American Politics

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Hypothetically, if I stood outside your house in the street with a high-powered semi-automatic rifle, would you feel threatened by my presence? You wouldn't know whether I'm a member of law enforcement or the military, because you don't know who I am. You'd be able to go about your day not giving me a second thought?

The first person killed by Rittenhouse was a mentally ill person who had just been discharged from a psychiatric hospital the same day. Like a mentally ill person, he sought Rittenhouse out because he had a gun and told Rittenhouse to shoot him. When he became aggressive with him, Rittenhouse did just that. The rest of the people he shot attacked him because they heard he shot someone and thought he was a threat, a mass shooter.

If Rittenhouse didn't have that gun, would any of this happened?

Would Rittenhouse have died for merely putting out a fire?


Both can play at this 'what if' fantasy all day long, but the facts of the case remain unchanged.

Saying nothing of your example being a poor analogy, but whatever.

And 'the first person shot' was what exactly, just mentally ill is it? So, a violent offender, mentally ill, comes at you to kill you - grounds for defense.

I'm not sure your argument is what you think it is.

 

[M3J]

You seem like a quality individual.

Better than an adult who went to another location with a gun where there'd be civil unrest and killed two people and shot a third one.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Better than an adult who went to another location with a gun where there'd be civil unrest and killed two people and shot a third one.

No, not 'better' - not by a long shot, as that pours out from your posts.

You left out the qualifier - "...that were actively trying to kill him, and were armed in various ways." Go figure.

Are you going to address you multiple examples of incorrect claims?

You can't even get the "adult" part right, as Kyle was, in fact, a minor at the time.

FFS you're batting zero.

 

[M3J]

Definitely better. Or should I go to a location where I know there might be conflict and shoot someone to make you think of me as a good person?

"Actively trying to kill him?" Based on? The fact that he had a gun and was likely seen as a danger?

I did some research and saw some things that conflicted with your claims, so no, I do not care to address anything or waste my time arguing with someone who probably reads Newsmax or InfoWars.

I know, he was 17. But if a Black kid who's 15 can be called an adult, then so can Kyle, who is actually an adult now. He was also celebrating after shooting three people, which is pretty fucked up.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Definitely better.

A hero in your own mind. Congrats?

Or should I go to a location where I know there might be conflict and shoot someone to make you think of me as a good person?

If you were protecting your own life, sure. Why not? The problem would be those attempting to take your life, not you for defending it. Did anyone have a right to be there? Did anyone with a weapon, makeshift or otherwise, have a right to be there? Or is it only Kyle that had no business in being in a place that he essentially spent part of his life living in?

BTW, do you know who traveled further to be there? Hint: it wasn't Kyle...

"Actively trying to kill him?" Based on?

Did you see the trial? Video(s)? Testimony? Byecept himself explicitly confirmed this is what happened for one.

The fact that he had a gun and was likely seen as a danger?

Newsflash, that's legal. Do you take great issue with the felon with the pistol trying to shoot Kyle? Once again, 100% of those not attacking Kyle with lethal intent were not shot. Shocker!

I did some research and saw some things that conflicted with your claims, so no, I do not care to address anything or waste my time arguing with someone who probably reads Newsmax or InfoWars.

Nope and nope (that's a played-out, go-to ad hominem btw... durrrrr InfoWars therefor I don't have to elucidate - nice try). LOLOL, way to gloss over your flops of claims with quick google-fu. Share with the room, what was I wrong about? By allllll means. You're so transparent it's painful, you know?

I know, he was 17.

So you erroneously called him an adult. Brilliant.

But if a Black kid who's 15 can be called an adult, then so can Kyle,

News flash, people of any race can, and do, get tried as adults. The absence of anything race-related to this just makes your ilk seethe, does it not?

who is actually an adult now.

Right. Only your claim was of his actions then.

He was also celebrating after shooting three people, which is pretty fucked up.

If I were him I'd be celebrating as well. I guess we can't all be as virtuous as you.





Regardless, he can be the biggest piece of filth you think he might be, and STILL be within his legal rights to defend himself.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 20, 2021 ---

I'll wait for the reply from the person that "doesn't have any time to argue" to, you know, argue (as he's been doing).

Gotta love the cop-outs.

 

[xi0]

Would Rittenhouse have died for merely putting out a fire?


Both can play at this 'what if' fantasy all day long, but the facts of the case remain unchanged.

Saying nothing of your example being a poor analogy, but whatever.

And 'the first person shot' was what exactly, just mentally ill is it? So, a violent offender, mentally ill, comes at you to kill you - grounds for defense.

I'm not sure your argument is what you think it is.

He wouldn't have been there without his gun, and that's the point.

You're correct, it doesn't change what happened. It also doesn't change the fact that it's yet another case of the law failing citizens it's designed to protect.

Why is it a poor analogy exactly? I'd presumably be on public property but still in your presence. Would you feel safe with me doing that if you don't know who I am?

Did Rittenhouse know the legal history of everyone he shot beforehand?

If you want to bring up people's pasts for this topic, then anyone can clearly question Rittenhouse's character based on his behavior and actions as well, before and after the shooting. The lie that Rittenhouse displayed any sort of reasonable behavior while using a firearm falls apart when you examine why he was there in the first place. He's on camera punching a child in the face at a protest in July and a month later he brought a rifle to one.

 

[Sanity Check]

What stands out most about Kyle Rittenhouse.

Virtually none of the pundits, analysts or commentators are defining his story properly.

Its almost like the overwhelming majority are determined to get the most important aspects of the narrative wrong.

People don't understand what is at stake, with his trial. Which could prove to be as influential as Roe vs Wade.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

He wouldn't have been there without his gun, and that's the point.

What's the point exactly? Neither of us has a crystal ball. Regardless, the facts of the case don't hinge on what-if's. Kyle was in his right. Hilariously, none of the violent offenders attacking Kyle (while ARMED) are part of the problem in your unilateral equation?

You're correct, it doesn't change what happened.

OK, this was reasonable. Until...

It also doesn't change the fact that it's yet another case of the law failing citizens it's designed to protect.

What does this even mean? I have an idea of what I think you think it means, but I'd like to hear you actually say it first before I comment.

Why is it a poor analogy exactly? I'd presumably be on public property but still in your presence. Would you feel safe with me doing that if you don't know who I am?

Once again, what-if's are not a basis of a case. But your analogy, poor, conflates two dissimilar situations. One, a violent, crowded, chaotic event and the other the limits of my peaceful domain - population my family alone. And different people react differently (and the SAME people react differently). What I or you or anyone else would have done is immaterial. What COULD anyone have legally done in that exact situation is all that matters. Because not everything is the same as everything else.

Did Rittenhouse know the legal history of everyone he shot beforehand?

OFC Not. Relevance? (Did I say or imply that was the case, ascertainable, or relevant in the issue of self-defense? nope!)

I stopped short of bringing up the actual history of the MULTIPLE criminals attacking Kyle. But, I could if you'd like. Though it very much sounds like you're aware.

YOU were the one that brought up his history, not I. From an apologist perspective (are we supposed to feel sorry for him for being a mental patient?). It's either relevant or it's not.

But the importance is not a legal foothold. It just goes to show the types of mentality you have going into the group as an ancillary. It helps to speak of motive and history of violence being extremely relevant. The two groups of people Kyle and literally every other assaulter targeting him (you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a garbage human being that night, burning shit being human filth) couldn't be more night from day if you contrast past deeds, reasons for being there, actions that night, and so forth.

If you want to bring up people's pasts for this topic,

You did. See above.

then anyone can clearly question Rittenhouse's character based on his behavior and actions as well, before and after the shooting.

What specifically? And what relevance does that have in a self-defense situation that is isolated from external factors by nature of Kyle not being an aggressor?

The lie that Rittenhouse displayed any sort of reasonable behavior while using a firearm falls apart when you examine why he was there in the first place.

AGAIN. What percentage of people that DIDN'T attack Kyle with presumed intent to kill didn't get shot? 100. That's 100%. He was exactly a responsible gun-wielder that night.

He's on camera punching a child in the face at a protest in July

So? And? Was he charge for that? If not, why not? If there's a case there, by all means charge him. Zero relevance to his defense case.

Again, Kyle could be the worst offender in the world (he wasn't) and the parties that were shot could have donated their time and money to Habitat for Humanity (lol) or be some great humans in some regard, and it still doesn't matter that Kyle - or anyone - could lethally defend himself/oneself in a split-second decision when your life is on the line. Kyle could be a literal white supremacist and STILL be within his legal rights to defend himself. Would it make him a 'good guy' - of course not. But, the law is impartial as to whether you are upstanding or not when it comes to self-defense cases (unless relevant by the fact that you brought the fight with immediacy and/or were the aggressor - neither of which apply to Kyle's case)

and a month later he brought a rifle to one.

Again, again, again,.... AND? He was legally able to do so. Unlike the commie filth with records that would have prevented them from legally carrying that were attempting to kill Kyle that night. Bye-cept (Gauge) being the most obvious. I'll wait for either of you trashcan (because that's what all three turned out to be... including skate-board douche as we learned later as well) apologist to condemn rioters that ALSO brought weapons - notably a) the person that fired first and b) Gauge.




I know you won't actually address what I said, because 'what if' games are more important to you.

So, just try and answer these two simple questions:

1. Can someone (in the US of course) legally carry a firearm in a defensive, non-brandishing capacity?
2. Can you lethally defend yourself if your life is in immediate danger?

Because that's ALL that matters and no attempts at finger-pointing in either direction of who is the worst villainous individual are important, though you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to that either.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 20, 2021 ---

What stands out most about Kyle Rittenhouse.

Virtually none of the pundits, analysts or commentators are defining his story properly.

Its almost like the overwhelming majority are determined to get the most important aspects of the narrative wrong.

People don't understand what is at stake, with his trial. Which could prove to be as influential as Roe vs Wade.

That's by design. The incorrect, fallacious, and slanderous reporting all being identical is telling.

I mean, how do you excuse a MSM outlet broadcasting the prosecutor's closing arguments, but not the defense'? Simple shit like that, and that's far from being the only egregious example.

But if you point out actual facts HURRRRR DURRRRRR iNfO wArS!!! (nope!)

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2021 ---

Btw, @M3J - why hang around this thread for so long considering you "don't have the time to argue" ... and yet you keep browsing and browsing?

Seems like you have plenty of time to read - and like - posts that support your flavor of echo-chamber.

Yet not even 10 seconds to identify even just the most glaring mistake I made in itemizing the facts in response to your poor reporting on the matter?




Or... could it be you're just full of hot air?

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2021 ---

Federal overreach. Clearly state's rights should protect citizens who want to kill people in another state.

a) 'another state' is a red herring
b) I'm sure you'd be fine with a defendant political darling of your ordained affiliation being targeted after being found NOT guilty by their peers



Double-jeopardy be damned, right?

Be honest enough to not want to establish such a chilling precedent, irrespective of your feelings for Kyle and this case.

 

[M3J]

Are you that daft? Reading doesn't take up as much time as arguing, and I'm not in a mood to fact check things to prove some random asshat off the internet wrong when the fact still remains either way, Kyle should not have been there, and he was there to cause harm. I like posts that are good. xi0's was, yours was not. If you want me to like your posts as well, make good points, and I'll like it regardless of your stance/views.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Are you that daft? Reading doesn't take up as much time as arguing, and I'm not in a mood to fact check things to prove some random asshat off the internet wrong when the fact still remains either way, Kyle should not have been there, and he was there to cause harm. I like posts that are good. xi0's was, yours was not. If you want me to like your posts as well, make good points, and I'll like it regardless of your stance/views.

THIS is my surprise that you find the time to respond, but gloss over contention of actual facts - which are in your favor as you claim.

I could give two shits about your likes - the point was how you claim to allocate your precious time.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 20, 2021, Original Post Date: Nov 20, 2021 ---

Wow, check out the big brains on antifa: chanting about, attempting to burn down the Portland Justice Center - which houses inmates.

Par for the course.

All their ilk knows is destruction and chaos. They are a giant suck on society that bring nothing to the table, and couldn't be productive if you held an KR-15 to their heads.

 

[ninjabot]

Let's pray for nothing happening to him

Dear Lord White Jesus, please protect this God fearing Christian hero. Protect him from the barbs and arrows of morality and societal norms. Deliver this sweet summer child from the tyranny of human empathy and responsibility.

Amen.

You mean like the ones that WERE armed, and got got?

I didn't mean open carrying. I don't condone protestors open carrying. Not during protests at least.

EDIT: Wait, you're referring to the ones shot by Rittenhouse? I'm referring to protestors having concealed firearms or staying close to people that are armed with firearms.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

I'm just glad this forum has set the standard decorum at: 1. calls and a desire for violence, 2. facts be damned, 3. irreverence above all - nothing one desires to make fun of is considered sacred.

Remember that when your sacred cows and non-facts get shat upon.




Oh, and the soft, white underbelly of the left is clearly concerned with the apparent lionization of an individual, as flawed as he may be, that has more balls than they'd ever have. That much is beyond evident.

 

[ninjabot]

I'm just glad this forum has set the standard decorum at: 1. calls and a desire for violence, 2. facts be damned, 3. irreverence above all - nothing one desires to make fun of is considered sacred.

Remember that when your sacred cows and non-facts get shat upon.

I'm genuinely curious if you can stow the Big Mad energy for a moment to answer this:

Did Rittenhouse do anything wrong? In your opinion?

This isn't a trap, I'm genuinely curious.

Oh, and the soft, white underbelly of the left is clearly concerned with the apparent lionization of an individual, as flawed as he may be, that has more balls than they'd ever have. That much is beyond evident.

I dunno man. I feel like I do have the bravery to defend myself with a gun if I need to. What I don't have is a need to place myself into a situation where I need to defend myself with a gun. You'll argue he had every right to be there, and I'd agree with you. But in the immortal words of Dr. Ian Malcom...

"We spent so much time asking ourselves could we do it, that no one stopped to ask if we should." Paraphrasing of course.

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

Fair enough, since you'll spar:

I'm genuinely curious if you can stow the Big Mad energy for a moment to answer this:

Did Rittenhouse do anything wrong?

This isn't a trap, I'm genuinely curious.

Trap being the operative, ironic choice of wording (unsure if intentional punning).

Showing up armed into what is essentially a societal trap of violence is asking for the potential of trouble. Some can look at that - going into a known trap - as crazy, stupid. Some look at that as heroic. Some can see both. Is it a legal risk, sure. Is it legal though?

I alluded to KR being a flawed individual for good reason. Because we all are - some more than others. He's no saint and I won't look to him for guidance (nor should leftists lionize the filth they've been handed as saints). The overwhelming glut of misinformation and slander aimed his way - politically motivated of course - puts one as defending Kyle in a defacto sense if they seek to defend truth. The same was done with Trump for instance (or any number of conservative, non-liberal, non-progressive, non-neocon actors - though I largely repeat myself). Trump, in a vacuum - a terrible human being, fully flawed. Trump that you see on the nightly news, sorry that was a caricature of the actual individual. So, if one takes a principled position, they're defense of the truth is easily, purposefully conflated into defending the individual - easily attacked. Then, the argument is routinely framed as either-or, black-or-white, all-or-nothing. But I digress.

This is Rules for Radicals 101. Isn't that right, comrade? (great oppo research reading btw)

That aside, a lot can be said about his behavior before, during, after. Good or bad, depending on how objective one claims to be.

If there's something you'd like me to consider, sure - do tell. Like I said, if there's a case of Kyle striking someone, what are the facts of the matter - why isn't that a case?

I'd say his biggest fault is also his biggest accomplishment, and I don't mean that as a byzantine cop-out:

- on one hand, *I* wouldn't be caught dead (literally or figuratively) going to what I knew ahead of time a violent mob presence - that is to say he should have stayed home. A point you (and others) have repeatedly made: 'but but but but, if Kyle wasn't there (also used as 'if Kyle wasn't armed' or 'if Kyle wasn't open carrying' or etc etc ad infinitum), he wouldn't have shot anyone!' (the inverse never being discussed - if actor X wouldn't have ATTACKED Kyle, he wouldn't have defended himself... and so on). 'but what if?'s does not a case make.

- on the other hand, *I* respect someone that went with good intentions (assumed). The record of his deeds prior to the fateful events that night are pretty clear. Are you aware of them, or do you choose to gloss over them as well? That indeed WAS his proverbial backyard (as opposed to him making some far-off jihadist pilgrimage from states away...) and he had every reason to be there as the protesters-cum-rioters. Even more so considering the FACTS on his side such as it being the home of his father, a place he worked and played in, being invited to help, and so on. I'd give that more weight than someone with a long rap-sheet that's just using recent events as pretense to burn shit up and destroy - which was the case at least for Rosenloser.

So, he's both foolish AND brave.

But we don't have to agree on his personality. Was he within his rights is the ONLY thing that matters. Those rights may be foolish to you, but legal is legal.

The fact is: Kyle had every RIGHT to be there, same as the protesters. And armed at that (unlike many a violent felon). And to defend himself if attacked! The humanity.

One could argue either way that common sense says 'stay away' or common sense says 'protect your community, even if in some small manner'

Was Kyle HOPING for confrontation? I don't know, neither do you. Only Kyle. He was a stupid kid as most 17yo's are. Perhaps in some sense he secretly wished someone would challenge him. But actions are more important than projecting purpose into others where we cannot read their minds. Intent is at most speculative, but I don't see the clear case for a nefarious intent as the violence came to Kyle, not the other way around.

I dunno man. I feel like I do have the bravery to defend myself with a gun if I need to. What I don't have is a need to place myself into a situation where I need to defend myself with a gun.

Well, good for you is all I can say.

Just know there are many, many, MANY big bad-asses online (or so they claim) that wouldn't do a damn thing if push came to shove. Even more so that cannot operate without the strength of the crowd IRL (and many more just tagging alone to feel *purpose*). And yet Kyle was largely outnumbered, and put his convictions where his mouth was. Like him or not, that much isn't really up for debate.

That aside, a gun is an obvious force-multiplier. Would you be as brave without one?

Even WITH one, going against a crowd solo can be crippling. Selective shooting at only hostile targets in a crowd with zero wasted rounds is remarkable beyond what even many tactifool adults would be capable of. Credit where credit is due.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it were in fact your community? (assume for the sake of argument it was)

EVEN IF you didn't feel the need as you stress, would you be within your rights?

=================

Said another way...

Lefties: "Fuck cops, we'll police our own communities!'

Kyle: *polices community*

Lefties: 'Nooooo, not like that! reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'



You simply cannot have it both ways.

^ this is a Rorschach meme. Do you see Kyle? Or are you open to also seeing the (so-called) 'anti' fascists and BLM (mostly white lol) 'protesters'?

 

[Shobu_Yoruichi]

Dear Lord White Jesus, please protect this God fearing Christian hero. Protect him from the barbs and arrows of morality and societal norms. Deliver this sweet summer child from the tyranny of human empathy and responsibility.

Amen.

Let's include this person in the prayers


I like her scarf btw

 

[Jubei_Kibagami]

"I am a monument" ...? Is that what she was saying at first?

 

[ninjabot]

But we don't have to agree on his personality. Was he within his rights is the ONLY thing that matters. Those rights may be foolish to you, but legal is legal.

I'm gonna assume you didn't read through a lot of our back and forth before replying, or else you'd see the post I made about Rittenhouse's actions being legal. I never said they weren't. My argument has never been that what he's doing is illegal, it's whether it was right or wrong, hence the question I asked.

There are plenty of things that have been legal in the past that aren't now because society has progressed.

Just know there are many, many, MANY big bad-asses online (or so they claim) that wouldn't do a damn thing if push came to shove. Even more so that cannot operate without the strength of the crowd IRL (and many more just tagging alone to feel *purpose*. And yet Kyle was largely outnumbered, and put his convictions where his mouth was. Like him or not, that much isn't really up for debate.

Except push wouldn't have come to shove if he wasn't there to be pushed. And it's fine people online aren't willing to kill people, because they shouldn't have to, and most don't want to. I don't wanna shoot anyone. That doesn't make me a coward, it makes me an empathetic human being. You could argue that it's Kyle's empathy for his father and the people losing their livelihood to having their property destroyed that pushed him to "do something about it", but it'll bring us back to the value of things over people. I value people more than things. In order to skirt around that argument the conservatives will bring up the character of the people being shot sure, but destroyed property can be rebuilt. Dead people lose the chance at reform.

That aside, a gun is an obvious force multiplier. Would you be as brave without one?

Nope. Dunno what the hell that has to do with anything considering I would've never been there in the first place... and Kyle who was, chose to bring a gun. Any argument as to whether he's brave without a gun is moot.

Even WITH one, going against a crowd solo can be crippling. Selective shooting at only hostile targets in a crowd with zero wasted rounds is remarkable beyond what even many tactifool adults would be capable of. Credit where credit is due.

I'm not concerned with how skilled he was, I'm concerned with the morality of his actions. And I'd argue that him realizing the risk of hitting the other members of the crowd and still shooting anyway was an unnecessarily risky move.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if it were in fact your community?

If the events happened as detailed in the trial and according to testimony and everything, I'd be even more furious, because I'd know that he killed people in my community.

Unless you're asking what I'd have done if I were in his shoes and this was my community. If the rioting upset me to any real degree (cause it doesn't). The answer is I'd stay the fuck home and hope no one gets hurt after realizing I can't stop a god damn entire mob with my one rifle. While simultaneously giving zero shits about the odd car or Wendy's that burns down.

EVEN IF you didn't feel the need as you stress, would you be within your rights?

Of course I'd be in my rights to defend myself if someone was attacking me. I'm not concerned with what's legal, I'm concerned with what's right.

^ this is a Rorschach meme. Do you see Kyle? Or are you open to also seeing the (so-called) 'anti' fascists and BLM (mostly white lol) 'protesters'?

I don't think these groups and Kyle Rittenhouse are synonymous in their actions or goals. It's not even fair (for you) to compare Rittenhouse and BLM's actions since about 93% of BLM's protests have been peaceful.

 

[xi0]

Again, again, again,.... AND? He was legally able to do so.

My part in this conversation wasn't really about the law. Clearly the law doesn't frown upon his behavior and that's why he walked. Just like the law wouldn't frown upon me sitting out in front of your house with a loaded weapon (provided it's legal in your state and I was on public property of course).

Is that a good thing though?

a) 'another state' is a red herring
b) I'm sure you'd be fine with a defendant political darling of your ordained affiliation being targeted after being found NOT guilty by their peers



Double-jeopardy be damned, right?

Be honest enough to not want to establish such a chilling precedent, irrespective of your feelings for Kyle and this case.

The double jeopardy clause doesn't apply to crimes that violate both state and federal laws. For instance, the police officers that beat the shit out of Rodney King walked on state charges, but were convicted on federal ones. So, if you think that qualifies as a red herring, fair enough.

I usually don't make a habit of treating criminal defendants as "darlings", regardless of political affiliation. I don't think you know what my affiliation is anyway, so I don't know what you're getting at.

 

[M3J]

Here's the fact though, if Kyle was Black or a person of color, he'd have either been shot by the police on sight OR been guilty. There's no way he'd have gotten away with it, not when a Black kid with a toy gun was shot and refused medical care that could have saved his life, and not when a Black teenager attacked a wannabe cop out of self-defense (which evidence implies).

 

[xi0]

Here's the fact though, if Kyle was Black or a person of color, he'd have either been shot by the police on sight OR been guilty. There's no way he'd have gotten away with it, not when a Black kid with a toy gun was shot and refused medical care that could have saved his life, and not when a Black teenager attacked a wannabe cop out of self-defense (which evidence implies).

Who knows, but you're not allowed to talk about any of this in regard to this case because he only killed white people, didn't you get the memo?