Kyle Rittenhouse video and audio analysis clearly shows...

Discussion in 'Latest Hip News Stories' started by mcme, Sep 3, 2020.

  1. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    808
    As I've said before, it's my opinion that a few rioters/looters tried to make KR a victim. They fucked around and found out.
     
  2. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,493
    Likes Received:
    14,738
    Read my post 78. I clicked on your last post so that you would. Agree or not?
     
    MeAgain likes this.
  3. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    808
    Is it possible to quote your own post? I have no idea where post 78 is and would like to see if I agree.
    Thanks
     
  4. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,989
    Likes Received:
    5,684
    Gee, whiz. What's the problem? I found it easily enough. Just go back a page. It's the one between your posts 77 and post 79.
     
  5. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    The message I'm receiving is stay clear of protests/riots and your life won't be turned upside down or ended.
    Sure, it's "legal" to assemble and redress grievances and all that, but only worth it to those with nothing left to lose.
    The government's natural bias is to dissuade people from complaining - shut up and follow our rules and mandates, or pay some consequences.
     
  6. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,989
    Likes Received:
    5,684
    So that's the message you'd like us to get from all this. Stay out of trouble, keep your nose clean, let injustices and outrages go unnoticed, and you'll be safer from the thugs and bully boys. Sounds like Red China to me. Would you give the same advice to the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Boogaloo Boys, and the rest of the trigger happy, Trump-lovin' right wing lunatics who stormed our Capitol last January? In this country, we have freedom of speech and assembly, and if we don't exercise those rights we're in danger of losing them. What was it Patrick Henry said? "Give me liberty, or give me.death!" Thank God for patriots like him we can use as our role models. If folks like you were prevalent back then, we'd be singing "God save the Queen"!
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2021
    scratcho and MeAgain like this.
  7. granite45

    granite45 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    2,264
    Likes Received:
    2,100
    I grew up in Wisconsin and some of the brightest progressives were prominent in it’s political history. Robert La Follette for instance. Unfortunately it has also produced or supported some of the worst of the conservative clan….Joseph McCarthy and that reverse carpet bagger, Scott Walker. From what I’ve read, the Judge in the Rittenhouse case has uttered some incredibly bad statements…..in a murder trial, the deceased aren’t “victims”. Really!! Give me a break. The current State Supreme Court has also followed a wacky path in other matters. The disgraceful wolf slaughter this spring is yet another example.
     
    scratcho, Tyrsonswood and Tishomingo like this.
  8. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    This is an interesting case.
    If I understand it correctly. Peaceful protests turned violent, in some cases, on the second day of protests. On the third day a boy, age 17, shows up to help the police. He was responding to a call by a vigilante group called the Kenosha Guard. These people put out a call for armed men to show up to protect the area in defiance of the Mayor and County Sheriff, who had refused to deputize them. There is an open carry law in Kenosha for adults, but Rittenhouse was a minor.
    He shows up from Illinois with one of these, so he transported the weapon across state lines:

    [​IMG]
    At one point a dumpster is set on fire and pushed toward a gas station. The fire is extinguished and Rittenhouse gets into an argument with Rosenbaum, one of the protesters, we don't know if he was involved with the fire.
    Rittenhouse tries to evade Rosenbaum, who chases him and throws a plastic bag at him.
    Two unrelated shots are fired, one in the air by a known person and the other in an unknown direction by an unknown person, it could have been a protestor, vigilante, rioter, policeman, etc.
    When Rittenhouse hears the shots he turns and takes aim at Rosenbaum.
    Rosenbaum responds by grabbing the gun, I assume he feared for his life.
    Rittenhouse fires four rounds into Rosenbaum killing him.

    So here we have an individual who shows up with an illegal gun, as he was a minor, in defiance of the Mayor and County Sheriff.
    He gets into an argument and tries to flee. Okay so far, he should leave as he is there without just cause. Rosenbaum may have also been there without just cause but I don't know if he was protesting or rioting.
    Now it gets tricky. If Rittenhouse is justified in being there as a vigilante, can we say that Rosenbaum, seeing a man (boy) with an assault weapon, is also acting as a vigilante when he pursues Rittenhouse?

    Regardless was Rittenhouse justified in taking aim at Rosenbaum with an assault weapon when he can clearly see that Rosenbaum is unarmed? Is Rosenbaum justified in grabbing the gun as he now fears for his life and is trying to protect himself?
    Why did Rittenhouse fire four shots? Wasn't one enough? Why did he aim his gun if wasn't intent on shooting Rosenbaum?

    So now we have a crowd of people who see a man being shot four times by another with an assault weapon.
    They now turn into a vigilante group, same as Rittenhouse, and pursue him, fearing more shootings.
    They knock off his hat, he trips and falls, and he gets kicked. In response Rittenhouse fires two more shots but misses his intended victim? attacker? vigilante?
    Another man, Anthony Huber tries to get the gun off of Rittenhouse. He "makes contact" with Rittenhouse's shoulder with his skateboard. Rittenhouse then fires a single shot into Huber killing him.

    Another man, Gaige Grosskreutz, (another victim? attacker? vigilante?) approaches Rittenhouse with a handgun. He raises his hands when Rittenhouse shoots Huber but Rittenhouse shoots him anyway hitting his arm.

    Rittenhouse then gets off the ground and walks off toward the police. Several people shout for him to be arrested for the shootings but the police ignore them and allow Rittenhouse to leave.

    Rittenhouse is eventually charged with:
    • first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum
    • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against Richard McGinnis (a reporter who interviewed Rittenhouse before the shooting)
    • first-degree intentional homicide against Anthony Huber
    • attempted first-degree intentional homicide against Gaige Grosskreutz
    • first-degree recklessly endangering safety against an unknown male victim
    • possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (the only misdemeanor charge, the others are felonies)
    So here's the questions I have:
    1. What was a juvenile doing with an assault weapon at a protest, riot, or whatever. Why does a juvenile show up with a assault weapon and is that right?
    2. Why does a juvenile, or the group of men called the Kenosha Guard think they can take the law into their own hands in defiance of the Mayor and County Sheriff, and show up armed?
    3. When does a vigilante turn into a criminal and when does a protestor turn into a vigilante?
    4. Was the presence of Rittenhouse and his weapon helpful or did his mere presence act as a provocation?
    5. What will it mean if Rittenhouse is cleared of all charges? Can I show up at any protest with an assault weapon and if I "feel" I am in danger start shooting people with it?
    6. Can I become a vigilante any time I want and show up with my assault weapon to enforce whatever I think is right or proper with no training in law? Can I stop people with my gun for running stop signs, cause that's one of my pet peeves, and if they get pissed and take a swing at me can I shoot them four of five times?

    Interesting.
     
  9. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Twisted like a true mindfuck contortionist would instinctively - "like us to get" - Seriously? Are you on drugs? Or just trying cleverly to be an ass?

    You may likely find people gullible enough to feel your response actually correlates to my post but not anybody with a hint of critical thinking.

    A proper response would be to simply state your takeaway in comparison/contrast, rather than purport to be able to see my thoughts and extend my statements to what you assume is some sort of underlying motivation worthy of which you can subsequently attack.
    What you've done is attack someone else for your own misrepresentation of what they said, which is a prime example of lazy mental acuity.

    Try pepperdyne?

    You may also notice that I attacked your poor methods and statements without attacking you personally.
     
    mcme likes this.
  10. Tyrsonswood

    Tyrsonswood Senior Moment Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    34,218
    Likes Received:
    26,293
    Tactics...
     
  11. TrudginAcrossTheTundra

    TrudginAcrossTheTundra Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    3,728
    Likes Received:
    2,030
    Yup Exposed
     
  12. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,989
    Likes Received:
    5,684
    So instead of explaining what you really meant, if it wasn't what I thought you meant, you launch a personal attack. Where's the critical thinking there? I'll let the rest of the audience judge whether or not my response "correlates" to your post. I think your outrage was triggered by my making explicit what you prefer to leave implicit and subliminal, and calling you out for it. No, I'm not on drugs--never was, never will be. Speaking of lazy, why don't you bother to explain what exactly you meant that I misinterpreted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2021
    scratcho and Tyrsonswood like this.
  13. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    And, after thinking about this Rittenhouse's intent must be considered verses the intent of the people that were shot.
    Rittenhouse showed up with a loaded assault style weapon. You don't bring a loaded gun anywhere unless you are intent of discharging it, that's why it's loaded with live rounds.
    He wasn't going anywhere to shoot paper targets. His intent was to shoot people, albeit according to his statement in self defense, with the intent of inflicting bodily harm or death, premeditated by the way. But if he hadn't chosen to take the law into his own hands via vigilantism, he wouldn't have needed to defend himself.

    The people who were killed did not show up with loaded firearms, they had no premeditated intent to inflict bodily harm or death that can be shown, in my judgement.
     
    granite45 and scratcho like this.
  14. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    808
  15. hotwater

    hotwater Senior Member Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    50,601
    Likes Received:
    38,892
    I wouldn't be so confident If i were you.

    In Wisconsin if you claim self-defense in a homicide you must show that force was necessary to stop or prevent great bodily harm to your person or imminent death when using deadly force.

    Sure he won't be found guilty on all charges, but you know he'll be found guilty on at least one sending his ugly acne filled, rosacea scarred face, straight to prison where he can discuss his nightly sleeping arrangements with older more hardened criminals
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2021
  16. Tishomingo

    Tishomingo Members

    Messages:
    4,989
    Likes Received:
    5,684
    He put himself in harm's way by traveling to the city into the scene of the demonstrations as a vigilante to defend businesses (property, not his own) from rioters (people) with a deadly weapon (AR-15), He put himself in harm's was as a vigilante. The fact that he then found himself being chased may not count as entitling him to kill his pursuers.
     
    scratcho likes this.
  17. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Sounds like the judge is creating his own narrative. He isn't going to allow this case to become political....but...he has ruled that the dead people and the one shot while his hands were in the air are not allowed to be called victims,
    So I guess they are the culprits by default.
    Then he has the balls to say that they can be called rioters and or looters! So the dead and injured people can't be called victims because in the judge's words it's a loaded term that implies guilt. But they can be called rioters and looters as apparently that doesn't imply guilt!

    Now let's move to The Western Journal, the Conservative rag known for fake information that your link points to.
    Here's a direct quote from that article.
    So...the rioters and looters have already been convicted of rioting and looting? I don't think so. I don't believe they have even been charged with rioting and looting, but the judge and The Western Journal have already convicted them of that!
    What bullshit!

    You don't need binoculars to see where this is headed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2021
  18. scratcho

    scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,493
    Likes Received:
    14,738
    The judiciary is not immune from having CULT MEMBERS.o_O
     
    Tishomingo likes this.
  19. mcme

    mcme lurker

    Messages:
    1,316
    Likes Received:
    808
    Well folks, the trial is set to begin, and we're all going to be made aware of the facts surrounding this situation, and eventually what the jury determined regarding the laws involved.
    Buckle up,hang on and let's see what actually happens.
     
  20. nudistguyny

    nudistguyny Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,320
    Likes Received:
    10,101
    He was 17 years old. By law too young to own that type of firearm. He was not in his home state. But in another state. Thus crossing state lines with a illegal firearm. Discharging a firearm in city limits is also a crime. These criminal actions have already been proven. You can put any spin on it that you want. But he still broke a number of laws. And that he is guilty of.
     
    Tishomingo and granite45 like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice