Current Events > Kyle Rittenhouse part 2

(+) Yeah! (+)

Since the last one hit 500 in the middle of a rather spicy point of contention.

@shnangyboos
I believe you were arguing it was a "riot" rather than a protest. I'll give you that for a second, as long as you answer the following two questions.

1. What were they protesting/rioting about?
2. During the height of the BLM riots, did "entire cities burn?"

Your answer to these questions will determine everything we need to know about you moving forward.

he doesn't deserve this much attention

he doesn't but he's now a republican mouth piece. Losers like him deserve all they get.

hey guise dae hate that little squirt kyle rittenhaus? omg. i h8 him.

Normal people:
Who?
oh, right, that guy who was in the news for a month back in 2022

edit: inb4: omg! naysa! stop being a maga!

psideresider

It literally took two to tango in this situation. The other side, since you apparently think this is about sides, certainly wasnt there to make the neighborhood bright with their smile. They were causing trouble. You paint the picture of pure innocence, and then pure evil(in Rittenhouse case). And youre right about him, but wrong about the others there that night.

Victim blaming.

"It takes two to tango" could easily be applied to rape victims - "she shouldn't have worn that dress" kind of vibe here.

Yes, every murder requires a second person to be involved, we call those people murder victims.

This is also that absurd reactionary "logic" that if someone isn't a perfect pillar of the community or you can dig up something bad in their past, then they deserve extrajudicial death sentences on the street.

Remember when they tried to say Trayvon Martin deserved to be murdered by his racist stalker because he may have smoked weed and got into fights in high school?

DeadBankerDream posted...

Which person who has me blocked made a Kyle Rittenhouse part 1?

UnfairRepresent?

What stupid questions. You don't get to destroy shit completely unrelated to your grievances in the name of your cause, I don't give a shit what the cause is.

Since I haven't said anything about cities burning, I can't help but wonder what bullshit you're going with by introducing it.

Here's a question for you. If a cop unjustifiably kills someone, do I get to burn my neighbors car?

The idea that it's fine for civilians to just travel around the country with guns, threatening to shoot people if they happen to think they deserve it . . .

Is fucking mental.

Even a very far from perfect legal/law enforcement system is orders of magnitude better than self-appointed mobile vigilantes, trying to live out their deranged violent 'hero' fantasies.

shnangyboos posted...

What stupid questions. You don't get to destroy shit completely unrelated to your grievances in the name of your cause, I don't give a shit what the cause is.

Since I haven't said anything about cities burning, I can't help but wonder what bullshit you're going with by introducing it.

Here's a question for you. If a cop unjustifiably kills someone, do I get to burn my neighbors car?

Do you get to threaten and murder someone who may be mentally ill and setting fire to a dumpster because you hate black people and civil rights protesters?

ai123 posted...

Even a very far from perfect legal/law enforcement system is orders of magnitude better than self-appointed mobile vigilantes, trying to live out their deranged violent 'hero' fantasies.

You agree the rioters were in the wrong.

shnangyboos posted...

What stupid questions. You don't get to destroy shit completely unrelated to your grievances in the name of your cause, I don't give a shit what the cause is.

Since I haven't said anything about cities burning, I can't help but wonder what bullshit you're going with by introducing it.

Here's a question for you. If a cop unjustifiably kills someone

Speaking of which, don't you have a history not unlike Tenlaar's where you shill for police brutality no matter what? I might be misremembering, I might be thinking of shablagoo instead (admittedly similar name), so if someone else can verify that I'd appreciate it.

You haven't said anything about cities burning, but you've made it clear you don't care much about BLM or their reason for protesting (sorry, "rioting"), so it's only natural to wonder if you buy into the "entire cities burning!" lie regurgitated by racists.

But question 1 stands. What were they protesting about? Just want to see if you think it's a legitimate cause.

How many random people are right wingers allowed to murder because there are property crimes that may or may not be related to a protest in the general vicinity?

shnangyboos posted...

You agree the rioters were in the wrong.

So they deserve extrajudicial death sentences administered by random white supremacist thugs?

Dark_Arbron posted...

Speaking of which, don't you have a history not unlike Tenlaar's where you shill for police brutality no matter what?

I have him tagged as a garbage racist.

Nobody was killed for property crimes. Bullshit's piling up fast.

Oh no, my history! Your tags!

shnangyboos posted...

Nobody was killed for property crimes. Bullshit's piling up fast.

What were they killed for?

shnangyboos posted...

Nobody was killed for property crimes. Bullshit's piling up fast.

But isn't that why Rittenhouse was so noble in his mission to "defend" a store he worked at once on the night he repeatedly misrepresented himself as an EMT and lied about being asked by the store owner to provide defense?

Naysaspace posted...

hey guise dae hate that little squirt kyle rittenhaus? omg. i h8 him.

Normal people:
Who?
oh, right, that guy who was in the news for a month back in 2022

edit: inb4: omg! naysa! stop being a maga!

I realize he didn't make much of an impression on you but most normal people have a bit stronger feelings about it than "that guy".

DnDer posted...

What were they killed for?

Exactly, they can't have it both ways... these terrible sub-humans were committing property crimes and so deserved to die one minute, now they are back-peddaling.

I mean... Rittenhouse lied about being called there by the store owner to defend his property after all... but without the property damage crime narrative it looks like Rittenhosue went there expressly to provoke an armed confrontation while carrying a high capacity semi automatic rifle.

shnangyboos posted...

You agree the rioters were in the wrong.

As you know full well, I did not address that issue, as it is irrelevant to the point I was making.

There are degrees of right and wrong, and Rittenhouse stands at the 'wrong' end of that scale. Far more so than those protesting.

Torgo posted...

Exactly, they can't have it both ways... these terrible sub-humans were committing property crimes and so deserved to die one minute, now they are back-peddaling.

I mean... Rittenhouse lied about being called there by the store owner to defend his property after all... but without the property damage crime narrative it looks like Rittenhosue went there expressly to provoke an armed confrontation while carrying a high capacity semi automatic rifle.

I'm starting to suspect that's why he was there to begin with...
But conservatives keep telling me otherwise.

Who do I believe? I just don't know anymore.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I'm starting to suspect that's why he was there to begin with...
But conservatives keep telling me otherwise.

Who do I believe? I just don't know anymore.

IKR!?

One side is presenting a consistent argument that aligns with the facts and footage we can verify from that night...

The other side is presenting an ever shifting narrative that crumbles under the slightest of scrutiny...

I can only conclude Both sides R equally bad, it takes two to tango!

Torgo posted...

I can only conclude Both sides R equally bad, it takes two to tango!

Man, I wish I was in a position to vote for Trump 2024! He'll sort this out.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Man, I wish I was in a position to vote for Trump 2024! He'll sort this out.

Me too, but really I'm a centrist and think both sides are equally bad and so we can never really judge anything, unless it's to the left of Trump and the conservative movement... then it's bad.

@Torgo

I have never seen a person walk around a city street at night with a semi-auto rifle flopping around their hip or in ready firing position on a shoulder strap like that, and I live in a major hunting/pro gun state.

They are making every excuse because they really see him as a champion that terrorized a BLM protest.

A projection, surprise, surprise. Just like you project a scenario were Rittenhouse shows up in your neighbor, or in your city while youre out on the town. Of course in that scenario Id freak out too. Id call the cops immediately. Hell, the protesters should have called the cops. But they didnt.

They decided to go at some person they had no clue of, with a fucking rifle. They wanted to protest, he wanted to be some fucking hero, and stupidity ensued. If I can admit Rittenhouse is a fucking pos moron, then you should be able to admit nobody should have been there that night. You wont, but it is what it is. Its pretty clear that this was a case of stupid people, doing stupid things.

psideresider posted...

A projection, surprise, surprise.

You don't know what projection means.

A true sign of a right winger is the complete inability to grasp the usage of fallacies and/or incorrectly spit back terms that are applied to you and your fellow online righties.

Quit while you're ahead, let's move on...

psideresider posted...

Just like you project a scenario were Rittenhouse shows up in your neighbor, or in your city while youre out on the town. Of course in that scenario Id freak out too. Id call the cops immediately. Hell, the protesters should have called the cops. But they didnt.

Not only is this nonsense, but this pretends that there was time to react with perfect rationality and hindsight, then places equal responsibility on the people being confronted with a deadly weapon and this wannabe tough guy vigilante.

We're back to "shouldn't have worn that dress" and "look what they made him do!" victim blaming.

Really sad.

ai123 posted...

The idea that it's fine for civilians to just travel around the country with guns, threatening to shoot people if they happen to think they deserve it . . .

When did this happen? Why are people still spreading misinformation debunked years ago?

Torgo posted...

I mean... Rittenhouse lied about being called there by the store owner to defend his property after all... but without the property damage crime narrative it looks like Rittenhosue went there expressly to provoke an armed confrontation while carrying a high capacity semi automatic rifle.

None of the evidence or anything in the trial showed this other narrative you're making up. It's like some of you are still stuck in 2020.

InfinityMonster posted...

When did this happen? Why are people still spreading misinformation debunked years ago?

None of the evidence or anything in the trial showed this other narrative you're making up. It's like some of you are still stuck in 2020.

Speaking of 2020, who won the election?

InfinityMonster posted...

When did this happen? Why are people still spreading misinformation debunked years ago?

It's been debunked that Rittenhouse was a civilian?

Or that he travelled with a gun?

Or that the purpose of the gun was to threaten to shoot protesters if he didn't like what they were doing?

Torgo posted...

You don't know what projection means.

A true sign of a right winger is the complete inability to grasp the usage of fallacies and/or incorrectly spit back terms that are applied to you and your fellow online righties.

Quit while you're ahead, let's move on...

Not only is this nonsense, but this pretends that there was time to react with perfect rationality and hindsight, then places equal responsibility on the people being confronted with a deadly weapon and this wannabe tough guy vigilante.

We're back to "shouldn't have worn that dress" and "look what they made him do!" victim blaming.

Really sad.

So you didnt say that I see Rittenhouse as a champion of terror? A yes or no would do... certainly isnt my words.

And now comparing a dress to people fucking up private property? Ok, all I want to know is what Torgo would do. You as a person. You decide to travel somewhere to fuck some shit up. Plans going good so far. Some asshole youve never met shows up with a rifle. What do you do? Do you decide fuck this, I have a right to be fucking shit up, or do you get the hell out of dodge? I would choose option b, though I wouldnt have been out there in the first place. Just like someone hanging from a building for that sweet instagram shot, they didnt deserve to die. But just like that person, they went out on a ledge. And unfortunately played right into that dipshits hands. Had they walked away, or again, just stayed home, theyd be alive.

ai123 posted...

Or that he travelled with a gun?

He didn't. He also didn't go around the country. He lived 20 miles away on the border with his mom. His dad lived in Kenosha, as did his friend.

ai123 posted...

Or that the purpose of the gun was to threaten to shoot protesters if he didn't like what they were doing?

The entire point of the trial was to establish this and the prosecution failed absolutely miserably because their own witnesses testified in Rittenhouse's favor.

Which is pretty much the type of misinformation and made up facts election deniers often fall for.

Too 600!

shittenhouse is getting sued and may be fucked in the civil case. the judge in the criminal case didn't let in the information that he sucker punches girls or wanted to kill protestors or was hanging out with neo nazis, but civil cases are less stringent in that regard. he may end up getting oj'd and owing money for the rest of his life

InfinityMonster posted...

He didn't. He also didn't go around the country. He lived 20 miles away on the border with his mom. His dad lived in Kenosha, as did his friend.

The entire point of the trial was to establish this and the prosecution failed absolutely miserably because their own witnesses testified in Rittenhouse's favor.

Which is pretty much the type of misinformation and made up facts election deniers often fall for.

We dont have to think in the overly complicated way the legal system does (lots of does this technically qualify).

He went to a protest, full of people he disagreed with and hated, carrying a firearm. After previously stating that he wanted to kill them. How dense, or dishonest, do you have to be not to understand what he was doing there?

No amount of wriggling his way out of the consequences changes that. He can bitch about life being a little bit inconvenient from here on all he wants. He should be in prison.

And you havent actually answered my question. Who won the election in 2020?

Dark_Arbron posted...

Speaking of which, don't you have a history not unlike Tenlaar's where you shill for police brutality no matter what?

Why the fuck do you keep bringing me up out of nowhere just to lie about me? I have condemned many cases of police violence. Quit using me as your favorite little straw man when you want to talk about a phantom right wing boogeyman. Thats not me.

andel posted...

shittenhouse is getting sued and may be fucked in the civil case.

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."

andel posted...

the judge in the criminal case didn't let in the information that he sucker punches girls

A fight over his sister starting a fight with another chick has nothing to do with this situation. No judge would have allowed that. Neither did he say he wanted to shoot protestors. And why would something happening after he was charged be relevant? People in lock up get friendly with the gangs there like the Bloods. Should prosecutors be able to use that against a case?

Dark_Arbron posted...

We dont have to think in the overly complicated way the legal system does (lots of does this technically qualify).

He went to a protest, full of people he disagreed with and hated, carrying a firearm. How dense, or dishonest, do you have to be not to understand what he was doing there?

There wasn't technicalities. If you paid attention to and watched the trial, the prosecution had nothing.

InfinityMonster posted...

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."

A fight over his sister starting a fight with another chick has nothing to do with this situation. No judge would have allowed that. Neither did he say he wanted to shoot protestors. And why would something happening after he was charged be relevant? People in lock up get friendly with the gangs there like the Bloods. Should prosecutors be able to use that against a case?

There wasn't technicalities. If you paid attention to and watched the trial, the prosecution had nothing.

Wouldve been a pretty strong case in Australia

guy says hes going to kill people, shows up with a gun, antagonises those people, death happens.

No, I havent watched the trial. I might watch it later, Im just worried I might crack my skull open hitting my head against the wall so hard. Because thered better be a damn good reason why the prosecution couldnt argue obvious intent.

Also, putting that aside for a moment, who won in 2020?

Dark_Arbron posted...

guy says hes going to kill people, shows up with a gun, antagonises those people, death happens.

This is not what happened. Like at all.

Yeah, go watch the trial and brush up on what actually happened and not what you read on Twitter.

Dudes a murderer and anyone defended him is a murder defender, that is all.

DnDer posted...

What were they killed for?

For attacking someone. What do you think they were killed for?

InfinityMonster posted...

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."

A fight over his sister starting a fight with another chick has nothing to do with this situation. No judge would have allowed that. Neither did he say he wanted to shoot protestors. And why would something happening after he was charged be relevant? People in lock up get friendly with the gangs there like the Bloods. Should prosecutors be able to use that against a case?

There wasn't technicalities. If you paid attention to and watched the trial, the prosecution had nothing.

wrongful death suits absolutely account for a person putting themselves in situations with intent do harm.

he absolutely said he wanted to shoot protestors. what do you think "i wish i had my rifle" means? because any reasonable person knows exactly what that means.

character evidence is often allowed in trials. the alex murdaugh trial is a prime example of this. the fact that shittenhouse was known to start violent confrontations and has a history of stating he wants to murder protestors is pertinent, and will be allowed in the civil case.

right wingers tend to defend the guy because he looks like a typical right wing incel, had a murder fantasy, attacked girls unprovoked, and actually showed up somewhere and killed people. not to mention how he hung out with neo nazi 1/6ers.

andel posted...

wrongful death suits absolutely account for a person putting themselves in situations with intent do harm.

he absolutely said he wanted to shoot protestors. what do you think "i wish i had my rifle" means? because any reasonable person knows exactly what that means.

character evidence is often allowed in trials. the alex murdaugh trial is a prime example of this. the fact that shittenhouse was known to start violent confrontations and has a history of stating he wants to murder protestors is pertinent, and will be allowed in the civil case.

I was talking about the criminal trial. And those weren't protestors.

The civil trial will likely not go anywhere because

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."

shnangyboos posted...

For attacking someone. What do you think they were killed for?

For attacking someone who showed up to start a fight. Yes, I dont think taking the bait was the best idea, but that doesnt change the fact he should be liable for creating that situation

InfinityMonster posted...

This is not what happened. Like at all.

Yeah, go watch the trial and brush up on what actually happened and not what you read on Twitter.

I dont use Twitter. I didnt back when it had quality control, and I certainly dont now that its run by the alt-right. I simply go by whats quoted by people I trust. People who have a history of being reputable. Its not perfect, but its served me well so far.

Now, who won in 2020?

andel posted...

right wingers tend to defend the guy because he looks like a typical right wing incel, had a murder fantasy, attacked girls unprovoked, and actually showed up somewhere and killed people. not to mention how he hung out with neo nazi 1/6ers.

More misinformation. He didn't attack someone unprovoked. His sister and the girl got in fight and he jumped in.

And there was zero evidence of any murder fantasy.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I dont use Twitter. I didnt back when it had quality control, and I certainly dont now that its run by the alt-right. I simply go by whats quoted by people I trust. People who have a history of being reputable. Its not perfect, but its served me well so far.

Try going with the facts then.

InfinityMonster posted...

I was talking about the criminal trial. And those weren't protestors.

The civil trial will likely not go anywhere because

"A person may employ deadly force against another, if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect a third-person or one's self from imminent death or great bodily harm, without incurring civil liability for injury to the other. Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d 79 (1975)."

Wouldn't surprise me, murderers get off on technicalities all the time. OJ is the biggest example, Zimmerman is the closest example.