Prosecutors seek to rearrest Kyle Rittenhouse, saying he violated terms of his release

His parents should be the ones on trial.

What did his father do? Best I can tell, the father had nothing to do with this at all, Kyle lived with his single mother. About all I can find on the father is he was ordered to pay child support, something millions of fathers have to do.

There has been fake pictures of his parents posted. Fake claims the father works with the police department, and no evidence the mother drove him to the protest, that has been claimed.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-parents/
 
You said it was 'a largely Western thing'. I never heard about here, and even our google does not come up with anything.

I'm sorry if I sounded blunt - I didn't mean to stir trouble.
Now, this said: it is entirely possible that it's something that's happening, just at the local/national level, and has not yet reached our latitudes. Just check, I'll take your answer.

I think I understand where communications went wrong! I believe it is a largely Western thing, but even as a Western thing, it's not widely known - I just don't think it exists at all outside white populations. It's a phenomenon that's only in the West and is rarely identified there. Does this make sense? :)
 
What did his father do? Best I can tell, the father had nothing to do with this at all, Kyle lived with his single mother. About all I can find on the father is he was ordered to pay child support, something millions of fathers have to do.

There has been fake pictures of his parents posted. Fake claims the father works with the police department, and no evidence the mother drove him to the protest, that has been claimed.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-parents/

I stand corrected. I was under the incorrect impression that his parents knew that he had armed himself and where he was.
 
I think I understand where communications went wrong! I believe it is a largely Western thing, but even as a Western thing, it's not widely known - I just don't think it exists at all outside white populations. It's a phenomenon that's only in the West and is rarely identified there. Does this make sense? :)

Ok, thank you :goodjob:. So you mean that some far-right groups use the thumbs up as a surrogate of the nazi salute, but it's not a phenomenon known by the public (which, I guess, is why they adopted it).
 
Last edited:
The context of the white power sign is not a friend for young Kyle!

Based on the hearings, the character assassination junk probably isn't going to make it into court, because it isn't relevant. Someone under imminent threat of bodily harm has a self-defense claim, and the charging documentation stated he was under imminent threat of bodily harm when he fired his weapon.

The prosecution may try to claim good character of the criminals who attacked him, if they're not good at their job. Won't go well for them if they try that.

This sounds a bit like a vigilante group:

Where was this group during the incident in question? Everything I've seen indicated that during the times he was assaulted, Rittenhouse was alone.

How were they criminals? They hadn’t (and still haven’t) been charged with any crimes yet.

Two of the assailants actually had prior criminal history, including violence. But the reason I called them criminals is because we have both physical evidence and witness testimony (including the state) that they assaulted a person who was attempting to retreat. Since assault is a crime, they were criminals.

The dead can't be charged with crimes, so it's odd to mention that. I have some idea as to why the criminal who approached a guy on the ground with a gun and pointed it towards him wasn't charged, and it isn't a good reason. That guy still committed assault and still won a stupid prize, but should win an additional bonus prize of being a one-armed dude in jail.

I first noticed this in post #27 (where TMIT helpfully bolds its usage)

It came to my attention on page 2 that there was a misunderstanding about what was happening in Kenosha. Some were under the mistaken impression that what was going there, as well as what prompted Rittenhouse's presence, was a protest. It's not an unreasonable mistake, since some media misrepresented it that way too.

I figured I could clear that up, and emphasize that it was objectively a riot. A riot that included both burning and looting, in addition to threat of murder. I figured I could helpfully emphasize that the presence of burning and looting at an event constitutes a riot by definition. So I bolded those words, for helpful context.
 
So should have poor George floyd, guess neither was a fortune teller
Ah yes, the very logical and not at all fallacious equivalence of someone who was killed by the police and someone who went out with a rifle that he was carrying illegally (by state law).

I figured I could clear that up, and emphasize that it was objectively a riot.
Objectively, there were also ongoing protests that escalated after clashes with law enforcement. Describing the ongoing event as "a riot" is both bad faith and, by the literal available recorded history of what transpired, not "objective". It's "bad faith" because anybody who can read your posts here can see how selectively you're (mis)representing aspects of both the ongoing legal case and the events that happened at the time.

But you selectively skipped the parts of Edmund's posts that corrected you on other aspects, so I expect the denial of reality to continue unabated.
 
I love conversations about secret water buffalo knocks. They've been fun ever since I realized handkerchiefs are both loyalty and preference markers. They still hold snot just fine.
 
Ah yes, the very logical and not at all fallacious equivalence of someone who was killed by the police and someone who went out with a rifle that he was carrying illegally (by state law).


Objectively, there were also ongoing protests that escalated after clashes with law enforcement. Describing the ongoing event as "a riot" is both bad faith and, by the literal available recorded history of what transpired, not "objective". It's "bad faith" because anybody who can read your posts here can see how selectively you're (mis)representing aspects of both the ongoing legal case and the events that happened at the time.

But you selectively skipped the parts of Edmund's posts that corrected you on other aspects, so I expect the denial of reality to continue unabated.
yes, hindsight
 
yes, hindsight
Hindsight should involve agency. If people didn't go outside based on the chance they might be murdered by the people nominally recruited to protect them, the people nominally recruited to protect them would still end up killing or harming others. The person with the most agency in that equation is the police officer(s).

The person with the most agency in Rittenhouse's case is Rittenhouse himself. Not the ill person he shot dead, or any events that followed due to that.

EDIT

I guess a better word is culpability? Use whichever makes the most sense.
 
Last edited:
yes, hindsight

Fortunately, there are recordings.

Now we fight and quibble about whether rioters can be called rioters, but probably thankfully not if committing a misdemeanor waives the right to self defense because it pretty clearly does not. That takes a pretty special law and order sort to argue with a straight face.
 
I'm not dodging anything. I answered the questions you gave. It's not my fault you don't like the answers.

B: What would you do in his situation?
G: I wouldn't be in his situation

is not an answer

The fires didn't cause people to turn up with rifles. If you want to put out fires, you put out fires. If you want to escalate, that choice is on you. If the area's supposedly too dangerous to go without a gun, don't go in the first place. Not unless you're comfortable with the idea of getting into a firefight over putting out a fire in a rubbish bin. In that case, that choice - accepting that risk - is on you as well.

You're moving the goalposts because your brain is struggling to accept the mighty concept of "what if not guns". I believe the phrase you're looking for is "cognitive dissonance".

The threat of fires caused people to show up with guns and the kid was putting out fires, thats why he was attacked. He was a 1st responder, firefighter and medic. His reward was 3 people attacking him and a murder charge for defending himself. Now whats this about goalposts?

Some people are pretending to debate the "whats" of this situation, but they're actually arguing the "who". I first noticed this in post #27 (where TMIT helpfully bolds its usage), but Berz is adding to it by putting the parties in good and bad categories.

The kid has been charged with murder, people in the debate have already put him into the bad category. And people are putting these 4 guys into good and bad categories based on 'what' they did, not who they are. Haven't you?

Won't anybody think of the poor dumpsters?

From the reporting I heard the dumpster was being pushed up against a building to set it on fire when other people intervened to save the business.
 
B: What would you do in his situation?
G: I wouldn't be in his situation

is not an answer
Why isn't it?

Besides, you were perfectly happy to accept it for the first few posts, why is it suddenly not an answer?
The threat of fires caused people to show up with guns
Yeah, see, this is what I was on about when I said you're struggling with the concept of "what if not guns". You don't make fires go away by shooting at them.
 
Where was this group during the incident in question? Everything I've seen indicated that during the times he was assaulted, Rittenhouse was alone.

The New Yorker article does not provide a clear reason why Rittenhouse left the group.

"Among the crowd was an agitated bald guy in his mid-thirties, with a ginger goatee and an earring... At the Ultimate Convenience Center, he confronted the armed men, screaming both “Don’t point no motherfudging gun at me!” and “Shoot me!
A man yelled, “Somebody control him!”
During the chaos, Rittenhouse moved down the street toward Car Source’s second mechanic shop, where rioters had been smashing car windows. He crossed paths with the angry bald man, who chased him into the shop’s parking area. The man now wore his T-shirt as a head wrap and face mask, leaving his torso bare. Screaming “fudge you!,” he threw his plastic bag at Rittenhouse’s back."

Now we fight and quibble...but probably thankfully not if committing a misdemeanor waives the right to self defense because it pretty clearly does not. That takes a pretty special law and order sort to argue with a straight face.

Surely context, situation, and proportionality have to be considered, unless you would shoot dead a woman who slapped you across the face?

He was a 1st responder, firefighter and medic.

Only in his mind. In reality those roles require a certain level of training I believe...
 
Last edited:
If she chased me down and was looking to pistol whip me, I mean, aside from probably defecating I think all other reactions are sort of arguable and probably in play.
 
Surely context, situation, and proportionality have to be considered, unless you would shoot dead a woman who slapped you across the face?

Indeed, this is why it is important that the criminal complaint provided evidence that Rittenhouse was consistently under imminent threat of serious bodily harm in each of the 3 shooting incidents.

A woman slapping someone is not likely to kill them. A person pursuing + grabbing a rifle can do that. People have been sent to the hospital over getting beaten with a skateboard, so even that one (the least threat), was still justified.

I often see a lot of arguments like "he shouldn't have been there in the first place". Which is victim blaming. If a woman goes to a bar, follows a man home, refuses consent, then get raped, it's true that she could have avoided being assaulted by not going there. But going there doesn't take away her rights or make a criminal something else. It's completely asinine to say it wasn't rape based on that. Yet that same rationale just...poof. Gone in this case. Despite that Rittenhouse had at least as much right to be there as the rioters. Despite that he tried to put distance between himself and the rioters, they still pursued and attacked him each time. Those are not facts in dispute, at least not by the criminal complaint or prosecution.

You know who else could have not been in that situation? All three criminal rioters who decided it was a good idea to attack a guy with a rifle. Nobody forced them to go riot, nobody forced them to engage with Rittenhouse. Nobody forced them to pursue Rittenhouse when he tried to leave. Nobody forced them to assault him. Every single one of those things were decisions each of them made. The one saving grace in this case is that the victim actually defended himself, something for which he has been heavily criticized. I'd rather three criminal assailants 6 feet under than their victim, though. In this case, the presence of a gun protected the innocent. At least, it did from physical harm that day. Even when he's acquitted, he'll have paid a significant price for protecting himself.
 
Top Bottom