Fogbow

I think you remembered right

google search comes up with it..

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:39 am If I recall correctly, his mother gave an interview in which she was supportive of her boy's actions. That might be part of why it's hard to find employment.

Last I heard, Wendy Rittenhouse still had a job. She defended his actions in the sense that she believed he acted in self-defense. It should not be at all surprising that a mother defends her son and believes him innocent.

There are still many many people who believe the long-debunked myth that she drove Kyle to Kenosha and post crap on social media about that, when she has always said she never would have approved him going to the protest. According to posts from David Hancock (now deleted), she texted him "you're not going to Kenosha" on the Monday the day before, Kyle texted that he had to go to work, she said "work and that's it". Then Kyle stayed over and apparently kept her in the dark about his plans.

So Kyle lied to his mum*
Who knew that he and guns was dangerous to others..

* and there are those who believe that he wouldn’t lie in court…

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:19 am So Kyle lied to his mum*
Who knew that he and guns was dangerous to others..

* and there are those who believe that he wouldn’t lie in court…

The fake sob job is a form of lying of course.

Oh no!!! :s

That was his PTSD
Or his remorse
Or his regret
Or his sneezing

Or his checking out who bought his piss poor acting

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:19 am So Kyle lied to his mum*
Who knew that he and guns was dangerous to others..

* and there are those who believe that he wouldn’t lie in court…

Well it also does not seem at all surprising to me that a 17-year old would lie to his mom about where he's going, particularly when he is pursuing a risky adventure with guns and older folks.

I don't personally think his testimony was essential to acquitting him, so it makes no difference to my view if he faked crying or lied on the stand. As I see it the videos prove almost beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted from the motive of self-defense, and the prosecution had no evidence to the contrary and some of the state's witnesses actually supported his case. The only tough question I saw in the case is whether the attacks on him justified deadly force, a matter on which I think reasonable people can disagree, but for which I believe a case can certainly be made.

One might wonder if he did something to provoke Rosenbaum's initial attack on him. I didn't see any convincing evidence for that in the trial and don't see any reason to believe it myself. But, a little bit surprisingly, that that turns out to be irrelevant under WI law if you accept that he had exhausted all alternatives for escaping the threat. Since that last seems plausible in his circumstances, I think the jury did not have to consider provocation at all.

The comments on the Xhitter thread are brutal. When I browsed yesterday I couldn't find a single supportive entry. People did correct some of the misinformation about his mother driving him to Kenosha. She didn't. She allowed him to drive himself, without a license, as if that is much better. But yeah, nobody was particularly empathetic with these two. They could have been supportive of their son/brother, while still expressing appropriate regret regarding the loss of life. But no. They aren't celebrating the killing as much as Kyle, but their comments are still vomit inducing.

RVInit wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:32 pm The comments on the Xhitter thread are brutal. When I browsed yesterday I couldn't find a single supportive entry. People did correct some of the misinformation about his mother driving him to Kenosha. She didn't. She allowed him to drive himself, without a license, as if that is much better. But yeah, nobody was particularly empathetic with these two. They could have been supportive of their son/brother, while still expressing appropriate regret regarding the loss of life. But no. They aren't celebrating the killing as much as Kyle, but their comments are still vomit inducing.

Precisely.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:41 am

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 8:19 am So Kyle lied to his mum*
Who knew that he and guns was dangerous to others..

* and there are those who believe that he wouldn’t lie in court…

Well it also does not seem at all surprising to me that a 17-year old would lie to his mom about where he's going, particularly when he is pursuing a risky adventure with guns and older folks.

I don't personally think his testimony was essential to acquitting him, so it makes no difference to my view if he faked crying or lied on the stand. As I see it the videos prove almost beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted from the motive of self-defense, and the prosecution had no evidence to the contrary and some of the state's witnesses actually supported his case. The only tough question I saw in the case is whether the attacks on him justified deadly force, a matter on which I think reasonable people can disagree, but for which I believe a case can certainly be made.

One might wonder if he did something to provoke Rosenbaum's initial attack on him. I didn't see any convincing evidence for that in the trial and don't see any reason to believe it myself. But, a little bit surprisingly, that that turns out to be irrelevant under WI law if you accept that he had exhausted all alternatives for escaping the threat. Since that last seems plausible in his circumstances, I think the jury did not have to consider provocation at all.

Kyle only exhausted his trigger finger..
4 times
the first to cripple his target
the next three to make sure he got a kill

Kyle was out hunting that night - and he got 2 kills and a maimed

Remember when Wendy Rittenhouse went on Hannity and was angry that Biden had defamed her angelic son?

Good times.

Screw her.

Kyle Rittenhouse will not end well.

And it's his own god damn fault.

Resume18 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:31 pm Kyle Rittenhouse will not end well.

And it's his own god damn fault.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:17 pm Remember when Wendy Rittenhouse went on Hannity and was angry that Biden had defamed her angelic son?

Good times.

Screw her.

A Biden ad lumped Rittenhouse together with the "white supremacists" that the voiceover said Trump refused to denounce. A Volokh post nicely explains that one can't sue for defamation for that because it's treated as opinion, not fact. But it seems fair to say it is defamatory in the non-legal sense. And if you or your son is not a white supremacist, it seems fair to be upset. Remember, Biden had no evidence Rittenhouse was a white supremacist.

As to thinking her son innocent, again, it would be shocking if any mother didn't, so doesn't justify any contempt, it seems to me.

He was protesting BLM. He deserved to be lumped in with white supremacists. What about his Proud Boy ties?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:05 pm He was protesting BLM. He deserved to be lumped in with white supremacists. What about his Proud Boy ties?

No, he was not protesting BLM. This is a very common misconception in liberal bubble-think world. The armed civilians came out to deter property destruction and looting because of all that had occurred the night before. They had a variety of ideologies, many of them anti-government and so anti-police, and many claimed to support BLM. Some claimed to be there precisely to help BLM folks who believed that the rioters and looters harmed their cause. You can see one group of armed men calling themselves "libertarians" on video trying to work with protestors and signing off with "No Lives matter until Black lives matter". And of course we know that Rittenhouse wanted to give first aid to BLM protestors, and started to give aid to one before she was carried off on someone else's back.

Lots of different groups converged in Kenosha that night so I can't speak to all of them. I can't rule out that there were white supremacists there, or people there in political opposition to Black Lives Matter. But that does not seem to have been the motivation of the pickup group Rittenhouse was with, which arose out of a chain of acquaintanceship from someone (Nick Smith) who had worked for Car Source and was called for assistance with fires the night before.

The incident of him being photographed in a bar with alleged members of the Proud Boys came in Jan 2021. That was after the Biden campaign ad in fall 2020, so could not have been evidence for Biden's campaign ad. At the time of the ad I believe it had been reported that Rittenhouse had not been found to have any extremist ties.

I actually don't know that the Proud Boys are white supremacists, I don't understand their ideology, but I know they were founded by a Latino. They look more like a biker gang or fight club than anything else to me. But in any case I believe Rittenhouse just went along because they celebrated him and as we have seen he's a total sucker for ego juice. I have no evidence he shared or even knew their ideology (whatever the hell it is) beyond leaning Republican. As you know there is an explanation of the Proud Boys incident in the New Yorker piece, although perhaps that involved some spinning by David Hancock.

I actually don't know that the Proud Boys are white supremacists, I don't understand their ideology, but I know they were founded by a Latino.

First time I’ve seen Gavin McInnes referred to as a Latino. FWIW.

anderswankspittle complaining about our librul bubble.

hahahaha

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:43 pm

I actually don't know that the Proud Boys are white supremacists, I don't understand their ideology, but I know they were founded by a Latino.

First time I’ve seen Gavin McInnes referred to as a Latino. FWIW.

I was thinking of Enrique Tarrio. My mistake to call him founder.

Is it possible that everyone agree to the fact that a minimally trained “medic” and, as far as I know, effectively untrained rifle owner should never have gone to Kenosha? A recipe for potential disaster. Perhaps if he had gone unarmed purely as a “medic” he might have done some good although I doubt a “lifeguard” is trained to cope during a civil disturbance.

(My personal view as a European commie is that it’s simply the result of the gun culture in the USA. Such behaviour is not tolerated in most countries. I can understand why he was acquitted in the USA).

Apart from awaiting Kyle’s seemingly inevitable crash and burn I don’t think there’s anything that hasn’t been said.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 3:59 pm Enrique Tarrio and the Curious Case of the Latino White Supremacist

I just looked at that piece. What is striking to me is that it starts from an unargued premise that Tarrio is a white supremacist. It then goes to address the apparent paradox of how a Latino of Afro-Cuban descent can be white supremacist, its main topic. But: it does not tell me any of the white supremacist beliefs Tarrio has or where he has espoused them. Maybe he does have them, maybe he doesn't. I simply can't tell from this piece.

I really didn't want to make this about the Proud Boys. As you can tell from my error I simply don't know that much about that group. But I believe very strongly people should be precise in the use of a term like "white supremacist". It's a very nasty thing to call someone. It implies espousal of racial ideology and affinity with a very specific group of extremists,with online forums and meetings and manifestos and the like. It is not just a fashion style like goth or emo you can apply to anyone who cosplays in tactical gear.

So I very strongly disagree with anything like "Rittenhouse deserves to be lumped in with white supremacists because blah blah blah" unless you can show me where he espoused a white supremacist belief. I don't think white supremacist ideology had anything to do with this case. I have no doubt the dim bulb Rittenhouse is very far from woke. But I don't think it was ever fair to call him a white supremacist. Just intellectually lazy stereotyping.

Uninformed wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:17 pm Is it possible that everyone agree to the fact that a minimally trained “medic” and, as far as I know, effectively untrained rifle owner should never have gone to Kenosha? A recipe for potential disaster. Perhaps if he had gone unarmed purely as a “medic” he might have done some good although I doubt a “lifeguard” is trained to cope during a civil disturbance.

I know more about health care than Kyle ever will, and I would never pretend to be a medic, let alone in a place where first aid is going to be needed. An older sibling was an actual Army medic. With training.

And I’d rather tourniquet my own limb than let an untrained failure near me.

andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 4:23 pm
It is not just a fashion style like goth or emo you can apply to anyone who cosplays in tactical gear.

Killer Kyle was cosplaying that night…

With live full metal jacket ammunition

He lived out his fantasy of getting to shoot people

And now he gets the attention from those that he admires

He is now IN with the crowd that he wanted to be in.

And he gets protected from accountability for his actions.

By taking two lives he is living the life that he dreamed of.

But it seems fair to say it is defamatory in the non-legal sense.

A politician said something that was reputationally damaging but not legally actionable. My vapors, my vapors!

I actually don't know that the Proud Boys are white supremacists

Sit down.

bob wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 10:35 pm

I actually don't know that the Proud Boys are white supremacists

Sit down.

Oh I'm totally prepared to accept that they are. But again, that article also doesn't tell me what their racial ideology is. It says that one Colorado report lumped their discussion of the Proud Boys together with others in a section on white supremacist violence. It mentions other white supremacist groups with which they were lumped. But of the Proud Boys it says only they clashed with Antifa and spread conspiracy theories and are a dangerous extremist group that law enforcement is warning about. So it doesn't enlighten me as to why the classification is apt, I just have to take it on authority. And I notice it mentions that other agencies characterize them simply as an "extremist group" or a "gang".