As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Murderous fascist thug [Kyle Rittenhouse] acquitted on all charges
Hacksaw
J. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
J. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
First and most important post: Kyle Rittenhouse is murderous, fascist scum and shall not have his actions or his character defended in this thread.
If you want to make your own thread about how he was totally right to shoot and kill the folks that he did, don't let me stop you. That's for the mods to decide. But I won't have ink spilled on his behalf in here. If the thread title wasn't enough of a clue, I'm here to lay it down for you.
Legality != morality. Grow a conscience and save your devil's advocacy for Twitter. We don't need it here.
If you want to make your own thread about how he was totally right to shoot and kill the folks that he did, don't let me stop you. That's for the mods to decide. But I won't have ink spilled on his behalf in here. If the thread title wasn't enough of a clue, I'm here to lay it down for you.
Legality != morality. Grow a conscience and save your devil's advocacy for Twitter. We don't need it here.
Hacksaw on
+15
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
strictly speaking the primary problem is that he is not on trial for those things
It's not about whether he was out past curfew or in illegal possession of a firearm.
He went looking for trouble and instigated a confrontation in a town that wasn’t his, in a state that wasn’t his, at a time he wasn’t supposed to be on the street, with a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to possess.
Unfortunately the judge has arbitrarily decided that since the objective facts of the case paint the defendant in such a damning light they must be excluded and any accurate description of the defendant must be excluded as well.
As to his claims of self-defense, it’s an old trick for a murderer (or their defense attorney) to smear his victim as the aggressor. After all, they’re not around to say otherwise anymore.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I thought he is charged with illegal possession of a firearm and not contesting that charge? Or was that charge dismissed?
Heads up, if you slightly mess any detail concerning guns, you will be taken down a rabbithole of legalese-fu. As far as I know, he didnt travel "with" the AR, but was given the weapon when he arrived. Doesnt change the mo
Rittenhouse is a murderer, and anyone defending him is a goose of the highest order.
Regardless of how long this kid does or does not wind up in jail for, there is clearly a large portion of the population that includes a lot of people in positions of power who don't see any issue with murdering people at BLM protests. And we live in a country where it's extremely easy to get a gun, and basically legal to murder people if you do it with a car.
The only logical conclusion is for BLM protestors to shoot first because shooting second can very easily mean you're dead. Bringing a gun to counter-protest is a direct threat to the protestors life, so they should be able to respond in self-defense of their life, right?
Is this the end result you Rittenhouse defenders want? Because that's the end result you get if you keep defending pieces of shit like him
Gotta feed the narrative, though.
* Not that I'm suggesting shooting/killing anyone outside of actual self-defense or defense of another.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/bruce-schroeder-kyle-rittenhouse-judge-phone-b1955443.html
- John Stuart Mill
Did 2021's writers go on strike and they brought in a bunch of hack scabs?
2020’s writers refused to acknowledge that the year ended. They locked themselves in the writers’ room during a COVID-induced fever dream and have been cranking out stories while mainlining horse paste and beet juice.
- John Stuart Mill
Does it feel like predominantly white conservatives have engineered a series if laws and events to spark a race war? Yeah, it does.
Yes, but as long as it's written down that makes it quotable and superior, and as long as you can point to a paper and WeLl AcTuAlLy it makes you better, per the frankly shocking number of Rittenhouse apologists I've seen in this and the other thread.
Grossass fucking technicality rimmers can eat my fuckin foot of wood.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Early on, all three victims were doxxed, and, shortly thereafter, accused of a host of crimes. Some were true, others weren't. One of them was convicted of sexually abusing 5 boys in 2002. Another had convictions for assault (against family members when they tried to get him mental help), but was falsely accused of rape by Rittenhouse's defenders. The one who survived had no convictions, but was once arrested for burglary, which was immediately pounced on.
But as you said, there is no way Rittenhouse could have known any of it. They really want that third guy to be guilty of something, because without it, the gun he was carrying was perfectly legal (unlike Rittenhouse's).
- John Stuart Mill
But also, even if he had a Terminator style retinal display that showed those two had a prior history of law related issues...
So. Fucking. What?
First, he's not a law enforcement officer. Second, those charges/convictions don't come with a default of an extrajudicial death sentence.
It's like when the George Floyd "he's no angel" shit started. Do. Not. Care. Nothing he did before he was killed was a capital crime warranting execution, so fuck anyone who used that as a defence for his death.
Anyone using the argument that the victim's priors (even if they were known), warranted being killed, is arguing in the worst possible bad faith.
edit: also, a lot of y'all are really feverishly attempting to justify organized white supremacist violence and it's fuckin ghoulish.
"Verifiably correct" about what, you trying to defend Kyle Rittenhouse while steadfastly refusing to talk about the goddamn surrounding context of this incident? You insisting that we must be able to talk about this as some sort of hermetically sealed isolated incident, and how mean we are for distracting from the issue by bringing up these directly related issues permeating our society that lead to and surround this?
You had plenty of opportunities to engage with the points and concerns raised and make your separation from the white nationalist vigilantes who are lionizing Rittenhouse and his ilk and love dreaming about going out and shooting up protesters. You still do have that opportunity, I suppose, but you're going to have to go back and quote my earlier posts from the Police Brutality thread because I'm done wasting time on someone who keeps trying to go on about "this is debate and discourse!" while refusing to engage with the uncomfortable questions raised by the opinions they put forth.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think they should openly and publicly discuss making sure they are armed to the teeth, because it’ll be the only way we get meaningful gun control laws.
Show some videos of POCs using AR-15s and mowing down targets, and you’ll find AR-15s highly restricted.
I think the answer to gun violence isn't more guns, but if it's open season on protesters (even more than it is now since you can legally run over them) then I don't know what the answer is other than for protestors to arm themselves in defense.
Which I think is more or less what a lot of people want.
Yup. Because that's when the police get to "feared for my life" shit, and it's going to result in a mass casualty event, which both puts fear into protests going forward, a d makes it easier to crack down on protests, period.
I mean, look at the "justification" that were used during the BLM protest, with cans of soup being seen as a "threat". The left start open carrying, and things will start getting bloody real quick.
The right, of course, face no repercussions for open carrying during a protest.
This feels like a specific thread for Rittenhouse. Or did I misread it?
But of course, as Ryan Cooper of The Week recalls, not everyone gets their day in court:
Was he allowed his day in court? No, US Marshals gunned him down in the street and President Trump relished in it. "They knew who he was; they didn't want to arrest him, and in 15 minutes that ended." The police of course lied about the threat Reinoehl posed - eyewitness accounts and later documentation proved that he had not fired at the police or even laid hands on a weapon before he was extrajudicially executed.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The Prosecution objected to a video technician because he was giving testimony based on speculation.
The Jury was removed, it was argued, and the Judge has gone back on an order he allowed earlier in the trial, hurting the prosecution in the process.
I want to see the IRS reports for this Judge in 2-3 years.
I've got a bunch of shit around the cabin need's doing but I'm off today and it's raining so y'all get this instead for a bit
He said "I don't know your honor, it's just the screensaver"
PERJURY!
They lost the bid to let their video expert also be an expert on human dynamics and emotions through body movement.
He had named the files "FRIENDLY FRIENDLY FRIENDLY" and "ON THE WAY TO SURRENDER.MP4"
"He was no angel" is normally something like "he sold weed" or "he had a prior for assault a few years beforehand." Rosenbaum is not that. He was a severely mentally ill person who, in an actual functioning and caring society, would have been in psych care for far longer than he was. This isn't some "Rittenhouse did the world a favour" defence, but it is important to understand that Rosenbaum had been shouting death threats at people and daring others to shoot him over the course of the evening, and then ended up chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse trying to take his gun. He was mentally ill and off medication, which does not mean he deserves to be shot, but does explain why he consistently and precariously escalated the situation upon meeting a teenager with a rifle. Even if Rittenhouse doesn't know Rosenbaum's history, it is immediately evident from his behaviour that he is not acting sanely and is possibly dangerous. That might actually fall under self-defence, despite Rittenhouse's possession and transport of the firearm being totally illegal.
Huber and Grosskreutz, while they might have criminal convictions, were not escalating: they were responding to what they see as (and by any reasonable definition is) a vigilante shooter, and even if Grosskreutz does point his pistol at Rittenhouse, he does so knowing that Rittenhouse has just shot (and probably killed) two people. Their criminal histories don't have any bearing on their behaviour, and people bringing them up are doing so without critical thought. Ideally, police intervention after Rosenbaum's shooting would've prevented further escalation, and that's another major failing here. This is the point where you want authorities to step in, stop Rittenhouse leaving the scene and people surrounding him attempting any immediate retaliation, but nothing like that happened because, y'know, 'murica.