NationStates

V radio interviewed Grambo

My opinion: V Radio isn't a very good interviewer. He talks too much and doesn't let the interviewee talk enough. Should stick to documentaries.

Now that we're past my opinion, she shared a few extra details from Kenosha that night.

It looks like "they" (unclear whether or not it included Rittenhouse) did point their guns at yellow pants man. He had gotten on top of a vehicle, yelled Black Lives Matter, then very suddenly pulled a gun out of his pants, which resulted in them pointing their guns at him. When he lowered his gun to his side, they lowered theirs.

Also, the prosecution made a big deal of people pointing laser pointers at the protestors. According to Grambo, this was done mostly by the people in the apartment building one block over (not sure I'm 100% on board with that assertion - I'm not sure I could hit a person with a hand-held laser pointer one block away with any kind of consistency, but, admittedly, I haven't tried). She had spoken with the people in that apartment building, a lot of whom were armed and on their balconies. Apparently, the previous night, someone had tried to burn down the apartment building with people inside.

She also made a comment that there were a lot of kids out there as young as 13 smashing up businesses and burning cars, specifying that the "child-like giggling" was a dead giveaway when they ran some of them off.

She also talked about a 71 year old man the previous night who had a fire extinguisher and was beaten by the mob and hospitalized with a broken jaw.

She also talked about Rosenbaum threatening to kill her and yelling the n word everywhere, which was apparently even surprising to many of the protestors. She referred to some of the faces they made when he showed up and started yelling murderous threats and yelling the n word everywhere.

Galloism wrote:V radio interviewed Grambo

My opinion: V Radio isn't a very good interviewer. He talks too much and doesn't let the interviewee talk enough. Should stick to documentaries.

Now that we're past my opinion, she shared a few extra details from Kenosha that night.

It looks like "they" (unclear whether or not it included Rittenhouse) did point their guns at yellow pants man. He had gotten on top of a vehicle, yelled Black Lives Matter, then very suddenly pulled a gun out of his pants, which resulted in them pointing their guns at him. When he lowered his gun to his side, they lowered theirs.

Also, the prosecution made a big deal of people pointing laser pointers at the protestors. According to Grambo, this was done mostly by the people in the apartment building one block over (not sure I'm 100% on board with that assertion - I'm not sure I could hit a person with a hand-held laser pointer one block away with any kind of consistency, but, admittedly, I haven't tried). She had spoken with the people in that apartment building, a lot of whom were armed and on their balconies. Apparently, the previous night, someone had tried to burn down the apartment building with people inside.

She also made a comment that there were a lot of kids out there as young as 13 smashing up businesses and burning cars, specifying that the "child-like giggling" was a dead giveaway when they ran some of them off.

She also talked about a 71 year old man the previous night who had a fire extinguisher and was beaten by the mob and hospitalized with a broken jaw.

She also talked about Rosenbaum threatening to kill her and yelling the n word everywhere, which was apparently even surprising to many of the protestors. She referred to some of the faces they made when he showed up and started yelling murderous threats and yelling the n word everywhere.

The police really should have stepped in and dispersed the rioters. It would have prevented many of the tragedies that occurred. I have no idea why we need to abide seniors getting beaten or arsonists trying to set apartment buildings alight with the inhabitants still inside. It's a wonder more of the rioters weren't shot if these statements are even close to true - which is, admittedly, a very big and charitable assumption.

EDIT: Oof. She didn't have to literally quote Rosenbaum...

Fahran wrote:The police really should have stepped in and dispersed the rioters. It would have prevented many of the tragedies that occurred. I have no idea why we need to abide seniors getting beaten or arsonists trying to set apartment buildings alight with the inhabitants still inside. It's a wonder more of the rioters weren't shot if these statements are even close to true - which is, admittedly, a very big and charitable assumption.

EDIT: Oof. She didn't have to literally quote Rosenbaum...

Someone's going to snip that out of context later.

Fahran wrote:

Galloism wrote:V radio interviewed Grambo

My opinion: V Radio isn't a very good interviewer. He talks too much and doesn't let the interviewee talk enough. Should stick to documentaries.

Now that we're past my opinion, she shared a few extra details from Kenosha that night.

It looks like "they" (unclear whether or not it included Rittenhouse) did point their guns at yellow pants man. He had gotten on top of a vehicle, yelled Black Lives Matter, then very suddenly pulled a gun out of his pants, which resulted in them pointing their guns at him. When he lowered his gun to his side, they lowered theirs.

Also, the prosecution made a big deal of people pointing laser pointers at the protestors. According to Grambo, this was done mostly by the people in the apartment building one block over (not sure I'm 100% on board with that assertion - I'm not sure I could hit a person with a hand-held laser pointer one block away with any kind of consistency, but, admittedly, I haven't tried). She had spoken with the people in that apartment building, a lot of whom were armed and on their balconies. Apparently, the previous night, someone had tried to burn down the apartment building with people inside.

She also made a comment that there were a lot of kids out there as young as 13 smashing up businesses and burning cars, specifying that the "child-like giggling" was a dead giveaway when they ran some of them off.

She also talked about a 71 year old man the previous night who had a fire extinguisher and was beaten by the mob and hospitalized with a broken jaw.

She also talked about Rosenbaum threatening to kill her and yelling the n word everywhere, which was apparently even surprising to many of the protestors. She referred to some of the faces they made when he showed up and started yelling murderous threats and yelling the n word everywhere.

The police really should have stepped in and dispersed the rioters. It would have prevented many of the tragedies that occurred. I have no idea why we need to abide seniors getting beaten or arsonists trying to set apartment buildings alight with the inhabitants still inside. It's a wonder more of the rioters weren't shot if these statements are even close to true - which is, admittedly, a very big and charitable assumption.

EDIT: Oof. She didn't have to literally quote Rosenbaum...

TBH, one would be justified in shooting a shitbrick(s) that was attempting to set an occupied dwelling a blaze.

Grinning Dragon wrote:TBH, one would be justified in shooting a shitbrick(s) that was attempting to set an occupied dwelling a blaze.

I would consider it a violent act, but I'm not really certain about what the law has to say regarding meeting such violence with lethal force. While the general thrust of the media narrative has been that this might incite right-wing violence against (violent) left-wing protestors, it's quite possible that the coverage and discourse surrounding this incident could lead to hesitance as well - at least among more cautious persons. I can't comment on if the media is genuinely concerned about peaceful left-wing protestors getting murdered or about Antifa and Black Bloc types facing stiffer and lethal resistance from communities that they brutalize and militias that show up to counter-demonstrate them. I suppose the charitable approach is to assume they were/are ignorant of the facts or assume right-wingers are ignorant of the facts and will treat ALL protestors with violence more eagerly, and charity is usually good.

One thing that concerns me is that children even younger than Rittenhouse were running around committing arson in a situation where both left-wing and right-wing demonstrators had firearms and where tear gas was used. What were parents thinking?

Fahran wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:TBH, one would be justified in shooting a shitbrick(s) that was attempting to set an occupied dwelling a blaze.

I would consider it a violent act, but I'm not really certain about what the law has to say regarding meeting such violence with lethal force. While the general thrust of the media narrative has been that this might incite right-wing violence against (violent) left-wing protestors, it's quite possible that the coverage and discourse surrounding this incident could lead to hesitance as well - at least among more cautious persons. I can't comment on if the media is genuinely concerned about peaceful left-wing protestors getting murdered or about Antifa and Black Bloc types facing stiffer and lethal resistance from communities that they brutalize and militias that show up to counter-demonstrate them. I suppose the charitable approach is to assume they were/are ignorant of the facts or assume right-wingers are ignorant of the facts and will treat ALL protestors with violence more eagerly, and charity is usually good.

One thing that concerns me is that children even younger than Rittenhouse were running around committing arson in a situation where both left-wing and right-wing demonstrators had firearms and where tear gas was used. What were parents thinking?

Probably locals that snuck out from the house, or some protester thought it was cheaper than hiring a babysitter to drag them along to see how society works.

Fahran wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:TBH, one would be justified in shooting a shitbrick(s) that was attempting to set an occupied dwelling a blaze.

I would consider it a violent act, but I'm not really certain about what the law has to say regarding meeting such violence with lethal force. While the general thrust of the media narrative has been that this might incite right-wing violence against (violent) left-wing protestors, it's quite possible that the coverage and discourse surrounding this incident could lead to hesitance as well - at least among more cautious persons. I can't comment on if the media is genuinely concerned about peaceful left-wing protestors getting murdered or about Antifa and Black Bloc types facing stiffer and lethal resistance from communities that they brutalize and militias that show up to counter-demonstrate them. I suppose the charitable approach is to assume they were/are ignorant of the facts or assume right-wingers are ignorant of the facts and will treat ALL protestors with violence more eagerly, and charity is usually good.

One thing that concerns me is that children even younger than Rittenhouse were running around committing arson in a situation where both left-wing and right-wing demonstrators had firearms and where tear gas was used. What were parents thinking?

Considering how arson attacks on occupied buildings regularly result in attempted murder charges, I'd say the law would look pretty favorably upon using deadly force against them.

Vassenor wrote:

Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".

Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.

And what are we defining as "inflamatory" today?

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(MSNBC)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(MSNBC)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(CNN)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(A politician -Donna Brazil- and a NBC contributer both giving incendiary comments)
https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(CNN, The View)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(MSNBC)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(Sort of a cheap shot, same woman)

I have other statements but it's more that those go unchallenged since those people are more public/political figures making huge, inflamatory claims
https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(Celebrity)

https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... 19517.jpeg
(Politician, Renee Newsome)

The last one I'll put here,
"While testifying about the moment he shot Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the protesters, Rittenhouse sniffled, quivered, contorted his face, bloated his cheeks and did just about everything else you’d expect of a novice actor attempting to convey sorrow. Pictures even showed him peeking around the courtroom as he worked himself into a lather. Though photos captured a single tear streaming down his face, I couldn’t tell whether it was from actually crying, or if he’d merely worked up a sweat from trying. "
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reido ... l-rcna5239

Next day E:
https://media.discordapp.net/attachment ... Chrome.jpg
(CNN, CBS)

I can grab more but it's getting a touch boring to see the same takes about how Kyle was really the super villain.

Tetosv wrote:Rittenhouse is also charged with endangering the safety of a reporter for The Daily Caller who was recording from nearby when Rosenbaum was shot and an unidentified man Rittenhouse shot at as the man tried to kick him.

He was, but not anymore. He was acquitted.

Fahran wrote:

Galloism wrote:V radio interviewed Grambo

My opinion: V Radio isn't a very good interviewer. He talks too much and doesn't let the interviewee talk enough. Should stick to documentaries.

Now that we're past my opinion, she shared a few extra details from Kenosha that night.

It looks like "they" (unclear whether or not it included Rittenhouse) did point their guns at yellow pants man. He had gotten on top of a vehicle, yelled Black Lives Matter, then very suddenly pulled a gun out of his pants, which resulted in them pointing their guns at him. When he lowered his gun to his side, they lowered theirs.

Also, the prosecution made a big deal of people pointing laser pointers at the protestors. According to Grambo, this was done mostly by the people in the apartment building one block over (not sure I'm 100% on board with that assertion - I'm not sure I could hit a person with a hand-held laser pointer one block away with any kind of consistency, but, admittedly, I haven't tried). She had spoken with the people in that apartment building, a lot of whom were armed and on their balconies. Apparently, the previous night, someone had tried to burn down the apartment building with people inside.

She also made a comment that there were a lot of kids out there as young as 13 smashing up businesses and burning cars, specifying that the "child-like giggling" was a dead giveaway when they ran some of them off.

She also talked about a 71 year old man the previous night who had a fire extinguisher and was beaten by the mob and hospitalized with a broken jaw.

She also talked about Rosenbaum threatening to kill her and yelling the n word everywhere, which was apparently even surprising to many of the protestors. She referred to some of the faces they made when he showed up and started yelling murderous threats and yelling the n word everywhere.

The police really should have stepped in and dispersed the rioters. It would have prevented many of the tragedies that occurred. I have no idea why we need to abide seniors getting beaten or arsonists trying to set apartment buildings alight with the inhabitants still inside. It's a wonder more of the rioters weren't shot if these statements are even close to true - which is, admittedly, a very big and charitable assumption.

EDIT: Oof. She didn't have to literally quote Rosenbaum...

They were dispersing the protesters, the problem was they were dispersing them in the direction of the fellas guarding the place.
This is generally contrary to what is "supposed" to happen in these situations, discernible sides are usually kept as separate as possible because, well, you know.

Kubra wrote:

Fahran wrote:The police really should have stepped in and dispersed the rioters. It would have prevented many of the tragedies that occurred. I have no idea why we need to abide seniors getting beaten or arsonists trying to set apartment buildings alight with the inhabitants still inside. It's a wonder more of the rioters weren't shot if these statements are even close to true - which is, admittedly, a very big and charitable assumption.

EDIT: Oof. She didn't have to literally quote Rosenbaum...

They were dispersing the protesters, the problem was they were dispersing them in the direction of the fellas guarding the place.
This is generally contrary to what is "supposed" to happen in these situations, discernible sides are usually kept as separate as possible because, well, you know.

were these guys discernible though, from what I understand Rittenhouse had gone to give aid to the protesters.

So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

Kalaron wrote:So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

And I'm sure Grosskreutz would be facing hate crime charges instead of getting off free...

Kalaron wrote:So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

That's skipping over the most salient question though:

If he were black, would he have gotten to the trial, intact or otherwise? Would all the details have been the same? This question spans the gamut from whether he'd be alive after the incident, to whether he would have a similar amount of funds raised for his defence, to whether he would have been allowed to go free on bail pending trial, to whether he would have succumbed to (more) pressure to take a plea deal.

The color of his skin has the potential to factor into so many things prior to getting to trial, even before we get to the question of whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion. It will for all time remain speculation, but considering the realities of the US criminal justice system, I do find it plausible that being Black could potentially have led to a different outcome at almost every single step along the way.

About 24 minutes into the podcast “You Are Here” on the right-wing network the Blaze on Monday night, co-host Sydney Watson told her guest, Kyle Rittenhouse, that it was “kind of impressive” that “of all the people that you shot at, you killed probably two of the worst on the planet.”

She was referring to 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, the men whom Rittenhouse shot and killed in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020. Conservative commentators have highlighted that both Rosenbaum and Huber had criminal backgrounds and served prison sentences. Last month, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges related to the shootings.

“Congratulations,” Watson said Monday to Rittenhouse. “Good job, you.”

Rittenhouse, 18, responded that the killings were “nothing to be congratulated about.”

“Like, if I could go back, I wish I would never have had to take somebody’s life,” he said.

Despite the offers from members of Congress, Rittenhouse told NewsNation’s Ashleigh Banfield he’s not interested in entering politics “at all.”

Rittenhouse said during the podcast on Monday that he will attend Arizona State University in the spring. Despite Rittenhouse saying on the stand that he was a student there, university officials told AZCentral last week that he is not currently enrolled.

Responding a listener’s question, Rittenhouse also said on the podcast that he plans to destroy the rifle he used in Kenosha.

“You’re not going to, like, sell it?” Watson asked, suggesting to Rittenhouse that he could make a lot of money.

“We’re just having it destroyed,” Rittenhouse reiterated. “I think that’s the best thing, and that’s what I want to do with it.”

Good answers from Rittenhouse.

I just hope he can stay away from unabashed assholes such as Sydney Watson in the future.

Haganham wrote:

Kubra wrote: They were dispersing the protesters, the problem was they were dispersing them in the direction of the fellas guarding the place.
This is generally contrary to what is "supposed" to happen in these situations, discernible sides are usually kept as separate as possible because, well, you know.

were these guys discernible though, from what I understand Rittenhouse had gone to give aid to the protesters.

They were the dudes hanging out at quite a distance from the protest with, you know, rifles, many much more intent on more "counterprotestor" sort of behaviour than Rittenhouse. They didn't interact until the protestors had been sent in their direction.
Which of course comes back to what I said at the start of this thread: in this cavalcade of fuckups, the cops made the biggest one.

Gravlen wrote:

About 24 minutes into the podcast “You Are Here” on the right-wing network the Blaze on Monday night, co-host Sydney Watson told her guest, Kyle Rittenhouse, that it was “kind of impressive” that “of all the people that you shot at, you killed probably two of the worst on the planet.”

She was referring to 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, the men whom Rittenhouse shot and killed in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020. Conservative commentators have highlighted that both Rosenbaum and Huber had criminal backgrounds and served prison sentences. Last month, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges related to the shootings.

“Congratulations,” Watson said Monday to Rittenhouse. “Good job, you.”

Rittenhouse, 18, responded that the killings were “nothing to be congratulated about.”

“Like, if I could go back, I wish I would never have had to take somebody’s life,” he said.

Despite the offers from members of Congress, Rittenhouse told NewsNation’s Ashleigh Banfield he’s not interested in entering politics “at all.”

Rittenhouse said during the podcast on Monday that he will attend Arizona State University in the spring. Despite Rittenhouse saying on the stand that he was a student there, university officials told AZCentral last week that he is not currently enrolled.

Responding a listener’s question, Rittenhouse also said on the podcast that he plans to destroy the rifle he used in Kenosha.

“You’re not going to, like, sell it?” Watson asked, suggesting to Rittenhouse that he could make a lot of money.

“We’re just having it destroyed,” Rittenhouse reiterated. “I think that’s the best thing, and that’s what I want to do with it.”

Good answers from Rittenhouse.

I just hope he can stay away from unabashed assholes such as Sydney Watson in the future.

I read about kyle's intention of destroying that particular rifle last week, while I understand why, however I'd sell it for a pretty penny.
Wouldn't be a bad profit off of a $600 entry level rifle, I would garner a guess he could make double or triple.

Gravlen wrote:

Kalaron wrote:So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

That's skipping over the most salient question though:

If he were black, would he have gotten to the trial, intact or otherwise? Would all the details have been the same? This question spans the gamut from whether he'd be alive after the incident, to whether he would have a similar amount of funds raised for his defence, to whether he would have been allowed to go free on bail pending trial, to whether he would have succumbed to (more) pressure to take a plea deal.

The color of his skin has the potential to factor into so many things prior to getting to trial, even before we get to the question of whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion. It will for all time remain speculation, but considering the realities of the US criminal justice system, I do find it plausible that being Black could potentially have led to a different outcome at almost every single step along the way.

My apologies if it came across that way, I tried to clarify that I understood the danger he faced prior to the trial by noting that I was assuming (for the sake of the argument, as many people do add the danger to his life after specifying that he wouldn't have won the case anyway because of his race, in the hypothetical). Mind, I'm still not actually that convinced the Race would have changed how he was treated by the cops that passed him, but I also can't say for certain that they wouldn't have focused on him because of his race.

As for the second bit, I can see your point, though it still feels like it doesn't quite justify (or is justified by) the accusations of white supremacy in the case. I dunno, maybe my bias is genuinely blinding me here. It just feels like such a nebulous argument in the face of the Prosecutor seemingly not easy-balling Ritten (though I've seen plenty of people suggesting the Prosc nuked himself with the Judge for White Supremacy), when the Defense still walks away with a pretty damn iron-clad case to make (one, in fact, stronger than what Ritten had by virtue of Rosenbaum being seen as a racial hate-monger with intent to kill, as opposed to "just" extremely belligerent and threatening)

E: I think part of the problem might come from what feels like people grasping for the white supremacy arguement without really grokking how to address it? Like, they level White Supremacy as why he got away, when they might be getting it from more detailed criticism that says black men wouldn't get away because of white supremacy, which at least doesn't feel completely contrary to the events of the case.

Grinning Dragon wrote:

Gravlen wrote:

About 24 minutes into the podcast “You Are Here” on the right-wing network the Blaze on Monday night, co-host Sydney Watson told her guest, Kyle Rittenhouse, that it was “kind of impressive” that “of all the people that you shot at, you killed probably two of the worst on the planet.”

She was referring to 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum and 26-year-old Anthony Huber, the men whom Rittenhouse shot and killed in Kenosha, Wis., in August 2020. Conservative commentators have highlighted that both Rosenbaum and Huber had criminal backgrounds and served prison sentences. Last month, Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges related to the shootings.

“Congratulations,” Watson said Monday to Rittenhouse. “Good job, you.”

Rittenhouse, 18, responded that the killings were “nothing to be congratulated about.”

“Like, if I could go back, I wish I would never have had to take somebody’s life,” he said.

Despite the offers from members of Congress, Rittenhouse told NewsNation’s Ashleigh Banfield he’s not interested in entering politics “at all.”

Rittenhouse said during the podcast on Monday that he will attend Arizona State University in the spring. Despite Rittenhouse saying on the stand that he was a student there, university officials told AZCentral last week that he is not currently enrolled.

Responding a listener’s question, Rittenhouse also said on the podcast that he plans to destroy the rifle he used in Kenosha.

“You’re not going to, like, sell it?” Watson asked, suggesting to Rittenhouse that he could make a lot of money.

“We’re just having it destroyed,” Rittenhouse reiterated. “I think that’s the best thing, and that’s what I want to do with it.”

Good answers from Rittenhouse.

I just hope he can stay away from unabashed assholes such as Sydney Watson in the future.

I read about kyle's intention of destroying that particular rifle last week, while I understand why, however I'd sell it for a pretty penny.
Wouldn't be a bad profit off of a $600 entry level rifle, I would garner a guess he could make double or triple.

Probably more than that. Wouldn't be surprised if there were people willing to pay 10k or more for it.

Fahran wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:TBH, one would be justified in shooting a shitbrick(s) that was attempting to set an occupied dwelling a blaze.

I would consider it a violent act, but I'm not really certain about what the law has to say regarding meeting such violence with lethal force.

If one is committing arson on an occupied building, they are also attempting murder. At least that is how most jurisdictions handle it. One could even make an argument for a vacant building, so long as there are occupied properties within close proximity.

Gravlen wrote:Good answers from Rittenhouse.

I just hope he can stay away from unabashed assholes such as Sydney Watson in the future.

I think the amount of Republicans gloating, celebrating, and calling him a hero over the fact he killed two people has disgusted him almost as much as all the Democrats who were wanting him lynched over this.

Also the comments to that article can be used as proof positive that when it comes to believing "Big Lies" and falling for "Fake News" Democrats are no less immune than Republicans.

The Alma Mater wrote:

Kalaron wrote:Sorta interesting thing, I've gotten way further in getting my mom to question CNN and the other neoliberal media with the Rittenhouse case than I have with other stuff. Like, she has a weird way of idolizing the people those Networks bring in, where she'll argue with me on something (even if I have proof) because the "experts already talked about it".

Anyhow, I've been combing Twitter, finding statements by those same experts and talking heads, and showing her their reaction to him walking to showcase how inflammatory they can get.

Understandable - their reporting of this case was insanely bad. Down at the level ofregular reporting by Fox or OANN.
And I genuinely do not understand why.

Because when the media is caught in a lie they have no choice but to double down.

The reason why OANN and Fox look so bad is they have to lie more often.

The large problem was that the ideological beliefs of most of the rank and file journalists blinded them to the facts of the case, and they fell for the rumors that matched what they "Felt" were the truth of what happened, and even when the facts started to come out they, like some people in this very thread, simply doubled down on the false narrative because at this point admitting they were wrong would prove the 'other side' right, the problem is the truth doesn't have a political bias in the end, but that explains why so many journalists on both sides have now abandoned objective truth.

Ultimately the media fed the world a "Big Lie" about Rittenhouse, and when they realized it was a lie they couldn't stop lying and hoped that if they lied enough they could put their finger on the wheel enough to get a conviction where their lie could be upheld.

Sure they've fallen back on the excuse of "He only got acquitted because of White Supremacy" but at this point to the media every time something doesn't go their way they try to find some way to blame White Supremacy for it.

Just like how "Liberal Marxists" ruin everything on OANN or Fox.

The Lone Alliance wrote:Because when the media is caught in a lie they have no choice but to double down.

Why ? They could make a whole point of "we admit it when we were wrong" and add a little counter to show how often they were compared to competitors. Would be good advertising.

The Alma Mater wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:Because when the media is caught in a lie they have no choice but to double down.

Why ? They could make a whole point of "we admit it when we were wrong" and add a little counter to show how often they were compared to competitors. Would be good advertising.

Could power a generator with how fast those numbers spin on some networks, and even some of the "good" ones are nonstop, but marginally slower.

Gravlen wrote:

Kalaron wrote:So, I've been thinking about the case, and I actually question the logic of the "If he were black" arguement?
If he were black, and presuming he got to the Trial intact and that all details are otherwise the same, then the case seems like it'd let a Black Defendant off *really fast*. Like, he'd have been chased by a dude who had screamed racial slur ladden threats while he pleaded with him to not chase him, then after being forced to shoot, he was chased by a *mob* (I doubt I need to clarify, but the argument "I was being chased by a lynch mob" comes to mind) and attacked by two other individuals who assumed that he was the Agressor and decided to physically strike him as though they were law enforcement figures, and not just men in a riot.

I grok that juries and judges are people, they're often crap at consistency, but it feels like for the race arguement to work there'd need to be way lesser charges from the start?

That's skipping over the most salient question though:

If he were black, would he have gotten to the trial, intact or otherwise? Would all the details have been the same? This question spans the gamut from whether he'd be alive after the incident, to whether he would have a similar amount of funds raised for his defence, to whether he would have been allowed to go free on bail pending trial, to whether he would have succumbed to (more) pressure to take a plea deal.

The color of his skin has the potential to factor into so many things prior to getting to trial, even before we get to the question of whether the jury would have come to a different conclusion. It will for all time remain speculation, but considering the realities of the US criminal justice system, I do find it plausible that being Black could potentially have led to a different outcome at almost every single step along the way.

But this is pure speculation. We do not know just based on this case alone. It would be better to actually look at cases where a black individual claimed self defense then look at a very similar case when a white person claimed it the speculate what would happen if Rittenhouse were black.

Now if you can find a cases with very similar facts except the person claiming self defense was black but was found guilty instead it might make an interesting comparison. Or perhaps someone could do a detailed study of what percentage of people claiming self defense are convicted, broken down by race. If you have such study I would very much like to see it.

But why this one particular case out of all self defense cases? And if black people are unfairly treated in self defense cases (very likely but I would like more data) why not find a case where the person claiming self defense is black?

Also the response here was bizarrely incoherent. If the purpose is to ensure black individuals get a fair trial in self defense cases, how exactly would jailing Rittenhouse achieve it?
The individuals calling for his head were often saying the justice system discriminates against black people, which very well may be true, but it it is a complete non sequitur to think jailing him achieves it. I found it bizarre some people calling for an end to to mandatory minimum sentencing, ending mass incarceration, etc. wanted him jailed for life and made the two related.

So what was the objective of trying to digitally lynch him? How did that relate to the goals people claiming to be racial justice advocates were claiming to advance? How does throwing a white guy who killed two other white guys in jail actually in any way improve things for black people?

That is my issue, I am perfectly fine with discussing if black people get fair treatment in self defense cases, and if not how to ensure they get more fair treatment.

But I fail to see how jailing Rittenhouse would achieve that. And do not see how his case on its own actually is informative, unless we can compare it to a very similar case in which a black person was found guilty. I do not advocate unfairly accusing and jailing white people just because black people are often unfairly accused or jailed. I suppose making the justice system worse for white people would in a way make it more equal, but I fail to see why making it overall worse to make it more equally bad is a good idea.

I suppose the moral outrage machine and tribal warfare the media pushes to both make money and out of blind tribal loyalty and a desire to claim moral superiority need not be logical or consistent, or beneficial for society, (I think it pretty clear the media treatment of this case was not in fact to the benefit of society) but in that case was not this whole media saga, and all those like it, including whatever is the next outrage will be to quote Shakespeare “but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”?

Novus America wrote:
But this is pure speculation. We do not know just based on this case alone. It would be better to actually look at cases where a black individual claimed self defense then look at a very similar case when a white person claimed it the speculate what would happen if Rittenhouse were black.

Now if you can find a cases with very similar facts except the person claiming self defense was black but was found guilty instead it might make an interesting comparison. Or perhaps someone could do a detailed study of what percentage of people claiming self defense are convicted, broken down by race. If you have such study I would very much like to see it.

Can't find the case, but I believe around the time of the Zimmerman case there was a case in new york where a black man shot at three unarmed white teens who were fleeing, claimed self defense and got off. That is worse then comparable.