Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

These people are weird, but we like to find out what weird people are doing and thinking. It's a hobby.
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2476

Post by neonzx »

Time sync because it is long.


Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2477

Post by Dave from down under »

andersweinstein wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 9:24 pm
One might speculate that Rosenbaum was angry at the thought he might put out fires he wanted to set. Rosenbaum looks to have been a bit of a pyro . But it's speculation. Rosenbaum did not set the fire in the Duramax on the car lot. That was earlier and was captured on video also, but it was an unidentifable person in black clothing and mask.
One might speculate that Killer Kyle was hunting humans and looking for any excuse to kill.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2478

Post by Suranis »

One might speculate that it is hard to handle a fire extinguisher and an AR-15 on your body at the same time. Especially if you are an untrained person trying to pretend you are some kind of mighty first responder. One could further speculate that the fact that you have been told to feck off multiple times in front of reporters, and therefore humiliated in front of those you are trying to impress, might cause one to be frustrated and angry, and be building up a homicidal rage.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Hic sunt dracones
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2479

Post by andersweinstein »

Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:17 am One might speculate that it is hard to handle a fire extinguisher and an AR-15 on your body at the same time.
There is video of his solo walk south down Sheridan Road. It is not super clear (he is small and distant) but you can clearly make out the fire extinguisher hanging down from his straight left hand, swinging a bit, as he walked. The rifle dangled from its sling on his right or right-front side. You can't see the detail, but I would guess he was using his right hand or arm to hold or stabilize it in some way as he walked. It does look awkward. But he was not keeping his rifle in both hands at the ready.

At the time he got to the burning car and was, according to his testimony, ambushed by Rosenbaum running out at him from his hiding position behind a car, he dropped or put down the fire extinguisher and grabbed the rifle waist-high in both hands as he fled.
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:17 am Especially if you are an untrained person trying to pretend you are some kind of mighty first responder. One could further speculate that the fact that you have been told to feck off multiple times in front of reporters, and therefore humiliated in front of those you are trying to impress, might cause one to be frustrated and angry, and be building up a homicidal rage.
Video also confirms that there was aggression directed at him from the protest group, many of whom jeered and cursed at the armed men. But from what we can see on video, he seems to have consistently brushed these off without anger or rising to the bait. He was hit with some sort of small chemical bomb from protestor and just rubbed his eyes saying bemusedly "I was just tear-gassed". There was testimony someone yelled "Fuck You" at him and he just said "I love you too maa'm", which is flip, but not angry. In one interview he speaks with pride about how he thinks his group can de-escalate a situation better than the police. He was taunted by "yellow pants" and just said "OK" and walked smilingly away. He just did not seem provoked by any of these. Before he came under attack, I don't think you ever see him point his weapon at anybody, initiate a confrontation, act as a vigilante, or behave aggressively towards the protestors in any way.
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2480

Post by Patagoniagirl »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:56 am
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:17 am One might speculate that it is hard to handle a fire extinguisher and an AR-15 on your body at the same time.
There is video of his solo walk south down Sheridan Road. It is not super clear (he is small and distant) but you can clearly make out the fire extinguisher hanging down from his straight left hand, swinging a bit, as he walked. The rifle dangled from its sling on his right or right-front side. You can't see the detail, but I would guess he was using his right hand or arm to hold or stabilize it in some way as he walked. It does look awkward. But he was not keeping his rifle in both hands at the ready.

At the time he got to the burning car and was, according to his testimony, ambushed by Rosenbaum running out at him from his hiding position behind a car, he dropped or put down the fire extinguisher and grabbed the rifle waist-high in both hands as he fled.
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:17 am Especially if you are an untrained person trying to pretend you are some kind of mighty first responder. One could further speculate that the fact that you have been told to feck off multiple times in front of reporters, and therefore humiliated in front of those you are trying to impress, might cause one to be frustrated and angry, and be building up a homicidal rage.
Video also confirms that there was aggression directed at him from the protest group, many of whom jeered and cursed at the armed men. But from what we can see on video, he seems to have consistently brushed these off without anger or rising to the bait. He was hit with some sort of small chemical bomb from protestor and just rubbed his eyes saying bemusedly "I was just tear-gassed". There was testimony someone yelled "Fuck You" at him and he just said "I love you too maa'm", which is flip, but not angry. In one interview he speaks with pride about how he thinks his group can de-escalate a situation better than the police. He was taunted by "yellow pants" and just said "OK" and walked smilingly away. He just did not seem provoked by any of these. Before he came under attack, I don't think you ever see him point his weapon at anybody, initiate a confrontation, act as a vigilante, or behave aggressively towards the protestors in any way.

What a sweet thoughtful young man. Such a shame he shot and killed people. Politely, of course.
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2481

Post by Suranis »

I know, the video was edited to make it look like he was acting so sweet and kind and lovely, till he wasn't!... It was like he couldn't keep up the nice guy act anymore and he...

Snapped.

I dont give a shit what he looked like when he was walking down the street. In real life you cant manhandle a fire extinguisher and an assault weapon at the same time in a situation where you have to actually use one. He would have had to drop the gun and we all know he would hrather have dropped the Fire extinguisher that that.

PLUS if he was sauntering down the street and swinging the Fire extinguisher, he wasn't in a hurry to get to a fire, was he? Anyone looking at this guy would have seen "clueless dick" and wouldn't have met him near anything important.

The actual trained first responder, who was actually helping and treating people with no insults, got half his upper arm blown off by the pretender. That's the reality.

One would speculate that the Pretender who was getting jeered at saw the real deal and hated it so much that he shot the real deal.
Hic sunt dracones
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2482

Post by andersweinstein »

Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:45 am PLUS if he was sauntering down the street and swinging the Fire extinguisher, he wasn't in a hurry to get to a fire, was he? Anyone looking at this guy would have seen "clueless dick" and wouldn't have met him near anything important.
My impression is that pudgy Rittenhouse was just not in good shape. He started out at a run, but couldn't keep it up with the stuff he was carrying, so he slowed to walk-run. As he got near the lot, he did pick up the pace to get to the fire. He initially tried to flee Rosenbuam's attack rather than use his weapon, but he had no hope of outrunning Rosenbaum, who seemed quite determined to catch him and was undeterred in his aggression by Rittenhouse's gun. And Rittenhouse started to run again to get to the police, but again couldn't keep it up, slowing to a trot and allowing protestors to catch him from behind and knock him to the ground. It just seems to be physical limitation.

He may have looked to be a clueless dick. Clueless dickhood is not evil. It doesn't affect his right to defend himself.
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2483

Post by Patagoniagirl »

The "clueless dick" SHOT and KILLED two people. I am continuing to be curious about your obsession with your boy Kyle. Why him? Why this case?
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2484

Post by pipistrelle »

Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:16 am What a sweet thoughtful young man. Such a shame he shot and killed people. Politely, of course.
It was kind of him not to murder the people who jeered at him. I mean, who hasn’t killed people who jeer or swear at them?
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2485

Post by Ben-Prime »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:36 am
Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 9:16 am What a sweet thoughtful young man. Such a shame he shot and killed people. Politely, of course.
It was kind of him not to murder the people who jeered at him. I mean, who hasn’t killed people who jeer or swear at them?
It's actually even Biblical! 2 Kings 2:23-25... though technically it was God who took offense and sent the bears on Elisha's behalf, and not Elisha himself who killed the children nor sent the bears, I suppose.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2486

Post by Suranis »

My impression is that someone determined to reach a fire to help keeps going at a trot no matter how unfit they are, and if they really are so unfit they yell at someone else to take the Fire extinguisher. They don't walk along, happily swinging the fire extinguisher. They would know that the time they are wasting means the fire is getting more and more out of control. That sounds like someone who wants to be seen to be doing something but does not actually give a shit about getting there to save anything.

People actually trot along to reach the bus. I do and I'm miserably unfit...

My impression is that anyone who says that someone was "determined to attack" someone armed with an assault weapon is seeing everything crooked. And yet cant explain why no-one in the crowd around was holding the guy back is seeing everything crooked. Even in the warped Andy Ngo videos it is clear when a fight breaks out, people leap on the antagonist and drag the two people apart to cool things off.

The antagonist having an assault weapon would complicate the leaping on the antagonist part, wouldnt it? You saying no-one would have leaped on the guy without the assault rifle and told him he was effing crazy for attaching a guy with a a machine gun? But the antagonist being the guy with the machine gun, now THAT fits the facts.

Ya I know its not actually a "machine gun" that's not important. Oh, except that Innocent Kyle would have had to pull the trigger 4 times in a a Semi automatic. As the guy was falling.

So, clearly, there wasn't enough time for innocent unfit little Kyle to attempt to run away, realize he could not, spin around, unhook the gun and fire it in a smooth split second motion. And there wasn't enough time for the crowd to intervene in the scrap between the Captain Eyebrows and the werewolf like Deceased.

Well some did after the shooting, and they got shot, and one killed.
Hic sunt dracones
Baidn
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:43 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2487

Post by Baidn »

Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:31 am The "clueless dick" SHOT and KILLED two people. I am continuing to be curious about your obsession with your boy Kyle. Why him? Why this case?
I do not claim to be a mind reader but the end of the last comment about "clueless dickness" not being illegal and not interfering with his right to defend himself is like someone defending Zimmerman, the poster is glad of the outcome of the trial and hopes that any similar ones have the same result. That's the most logical reason I can surmise those I completely disagree with it. Similarly someone who wants people to be able to shoot their opponent if they begin to lose a fistfight would obsessively defend Zimmerman while making sure that they always include that the supposed core of their argument is the right to self defense. I leave the reasons why someone would be hoping for the same result in all similar trials up to individual interpretation.
"...don't teach a man to fish. He's a grown man and fishings not that hard." Ron Swanson the worlds only good libertarian
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2488

Post by andersweinstein »

Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:52 am My impression is that anyone who says that someone was "determined to attack" someone armed with an assault weapon is seeing everything crooked. And yet cant explain why no-one in the crowd around was holding the guy back is seeing everything crooked. Even in the warped Andy Ngo videos it is clear when a fight breaks out, people leap on the antagonist and drag the two people apart to cool things off.
In the dust-up at the Ultimate, protestors did hold Rosenbaum back from engaging with the armed men. In fact you see Huber doing this.A leader of the armed group also grabbed one of his people and dragged him back. But the car lot was just a different situation. And Ziminski who was nearest was cheering the attack on Rittenhouse.
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:52 am The antagonist having an assault weapon would complicate the leaping on the antagonist part, wouldnt it? You saying no-one would have leaped on the guy without the assault rifle and told him he was effing crazy for attaching a guy with a a machine gun? But the antagonist being the guy with the machine gun, now THAT fits the facts.
There does seem to be a lot of evidence suggesting that Rosenbaum was indeed effing crazy. At the confrontation at the Ultimate he had no fear of acting like he wanted to start something with men carrying rifles. He did have mental health issues and we know he could not obtain his meds. And while most mentally ill people are dangers only to themselves, Rosenbaum's damage made him a proven danger to others. Although this detail was not admissable at the trial, he spent his whole adult life, from age 18 to I think 32, in Arizona State Prison for molesting and raping 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11, including anally raping a pair of 11-year old twins. Anyone can pull up his prison record which shows a string of discipline problems. In Kenosha he found a woman who loved him (unaware of his past), but he could not help himself from battering her bloody and winding up under a no-contact order and domestic abuse charge. A witness reported he said "I just got out of jail, I'm not afraid to go back".

So I think you should understand, this guy Rosenbaum seems EXCEPTIONALLY messed up and anti-social. In a different era, I think he might have been labelled criminally insane. One can have some sympathy since his own upbringing seems to have been abusive. But he seems to me to be a far more toxic person than Rittenhouse. (I'd have zero fear being around the goofball kid with his gun. But Rosenbaum seems genuinely off in a scary way.)

My own read is that he was a prison-hardened tough guy used to proving his manhood by fighting, and this prison-nurtured machismo was offended at the sight of Rittenhouse and the other civilians, who would look to him like "pussies" trying look tough with their big guns, but did not have the guts to actually use them. Thats why he kept baiting them with "shoot me, nigga". It also seems possible he had feelings of worthlessness and just didn't give a shit about his own life (he was homeless after being dumped on the street after hospitalization for a suicide attempt.)

No one has to buy that. But there seems to be lots of support for the idea that he had no fear of attacking people with guns.
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2489

Post by Patagoniagirl »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 12:21 pm
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:52 am My impression is that anyone who says that someone was "determined to attack" someone armed with an assault weapon is seeing everything crooked. And yet cant explain why no-one in the crowd around was holding the guy back is seeing everything crooked. Even in the warped Andy Ngo videos it is clear when a fight breaks out, people leap on the antagonist and drag the two people apart to cool things off.
In the dust-up at the Ultimate, protestors did hold Rosenbaum back from engaging with the armed men. In fact you see Huber doing this.A leader of the armed group also grabbed some of his people and dragged him back. But the car lot was just a different situation. And Ziminski who was nearest was cheering the attack on Rittenhouse.
Suranis wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:52 am The antagonist having an assault weapon would complicate the leaping on the antagonist part, wouldnt it? You saying no-one would have leaped on the guy without the assault rifle and told him he was effing crazy for attaching a guy with a a machine gun? But the antagonist being the guy with the machine gun, now THAT fits the facts.
There does seem to be a lot of evidence suggesting that Rosenbaum was indeed effing crazy. At the confrontation at the Ultimate he had no fear of acting like he wanted to start something with men carrying rifles. He did have mental health issues and we know he could not obtain his meds. And while most mentally ill people are dangers only to themselves, Rosenbaum's damage made him a proven danger to others. Although this detail was not admissable at the trial, he spent his whole adult life, from age 18 to I think 32, in Arizona State Prison for molesting and raping 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11, including anally raping a pair of 11-year old twins. Anyone can pull up his prison record which shows a string of discipline problems. In Kenosha he found a woman who loved him (unaware of his past), but he could not help himself from battering her bloody and winding up under a no-contact order and domestic abuse charge. A witness reported he said "I just got out of jail, I'm not afraid to go back".

So I think you should understand, this guy Rosenbaum seems EXCEPTIONALLY messed up and anti-social. In a different era, I think he might have been labelled criminally insane. One can have some sympathy since his own upbringing seems to have been abusive. But he seems to me to be a far more toxic person than Rittenhouse. (I'd have zero fear being around the goofball with his gun. But Rosenbaum seems genuinely off in a scary way.)

My own read is that he was a prison-hardened tough guy used to proving his manhood by fighting, and this prison-nurtured machismo was offended at the sight of Rittenhouse and the other civilians, who would look to him like "pussies" trying look tough with their big guns, but did not have the guts to actually use them. Thats why he kept baiting them with "shoot me, nigga". It also seems possible he had feelings of worthlessness and just didn't give a shit about his own life.

No one has to buy that. But there seems to be lots of support for the idea that he had no fear of attacking people with guns.
All of which does not justify his murdering people.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2490

Post by raison de arizona »

Rittenhouse was (and is) a child. He had no business being there. He was not uniquely qualified to render first aid. He was not uniquely qualified to extinguish fires. He was not uniquely qualified to protect property. And he certainly had no idea how to deal with aggressive ex-cons and defuse charged situations. He inserted himself into a situation he had no business being in, then killed two and maimed a third as a result.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5831
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2491

Post by Suranis »

And the dude could have been crazier than Deadpool, and there is no law in the United States that states that is a crime worthy of death. Nor would it have stopped the crowd grabbing him and pulling him back. If there was actually an altercation in the first place, rather than a humiliated kid snapping and lashing out at someone who looked threatening. Except that rather than a sucker punch, the kid had a bullet.

There's some saying about providing sustenance to sub-bridge dwellers that I'm going to apply here from now on.
Hic sunt dracones
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2492

Post by andersweinstein »

Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:31 am The "clueless dick" SHOT and KILLED two people.
Sure, but it seems he only did so because he was the victim of an uprovoked attack by an aggressive psycho intent on doing him harm. When a basically decent kid gets attacked by a violent criminal, tries to flee, and then only shoots in self-defense as a last resort when forced to, I'm not going to think badly of the innocent victim of the attack. No one made anyone attack the goofball wannabe medic!

The later shootings seem more problematic to me, arguably a tragic "fog-of-war" confusion where both sides might have justification for using deadly force against the other given their imperfect information. I still think we should see it all Rosenbaum's fault for attacking in the first place and precipitating that awful situation. Rosenbaum's the one who went out looking for trouble who shouldn't have been there. Blame the damn vicious aggressor! But I can't see it unreasonable for Rittenhouse to fear death or serious bodily harm from members of that mob.
Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:31 am I am continuing to be curious about your obsession with your boy Kyle. Why him? Why this case?
Fair enough. It arose out of my interest in misinformation. Early on I went down a rabbit-hole following out some of the video and reporting. That led to a sort of Emperor's New Clothes experience: my initial expectations were overturned and it came to look to me he had a very reasonable self-defense case, both legally and morally, given what actually happened, ONCE you cast aside your preconceptions about what you THINK happened. But in large quarters of the liberal press people just stick to a glib narrative based on stereotyping him and projecting things onto him without good evidence, it seems to me.

I'm not that interested in right-wing crazy, I take that for granted. But I can get kind of agitated at what I perceive to be liberal bubble-think ("liberal porn" was a phrase I liked), widespread misinformation within my own political tribe. The Rittenhouse case wound up looking to me to be a case where the misinformation is mainly on the liberal side. Right-winters have a much more accurate view of what went down in Kenosha, I think. I'm not "red-pilled" -- it doesn't surprise me or change my political leanings to think this. But I admit I have the zeal of a convert.

This piece, The Rittenhouse Verdict Should have Come as No Surprise primarily about media coverage, is a really excellent representation of the point of view I'm coming from on this. The author, journalist Jesse Singal, initially wrote a Substack piece (now unlocked) titled Kyle Rittenhouse and the problem of Left-Wing Epistemic Closure. When I saw that I plunked down the $5 month subscription fee just to read that one piece because the title seemed to so perfectly capture my own view.

Beyond that, maybe I'm just a bit broken. I do know I'm unlikely to change minds and realize it's compulsive.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2493

Post by raison de arizona »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:40 pm Sure, but it seems he only did so because he was the victim of an uprovoked attack by an aggressive psycho intent on doing him harm. When a basically decent kid gets attacked by a violent criminal, tries to flee, and then only shoots in self-defense as a last resort when forced to, I'm not going to think badly of the innocent victim of the attack. No one made anyone attack the goofball wannabe medic!
This is what I keep coming back to. He's not an innocent victim. He purposefully put himself into a situation he had no business being in, then killed and maimed people as a result. I disagree that Rittenhouse was an innocent victim. No one made RIttenhouse enter a riot, armed with an assault rifle, that he had no business being in for a variety of reasons. He was literally asking for trouble with his glib responses. Does that mean he should have been found guilty? Not necessarily, but he was no innocent victim.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
Patagoniagirl
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:11 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2494

Post by Patagoniagirl »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:52 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:40 pm Sure, but it seems he only did so because he was the victim of an uprovoked attack by an aggressive psycho intent on doing him harm. When a basically decent kid gets attacked by a violent criminal, tries to flee, and then only shoots in self-defense as a last resort when forced to, I'm not going to think badly of the innocent victim of the attack. No one made anyone attack the goofball wannabe medic!
This is what I keep coming back to. He's not an innocent victim. He purposefully put himself into a situation he had no business being in, then killed and maimed people as a result. I disagree that Rittenhouse was an innocent victim. No one made RIttenhouse enter a riot, armed with an assault rifle, that he had no business being in for a variety of reasons. He was literally asking for trouble with his glib responses. Does that mean he should have been found guilty? Not necessarily, but he was no innocent victim.

"Basically decent kid(s)" don't shoot people. FFS, man! What does that even mean? And if you don't mind, would you please divulge the kernel that sprouted your devotion to excuse this murderer?
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2495

Post by neonzx »

Patagoniagirl wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 2:12 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:52 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:40 pm Sure, but it seems he only did so because he was the victim of an uprovoked attack by an aggressive psycho intent on doing him harm. When a basically decent kid gets attacked by a violent criminal, tries to flee, and then only shoots in self-defense as a last resort when forced to, I'm not going to think badly of the innocent victim of the attack. No one made anyone attack the goofball wannabe medic!
This is what I keep coming back to. He's not an innocent victim. He purposefully put himself into a situation he had no business being in, then killed and maimed people as a result. I disagree that Rittenhouse was an innocent victim. No one made RIttenhouse enter a riot, armed with an assault rifle, that he had no business being in for a variety of reasons. He was literally asking for trouble with his glib responses. Does that mean he should have been found guilty? Not necessarily, but he was no innocent victim.

"Basically decent kid(s)" don't shoot people. FFS, man! What does that even mean? And if you don't mind, would you please divulge the kernel that sprouted your devotion to excuse this murderer?
I think you were pointing your respond to andersweinstein.

I agree with you. And Kyle's young life may have been way far from perfect (he didn't signup for that--his mom and baby daddy having a romp).

And everyone is wired differently. Many do have lives themselves from less than perfect upbringings and come out okay. Many, also too, fall from perfect homes when there is no visible reason for that to occur.
andersweinstein
Posts: 521
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:10 pm

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2496

Post by andersweinstein »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:52 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:40 pm Sure, but it seems he only did so because he was the victim of an uprovoked attack by an aggressive psycho intent on doing him harm. When a basically decent kid gets attacked by a violent criminal, tries to flee, and then only shoots in self-defense as a last resort when forced to, I'm not going to think badly of the innocent victim of the attack. No one made anyone attack the goofball wannabe medic!
This is what I keep coming back to. He's not an innocent victim. He purposefully put himself into a situation he had no business being in, then killed and maimed people as a result. I disagree that Rittenhouse was an innocent victim. No one made RIttenhouse enter a riot, armed with an assault rifle, that he had no business being in for a variety of reasons. He was literally asking for trouble with his glib responses. Does that mean he should have been found guilty? Not necessarily, but he was no innocent victim.
Well I call him "innocent" because I think (1) his behavior was legal, (2) his intentions seem to have been good, and (3) he did nothing to justify Rosenbaum's attack on him. He had the right to go on this unwise adventure unmolested by criminal attacks on his person. (Maybe imagine what you'd think if your own teenager went on some similar unwise adventure, wound up attacked by a random street person and forced into defending himself.)

But I am curious about the implicit moral principle at work here. Imagine a Black man goes to a Klan rally to counterprotest peacefully holding a sign saying "Love Thy Neighbor". But he also openly carries a gun just in case there is trouble. He takes no other action. That could still be said to be engaing in a provocation or "asking for trouble". But if he got attacked by racists pissed off by an uppity so-and-so daring to do this in their faces, and wound up having to defend himself, I wonder, would you be so quick to emphasize, "well, he was asking for trouble?".

To me this "asking for trouble" thing is just a way to try to shift the blame onto the party you don't like. Sometimes people take actions to ostentatoiusly assert their legal rights in ways that could be considered provocative or "asking for trouble". But still, as long as it's legal we normally blame the attacker. (Though I did turn up some interesting stuff on how the law treats this, which I could share at another time.)

The other things is that it seems he didn't precipitate the attack through aggressive conduct. This is not a case at all like the Arbery case, or the George Zimmerman case. He was not confronting anybody. He didn't bring about the conflict by which he was attacked. He was on his way to put out a fire, for chrissakes, a perfectly decent thing to do, and a vicious bad guy took the opportunity to hide behind a car so as to get the jump on him. The questions about whether deadly force was justified apply to this particular attack situation, but that's all.

[ETA There was dispute at the trial about whether he provoked. I'm going by what I believe to question the "asking for trouble" principle.]
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2497

Post by raison de arizona »

andersweinstein wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 3:16 pm Well I call him "innocent" because I think (1) his behavior was legal, (2) his intentions seem to have been good, and (3) he did nothing to justify Rosenbaum's attack on him. He had the right to go on this unwise adventure unmolested by criminal attacks on his person. (Maybe imagine what you'd think if your own teenager went on some similar unwise adventure, wound up attacked by a random street person and forced into defending himself.)

But I am curious about the implicit moral principle at work here. Imagine a Black man goes to a Klan rally to counterprotest peacefully holding a sign saying "Love Thy Neighbor". But he also openly carries a gun just in case there is trouble. He takes no other action. That could still be said to be engaing in a provocation or "asking for trouble". But if he got attacked by racists pissed off by an uppity so-and-so daring to do this in their faces, and wound up having to defend himself, I wonder, would you be so quick to emphasize, "well, he was asking for trouble?".

To me this "asking for trouble" thing is just a way to try to shift the blame onto the party you don't like. Sometimes people take actions to ostentatoiusly assert their legal rights in ways that could be considered provocative or "asking for trouble". But still, as long as it's legal we normally blame the attacker.
(Though I did turn up some interesting stuff on how the law treats this, which I could share at another time.)

The other things is that it seems he didn't precipitate the attack through aggressive conduct. This is not a case at all like the Arbery case, or the George Zimmerman case. He was not confronting anybody. He didn't bring about the conflict by which he was attacked. He was on his way to put out a fire, for chrissakes, a perfectly decent thing to do, and a vicious bad guy took the opportunity to hide behind a car so as to get the jump on him. O
:think: I'm hafta think on those ones, thx for the food for thought.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2498

Post by Gregg »

It would be a bit easier to have some sympathy for him if he wasn't really happy about it after the fact.

Stupid kids do stupid stuff, but jumping up and screaming "...and then I drank the bong water!" doesn't indicate he feels like he should have been better.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2499

Post by RVInit »

Suranis wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 1:54 pm
Maybenaut wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:37 pm
andersweinstein wrote: Sun Dec 11, 2022 6:43 am

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability.
It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.
O J Simpson says hi.
As do Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. Rittenhouse would have been found guilty if he'd been tried in some jurisdictions, and, like Zimmerman, was lucky enough to be tried in a place by a jury predisposed to thinking it's OK to kill "the other".
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

#2500

Post by Dave from down under »

So..

I have this gun a friend bought for me..
(because it was illegal for me to buy it)

it's a BIG gun..
(because I have adequacy issues)

It's COOL..
(because I have the mental development of a spoiled 8 year old)

It shoots lots and is great for killing people..
(because that is what a Smith & Wesson M&P15 is built to do)

So where can I use it for what it was built to do and get away with it????

Well...
there are plenty of States in the US where I can provoke a fight and Stand My Ground and others where I might not get charged or convicted.

Just call me Kyle..
Post Reply

Return to “Other weirdos”