The guy with the skateboard was trying to take Rittenhouse down after he had already shot somebody. It's literally the gun fantasy of a 'good guy with a gun', taking down the bad guy, except the good guy also got shot, because that is what happens with guns. Disarming someone with a gun isn't like a movie, it's very easy to get shot. None of the three people that Rittenhouse shot was trying to kill him at all.
Prosecutors seek to rearrest Kyle Rittenhouse, saying he violated terms of his release
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
The guy with the skateboard was trying to take Rittenhouse down after he had already shot somebody. It's literally the gun fantasy of a 'good guy with a gun', taking down the bad guy, except the good guy also got shot, because that is what happens with guns. Disarming someone with a gun isn't like a movie, it's very easy to get shot. None of the three people that Rittenhouse shot was trying to kill him at all.
Zardnaar
Deity
Details on the first shooting?
If he was attacked first and he shot someone then attacked again he might actually walk.
Senethro
Overlord
Accusing something of being politically motivated as a dismissal is a very interesting look when it relates to a killing at a protest relating to law enforcement and the justice system!
While keeping in mind that America is a big place, some states have self defense laws that are applied and sometimes even written with a political filter.
Lets not pretend the law is perfectly neutral here.
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,433
What about the third guy literally holding a pistol in his hand, while jumping on Rittenhouse. If that’s not a killing attempt, then I don’t know what is. That doesn’t excuse Rittenhouse actions, of course, but, come on man, at least watch a video before discussing..
If the requirement is "possesses gun" and "is near someone else", Rittenhouse himself qualifies by the same logic. He crossed state lines with a rifle. It's funny how the argument about self-defense never applies to "having your town invaded by people from out of state with big guns".
The Third 'guy'. Gaige Grosskreutz, was actually legally armed. I already participated in this debate on another forum, and it's amazing how conservative supposed gun right respecters, will rag on a Leftist for being legally armed and responsibly using it, while defending a moron using an illegal carried firearm to massacre people. Maybe it's because conservatives don't actually respect gun rights, just their guns. Reagan after all passed gun control to target the Black Panthers.
The rule is, conservatives can do whatever they want with a gun. Point it at a crowd like those Missouri diphorsehockys. Sure. Shoot people. Go for it.
But an unarmed black person. That's a threat. Skateboard. Threat. Gun in hands of non conservative. Yep shoot him.
I have watched the videos. He wasn't aiming it at Rittenhouse when shot and was actually practicing proper form, unlike Rittenhouse. He was also there at the protest as a medic. He wasn't roaming around looking for trouble like Rittenhouse, he has just a gun in hand because a killer had just slain two people. For all he knew, he was stopping a potential escalating massacre. He's a hero. He would have been within his rights to shoot Rittenhouse immediately, instead of trying to disarm him.
Last edited:
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
Yet you took the energy to type something off topic to the thread at me specifically, to accuse me of junk, which is notably more energy than doing nothing. Sorry, but I'm not going to show respect when posts aren't willing to even give benefit of the doubt in a discussion in the first place. "You're bad in some way so can't possibly be worth discussing with" is a non-starter for conversation. If you want to stop acting like cattle at a keyboard and participate in the thread at any point, that's still on the table, but for now that's all you've done.
Kyle Rittenhouse was the victim of violent crime, as in he was objectively (per the complaint document) assaulted three separate times by rioters. You might notice that Rittenhouse is a human being who credibly had his life threatened. He even attempted to leave the threatening situation, before killing the criminals attacking him.
Bottom line, criminal rioters should have stayed home that day.
Even if the court dismisses the case today and nobody ever harasses him again, he did not "get off free".
A skateboard swung to the head can seriously injure or kill someone. A skateboard swung to the head of someone with a gun is playing a stupid game, and he deserved his prize. Same deal for running down someone with a gun and grabbing it. These are not innocent people and neither of them were even kind-of "unarmed civilians". They were criminal assailants going after someone who was attempting to leave the situation. According to the documentation regarding his charges, not him or his defense. He is more or less being accused of self-defense.
Riots. "Protests" do not involve looting property or starting fires. Those are called riots. Rittenhouse was engaged in the first place because he put out a fire, fire that was not started on the property of the rioters.
Where did you get this? He was initially there at the request of a business owner, to discourage rioters from targeting that specific property. Was this part of a larger vigilante group? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this would be new information for me.
I don't think it was automated? It's not easy to get your hands on those unless you're in armed forces.
Close, but it can broadly be separated into three incidents (according to criminal complaint document):
- Rittenhouse moves away from a rioter, around a car. Rioter chases, grabs at his rifle, gets shot dead. This is why they tell you not to grab people's guns. It's an even better piece for advice criminal assailants than it usually is, assuming the criminal wants to live.
- After some time, Rittenhouse, while still moving away from that scene and trying to avoid the crowd heckling him, gets assaulted by rioter with skateboard. I will put an image or two of what this looks like in spoilers. It's not like someone was "brandishing a skateboard" or some nonsense. This guy was actively beating on him with it while he was on the ground already.. Stupid games, stupid prizes.Spoiler :
- 3rd rioter straight up points a gun at Rittenhouse, while he is still on the ground. Obvious consequences.
This happened because rioters assaulted a guy after he put out a fire that the rioters started. Now, what would have happened if Rittenhouse had put out the fire while not having the gun? The first person who attacked him was older, bigger, and stronger from what I could tell. Most likely, he gets himself beat up. Instead, it's the criminal rioters who got clapped in textbook self-defense.
I put images we had within days of the incident above, but I'm not sure what he even has to prove. I again emphasize that it's the *criminal complaint* document that alleges each of these rioters assaulted him first. Not the defense, the actual position of the state before even bringing charges is that he shot people after they assaulted him with credible threat of serious bodily harm!
Last edited:
Senethro
Overlord
If it is judged to be legal, the law in the jurisdiction is broken!
Moriarte
Immortal
- Joined
- May 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,433
Yeah, I saw a video back in the day of other vigilantes present at the scene, giving out interviews, I assumed they coordinated with Rittenhouse, but that’s just my interpretation, didn’t really look into it. Thanks for expanding on the subject, with pictures.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
So the other guy with the gun who didn't shoot anyone is the true culprit.
It was not legal for him to be armed.
And he wasn't going for a stroll and got attacked. He armed himself and crossed state lines to confront the people he shot.
Last edited:
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
That guy committed criminal assault, so yes he is a culprit. He should be in jail, and remain there for years, for assault. Losing a gunfight he starts does not absolve him of responsibility for starting it. Here is a picture for context:
Spoiler :
Rittenhouse is again already on the ground. Rittenhouse did not approach this guy or willingly engage with him. This guy instead approached him, while he was already down/having been assaulted, and pointed a gun his way. Guy is a small wrist movement from having that handgun on his head. Off with his arm, and nothing of value was lost.
It's not clear Wisconsin bans possession of long rifles to people his age in this context, but this is the only thing they can get Rittenhouse on, so they will probably try.
This has been a common and misleading talking point for over a year. The drive to Kenosha from where he lives is short, and he worked there. This was not some random distant community he went to in order to fight. He was there because someone who owned a business there knew him and asked him to be there. Notably in contrast with some of the rioters.
This, however, is factually inaccurate. Rittenhouse was confronted by the rioters, not the other way around. You might not like this reality, but it is the fact pattern used in the document charging him. If Rittenhouse initiated the conflict, it would be extremely weird for the criminal complaint to say the opposite.
Last edited:
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
like ok but this is like saying the n-word isn't a problem because the korean word for hello is a homonym
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
That is probably still less of a reach than assuming any given person happens to know about some 4 chan prank that idiots took seriously, and now is using the 4 chan prank in a serious fashion.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Yea, it was a prank, but at this point it's quite weaponized. However, it's naturally a thing weaponized that's hard to see whether used seriously or not. As they say "Don't show your power level", and I'm not kidding.
Warned for flaming
@TheMeInTeam is a flat-out racist and a fascist. Moderator Action: Seriously, this is not how we discuss here!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 There is no slicing or dicing it. He does not care about bad faith, he relishes it. If you want to know, who ends up making the foot soldiers, for terrible horsehocky that has gone down, it's always people like him. He is already brazenly dehumanising the people, who tried to stop a string of murders, and at a protest, was serving as a medic. He talks about how dangerous a skateboard is ... while defending the right of a idiot to recklessly use a firearm.
Meanwhile, he calls the Jan 6 Insurrection, an explicit attack to overthrow the government, a protest. Kenosha. It's all a riot, and they can all be shot. The Bad Faith is dripping from every bit of his post. If you agree with him, it's not because he is making reasoned arguments, he isn't. It's because you agree with his stance that a violent racial hierarchy should be maintained.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889 There is no slicing or dicing it. He does not care about bad faith, he relishes it. If you want to know, who ends up making the foot soldiers, for terrible horsehocky that has gone down, it's always people like him. He is already brazenly dehumanising the people, who tried to stop a string of murders, and at a protest, was serving as a medic. He talks about how dangerous a skateboard is ... while defending the right of a idiot to recklessly use a firearm.
Meanwhile, he calls the Jan 6 Insurrection, an explicit attack to overthrow the government, a protest. Kenosha. It's all a riot, and they can all be shot. The Bad Faith is dripping from every bit of his post. If you agree with him, it's not because he is making reasoned arguments, he isn't. It's because you agree with his stance that a violent racial hierarchy should be maintained.
Last edited by a moderator:
Moderator Action: Everyone's been here long enough to know how to discuss in a civil way. Yet you don't.
This changes now, or people will get kicked from this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This changes now, or people will get kicked from this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I've only heard that quote in regards to content that is NSFW in the more traditional sense.
I don't think it's fair or even reasonable to allow 4 chan to co-opt a basic, commonly used/accepted hand gesture by virtually everyone and make it mean something else. If you allow the "ok" sign to mean "white power" despite how preposterous and intentionally-memed that was, what other routine/convenient actions/gestures CAN'T be similarly associated with some kind of vile stance and "weaponized"? What's next? Pointing your finger means insurrection? Whistling anything at all means that you are among the population that likes taking tire irons to puppies?
A major part of the point of that trolling was to make people who took it seriously look stupid. To let some anonymous internet trolls rule a small aspect of their lives in hysteria over an alleged dog whistle, even as prominent people and people in daily life keep using it normally. Part of that prank's points was that it shouldn't work. And yet apparently, it did anyway. News sources took it seriously enough to use it selectively when convenient to reporting.
And now a malicious prosecution (so called for how they are trying to out Rittenhouse's location and donors) team is trying to use this 4 chan trolling against someone in a textbook self-defense case.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
That's all and good, but think of what you're saying by "allow". Some gestures, phrases, and memes (in the non-internet sense) are just co-opted by movements. That's how the world works. You could argue that this is unfair and that it means humans work in an impractical way - and yes, that's true, but you can't change that. You have to relate to what the world actually is and work within it. A white power guy doing the ok sign is because he can't do the Hitler salute, which is, again, co-opted from the Romans.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
This only gains traction if the wider populace agrees with the meaning, however.
Even right this second, I would be *extremely* surprised to find out that "ok" means "white power" in the eyes of the majority of Americans. I would put my estimate at <10% of Americans would even associate the reference, with only a tiny subset of those then agreeing that it should actually mean that. It's not "white supremacists" co-opting the sign. It was a troll in the first place. News outlets are themselves trying to give it that meaning, though only when convenient of course.
Also it's very notable that neither OP nor quoted article actually described what the "white power signs" were, for exactly this reason. They are getting close to lawsuit territory, apparently not learning lessons from the Covington situation where news media had to hand out settlement money to make that libel case go away.
