.
No reasonable person would presume that walking into a city plagued by riots is a safe place to show up with your AR15 as the anti-rioter. That is provocative, and that invites the very situation he found himself in. This was all foreseeable, this was all predictable.
How is it provocative? People open carry at protests in the United States ALL THE TIME--so it's actually not predictable whatsoever that open carrying would be physically attacked. To my knowledge, it hadn't ever happened before this for obvious reasons. It's the exact opposite of provocative--if I see a guy with a gun, I'm substantially less likely to attack him. The point of openly carrying a gun is to DETER potential attackers.
It’s not self defense when you create the situation that leads to you having to use deadly force. If he really just wanted to put out fires and render medical aid he could have left his AR15 at home.
Yeah you're victim blaming again. A woman who is attacked by a rapist because she chose to walk down a dark alley in a dangerous area created the situation that results in her having to defend herself.
Explain the logic behind the bolded part. Rittenhouse's story is that he took the weapon with him for self defense--and guess what: HE ACTUALLY WAS ATTACKED! So it's a GOOD thing that he brought the weapon, no? Or should he have been expected to fight off a mob with his fists, as the Prosecutor suggested?
Be clear with me. Disregarding the existence of a weapon, was his very presence there immoral? If so, why? And why does that condemnation not apply to the rioters who were actually committing crimes?
And if all he wanted was to defend himself he could have brought a hand gun instead of running around like a wanna be Rambo.
1) No, because it is not legal for someone of his age to carry or own a pistol. It was legal for him to carry a long gun, which is why the charge was dismissed
2) Are you seriously saying that if he had just unloaded on somebody attacking him who didn't know he had a gun, that would somehow be more moral? Part of what makes this CLEAR self defense is that the videos show Rosenbaum beginning to chase Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse flees and at one point points his gun at Rosenbaum, in an attempt to get him to stop chasing him. Rosenbaum then continues the chase, and Rittenhouse only fires at him after he has exhausted all reasonable avenues of retreat, and the man is lunging at him and reaching for his gun. If somebody knows you have a gun but attacks you anyway, it is reasonable to assume lethal intent from that person. If Rittenhouse had waited until Rosenbaum tackled him and then unloaded his pistol into the man, before Rosenbaum had demonstrated lethal intent, that's somehow more moral?
If someone knows you are armed and attacks you anyway, it is more than reasonable to assume lethal intent on their part. Rosenbaum had the option to stop his pursuit when he saw Rittenhouse's gun. He did not, but 99% of people in that situation would. Rittenhouse carrying a concealed handgun removes the ability to easily signal "I am armed, do not come any closer" and thus removes the ability to deter potential attackers without lethal intent. If someone doesn't know you are armed and attacks you...well, you do have the right to defend yourself in my mind. But they have not demonstrated lethal intent in the way that Rosenbaum clearly did.
3) Please show me a clip of Rittenhouse acting like a "wannabe Rambo." I have been watching the trial closely and every single clip brought up by both parties has shown him behaving very meekly and non-confrontationally.
-->
@Greyparrot
All of the people defending the State here are literal fascists.
If he is convicted it will be an egregious miscarriage of justice. I'm convinced that most of these people simply hate white conservatives, and believe that they don't have rights. Especially the right to self defense against one of their client groups using one of their most despised weapons.
-->
@thett3
No, no, it's quite the other way around.
Frankly, I significantly blame both his mother for neglect and whatever older guys got him involved with such vile weaponry.
-->
@thett3
That mob would have beaten him to death. His behavior beforehand simply wasn’t the behavior of someone who just wanted to kill people.
He had already murdered Rosenbaum who was unarmed and high as a kite asking to be killed.
It was this murder that set the 'mob' on him which primarily consisted of Huber trying desperately to disarm and restrain the guy who had just murdered Rosenbaum (who was unarmed). Then Rittenhouse kills him instead of surrendering and the others become more panicky not sure whether to attack or run scared.
You have a very strange narration of events when you say the mob set on him initially while in fact he'd already killed a guy by then.
- Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was inititally arrested) at a BLM protest? If he was there to 'defend' then who was it who requested a 17-year-old to carry an AR-15 across state lines in order to 'defend' something? Isn't requesting that illegal?
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
You have a very strange narration of events when you say the mob set on him initially while in fact he'd already killed a guy by then.
No, Rosenbaum was just his lead attacker. There was a second person involved in the chase, about a second behind Rosenbaum, who was actually armed with a gun and fired into the air
-->
@thett3
so, regarding gun rights and how easy it was for everyone to get a gun... Does that at least horrify you? Regardless of the side you take?
I already know the answer is no and that's what perplexes me about American pro-gun culture.
I'm horrified a State prosecutor would intimidate a jury by pulling a Baldwin.
-->
@RationalMadman
In this case someone used a gun to defend themselves against multiple assailants so I’m glad he had a gun with him
I'm horrified a State prosecutor would intimidate a jury by pulling a Baldwin.
That was so funny. I know not everyone can be an expert on all things but a prosecutor should be expected to have a basic understanding of firearms. Whether it was pointing the gun at people with his finger on the trigger, falsely claiming that guns don’t have handedness, or fear mongering about “full metal jacket” bullets being scary instead of just the default the prosecutors have shown that they have no understanding of firearms.
Either that or they are intentionally being dishonest because they think the jury is stupid. Which is even worse
-->
@thett3
The use of the word "victim" is also another grounds for tossing the case out on legal grounds, By using the word victim as in victim of a crime, you are necessarily naming Kyle as a criminal when all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury, not a lawyer.
Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal.
This is why we can legally call Rosenbaum a Criminal.
That is why they use the term "alleged victim" before a jury reaches a verdict.
Ridiculous kangaroo court tactics.
-->
@Greyparrot
Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal.
I would like to believe that the parents of those little victims felt at least some comfort at the thought that the vile bastard had been put in the ground where he belongs.
-->
@thett3
Part of what makes this CLEAR self defense is that the videos show Rosenbaum beginning to chase Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse flees and…
All of this is irrelevant. What I have criticized from the start was his decision to grab an AR15 and head down there in the first place.
How is it provocative? People open carry at protests in the United States ALL THE TIME--so it's actually not predictable whatsoever that open carrying would be physically attacked.
This was absolutely nothing like any standard open carry rally, so your comparison is invalid. Open carry rallies are generally peaceful because they are protesting institutions that carry actual authority. Such institutions are built on public trust, so of course opposing them without crossing the line should be expected to remain peaceful. No such thing could be said with a straight face with regards to dealing with rioters.
A common theme throughout every argument you have made is a full disregard for the context of what was going on in Kenosha in the first place.
The reason people were out there was because of a perceived continual unjustified use of deadly force against the black community. This led to mass protests which inevitably turned into rioting. I don’t condone the rioting, but if you really believed your community was being killed by a system that didn’t value your life, how would you react? These are the people Rittenhouse decided to show up and stand on the opposing side from with an AR15. The idea that this was not a recipe for absolute disaster is ludicrous.
Yeah you're victim blaming again.
You really need to drop this counter point. Whatever you think about the actions of those who tried to attack Rittenhouse, they are the ones who are dead, not Rittenhouse, so this comparison is absurd on its face. A victim is by definition a person who actually lost something.
Second, walking around with an AR15 and walking around in a short skirt are not comparable. One is a threat to the safety of everyone around them, the other is sexually tempting. These are not the same thing. Not even close.
why does that condemnation not apply to the rioters who were actually committing crimes?
I never said it didn’t. This conversation is not about the rioters, it’s about Rittenhouse. Two people can be wrong at the same time.
Disregarding the existence of a weapon, was his very presence there immoral?
By itself no. Unwise, strongly cautioned against. Not immoral.
Are you seriously saying that if he had just unloaded on somebody attacking him who didn't know he had a gun, that would somehow be more moral?
You’re asking the wrong questions. This isn’t about what happened in that moment and what the attacker knew or didn’t know.
Again, there are two parts to this. First is that his decision not just to arm himself but to go to the lengths he went to ensure he had the right weapon for the occasion demonstrates his mindset. It shows just how fully expecting he was that he may have to use it. An AR15 is not a taser, you don’t pull the trigger expecting the person you are pointing it at will live. To be aware of both of these facts and proceed anyway is to be fully aware that he was going down there to possibly kill someone.
The second is the visibility of the weapon which sends a clear statement to the rioters about what you are doing there as well as who you stand with, and against. You cannot pretend you are there as some neutral do-gooder when you are showcasing an AR15, which is what makes the Boy Scout narrative so laughable. It’s like a journalist walking around with a mini-gun then wondering why they are being fired upon.
-->
@Double_R
This was absolutely nothing like any standard open carry rally, so your comparison is invalid. Open carry rallies are generally peaceful because they are protesting institutions that carry actual authority. Such institutions are built on public trust, so of course opposing them without crossing the line should be expected to remain peaceful. No such thing could be said with a straight face with regards to dealing with rioters.
This is simply incorrect. People open carrying has happened at all of these protests/riots in areas where open carrying is permitted. To my knowledge, nobody who was open carrying had ever been seriously attacked before. So no you shouldn’t expect to be attacked (which wouldn’t really impact the morality of the situation much anyway)
By itself no. Unwise, strongly cautioned against. Not immoral.
Let’s focus on this key point then as you are morally condemning his actions. So according to you, his presence there is not immoral. According to your last post, bringing an (illegal) handgun for self protection is not immoral. The type of gun changes the morality of the situation? Why?
Part of what makes the self defense case so overwhelming obvious is precisely BECAUSE Rittenhouse was openly carrying, so anyone attacking him was clearly willing to use lethal force.
Again, there are two parts to this. First is that his decision not just to arm himself but to go to the lengths he went to ensure he had the right weapon for the occasion demonstrates his mindset. It shows just how fully expecting he was that he may have to use it. An AR15 is not a taser, you don’t pull the trigger expecting the person you are pointing it at will live. To be aware of both of these facts and proceed anyway is to be fully aware that he was going down there to possibly kill someone.
What are you talking about? It sounds like you just have an extreme prejudice against the AR-15. The type of gun involved has nothing to do with the morality of the actions that led to him being attacked (putting out fires and cleaning up graffiti) or the self defense situation after the attack occurred.
As far as the bolded bit…no. He has every right morally to walk down the streets of his community. He has more than a right, perhaps a duty, as a man to try to mitigate the destruction of his community. The gun was brought along for self protection, and he was indeed attacked despite not acting in any provocative manner—meaning that taking the gun along was justified.
This is what I mean by you’re victim blaming. You’re saying he brought it on himself because he chose to put himself in a dangerous situation and therefore deserves some portion of the moral blame, but his actions were perfectly legal. You don’t have to like his actions. I don’t like underage people getting black out drunk at bars. But my personal opinion of what came before has nothing to do with the morality of the situation after somebody is attacked, provided they did not provoke it.
-->
@thett3
Mind you the handgun is the choice weapon of a criminal murderer.
If anything, carrying a handgun, the choice weapon of a criminal, is more morally wrong than carrying an AR-15.
If you were to rate weapons on a morality praxis.
-->
@thett3
In this case someone used a gun to defend themselves against multiple assailants so I’m glad he had a gun with him
Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.
Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?
That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.
He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
-->
@Double_R
I think the fact that Kyle was open carrying makes the court's ruling even more of a no brainer. Think about it -Rosenbaum attacked a kid knowing that he had an AR-15. Who would ever run at a guy carrying a gun soldiers literally use at war whilst yelling "kill me ni****" with good intentions?
while blatantly being aligned against their cause.
Why is putting out a dumpster fire a political cause?
-->
@thett3
According to your last post, bringing an (illegal) handgun for self protection is not immoral. The type of gun changes the morality of the situation? Why?
I’ve already explained this.
Do you believe a journalist walking around the battlefield with a mini-gun signals to the combatants that he’s there for journalism?
Do you believe that what you signal to others regarding your intentions dictates how others will treat you?
What are you talking about? It sounds like you just have an extreme prejudice against the AR-15. The type of gun involved has nothing to do with the morality of the actions that led to him being attacked (putting out fires and cleaning up graffiti) or the self defense situation after the attack occurred.
Once again, you remain focused on the wrong thing. I’ve made no criticisms of his actions after he arrived. I’ve repeatedly made clear that his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 is what makes this egregious. Focus on the point.
And no, I don’t have a prejudice against the AR15, I continue to highlight it because of reasons I’ve already explained;
A) It’s highly visible, which is a clear signal to the rioters that he is there to stand against them
B) It is not a weapon designed to cripple, it’s designed to kill.
As far as the bolded bit…no. He has every right morally to walk down the streets of his community.
First of all, it wasn’t his community. He didn’t even live in the state.
Second, please stop making arguments as if there is no context, it’s disingenuous. You make it sound like he was just going for a midnight stroll. Once again, I don’t object to his presence, I object to his mindset which is made clear by his preparation. He wasn’t going there for the purpose of to putting out fires any more then a man takes a woman to dinner for the purpose of feeding her. He strapped himself with an AR15 because he knew he’d probably have to use it.
This is what I mean by you’re victim blaming. You’re saying he brought it on himself because he chose to put himself in a dangerous situation and therefore deserves some portion of the moral blame, but his actions were perfectly legal.
Legal and ethical are two different things. We’re not talking about the former.
Again, he was not the victim. He’s the one who walked away. Alive.
Again, it’s not about merely putting yourself in a dangerous situation. It’s about putting yourself in a situation where your only way out is to kill someone else. Rittenhouse was well aware that this would be the likely result of his heading down there and he did it anyway. That’s what I object to.
-->
@Bones
I think the fact that Kyle was open carrying makes the court's ruling even more of a no brainer. Think about it -Rosenbaum attacked a kid knowing that he had an AR-15.
Irrelevant. I’m not arguing he should be charged with murder, I’m arguing he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe a journalist walking around the battlefield with a mini-gun signals to the combatants that he’s there for journalism?Do you believe that what you signal to others regarding your intentions dictates how others will treat you?
It signals that they are armed, no more and no less. Yes wha you signal to others does change how the treat you. For example, if you signal “I am armed” and get attacked anyway you can assume lethal intent on the part of that person
Once again, you remain focused on the wrong thing. I’ve made no criticisms of his actions after he arrived. I’ve repeatedly made clear that his decision to go down there strapped with an AR15 is what makes this egregious. Focus on the point.And no, I don’t have a prejudice against the AR15, I continue to highlight it because of reasons I’ve already explained;A) It’s highly visible, which is a clear signal to the rioters that he is there to stand against themB) It is not a weapon designed to cripple, it’s designed to kill.
Re A) No, it signals that he is armed. No more, no less. Many of the rioters went about armed as well. What signaled he was against the rioters was him behaving in an honorable manner by cleaning things up and putting out fires.
B) is the statement of someone with literally zero clue about firearms. They are all extremely dangerous if used against another person. While it’s true that an AR-15 round at point blank range would do more damage than your median handgun round, it’s also less likely to make contact in the situation Rittenhouse was in because it’s less maneuverable. Had he brought along an (illegal) concealed handgun I assure you the prosecution would be fearmongering about that. “This is not a gun meant for hunting, this is not a gun meant for target practice. This was an illegal, concealed firearm for the sole purpose of killing human beings.”
What’s immoral about bringing along a rifle for self defense besides the fact that you don’t like it?
First of all, it wasn’t his community. He didn’t even live in the state.Second, please stop making arguments as if there is no context, it’s disingenuous. You make it sound like he was just going for a midnight stroll. Once again, I don’t object to his presence, I object to his mindset which is made clear by his preparation. He wasn’t going there for the purpose of to putting out fires any more then a man takes a woman to dinner for the purpose of feeding her. He strapped himself with an AR15 because he knew he’d probably have to use it.
That’s just baloney. That’s like saying you put on a seat belt because you knew you’d probably get into a car accident. Your arguments are so weird. You keep saying you’re not against his good citizen acts, only the fact that he went about armed, but he was chased and attacked by a mob for doing those good citizen acts! So why is it a bad thing that he was able to defend himself instead of being beaten, possibly to death? You’re not seriously alleging that the reason he was attacked is because he was armed with a deadly weapon, right?
As far as the “crossed state lines” thing that’s just disingenuous and I think you know it at this point. His hometown is right on the border, Kenosha is the closest sizable city to it, and he has extensive ties in the area including living their part time with his father and working there. Not that that would change much anyway. I didn’t realize state borders were so sacred
Again, he was not the victim. He’s the one who walked away. Alive.Again, it’s not about merely putting yourself in a dangerous situation. It’s about putting yourself in a situation where your only way out is to kill someone else. Rittenhouse was well aware that this would be the likely result of his heading down there and he did it anyway. That’s what I object to.
1) No, that’s not how victimhood works either in a legal or a moral sense. If someone tries to rape a woman and she shoots him she’s still the victim
2) Maybe it’s just me, but if I’m being chased by someone and I brandish a firearm at them I would absolutely expect them to stop. The fact that Rosenbaum didn’t is frankly shocking. So no the only way out was not to kill someone. He attempted multiple ways to avoid violence (keeping in groups, fleeing and demonstrating lethal capability) and only shot when he was caught alone, cornered and being chased by multiple assailants. Again the point of open carrying is to deter potential attacks before they come, and given that this is the only example of someone being attacked like this that I can think of it generally works.
-->
@Double_R
I’m not arguing he should be charged with murder, I’m arguing he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Would there happen to be anyone else you believe shouldn’t have been there in the first place?
I can see it now in my minds eye if Rittenhouse had carried a concealed handgun. “A lot of people were open carrying that night. People knew that if they attacked them, they would be attacking someone who was armed. But not Mr. Rittenhouse. He was carrying an illegal, concealed firearm. He did this because he wanted someone to attack him that night so that he could play vigilante.”
Wow, MSNBC employee detained for following jurors home in attempts to doxx them. Sad!
-->
@thett3
Jury tampering already? Fucking radical leftists have no check.
-->
@Greyparrot
Don't know if I have this correct but isn't with holding evidence from the defence a criminal offence over there?
-->
@Stephen
It's a fine point because it has to do with the defense getting a lower quality drone footage than what the Prosecution had due to video compression.
-->
@Greyparrot
I see. And does the better quality footage support and further the case of the defence?