Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 381: Attack On Rittenhouse

(+) Yeah! (+)

HashtagSEP posted...

Several of them literally brought zip ties and stun guns.

It's weird to me to compare outside protests to an actual storming of a building and go "Yeah, same peaceful intentions by both."

Many of your cheered storming police stations and literally burning them down.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

That's a rather blatant and gross misrepresentation of what I've been saying, to the point where I can't tell if you're trolling or just can't read.

I mean I exaggerated the first part as Im prone to do, but the second half:

thus agree with your initial premise that the punishment doesnt fit the crime.

This part is accurate.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Many of your cheered storming police stations and literally burning them down.

And as history has taught us two wrongs equal...?

But even taking that aside, "many" is a strong word.

Maybe some receipts on that?
And then maybe directing that to specifically the people who "cheered storming police stations" if those are in fact the same people who are saying that storming the capitol deserves to be harshly punished.

Otherwise I don't see why I, someone who has never said I wanted police stations stormed or burned down, should be included in the "many" of us who have apparently cheered on such behavior.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Many of your cheered storming police stations and literally burning them down.

Who did? I think its funny, but I dont remember a single person cheering for burning down police stations?

---

wow it's almost like corrik makes outrageous claims he can't back up

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Who did? I think its funny, but I dont remember a single person cheering for burning down police stations?

Uh go through the old topics when they burned down the stations after Floyd and ACAB was being posted left and right repeatedly. Give me a roundabout date and if I get bored enough, I'll look for it.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Give me a roundabout date and if I get bored enough, I'll look for it.

george floyd was killed on may 25 of last year.

---

"I mean, they've tried plenty of peaceful protests before on this.

At a certain point when peace has been tried and change doesn't happen..."

Red stating he doesn't condone rioting, but he understands why it is happening.

Lordofthemorons said rioting isn't justified but peaceful protests were.

Jakyl -
"Im down for any response where the community nonviolently takes possession of a police station and launches fireworks to celebrate driving them out"

Not sure how you nonviolently take possession and drive them out but ok.

Jakyl- "You of all people should be celebrating the capture of a police station by the people, even if it was temporary"

BetrayedTangy - "Yeah I'm all for the riots, but I hate that people resort to looting, not because of the store, but because of the employees.

That's putting innocent people at risk and frankly suggests they don't care about the real movement and are just taking advantage of the situation to get free shit"

Ushi says to tear down the Alamo and jakyl says there is nothing wrong with defacing it.

Jakyl - "Im not saying its not assault

Assault can be sensible"

Ushi makes a lot of posts calling cops terrorists and the enemy multiple times and says they deserve this.

I can't get the search to work to bring up posts specifically for this and I am exhausted from reading posts. I couldn't find the actual posts I was looking for regarding burning down police stations and using lasers and such to attack attack in Seattle I think.

Like even the jakyl posts above don't show up when I use the keyword search. So, Idk.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Red stating he doesn't condone rioting, but he understands why it is happening.

Let me know when these guys that stormed the capitol are part of a group that has been oppressed for generations and then come back.

Corrik7 posted...

"I mean, they've tried plenty of peaceful protests before on this.

At a certain point when peace has been tried and change doesn't happen..."

Red stating he doesn't condone rioting, but he understands why it is happening.

Lordofthemorons said rioting isn't justified but peaceful protests were.

Jakyl -
"Im down for any response where the community nonviolently takes possession of a police station and launches fireworks to celebrate driving them out"

Not sure how you nonviolently take possession and drive them out but ok.

Jakyl- "You of all people should be celebrating the capture of a police station by the people, even if it was temporary"

BetrayedTangy - "Yeah I'm all for the riots, but I hate that people resort to looting, not because of the store, but because of the employees.

That's putting innocent people at risk and frankly suggests they don't care about the real movement and are just taking advantage of the situation to get free shit"

Ushi says to tear down the Alamo and jakyl says there is nothing wrong with defacing it.

Jakyl - "Im not saying its not assault

Assault can be sensible"

Ushi makes a lot of posts calling cops terrorists and the enemy multiple times and says they deserve this.

I can't get the search to work to bring up posts specifically for this and I am exhausted from reading posts. I couldn't find the actual posts I was looking for regarding burning down police stations and using lasers and such to attack attack in Seattle I think.

Like even the jakyl posts above don't show up when I use the keyword search. So, Idk.

i don't find the evidence you provided very convincing. i'd say the only person who is outright "cheering on" the riots in those posts is betrayedtangy. those other posts are more along the lines of "i understand why these riots are happening."

and betrayedtangy didn't even post in the debate about the storming of the capitol, so... seems like you're doing your usual "you're all the same stupid extremists so i'm not going to bother looking up who actually said what" thing.

---

Its so funny how Corrik always randomly butts into a discussion where two people are literally disagreeing and goes you all like were a hivemind.

---

I think the key factor in sentencing the 1/6 insurrectionists (and that is what they were) is where they "trespassed" and what was going on there when it happened.

They didn't break into an empty Target at 3 AM and just wander around the aisles. They broke into the heart of government, over police lines (including fatalities) and interrupted the literal peaceful transfer of power - arguably the most vital function of a democracy.

You want to argue a hypothetical where they overran the Capitol when Congress was on one of their many vacations and hardly anyone was there (I kinda doubt that's ever the case re: interns, aides but just for the sake of argument) maybe that's one thing but this was honestly almost as far on the other side of that spectrum as you can get outside of like the State of the Union.

And while you can argue the average insurrectionist would not be aware of the details of this, you had Trump's legal team literally trying to push to Pence's counsel the argument that since they ran over time in the official proceedings (because they had to fucking flee for their lives and/or safety and couldn't put an accurate clock on how long they'd be in emergency recess) they already were bending/breaking the rules so Pence should no longer cling to the idea that the rules bound him to a purely ceremonial role and he should reject the count declaring Biden the winner. I agree that a broad, no context "you're guilty of anything anyone involved with you was guilty of" is a bad, bad policy and should be rejected but I don't really think this is one? Even without the minutia and details of Trump's "legal" strategy or the more blatant declarations of some of those in the crowd, at some point you just have to know there are, or should be, major consequences to breaking into the Capitol during an official proceeding as important as that.

~~~

Also, only related in the most tangential way but update on the other half of this topic title: The House has censured Gosar by a 223-207 vote over his AoT video and he has been removed from all his committee positions. Cheney and Kinzinger joined Dems in the censure vote.

---

No decision on the Rittenhouse trial yet.

But still, there's so much stuff going on in this trial during Jury deliberation. This Judge has completely lost me. You guys have probably seen me say I've mostly approved of what he's been doing, but today it's just... baffling.

So a big thing of contention today was the argument about the drone footage that magically appeared the last day evidence could be sent, and that somehow the Defense got a crappy version when the clear version shows Kyle absolutely didn't instigate anything or raise his gun like the Prosecution is claiming. Look at my other post I made if you want the full details on that.

The Prosecution argued literal bullshit, saying that he sent it through phone, and that it changed the file name on its own, and he sent it through email (which is not secure and another thing that should never happen), and then simultaneously knew and didn't know that the Defense had the bad version, and then blamed the Defense for not objecting to it even though they didn't know that a better version of it existed.

So if you watched any of this trial, you would have seen the women to the side of trial who was there the whole time. She was another attorney working with them and she handled all the discovery documents. And after windbag Kraus went through his speech and dumb story playing dumb, and trying to throw other departments under the bus, she came out and called him a liar and said that it was impossible, pulling up metadata saying that the poor quality version was made 21 minutes after the good quality version was received. Just tore this asshole's story apart.

And they ask the Judge to rule on it, he says THERE WILL BE A RECKONING and he feels awful about this evidence being in and then says that he thinks he'll have experts appear to testify and also for Kraus to testify.

And then... he doesn't actually rule on anything. The Defense, bafflingly, asks for a mistrial WITHOUT prejudice (I cannot understand the point of this) and the Judge just refuses to make a call on it and says that maybe they should wait to see what the Jury says to see if it's necessary.

My take? The Judge is scared of what will happen to him and his family if he rules it a mistrial, with how much he and his family has been threatened by terrible people already. He was already complaining about the news talking about him again. He doesn't want to be the one to make this call. He knows what will happen.

Protestors outside are getting more violent and two people were arrested already today. Meaning the Jury can't reasonably sequester themselves, and I'm sure they're scared too.

So the Judge is just... trying not to rule on anything. This should be a mistrial, no matter what. He knows this. He keeps saying he knows how damning this is. He keeps making threats. And yet he won't make the call when it would have gotten thrown out over a week ago reasonably.

We'll see what happens tomorrow I guess.

---

xp1337 posted...

The House has censured Gosar by a 223-207 vote over his AoT video and he has been removed from all his committee positions. Cheney and Kinzinger joined Dems in the censure vote.

Really looking forward to the GOP reclaiming House majority. /s
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

and the Judge just refuses to make a call on it and says that maybe they should wait to see what the Jury says to see if it's necessary.

This is just a terrible look regardless of the prosecution's actions.

"If the jury returns a decision I don't like well shit I'll just decide then, but if they return the decision I think they should eh we're good."

I'm pretty sure that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Like why even have the jury at that point? From everything you've said here he should just be declaring a mistrial now and not even letting this go to the jury at all but sending it to them with the statement that you'll make your decision based on what they return is just... yikes.

---

DeepsPraw posted...

Im with Tony on this.

You really don't ever need to specify this. We know.
---

xp1337 posted...

This is just a terrible look regardless of the prosecution's actions.

"If the jury returns a decision I don't like well shit I'll just decide then, but if they return the decision I think they should eh we're good."

I'm pretty sure that's not how the legal system is supposed to work. Like why even have the jury at that point? From everything you've said here he should just be declaring a mistrial now and not even letting this go to the jury at all but sending it to them with the statement that you'll make your decision based on what they return is just... yikes.

It's super sad and frustrating. Mostly because I'm looking at this and this isn't how a court should operate, and it shouldn't be at the whim of caring what the media or protestors will say or do. This isn't a fair trial, justice isn't being served on either side, and Kyle, nor anyone else, should be convicted with jail time without a fair trial. And it's just not what we're getting here.

There's also a story about the Prosecution knowing who "Jump Kick Man" was because he tried to turn himself in to help them with their case, only if they promised to drop a bunch of charges and they rightfully told him to screw off. But they maintained they were never able to identify him, which is another horrible look if it's true, and maybe even more unfair of them to do than even withholding this evidence? Because that's disregarding evidence in the investigation because they know it's damaging to the case and not giving the Defense a chance to confront him.

And even if it's not true, someone was able to find his identity while the Prosecution somehow never did in their investigation, which is equally a bad look.

If there's any truth to that, the Defense will likely amend their Motion for Mistrial with that information. But given what all has happened, I wouldn't be shocked if that story is true too.

---

Yeah judge is clearly scared and doesn't want to rattle things. He's basically desperately hoping for a not guilty verdict.

The best I've got on the defense is similar to your position biscuit - they're breadcrumbing to mistrial with prejudice. So they lay down the info first for mistrial, guaranteeing a no loss situation. If guilty, mistrial. If not guilty, nothing except maybe something about literally faking data. Still should've asked for mistrial with prejudice to make that option be the compromised position but okay. Playing nice with the judge who clearly likes you more. For that maybe the idea is without an expert explaining, without prejudice. But after they have someone testify that no, this is completely different, Kraus should have known the difference based on the differences between file name and size, this is either malicious or negligent to the point that it might as well be - flip the condition. They need an expert to explain that it's 1/16 of the other. Alternatively they're bringing up the facts that the state is withholding info: jump kick man, Ziminski. So now we'd have withholding information, giving wrong information, 5th amendment violations, disobeying court rules, and that this jury is tainted from outside evidence. They asked for the video, meaning they're aware of external evidence not presented in court first. Hasn't been argued yet but there's implications here and there.

The only other possibility is the defense is scared shitless because they expected a quick not guilty and are choking. Entirely possible too. The only positive is they've spun their way to a no loss situation, problem is they should be aiming for win/win.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i don't find the evidence you provided very convincing. i'd say the only person who is outright "cheering on" the riots in those posts is betrayedtangy. those other posts are more along the lines of "i understand why these riots are happening."

and betrayedtangy didn't even post in the debate about the storming of the capitol, so... seems like you're doing your usual "you're all the same stupid extremists so i'm not going to bother looking up who actually said what" thing.

The keyword search doesn't work. I looked through 2500 posts that didn't get to the posts I was looking for. I guess absence of evidence means evidence of absence I suppose. Oh well.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ interactive/2021/warnings-jan-6-insurrection/

It was absolutely a premeditated coup attempt and if you seriously think otherwise you've got your head in the sand.

I have to agree with this Tony

Most people like the Shaman were just tools of the actual coup attempt sure but there was an actual coup attempt.


---

kevwaffles posted...

You really don't ever need to specify this. We know.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

kevwaffles posted...

You really don't ever need to specify this. We know.

<img src="" />

Unless you're admitting to using a sock puppet, you're asking the wrong person tbh.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Most people like the Shaman were just tools of the actual coup attempt sure but there was an actual coup attempt.

This is what I was getting at that either wasn't clear or Tony just misunderstood

The reason I disagree on the framing of the events (that it was just a protest gone wrong) AND agree that the sentencing of the Shaman was too much is because there WAS a coup attempt, there WERE people that intended to break in and commit violent acts, and that much was clear. I disagree with "it was a protest" because of that. When it comes to the Shaman, he DID choose to go along with the violent people breaching the capitol, but whether he was part of the coup/what his actual intentions were is questionable at best, because he wasn't armed and didn't actually attack anybody. This is why I say he's guilty, as he didn't stay outside and chose to take part in the actual breach, but he's not "41 months guilty" because there's no proof he was actually a part of the coup attempt itself. I put him above "idiot along for the ride" level because he didn't just meander in after, he was right there with the people that clearly were intending violence, but he clearly didn't come prepared like they did, so it's plausible he just got swept up in it. He's worse than the people that stayed outside or just walked in after and didn't do anything, but he's not as bad as the people that actually planned (poorly) for a coup.

---

kevwaffles posted...

Unless you're admitting to using a sock puppet, you're asking the wrong person tbh.

You're implying Deepspraw echoes me, but that's not true so idgi

---

I thought Deepspraw was one of our known conservatrolls and thus the implication was of course he agreed with the mostly conservative viewpoint of "nothing happened it was just a protest."

Am I wrong? Do I have him confused with somebody else?

---

deespraw isn't a conservatroll, he's just an asshole

---

Fair enough.

I've seen him on the politics board take hardline anti-LGBTQ stances, so I just assumed

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You're implying Deepspraw echoes me, but that's not true so idgi

StealThisSheen posted...

Am I wrong? Do I have him confused with somebody else?

It's entirely possible this is what I've done.
---

Deepspraw's the tankie

---

Isn't Deepspraw hardcore conservative, but in a "Taiwan should be absorbed into China" kind of way?

---

I can never remember what kind of crazy Deepspraw is, but I do know him quoting you and saying he agrees with you is almost never a good thing.
---

At this point I'm just waiting for somebody to go "Who's Deepspraw?" and suddenly all of their posts are gone and we find out it's just a figment of our imagination.

Then some old Santa Claus looking guy shows up and is like "Deepspraw was the type of crazy you most desired in each and every one of your hearts all along."

---

StealThisSheen posted...

At this point I'm just waiting for somebody to go "Who's Deepspraw?" and suddenly all of their posts are gone and we find out it's just a figment of our imagination.

Then some old Santa Claus looking guy shows up and is like "Deepspraw was the type of crazy you most desired in each and every one of your hearts all along."

Sell it to M Night
---

Guiga is the troll, that's probably who you're confusing him with.
Deepspraw is the commie who loves China. So the full loop that's pro fascism.

---

Real talk, I forgot Shaman had a spear and was photographed menacing somebody with it, and left a death threat on Pence's desk, which added to the charges against him. He actually got the minimum for what he was charged with, so I'm less inclined to think he got too much time, now.

---

MSNBC is in trouble for sending a reporter to follow the jury bus - they've been banned from the courtroom for the duration of the trial.

---

Just saw that.
Reporter is lucky he's not arrested.

Edit: for what it's worth, I'm not sure it's confirmed he's from MSNBC, just that he claimed it. If true that's big. If false they'll be much more willing to deliver harsher punishment. But either way, it's another example of jury tampering.

---

NFUN posted...

deespraw isn't a conservatroll, he's just an asshole

lol i can't disagree with you there

---

The supposed reporter was also able to name drop someone specifically, which adds credence to their claim of working there. But we don't know for sure yet.

Judge also screwed up not sequestering the jury during this high profile case. Being sequestered for weeks absolutely sucks, but with all of these death threats being thrown around this, even if you isolate yourself entirely, you're going to catch what people are saying and how incendiary it is. And then they can hear the people screaming outside that if they must acquit. It's a god damn mess and it's close enough to jury tampering at this point, especially with someone chasing the bus now.

The Judge just seems like he's overwhelmed by this, and I think he's just a good-natured old man who is used to people telling the world that he's a biased asshole, he alluded that he lost friends because of this trial, and he knows what the reaction will be if Kyle is acquitted or he deems it a mistrial, and he must know the Prosecution had no business bringing this to the court.

---

Wait, apparently Channel 5 Chicago NBC was able to confirm it was an NBC producer.

And the person that the producer named is currently deleting her Twitter and LinkedIn.

Uhhhhhh. This is literally criminal stuff here.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Judge also screwed up not sequestering the jury during this high profile case.

Yeah that's bizarre.
---

That's as good as proof right there.
This is what the judge said about it an hour ago.

https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1461387799769358337

She then deleted everything.
And now we've got them running damage control without including the important facts: the ones about Irene Byon.

https://mobile.twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1461395030464204802

The fact that it's coming from Stelter says it all really.

---

Kinglicious posted...

The fact that it's coming from Stelter says it all really.

Im not plugged in to whatever crowd would know what this means.

---

NBC is telling CNN's mouthpiece what they want the media narrative to be and CNN is expected to follow through with it. That clearer? I'd imagine most crowds see him as nothing but a corporate stooge and this cross between NBC and CNN as just another example that they ain't that different.

---

https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1461378194049843206

The Party of Spite.

It'd be nice if being a decent human being were a prerequisite to serve in congress.

---

Kinglicious posted...

NBC is telling CNN's mouthpiece what they want the media narrative to be and CNN is expected to follow through with it. That clearer? I'd imagine most crowds see him as nothing but a corporate stooge and this cross between NBC and CNN as just another example that they ain't that different.

Is NBC and CNN collude to protect random reporters something you learned on /pol or what

---

Haven't been there in years.
If you don't think they help each other I can't really help you.

---

For what it's worth, I don't think MSNBC was being malicious, just grossly stupid. Court TV says in many cases this actually happens... but this case is far different. They've gone to such lengths to hide the identities of these people because they are getting death threats and are afraid for their lives if people find out who they are.

And then this reporter, even if he wants to dopily ask "Hey can I get an interview after this?" What are they going to think? They were promised their identities would be secure, they're afraid, and then what if they don't say yes? Even if MSNBC keeps their identities secret, this is still tampering due to the circumstances around it.

So even if it's grossly stupid, they should be punished for it because this is really, really bad.

---