Kyle Rittenhouse goes to trial

[Quebec-Libre]

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances. Poor guy.

I'm glad the guy's free, what he did was purely legal in the context of self-defence. Plus, there's one less child-rapist on this Earth, so I can't pretend I'm sad that Joseph Rosenbaum is dead.

However, the problem with this case is that, for many Americans (I speak of this topic exteriorly, as I am a Canadian) this trial creates the impression that a double standard exists when it comes to self-defence, a standard seemingly based on ethnicity.

Whether this standard really exists or not is debatable and contextual, but this trial just set a precedent regarding self-defence, and America must remember that precedent because if not, then there really will be a double standard, and from there, boy oh boy, the BLM protests are gonna look like a cakewalk compared to what'll happen in the streets.

[Genivaria]

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances. Poor guy.

I'm glad the guy's free, what he did was purely legal in the context of self-defence. Plus, there's one less child-rapist on this Earth, so I can't pretend I'm sad that Joseph Rosenbaum is dead.

However, the problem with this case is that, for many Americans (I speak of this topic exteriorly, as I am a Canadian) this trial creates the impression that a double standard exists when it comes to self-defence, a standard seemingly based on ethnicity.

Whether this standard really exists or not is debatable and contextual, but this trial just set a precedent regarding self-defence, and America must remember that precedent because if not, then there really will be a double standard, and from there, boy oh boy, the BLM protests are gonna look like a cakewalk compared to what'll happen in the streets.

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances

With his endorsement of BLM that's unlikely.
Really though the media has been so misleading about this that the topic is inherently toxic wherever it appears.

[Kalaron]

Assuming, of course, that people intervene. Also assuming that the person intervening isn't armed with a weapon, or believes that Ritten's life is at risk. Also assuming that, if they tried to stop the mentally unwell man attenpting to beat another man black and blue, he wouldn't have made a lunge for their gun if they withdrew it to make him back down.

Well I didn't pay as close attention to the details of the trial as some, so correct me if I'm incorrect, but after shooting Rosenbaum, was Rittenhouse not attacked by multiple other people? Seem pretty plausible to me that people who tried to intervene in a shooting would also try to intervene in an assault.

---

Then this is all just meaningless drivel coming from you at this point. You’re not saying anything, just whinging about guns being bad

I haven't suggested that guns are bad. You are inventing whole volumes of arguments that I am simply not making, with new invented arguments coming every time I point out that the previous argument bears no resemblance to the content of my posts.

and that Rittenhouse being beaten to some degree by a grown, violent rapist is the good end of this. So, I suppose add toxic on top of meaningless I guess.

Clearly you've decided to be outraged at me and will conjure new reasons to remain so no matter what I say, but even so I'll point out that once again none of this is anything that I have actually said.

Not necessarily, a shooting carries the imminent sense if danger to their lives as well, that's a key part of what would have been the legal defense for the two who died, and is part of the (unofficial as he hasn't been charged) legal defense of Gross. They all thought *their own lives and those of others* were endangered by Rittenhouse. It's hard to say whether they'd come to his defense, especially since all of them were there to protest and Gross could have just shouted that he was one of the people trying to mess with Protesters. Hell, that's even thinking that on a chaotic and violent night, they'd either notice, or want to inject themselves into something that they could easily justify not intervening in (after all, they could easily convince themselves, much as you have, that a beating probably wouldn't kill or maim him. After all, like the ADA said, "sometimes in life you gotta take a few knocks")

[The Alma Mater]

Still trying to victim blame Rittenhouse after all this, huh?

I'm not ascribing blame at all, just speculating that Rittenhouse probably would have been fine without a gun.

IF (big if) Rosenbaum was indeed looking for a way to "suicide" - probably. It is possible he was picking on the people who had a chance of killing him on purpose.
But we will never know for certain.

[Genivaria]

Well I didn't pay as close attention to the details of the trial as some, so correct me if I'm incorrect, but after shooting Rosenbaum, was Rittenhouse not attacked by multiple other people? Seem pretty plausible to me that people who tried to intervene in a shooting would also try to intervene in an assault.

---

I haven't suggested that guns are bad. You are inventing whole volumes of arguments that I am simply not making, with new invented arguments coming every time I point out that the previous argument bears no resemblance to the content of my posts.

Clearly you've decided to be outraged at me and will conjure new reasons to remain so no matter what I say, but even so I'll point out that once again none of this is anything that I have actually said.

Not necessarily, a shooting carries the imminent sense if danger to their lives as well, that's a key part of what would have been the legal defense for the two who died, and is part of the (unofficial as he hasn't been charged) legal defense of Gross. They all thought *their own lives and those of others* were endangered by Rittenhouse. It's hard to say whether they'd come to his defense, especially since all of them were there to protest and Gross could have just shouted that he was one of the people trying to mess with Protesters. Hell, that's even thinking that on a chaotic and violent night, they'd either notice, or want to inject themselves into something that they could easily justify not intervening in (after all, they could easily convince themselves, much as you have, that a beating probably wouldn't kill or maim him. After all, like the ADA said, "sometimes in life you gotta take a few knocks")

Reminds me of this from a few months ago.
https://time.com/6108440/bystander-effe ... rain-rape/

n the night of Oct. 13, a woman was raped on a commuter train near Philadelphia—an attack that authorities say lasted several minutes and could have been stopped sooner had any of the other passengers onboard called 911. Instead, in what police say is a troubling sign of the state of society, no witnesses intervened. Some reportedly pointed their phones in the direction of the unfolding assault.

Assuming that others would intervene is foolish.

[Quebec-Libre]

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances. Poor guy.

I'm glad the guy's free, what he did was purely legal in the context of self-defence. Plus, there's one less child-rapist on this Earth, so I can't pretend I'm sad that Joseph Rosenbaum is dead.

However, the problem with this case is that, for many Americans (I speak of this topic exteriorly, as I am a Canadian) this trial creates the impression that a double standard exists when it comes to self-defence, a standard seemingly based on ethnicity.

Whether this standard really exists or not is debatable and contextual, but this trial just set a precedent regarding self-defence, and America must remember that precedent because if not, then there really will be a double standard, and from there, boy oh boy, the BLM protests are gonna look like a cakewalk compared to what'll happen in the streets.

So, Kyle Rittenhouse just got sentenced to a half-century of CPAC appearances

With his endorsement of BLM that's unlikely.
Really though the media has been so misleading about this that the topic is inherently toxic wherever it appears.

With his endorsement of BLM that's unlikely.

Like that'll stop anyone. There's gonna be people on the left that think he should be executed for merely breathing, and there's people that consider Rittenhouse as a Patron Saint of White Conservatism.

His endorsements and actual opinions won't matter to the media.

[Genivaria]

With his endorsement of BLM that's unlikely.
Really though the media has been so misleading about this that the topic is inherently toxic wherever it appears.

With his endorsement of BLM that's unlikely.

Like that'll stop anyone. There's gonna be people on the left that think he should be executed for merely breathing, and there's people that consider Rittenhouse as a Patron Saint of White Conservatism.

His endorsements and actual opinions won't matter to the media.

So far it's confused the hell out of the right and the liberal media are ignoring it.

[Ifreann]

Let me put this to the thread. Do we think it would have been good if Rittenhouse had just gone home and not been in Kenosha at all that night?

If you do think that would have been good then I regret to inform you that you are VICTIM BLAMING and you HATE GUNS, you are saying that Rittenhouse TRIGGERED THE ATTACK with his presence, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

Or do we think it was good that he was in Kenosha? Well that is even WORSE, how can you support him being attacked by a RAPIST, how can you be glad that he's TRAUMATISED and his life has been RUINED, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

I'm appalled at all of you and you should all be ashamed to have any opinions about anything.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Let me put this to the thread. Do we think it would have been good if Rittenhouse had just gone home and not been in Kenosha at all that night?

If you do think that would have been good then I regret to inform you that you are VICTIM BLAMING and you HATE GUNS, you are saying that Rittenhouse TRIGGERED THE ATTACK with his presence, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

Or do we think it was good that he was in Kenosha? Well that is even WORSE, how can you support him being attacked by a RAPIST, how can you be glad that he's TRAUMATISED and his life has been RUINED, I can't believe you're being so TOXIC.

I'm appalled at all of you and you should all be ashamed to have any opinions about anything.

Careful Ifreann, you're getting triggered more easily these days. Might want to take a step away from the keyboard and a deep breath, or go outside.

[Thermodolia]

Still trying to victim blame Rittenhouse after all this, huh?

I'm not ascribing blame at all, just speculating that Rittenhouse probably would have been fine without a gun.

And yes that is completely plausible. People get killed/severely injured in beatings all the time, not to mention that Rosembaum was a rapist.

But Rosenbaum wasn't a cop, so it's not particularly likely that any of the other people present would have just stood by and let him beat some little dweeb kid to death. Or at all. If a violent confrontation had broken out then most likely a load of people would have intervened to protect Rittenhouse and subdue Rosenbaum. Probably no one gets shot, everyone goes home alive.

Yet nobody came to Rittenhouse’s aid when he was originally attacked by Rosenbaum

[Kubra]

I think the main takeaway from the case was that at no point did having a gun make anything better for anyone, they're probably going to be brought in even greater numbers to ritual protest.
That is of course everyone's fault, not just Rittenhouse.

Made it better for Rittenhouse.

Not really, seeing as he ended up alone, shooting, and then in court.
First rule of riots: move as a group. Isolation is how bad things happen. That's a little more useful a tip than a gun.

[American Legionaries]

Made it better for Rittenhouse.

Not really, seeing as he ended up alone, shooting, and then in court.
First rule of riots: move as a group. Isolation is how bad things happen. That's a little more useful a tip than a gun.

I'd consider that sequence of events superior to dead.

[Kubra]

Not really, seeing as he ended up alone, shooting, and then in court.
First rule of riots: move as a group. Isolation is how bad things happen. That's a little more useful a tip than a gun.

I'd consider that sequence of events superior to dead.

this is generally assuming what occurred was an inevitable outcome, which is of course false.
In truth, plenty of these events have occurred in which fellas show up with rifles but nobody gets shot, from our present militia fellas to the black panthers of yore. That's because, despite the presence of firearms, some general sense tends to be observed. This is a good thing, because it's better to not go to court for a self-defense charge than to go to court and be acquitted, especially for such-low stakes shit as ritual protests.

[American Legionaries]

I'd consider that sequence of events superior to dead.

this is generally assuming what occurred was an inevitable outcome, which is of course false.
In truth, plenty of these events have occurred in which fellas show up with rifles but nobody gets shot, from our present militia fellas to the black panthers of yore. That's because, despite the presence of firearms, some general sense tends to be observed. This is a good thing, because it's better to not go to court for a self-defense charge than to go to court and be acquitted, especially for such-low stakes shit as ritual protests.

Inevitable, no. Caused by Rittenhouse carrying a rifle, also no. So given that the rifle wasn't the cause, and ended up being the solution, to Rittenhouse's problems. It's presence was a good thing.

[Kubra]

I'm not ascribing blame at all, just speculating that Rittenhouse probably would have been fine without a gun.


But Rosenbaum wasn't a cop, so it's not particularly likely that any of the other people present would have just stood by and let him beat some little dweeb kid to death. Or at all. If a violent confrontation had broken out then most likely a load of people would have intervened to protect Rittenhouse and subdue Rosenbaum. Probably no one gets shot, everyone goes home alive.

Yet nobody came to Rittenhouse’s aid when he was originally attacked by Rosenbaum

Rittenhouse had a rifle. It's a difficult situation to intervene in, man.
When everyone is having good clean fun and going at each other with bike locks and batons, it's easy enough to be pulled out of the fray and treated behind the lines. I use the word "ritual" over and over for a reason: it's kind of ritualised.

[The Black Forrest]

Not really.

He defended himself from attack. Better than letting the scumbags beat or kill him.

Well? The first guy sounds like he had bad mental problems.

The other two?

Question: If you heard gun fire and saw the aftermath and don’t know what led to it; would you run or engage?

[Kubra]

this is generally assuming what occurred was an inevitable outcome, which is of course false.
In truth, plenty of these events have occurred in which fellas show up with rifles but nobody gets shot, from our present militia fellas to the black panthers of yore. That's because, despite the presence of firearms, some general sense tends to be observed. This is a good thing, because it's better to not go to court for a self-defense charge than to go to court and be acquitted, especially for such-low stakes shit as ritual protests.

Inevitable, no. Caused by Rittenhouse carrying a rifle, also no. So given that the rifle wasn't the cause, and ended up being the solution, to Rittenhouse's problems. It's presence was a good thing.

I never said his initial predicament hinged on his having a rifle. Rather, initial poor decisions (to be expected of a greenhorn to this sort of thing) is what got him into the mess, and being armed only exacerbated the initial poor decisions.
Shit man, I'm outright giving you tips on how to bring a rifle to a protest and go home easy, with some nice pictures for the 'gram and that warm fuzzy feeling of having been in some movement or other.

[American Legionaries]

He defended himself from attack. Better than letting the scumbags beat or kill him.

Well? The first guy sounds like he had bad mental problems.

The other two?

Question: If you heard gun fire and saw the aftermath and don’t know what led to it; would you run or engage?

Frankly, we'll never know in Huber's case. In Grosskreutz's case, I feel bad for the dude, I think he was probably trying to do what he thought was right and had limited information.

[American Legionaries]

Inevitable, no. Caused by Rittenhouse carrying a rifle, also no. So given that the rifle wasn't the cause, and ended up being the solution, to Rittenhouse's problems. It's presence was a good thing.

I never said his initial predicament hinged on his having a rifle. Rather, initial poor decisions (to be expected of a greenhorn to this sort of thing) is what got him into the mess, and being armed only exacerbated the initial poor decisions.
Shit man, I'm outright giving you tips on how to bring a rifle to a protest and go home easy, with some nice pictures for the 'gram and that warm fuzzy feeling of having been in some movement or other.

How did having the rifle exasperate his situation?

[Kubra]

I never said his initial predicament hinged on his having a rifle. Rather, initial poor decisions (to be expected of a greenhorn to this sort of thing) is what got him into the mess, and being armed only exacerbated the initial poor decisions.
Shit man, I'm outright giving you tips on how to bring a rifle to a protest and go home easy, with some nice pictures for the 'gram and that warm fuzzy feeling of having been in some movement or other.

How did having the rifle exasperate his situation?

Well, for one thing, he ended up shooting a dude dead, and then ended up confronting a bunch of other armed dudes and shooting two other fellas. These events tend to end with injuries as a matter of course, but it's frankly quite rare to end in even single shootings. Which again drives home the point: stick with your tribe, embrace the social aspect of violence. Prepare for the end of the world, find 3 friends and the address of a mormon.
And for, another, well, I think I've about covered it, haven't I?

[American Legionaries]

How did having the rifle exasperate his situation?

Well, for one thing, he ended up shooting a dude dead, and then ended up confronting a bunch of other armed dudes and shooting two other fellas. These events tend to end with injuries as a matter of course, but it's frankly quite rare to end in even single shootings. Which again drives home the point: stick with your tribe, embrace the social aspect of violence. Prepare for the end of the world, find 3 friends and the address of a mormon.
And for, another, well, I think I've about covered it, haven't I?

Yes, he ended up shooting a dude who was trying to murder him dead. Unless you think getting murdered is good, the rifle made his situation better.

[Kubra]

Well, for one thing, he ended up shooting a dude dead, and then ended up confronting a bunch of other armed dudes and shooting two other fellas. These events tend to end with injuries as a matter of course, but it's frankly quite rare to end in even single shootings. Which again drives home the point: stick with your tribe, embrace the social aspect of violence. Prepare for the end of the world, find 3 friends and the address of a mormon.
And for, another, well, I think I've about covered it, haven't I?

Yes, he ended up shooting a dude who was trying to murder him dead. Unless you think getting murdered is good, the rifle made his situation better.

Which, of course, tends to be much less of a problem if you *stick with your tribe*. These events are petty pseudo-battlefields, recreations of primitive warfare, and I ain't gotta tell ya why it's of utmost importance to do so.

[Galloism]

Well? The first guy sounds like he had bad mental problems.

The other two?

Question: If you heard gun fire and saw the aftermath and don’t know what led to it; would you run or engage?

Frankly, we'll never know in Huber's case. In Grosskreutz's case, I feel bad for the dude, I think he was probably trying to do what he thought was right and had limited information.

I’ll give Huber the benefit of the doubt. No contrary information.

Grosskreutz interviewed Rittenhouse, was told he was going to police, could visibly see him running directly to the police and…. decided to draw his gun, chase after him, and try to shoot him before he could reach police.

Was that illegal? Maybe not. Wisconsin has expansive third party defense law. But is it in any way ok? I say no.

[American Legionaries]

Yes, he ended up shooting a dude who was trying to murder him dead. Unless you think getting murdered is good, the rifle made his situation better.

Which, of course, tends to be much less of a problem if you *stick with your tribe*. These events are petty pseudo-battlefields, recreations of primitive warfare, and I ain't gotta tell ya why it's of utmost importance to do so.

How does that have anything to do with his rifle?

[Kubra]

Which, of course, tends to be much less of a problem if you *stick with your tribe*. These events are petty pseudo-battlefields, recreations of primitive warfare, and I ain't gotta tell ya why it's of utmost importance to do so.

How does that have anything to do with his rifle?

Well I mean a bunch of armed folks show up to an inflammatory situation, you can of course see why a fella ought to do their utmost not to be singled out.
Most of these rituals end in at worst concussions. There's a drive to beat ass, but death is quite exceptional these days. Don't wanna get a foul from the refs, you feel?