2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Yeekim]

yea its a ******* lie, the footage starts after he already killed someone over them "lunging at him with a plastic bag" or some ****. Stupid people win stupid prizes.

What is a lie?
Your own link clearly says he was being chased before the first shooting (and before the second as well).

 

[Estebonrober]

What is a lie?
Your own link clearly says he was being chased before the first shooting (and before the second as well).

No he doesn't. It says he was being followed, but the whole group was walking that way. If he felt he was being pursued that is on him, if he picked a fight at a tense protest that is on him, if he then fired on someone who either was or was not actually lunging at him (with nothing and at least 10 feet away per the photo) and killed them, that makes him guilty of at least reckless homicide or some similar charge imo. This seems to be very similar to the Portland incident which I think deserved the basic same kind of litigation, instead he was probably murdered by a renegade police force in Oregon. Meanwhile Rittenhouse is now a hero on the Right. Its evil, the right have become a group of Bond Villians, and yes that includes people here.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't know (and don't care to know) enough about this to have an opinion whether he acted in self-defense or not.

That's the problem; you don't care enough to educate yourself but you care enough to put your opinions out there

 

[Yeekim]

That's the problem; you don't care enough to educate yourself but you care enough to put your opinions out there

My only - but indeed strongly held - opinion is that basic facts should not be treated as partisan. Those who do it are part of the problem.

 

[Yeekim]

No he doesn't. It says he was being followed

Directly from your own link:

Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group,

 

[Gori the Grey]

All the basic facts or just some of them?

 

[Yeekim]

All the basic facts or just some of them?

What made you think you need to ask this?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I had no idea who the hell Rittenhouse is, but a short Google search found me this article:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonline.com/amp/3537879001

Based on this, it seems he indeed ran away from the guys he shot.

That a statement of a simple fact is in itself enough to identify who said it, honestly tells more about the rest of this forum than it tells about @Berzerker.

Bzzzt, Wrong. Berz said:

And Rittenhouse was running away from the attackers he shot

You said:

he indeed ran away from the guys he shot.

In this context there is a significant difference. Berz's chosen language is specifically chosen to impute fault on to the people Rittenhouse shot. You are trying to defend Berz as giving a simply factual account, but in order to do that, you needed to misquote what he actually said in order to remove the blame-shifting, apologist nature of Berz's statement. I don't know whether you intentionally did that in a bad faith attempt to spin on Berz's behalf... or if you just subconsciously did it without even realizing it because you identify with his side. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume its the latter.

Anyway, from the article you linked:

Rittenhouse, 17, shot three people, killing two, at the Kenosha protests stemming from the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse is charged with two counts of homicide, among other serious offenses, but many across the country and around the world have backed his actions as self-defense, or even praised him as a patriot or hero. The video — released Tuesday and aired in part on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show — is a one-sided effort that seeks to further that narrative.
RELATED: Here’s what Tucker Carlson got wrong about the Kenosha shootings
Here are the basics on the video’s origins, purpose and content.
Who made it?
The video was created by #FightBack, a foundation created by Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense team. L. Lin Wood, one of his attorneys, is listed as chairman of the foundation’s board and CEO. The foundation was incorporated in Texas on Aug. 12, about two weeks before the Kenosha shootings. The website says it exists to “fight back to protect individual rights and stop those who would use political power to attack constitutional rights.” The site’s “About” page calls on “Freedom loving Americans” to “defeat the evil forces of the left.” The YouTube post of the video includes a link to the foundation and to PayPal, where viewers can donate to Rittenhouse’s defense fund. As of Friday, the website said the foundation had raised more than $2 million for Rittenhouse.
What is it for?
The video is made by Rittenhouse’s defense team and provides clues to their likely legal strategy. But a produced video like this would not be considered evidence in court — though some of the included footage could be introduced on its own. Instead, it is part of the ongoing public relations effort to portray Rittenhouse as a patriot and hero.

TL;DR - Rittenhouse is a killer and has been charged with homicide. The video is propaganda, produced by Rittenhouse's legal defense team to spin his homicidal actions as heroic.

 

[Yeekim]

@Sommerswerd
Well, the NYT says he was being "pursued" or "chased". I don't think it is a stretch to go from "pursuer" or "chaser" to "attacker".

And yes, the article I linked makes clear the video from his defense team is biased (as is expected). Which is why I haven't watched it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@SommerswerdWell, the NYT says he was being "pursued" or "chased". I don't think it is a stretch to go from "pursuer" or "chaser" to "attacker".

And yes, the article I linked makes clear the video from his defense team is biased (as is expected). Which is why I haven't watched it.

Whether its a "stretch" or not is an irrelevant red herring. You misquoted him, period. There's no "stretching" out of that. Its just a fact. What I was addressing is why you misquoted. The fact that you misquoted is beyond dispute.

 

[Gorbles]

It's not a link from his defense team, as should be obvious. It is a link to an article discussing a video of his defense team, while being clearly critical to its (obviously) biased nature. Yet it says he was running away from those he shot.
And yes, I googled "rittenhouse", got a bunch of results on some historical figure and a video, a headline of which told me the guy's name is Kyle. Didn't feel like watching any videos, so googled "rittenhouse kyle". The link I posted was among the very first.
Don't feel like doing any more research, so if you have something from a "major news outlet" contradicting my point, feel free to post it.

The article wouldn't exist without the video itself, and the video's source. What's the point in playing semantics? You're the one who generalised a load of OT posters.

Sommerswerd covered the points raised very well, so I don't need to repeat it. But yes, if you're going to Google a single word then that's naturally going to make for some amusing results, even on Google (or especially on Google? Perhaps).

A last repetition from me that I don't need to contradict anything. Your point has been disproven, thanks to Sommerswerd's exhaustive explanation. This is not a thread to go over Rittenhouse again, which is why I'm doing my best to avoid being drawn into that tangent.

 

[Sommerswerd]

@Sommerswerd Well, the NYT says he was being "pursued" or "chased". I don't think it is a stretch to go from "pursuer" or "chaser" to "attacker".

Ugh... I wanted to move this to the BLM and Protests Thread or the George Floyd and Protesting Thread but I can't...

What I wanted to alert you to... is that you didn't extend this reasoning Trayvon Martin, who was certainly being "pursued" or "chased" by George Zimmerman. As a reminder, speaking about Trayvon Martin, you said:

Why would I immediately start fearing for my life merely because someone is following me? And if I really feared for my life, I would either try to escape or surrender my valuables. If I thought I have a chance in a fight, I would not hit before trying to clarify the situation with words.

So you apply this standard to Trayvon but apparently not Rittenhouse. Why is that? Its a rhetorical question of course, you don't need to bother answering... just something for you to think about.

 

[Lexicus]

My mail-in ballot went to the dropbox yesterday. I ended up voting for Biden, but wasn't very happy about it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My mail-in ballot went to the dropbox yesterday. I ended up voting for Biden, but wasn't very happy about it.

We can be unhappy together. Hopefully its not all in vain.

He was not killed for "walking while black", he was killed because he decided to violently confront his pursuer.

Just to put a finer point on it, here you are explicitly referring to Zimmerman as Trayvon's "pursuer". So according to your Rittenhouse standard, that would have made him an "attacker" of Trayvon. But of course in that case, you didn't see it that way. Instead, you said:

If he had a gun with him, should he have specifically left it behind? After all, it proved to be exactly the kind of situation where having a gun was useful: he got attacked.

So in that case it was Trayvon, the one being pursued, in your own words, who was the attacker, but with Rittenhouse its the other way around. Again... just something for you to think about.

 

[Yeekim]

So you apply this standard to Trayvon but apparently not Rittenhouse.

If you think these situations are similar, why don't you extend Rittenhouse the same justifications you apparently extend to Martin?
The latter had one guy walking after him on a quiet street, afaik displaying no aggression
The former had an entire group of arsonists running after him, in the middle of a city being burned down, with shots fired in the distance.

EDIT: And even so, I'm not convinced that the first shot by Rittenhouse should be considered self-defense. I said so before and having watched the video now, I'm still undecided.

 

[cardgame]

If the first shot isn't self defense then none of it is, as he became a threat to the public that they were trying, ineptly, to halt.

 

[Farm Boy]

No he doesn't. It says he was being followed, but the whole group was walking that way. If he felt he was being pursued that is on him, if he picked a fight at a tense protest that is on him, if he then fired on someone who either was or was not actually lunging at him (with nothing and at least 10 feet away per the photo) and killed them, that makes him guilty of at least reckless homicide or some similar charge imo. This seems to be very similar to the Portland incident which I think deserved the basic same kind of litigation, instead he was probably murdered by a renegade police force in Oregon. Meanwhile Rittenhouse is now a hero on the Right. Its evil, the right have become a group of Bond Villians, and yes that includes people here.

Sharks with laz0rz on their head man.

Don't worry, we aren't immune from histrionic rage either.

 

[Yeekim]

If the first shot isn't self defense then none of it is, as he became a threat to the public that they were trying, ineptly, to halt.

Point taken.

 

[Lexicus]

entire group of arsonists running after him, in the middle of a city being burned down,

These are both lies. You are a liar. Or you have been deceived by a liar.

 

[Farm Boy]

Minnesota asked for $500 in funds to help rebuilt from the damage. Kenosha is small and modest at about $11 million worth of fire damage.