Fogbow

Snidest!

Foggy wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 11:29 am He's living proof that black lives don't really matter, after all.

Which is a comforting message to the worst people in the world.

There are Americans, I'm ashamed to say, who wanted Derek Chauvin to be acquitted.

They think a white cop - or even a white man riding the subway - should have the right to murder random black people for being annoying or just weird. And nothing should ever happen to the white man.

In California, there was a law that a white man couldn't be convicted of murder based on the testimony of a Chinese person, even a US citizen of Chinese descent.

I'm really looking forward to seeing Kyle vanish into the dumpster fire of history.

It would not make me mad if some accident helped him assume room temperature. A Firearm accident even better.

"Youth acquitted in 2020 murders accidently shot in penis during riot cosplay, bleeds to death while waiting for medic.


Kyle Rittenhouse was demonstrating his technique to shoot around a skateboard when he slipped and shot himself in the groin. An ambulance was called, but could not get through the crowd because it had a rainbow sticker on the side. "

or something similar.

That would do.

Yup.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 9:12 pm He is a hero to the monsters because he got away with it..
and made $$$

100% this it's what's given him the unnaturally sustained longevity of fame on the right. They have long resorted to stochastic terrorist and the best recruiting tool they could ask for is an acquittal "look he got away with killing them for being against us, you will too!" Disgustingly it seems like Greg abbot plans to help with that plan and pardon the first person to test the method which was recently convicted of first degree murder. (Evidence showed he went to a protest with the sole goal of being able to kill people and say "but I was SCAAAAAAARED!")

Foggy wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2023 11:29 am He's living proof that black lives don't really matter, after all.

Seems a very odd take when he only shot white people. And he was not hostile to Black Lives Matter (his main fantasy was to be a kind of combat medic giving aid to injured protestors, and he announced himself "Friendly Friendly Friendly" to indicate he was not there as an enemy as he roamed the protestor crowd searching for such people). And the person who attacked him first, Joseph Rosenbaum, appears not to have been there out of the slightest concern for Black Lives: he was just a random mentally disturbed criminal dumped on the street that day who apparently enjoyed setting fires and engaging in performative battle with police, and made multiple threats against the armed civilians guarding property.

Race was not a factor in the Rittenhouse case.

Do you have some kind of Alert set up for this thread? And do you have an interest in any other man, I mean subject?

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 9:34 am Do you have some kind of Alert set up for this thread? And do you have an interest in any other man, I mean subject?

I drop in periodically to scan this thread. I have posted occasionally in other threads, but this is one topic I have a lot of interest in, knowledge about. I know it's a bit odd.

Again, the reason I got so interested is because I am interested in misinformation, this board is ostensibly concerned with misinformation, and I believe the Rittenhouse case is a very dramatic example of a case where the misinformation, the false narrative, is on the liberal, rather than the right-wing side. So I try to correct that where I can.

I think this is a good piece by contrarian liberal Jesse Singal, mainly about media coverage, which exemplifies the outlook I share, though not my personal obsessiveness about it.

Sure tinkerbell, and that's why you are not concerned with misinformation on any other subject. Plus you have been caught out passing misinformation on this site before, particularly with pushing misinformation on the people Rittenhouse shot and killed. Newsflash, even if they devoured babies and spat up the blood on Hillary Clinton's naked breasts, Rittenhouse shooting them would be just as wrong. Not to mention your misinformation on the law etc.

That's why Rittenhouse's threats of legal action against the News services have come to nothing, because the News services didn't actually defame him as they pointed out what actually happened. If he tried, he would lose.

This is where you try and tie me in knots by asking me to quote where you did misinformation, and I'll just point you back along the thread you are on where plenty of people did just that. If you want me to do research and work for you, my rates are $20 an hour, plus loooong paid lunches and bathroom breaks.

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:48 am Sure tinkerbell, and that's why you are not concerned with misinformation on any other subject. Plus you have been caught out passing misinformation on this site before, particularly with pushing misinformation on the people Rittenhouse shot and killed.

Well I disagree with you on that. I believe I am pretty careful about facts and try to include sources wherever it seems relevant. Of course there are places where tendentious description shades into opinion, and then it is no longer a simple matter of facts.

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:48 am Newsflash, even if they devoured babies and spat up the blood on Hillary Clinton's naked breasts, Rittenhouse shooting them would be just as wrong.

I agree it is not Rosenbaum's past that justified Rittenhouse's shooting of him in self-defense. I mention Rosenbaum's past because (1) it adds to the plausibility that Rosenbaum was the agressor in a wholly unprovoked attack, something also strongly supported by trial evidence; (2) it goes against the simplistic narrative that Rittenhouse shot protestors "who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives" as Ayanna Pressley put in a comically uninformed tweet.

Suranis wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:48 am That's why Rittenhouse's threats of legal action against the News services have come to nothing, because the News services didn't actually defame him as they pointed out what actually happened. If he tried, he would lose.

I agree Rittenhouse will never have a defamation case. However, I do also think it is fair for him to be resentful about being portrayed as a racist or White Supremacist when he is none of those things. Wouldn't you be resentful? This is one of the aspects where I think you should recognize that right-wingers have a legitimate grievance against liberal media. There are vast swaths s of liberal media where it is just taken as axiomatic that Ritenhouse was a racist or White Supremacist shooter. But this seems to have almost no evidence for it, it's just sticking to a narrative for ideological reason. All the evidence is that Rittenhouse was not hostile to Black Lives Matter protestors.

(Yes, there is the post-shooing incident with alleged Proud Boys in a bar, but I believe that is well explained away in the New Yorker piece I have cited.)

There us a scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise is practicing questions meant to lead a witness away from intent, and after 4 or 5 more or less convincing thoughts he asks " Is there any reason at all to suspect this hurt anyone at all?"

And his co-counsel answers "Aside from the dead body?"

Every time you post I remember that scene.

Idgit

Gregg wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:53 pm There us a scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise is practicing questions meant to lead a witness away from intent, and after 4 or 5 more or less convincing thoughts he asks " Is there any reason at all to suspect this hurt anyone at all?"

And his co-counsel answers "Aside from the dead body?"

Every time you post I remember that scene.

Idgit

Well…
Apart from the 2 dead…
And the 1 maimed..
And the dozens traumatised..

The real victim is the gun…
It was just minding its own business…
When Killer Kyle chose to use it.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:03 am I think this is a good piece by contrarian liberal Jesse Singal, mainly about media coverage, which exemplifies the outlook I share, though not my personal obsessiveness about it.

While it was well written, I think the author really fell down with his initial premise.. he starts by talking about how people how people incorrectly saw it as a 'It is a grotesque machine that will forever forgive white supremacist violence.", then proceeds to explain how it was a grotesque miscarriage of justice that is so obvious we should not be surprised... it takes as a given a VERY wide idea of 'self defense' which, for some people, really is the case, and the author must see some of themselves in the shooter since they framed it as natural and correct too.

If you start from the position that other people do not have the same rights than yourself.

Eg the right not to be killed arbitrarily.

Then a gun is a useful tool to make that position a reality.

That assorted US legislature and/or juries allow people to threaten/maim/kill because they can - is a reality, unfortunately.

neeneko wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 5:19 pm

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 11:03 am I think this is a good piece by contrarian liberal Jesse Singal, mainly about media coverage, which exemplifies the outlook I share, though not my personal obsessiveness about it.

While it was well written, I think the author really fell down with his initial premise.. he starts by talking about how people how people incorrectly saw it as a 'It is a grotesque machine that will forever forgive white supremacist violence.", then proceeds to explain how it was a grotesque miscarriage of justice that is so obvious we should not be surprised... it takes as a given a VERY wide idea of 'self defense' which, for some people, really is the case, and the author must see some of themselves in the shooter since they framed it as natural and correct too.

As I see it he simply referred to the elements that matter under WI's self-defense law. That law seems fairly standard as far as I can tell. I can't guess what you see as specially expansive about it.

There was a lot of evidence Rittenhouse was attacked, he did not provoke the attack through illegal action, it was reasonable for him to fear death or serious bodily harm, he tried to flee, and, when he had no alternative, he used his gun solely to defend himself. That makes it a very standard self-defense claim as far as I can see. And it's the state's burden to DISPROVE the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since everyone seems to think this was some kind of miscarriage of justice, I am kind of curious just which element people think the jury got wrong.

Gregg wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 4:53 pm There us a scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise is practicing questions meant to lead a witness away from intent, and after 4 or 5 more or less convincing thoughts he asks " Is there any reason at all to suspect this hurt anyone at all?"

And his co-counsel answers "Aside from the dead body?"

When someone argues self-defense, they don't deny that they hurt people. If all you're doing is saying "what about these dead and maimed bodies" and stopping there, you're just begging the question against his claim to have acted in reasonable self-defense.

I think everyone, even people who disagree with me, ought to acknowledge at least that he had a strong self-defense claim under the law.

Kyle was armed and was following, and by being armed, threatening Rosenbaum.

Rosenbaum had every reason to fear for his safety from Kyle, as it turned out Kyle was willing and able and did kill Rosenbaum.

If you are going to say being scared is grounds for the use of lethal force in self defense, then the jury should have seen Kyle as a credible deadly threat to Rosenbaum.

Kyle went armed looking for confrontation.

And thus Kyle should not have been able to claim self defense.

The point being that guns are a lethal threat and very effective at maiming/killing.
That is their function.
Claiming otherwise is disingenuous.

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:26 pm The point being that guns are a lethal threat and very effective at maiming/killing.
That is their function.
Claiming otherwise is disingenu

Nonsense, Dave. Kyle was just teenager there to render medical attention.

He did not purchase that assault rifle without without intent. He was not going deer hunting with that. He was people hunting.

but.. he didn't purchase the Smith & Wesson M&P15 himself - he got his friend to because he didn't think that legally he could have bought it..

he didn't buy full metal jacket rounds for it so that it could more effectively go through body armour and cover and people

he didn't buy his rifle body sling optimised for urban combat for it

he didn't go hunting for humans...

he didn't do any of this..

he was just a scared little child... a cold bloody killer.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Mon Jun 05, 2023 7:25 pm I think everyone, even people who disagree with me, ought to acknowledge at least that he had a strong self-defense claim under the law.

I do not believe that he had a strong self-defense claim, even under the law

I believe that he went looking for an opportunity to use he Smith & Wesson M&P15 to threaten/maim/kill.

He said he would shoot people at protests, he shot people at protests.

Premeditated Killer

He could have satisfied his need for self defence by using this highly advanced, 100% effective self defence technique.

But...

Kyle

He could have...

but he chose not to.