TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 101 to 113 of 113

Thread: Kyle Rittenhouse / 2021 gun thread

  1. #101
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Thanks Cipheron. I am just seeking clarity on SD's assertion that a city was totally destroyed or whether that was just an exaggeration for effect, since facts vs rhetoric seems to be a central part of his position.

  2. #102
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    You do at least have to ask yourself - if the situation during the riots was so intense / dangerous, then why was everyone who was shot that night shot by Kyle Ritterhouse?

  3. #103
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Mossad Time Machine
    Quote Originally Posted by faetal View Post
    You do at least have to ask yourself - if the situation during the riots was so intense / dangerous, then why was everyone who was shot that night shot by Kyle Ritterhouse?
    I'd probably be asking why everyone who was shot was a criminal. Heck of a coincidence.

  4. #104
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    1. Carry a gun for safety

    2. Blithely shoot unarmed people to death because you're in mortal danger from the gun you're carrying

  5. #105
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by SD View Post
    I'd probably be asking why everyone who was shot was a criminal. Heck of a coincidence.
    Like Rittenhouse knew the criminal records of the men he murdered? Really? And even if he had known, who appointed the little white supremacist prick as judge, jury and executioner of those men? Even during his trial, his buddy the judge refused to allow the jurors to be told of the victims' criminal records. So why do you keep harping on the victims' history with the law? The two men Rittenhouse actually killed, Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, had mental health issues; Rosenbaum was on antidepressants and meds used to treat depression. The third whom was wounded, Gaige Grosskreutz, was a paramedic and had brought his medical gear with him that night in case any of the protesters required medical aid. No big deal that Grosskreutz also brought his gun, too; up here in Wisconsin 3 out every 5 people are armed. Rittenhouse was a minor, though and minors aren't allowed to have guns, let alone an AR15 assault rifle. He's alive and just got back from his visit with Trump; two of his victims are dead and the third is maimed since his right arm is now useless. But yeah, let's condemn three men to death because they may have had criminal records when they tried to take an illegal assault rifle away from a snot-nosed 17 yr. old white supremacist. *smh*

  6. #106
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    Do we have actual evidence that he was a white supremacist?

    And by white supremacist I mean exactly what that term implies, someone who is an unapologetic racist, hates non-whites, etc.

    I've been trying to form an opinion on this, and I see a lot of stuff uncritically thrown around by both sides, terms being broadened or expanded beyond their actual meaning, &c.

  7. #107
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: they/them mayhem
    White supremacy isn't just open bigotry. It's not just the purview of the likes of David Duke. It also entails the support of a culture and social structure that perpetually places people of color (and, indeed, many other marginalized groups, for white supremacy is often comorbid with other bigotries) at a disadvantage that white people, particularly able-bodied, heteronormative men of means, do not face. White supremacy is why the US has the Thanksgiving myth that helped whitewash genocide of Native Americans. White supremacy is why some institutions still practice a form of redlining despite it being made illegal in 1968. White supremacy is why a 17-year-old boy is given a gun that was illegally purchased for him in the name of protecting "businesses" from demonstrations against police violence -- violence that is overwhelmingly directed at people of color.

    Kyle might not be goosestepping down main street with a Tiki torch screaming "you will not replace us!" but he absolutely is part of a broader white supremacist ecosystem.

  8. #108
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Azaran View Post
    Do we have actual evidence that he was a white supremacist?

    And by white supremacist I mean exactly what that term implies, someone who is an unapologetic racist, hates non-whites, etc.

    I've been trying to form an opinion on this, and I see a lot of stuff uncritically thrown around by both sides, terms being broadened or expanded beyond their actual meaning, &c.
    'During a hearing Friday on several motions, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked to argue at trial that Rittenhouse subscribes to the Proud Boys' white supremacist philosophies and violent tactics. Binger pointed out that Rittenhouse was seen at a bar with members of the white nationalist group's Wisconsin chapter in January and traveled to Miami days later to meet the group's national president.

    Oh I'd say it was pretty telling that Rittenhouse was indeed a little white supremacist wanna-be; I mean, he went to Florida to meet with them, ffs. Of course, now that the little rat bastard has been acquitted, he's crying that his first attorney, whom he fired during the trial, 'set me up' with that meeting. I call bullshit. Though his FB page was taken down very quickly, it contained many pro-racist/white supremacist memes and propaganda. And again, of course, the lying little jerk denies everything ...... except going to Florida to meet with his 'hero', Donald Trump after the trial ended. No one is surprised.

    Illinois needs to help keep Wisconsin beautiful and stop throwing its trash across our state line.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...trial-80071271

    P.S. It was revealed during his trial that Rittenhouse's mother drove him across the state line to meet with his friend from whom he borrowed the AR-15 he used to shoot three men. What kind of parent does that, drives her 17 yr. old to a city in a different state where there's been protesting, rioting and looting happening? And then allows him, as a minor, to fly to Florida to meet with the leader of a known white supremacist group? Bad parenting or was mommy encouraging her son to join the despicable group? *smh*

  9. #109
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Like Rittenhouse knew the criminal records of the men he murdered? Really? And even if he had known, who appointed the little white supremacist prick as judge, jury and executioner of those men? Even during his trial, his buddy the judge refused to allow the jurors to be told of the victims' criminal records. So why do you keep harping on the victims' history with the law? The two men Rittenhouse actually killed, Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum, had mental health issues; Rosenbaum was on antidepressants and meds used to treat depression. The third whom was wounded, Gaige Grosskreutz, was a paramedic and had brought his medical gear with him that night in case any of the protesters required medical aid. No big deal that Grosskreutz also brought his gun, too; up here in Wisconsin 3 out every 5 people are armed. Rittenhouse was a minor, though and minors aren't allowed to have guns, let alone an AR15 assault rifle. He's alive and just got back from his visit with Trump; two of his victims are dead and the third is maimed since his right arm is now useless. But yeah, let's condemn three men to death because they may have had criminal records when they tried to take an illegal assault rifle away from a snot-nosed 17 yr. old white supremacist. *smh*
    The men who attacked him appointed him as their judge, jury, and executioner. Whether or not he is a white supremacist is immaterial to whether or not he acted in self defense. Whether or not he had any business being there (he didn't) is immaterial to whether he acted in self defense. Whether or not the gun was illegally being carried is immaterial to whether he acted in self defense. The law doesn't appear to bar a 17 year old from openly carrying a rifle, either:
    948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
    (1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
    (2) 
    (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
    (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
    (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
    (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
    (3) 
    [...]
    (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
    S. 941.28 deals with short barrelled rifles and shotguns, which is not what Rittenhouse was carrying. Is it a stupid law? Yes, but he wasn't in violation of the law by carrying his rifle. Grosskreutz was in flagrant violation of the law by carrying a concealed handgun without a permit, by the way. Rittenhouse came from Antioch, IL, which is 20 miles away. He worked in Kenosha, his father and other family lived in Kenosha, as did his best friend. Grosskreutz lived in West Alis, 40 miles away. If we're asking what Rittenhouse was doing there, shouldn't we be asking what Grosskreutz was doing there? I know, providing aid to protestors. Which, incidentally, is what Grosskreutz testified he saw Rittenhouse offering to the same protestors.

    The reason Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder is that Grosskreutz testified that:
    1) he, Grosskreutz, thought that Rittenhouse was in danger of serious bodily harm from Huber
    2) he, Grosskreutz, lied to the police on multiple occasions about having a firearm that night or refused to answer questions from the lead detective investigating the shooting
    3) that Rittenhouse had not acted in a violent, agitated, or hostile manner during the filmed segments from Grosskreutz's phone, and
    4) he, Grosskreutz, was only shot by Rittenhouse after he chased him down the street and pointed a loaded firearm with a round chambered at Rittenhouse's head. Grosskreutz knew nothing about Rosenbaum's death except that Rittenhouse ran by him and said "he drew a gun on me first" or "I'm going to the police" or "I'm working with the police". Watch the cross examination from 30:00 to about 1:10:00. You can argue that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, and I agree. You can argue that he's a white-supremacist piece of trash, and I'd agree. Even WSPT's have a right to self defense, and the state's key witness was the defense's best witness.

  10. #110
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2009
    Location: thiefgold.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    ...
    This is a lot different than "Crazed shooter goes on an unprovoked rampage against unarmed protestors", which is what I was led to believe by the media when this whole thing started.

    I mean, I know most media outlets, left & right, are filthy weasels who selectively edit the truth, but that's a new low

    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    'During a hearing Friday on several motions, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked to argue at trial that Rittenhouse subscribes to the Proud Boys' white supremacist philosophies and violent tactics. Binger pointed out that Rittenhouse was seen at a bar with members of the white nationalist group's Wisconsin chapter in January and traveled to Miami days later to meet the group's national president.

    Yeah that's still concerning regardless

  11. #111
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder agreed with the defense about the June fight and interactions Rittenhouse has had with the Proud Boys. He deferred a decision on the pharmacy video but said he was inclined to exclude it.

    It was during discussion about that video that Binger said prosecutors have infrared surveillance footage that he said shows Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum, who was the first person Rittenhouse shot.

    Rittenhouse attorney Mark Richards maintained it was Rosenbaum who started chasing Rittenhouse, yelling out, “Kill him!” He said Rosenbaum cornered Rittenhouse in front of a row of cars in a parking lot and threw a bag at him before trying to grab Rittenhouse’s gun.

    Binger said the surveillance footage shows Rittenhouse chasing Rosenbaum with a fire extinguisher before Rosenbaum turned to confront him. Binger said Rosenbaum was probably trying to push the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle away.
    Oh wow... That pretty much seals it. Not only was he fantasising about shooting people before, it looks like he actively antagonised the first victim.

    During a hearing Friday on several motions, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger asked to argue at trial that Rittenhouse subscribes to the Proud Boys' white supremacist philosophies and violent tactics. Binger pointed out that Rittenhouse was seen at a bar with members of the white nationalist group's Wisconsin chapter in January and traveled to Miami days later to meet the group's national president.
    Yeah, if you go meet the leader of the Proud Boys, fat chance you didn't know what you were doing. Btw, these are the Proud Boys, according to their founder (NSFW, as it contains explicit calls for violence): https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/stat...05724975046659

    No wonder they are lavishing praise on the shooter and holding rallies in appreciation for him. This fits right with their agenda.

  12. #112
    Taking the Death Toll
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: they/them mayhem
    Quote Originally Posted by Azaran View Post
    This is a lot different than "Crazed shooter goes on an unprovoked rampage against unarmed protestors", which is what I was led to believe by the media when this whole thing started.

    I mean, I know most media outlets, left & right, are filthy weasels who selectively edit the truth, but that's a new low
    Before I say anything I need to point that the media is primarily centrist/neoliberal in its ideology. There is no mainstream "left-wing" media outlet, at least not in the English speaking world.

    Anyway, don't be suckered in by the reactionaries in this thread trying to justify murder. There is no good-faith argument for what Rittenhouse did. The details of how he acquired the gun are irrelevant. The details of the situation that resulted in him using that gun are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that he brought a gun to a demonstration against police violence as part of a counter-protest. Why? What narrative was he responding to? What narrative has he become part of?

  13. #113
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Just saw this and knew it went here.


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •