Why are people protesting so hard in attack of Kyle but won't support removing guns from citizens?

Author: RationalMadman
Gun control
RM
Left-wing
gun rights
Media

Posts

Total: 75
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
What I'm seeing from the left-wing is major hypocrisy, double standards and bullcrap going on right now.

They are saying Kyle, who I agree was very unwise to have been there, deserves to be convicted of murder because he brought the situation on himself and they use the fact he had such a big gun to prove he knew he was seeking out potentially lethal trouble.

They also accurately note that he probably is a white supremacist because the Proud Boys helped bail him out instantly, an act they would not have done had he not in some way been aligned, as far as I know.

The focus seems to be entirely on Kyle Rittenhouse, who is one guy in a situation where he definitely defended himself on both counts. Even people close to me IRL have become delusional with this case, calling me a right-wing supremacist/sympathiser for daring to see Kyle's side of the story as valid.

I don't really understand why nobody is focusing on the issue of guns. Guns were the issue. This entire same scenario would never have happened had everyone been unarmed, including that Kyle wouldn't have had the guts to be there alone and without backup in the first place.

I don't condone anything the rioter scumbags did, including their past offences but I also think suggesting it's okay for Kyle to kill someone for their past offences is equally stupid. The focus needs to become if ultimately America is better off with guns or without them. Idk what's happened to everybody but this isn't about Kyle nor about BLM, one of the guys who threatened Kyle's life yelled the N-word... How can be be a BLM protester when as a Caucasian he uses the N-word?!
#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,434
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
Leftist, is a wide spectrum, I think.
I think a 'significant number of leftists prefer having their guns, to having them taken away.
Though that's not to say there are not leftists 'for gun control, and removal.

Even without guns, mobs and groups of individuals have clashed in the past, present, future, Quite commonly.
'Maybe he would not have gone, maybe he would, maybe he would not have been targeted, maybe he would, maybe he would have been slightly beaten, maybe he would have suffered fractures, eye loss, brain injury, or death.

Unless one is taking a Boondock Saints/Punisher view of one's actions, which I'm no-
Hm, I suppose government executes people for past crimes,
But I'm still not advocating or supporting vigilantism, at this moment, probably not in future either, if I thought about it.
Point though,
Is that individuals losing their lives for past crimes, 'isn't, in a way.
The justification is 'post, so to speak,
Explanatory for blame,
Individuals with checkered pasts, and horrible deeds, we attribute responsibility for their ends, as we sometimes see a pattern,
"Well no wonder they died" people think "They kept on doing stupid stuff"
Sympathy is also lost, depending on the individual,
Whether left or right, seeing others on the opposite spectrum, often results in a loss of sympathy/understanding, Same with crimes. (Not saying it's good or bad)

Anyway, I'm rambling.
People remarking on individuals bad pasts, has more to do with an attempt to stop the martyr effect, than justify the 'action,
It's a de-justification of the 'person?
Eh, I'm just talking nonsense, but don't feel like deleting my words.

(Edit)
I suppose,
Attacking or defending the person, isn't an ad hominin in court,
Because their character is tied to their actions,
And so the blame, or mitigation of such.
Topic's author
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lemming
actually I agree with what you wrote very much, I don't think it's nonsense.

Both side are in fact guilty of what you say.

The left-wing demonise Kyle for being aligned with Proud Boys and say he 'seeked out trouble' and therefore deserved to be beaten or whatever (which is disgusting to suggest) while the right-wing point out Rosenbaum's prior offenses along with Huber's to justify what essentially they wouldn't care if it was vigilante murder.

Both sides forget that the main issue, the main blatant glaring problem which is even why the police were hesitant to intervene, is that the rioters had pistols. If people have easy access to weapons that insta-kill of course there's a problem as situations that needn't be lethal/fatal automatically enter that risk level.
#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 3,434
4
5
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
5
10
I do 'vaguely recall a number of complaints about a lack of police presence in Kenosha,
But I have difficulty in finding information on the police activities and force,
The way Wikipedia describes it,
Police were there and taking 'some action, but it sounds their presence was not as high as supporters of the police being their wanted,
Their actions also sound more defensive than offensive, which isn't by 'itself bad.
The protests during the day were more peaceful, sounds, and more riotous at night.
Night might be difficult to control, keep track of.

'My interpretation of why police were hesitant to act,
Is due to all the calls of disbanding the police, and complaints of their actions.
(I'm not saying the police do no wrong, or cannot improve their actions)
,
But my impression, is that it was more due to public disfavor, the 'support of the protests, than a fear of handguns.
Of course individuals such as Trump did not help, with how he phrased or thought, in what manner police ought act.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
"Everyone takes a beating sometime."

-some important Democrat
Topic's author
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
"Everyone takes a beating sometime."
worst move by the prosecution and they made plenty of blunders including bringing a guy to the stand that said Kyle was only defending himself.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Maybe electing politicians that don't divide American citizens up would be a start.
Biden still claims today that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist despite zero social media proof and Kyle's own testimony that he supports the BLM cause.
Topic's author
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
there's definitely proof, Kyle asked his lawyer to login and delete all the social media (probably suggested by the lawyer) on day 1 of his arrest so that couldn't be accessed but a couple of pics of him with white supremacists making a hand sign in one of them as well as the Proud Boys directly bailing out instantly and hanging out with him getting him to make the very hand sign and chanting stuff with them:


I get why Kyle may have run along with it even if he didn't believe in it, he owed them for the bail after all but ultimately he can't play victim to that label because he did not do one single thing to deter the idea. He also had a lead lawyer/attorney that was one who had represented Proud Boys. Kyle clearly had ties to them, for all we know it was them who encouraged him to be there that night and he just chose not to snitch and get someone in trouble for an irresponsible suggestion.
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 making a hand sign.. 

Literally wtf. There's as many Black people making that sign as whites. It's a 4chan meme making fun of race-baiters, not a conspiracy.

Proud Boys.
With "arsonists" like Proud Boys, who needs BLM?

Besides the ludicrous idea of Proud Boys being a terrorist group,
couple of pics
Farrakhan was pictured with Obama, that doesn't make Obama a Black Supremacist.
Topic's author
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
In fact the hand sign is from Hindu meditation but I think we both know what he meant by it with Proud Boys in that bar.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
but I think we both know what he meant by it 
You're literally admitting to fabrication.

How do you know he wasn't mocking race baiters like the 4chan meme creators did?

None of the BLM riots were even probable in any part of America without the support of race-baiters.
Don't race-baiters deserve to be ridiculed, mocked and shunned without fear of reprisal from the President of the USA?

Anyway, there are a ton of civil lawsuits in the works about this obvious  defamation. If the media's proof is exactly what you listed here, expect Kyle to win some lucrative settlements as his peer Nick Sandman did.

Kyle asked his lawyer to login and delete all the social media
Nothing posted publicly is ever deleted from the internet. You know that. Even on this site, I can use wayback machine. Go ahead and try to post and then delete something on here and see.
Topic's author
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You're literally admitting to fabrication.

How do you know he wasn't mocking race baiters like the 4chan meme creators did?
This is fabrication. This is the far less intuitive and less blatant interpretation that involves huge stretching and manipulation that ignores context, whereas the interpretation that he was supporting the proud boys message of white supremacy is far more intuitive and zero percent fabricated, given the context.
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This is fabrication.
Absolutely not. It's an acknowledgement that standing next to someone in a photo means nothing conclusive, nor is making a hand gesture known by only a few race-baiters who were trolled by 4chan.

It's not proof. You know what is proof? When a guy literally says he wants to kill white people right before he drives his car into 40 of them. That is proof. 

No obscure photos or hand gestures required to do the kabuki interpretation of motive.

Again, only a person tunneled into pure fabrication would say Obama standing next to Farrakhan makes Obama a Black Supremacist. Same as people who saw Obama make the OK sign. It's pure fantasy.

It reminds me of the Salem witch trials where if a person merely walked funny, they were judged guilty of a sinister motive.

Pure fabrication.

Fabrication that will cost the race-baiting media at least as much as they lost to Sandman.
Topic's author
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Nope, it's pure fabrication to say he's mocking 4chan, you plucked that out of thin air and find it a solid defense.

Your tactics don't really work on me since I'd just as readily condemn the rioters and the SUV maniac as you would.
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Nope, it's pure fabrication to say he's mocking 4chan

I never claimed that. I asked how you were so SURE he wasn't doing that?

The whole deal is obviously inconclusive to anyone outside of the race-baiting world. In the legal sense, defaming someone without conclusive proof leads to a massive loss of money. It's already happened with Nick Sandman. Established law.
Topic's author
#16
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Oh the proof is very conclusive, however maybe it's a brain thing and I can't say more without directly insulting you.

To my brain, there's a very clear and direct instant (0 steps in between) way to conclude from the images, video and context why the only way to interpret it is as a white supremacy symbol. If your mind interprets it as a complex issue where it's just as likely to be a 4Chan mockery, I think it may be our brains being wired differently that's to blame, I don't know.

I literally can't fathom how to genuinely not realise it's blatantly that and I think any jury would generally see it that way too, judge as well so defamation in that respect easily will fall flat. However, there is defamation going on with Rittenhouse in the sense that he's being accused of intentionally provoking, we can't know his intent and the people who assaulted and chased him can't simply be said to be victims.
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Again, I don't know how people thought Obama was a Black Supremacist for taking a picture with Farrakhan.

Maybe it is a brain thing.
Topic's author
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Moments like this I am proud to have a mutual block to you.
#19
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,622
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
This left leaning woman claims to be happy about increasing gun ownership among black women:

#20
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe electing politicians that don't divide American citizens up would be a start.
This is a joke right?
#21
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,356
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman
What I'm seeing from the left-wing is major hypocrisy, double standards and bullcrap going on right now.

They are saying Kyle, who I agree was very unwise to have been there, deserves to be convicted of murder
While I am certainly aware that there are elements of the left that believe this, I have yet to hear this view expressed by any credible left wing figure. Every figure I seen talk about it has shared my basic overview; it was wrong for him to decide to go there and the fact that what he did broke no laws is itself the problem.

Focusing on the people who think the verdict itself was wrong is like the left focusing on Marjorie Taylor Green (even though I would argue she is far more representative than this)
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Focusing on the people who think the verdict itself was wrong.

What about people who thought the verdict was right, but are still angry about the verdict?
#23
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@RationalMadman
right, the problem is guns ,ignore that physopathic killers wanted to hurt a teen
Topic's author
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Most of them had guns.
#25
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,622
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
I have yet to hear this view expressed by any credible left wing figure.
You don’t think the Vice President, certain congresspeople, or the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin are credible left wing figures? Or the President claiming to be angry about the verdict?

Every figure I seen talk about it has shared my basic overview
Other than perhaps Bill Maher, who exactly do you refer to here?


#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
You don’t think the Vice President, certain congresspeople, or the Lt. Governor of Wisconsin are credible left wing figures? Or the President claiming to be angry about the verdict?

Sending contradictory messages is the hallmark of a divisive president with no intention of any certainties. A veritable agent of chaos.
Topic's author
#27
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Double_R
I've seen the president himself and Kamala both strongly imply (but avoid explicitly stating) that they are completely behind the movement in the media and society that supports sending Kyle to prison for what he did, disgusted with the jury verdict and seeing it as a great miscarriage of justice.

In fact the person IRL who called me a right-wing supremacist/sympathiser said how on Earth it would be realistic Kyle could be innocent if Biden himself is against it.
#28
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 968
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@RationalMadman
What exactly do you think Rittenhouse should have been charged with?  
#29
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,264
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
Late night host pundits said if Rittenhouse broke no laws, then the laws need to be changed.

Imagine if it were illegal to protect yourself.
Topic's author
#30
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Bones
So, basically the basis should have ONLY been third degree murder or some kind of manslaughter (I'm not an expert on manslaughter 'degrees' I don't fully understand the differences even after a search).

The idea being that specifically with Rosenbaum the firing of the four bullets, the fourth going into his skull, was overkill and didn't add up because Kyle should be defending primarily against the guy who fired the muzzle-shot behind him.

However, I also think that ultimately as I came to be intimate with the case, I'd be at huge moral odds with myself because ultimately, as ridiculously 'seek out the danger' as Kyle was to be there with an AR-15 and as inevitably alarmed he made everybody there by carrying that particular firearm, he acted in self-defense.

So, after I'd investigate his possession and realise it's totally legal, I'm not certain how I'd proceed exactly beyond said focus on the overkill on Rosenbaum. I think the Huber kill was undeniably self-defense from Kyle's psychological perspective and no way can I as a prosecutor prove for sure that Huber realistically would just disarm Kyle and let him be.

Furthermore, once I discovered the past records of Rosenbaum and Huber, I'd know that very few Jury members would doubt it was fundamentally them initiating the aggression and Rosenbaum saying the N-word while posing as a BLM protester would be the nail in my coffin. 

So, I don't really envy the position the prosecution had but they surely knew their only hope was to fixate on the four-bullets in Rosenbaum, to which they said 'everybody takes a beating sometimes' and that is just the most idiotic basis to justify the charge there that I've ever heard.

Another thing very important to find out is if Kyle was baited/ordered/encouraged to be there by some others and how/why his mother allowed him to be there. While I'd lose the Kyle Rittenhouse case, perhaps I could salvage my career and appease many on the side currently calling me pathetic, in anger, by focusing on the older adults that influenced and engineered Kyle's dilemma. This would take private investigators helping me and eventually at least one person involved would need to snitch.

If it turned out Kyle really was there totally of his own volition as a lone 'hero' then I'd admit defeat.