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

[Gorbles]

Yes, blaming the kid who illegally carried a rifle for the things he did with that rifle is "victim blaming". Behold, the masterful command of logic.

Personally I'd say describing the death of an unarmed man - who was ill - as "play stupid games, win stupid prizes", is actually victim blaming.

It's like I said previously. Self defense is only for people with guns, according to this argument. Everyone else just has to be cool with the people with guns, and shouldn't complain or do anything about this obvious threat in their midst. This hurts responsible gun owners too, which is why it's doubly funny watching this reactionary need to defend a 17 year old illegally carrying.

You see, TMIT and others show that they understand causality when they say "the shooting victims shouldn't have been there". And then they completely ignore it by defending Rittenhouse's presence. This is the definition of a bad faith argument. It's not applied consistently. The same rules don't apply to different people in the same situation. It's just a tool to use in an argument on the Internet.

Trying to compare someone who killed others with a gun he wasn't allowed to carry to a victim of rape is a nice touch, though. It's there so people get mad at that instead of keeping it on topic. Bad faith, y'see.

All three criminal rioters

And just for another time, mainly for the thread's benefit, but the first person shot and killed was ill.

Not a protestor, and not rioting. Ill. That's how much TMIT respects the facts of this case

 

[Hygro]

I was annoyed by the “white power gesture” claim. But then I looked at the picture and it’s like, looked like the white power version so carry on.

 

[Farm Boy]

If he wasn't before, he will be now.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Hey folks, we've noticed an abundance of post reporting around this thread. They have been mostly about shutting down political and social positions the reporter doesn't like or complaints about ignoring "facts" or attacking individual posters. We want the discussion to continue but need all of you to remain civil and stick to what you know and say why you think blah blah blah. If the conversation gets loose and off into la la land, we will ice it for a few days. We are paying attention. We (several regular staff) read all the reports even if you don't see some in thread response. Please remember the forum rules. Thanks.

 

[Berzerker]

Which of these roles requires a firearm?

Both, firefighters and medics call people with guns to protect them in dangerous situations. The kid was right, he needed the gun. Cant argue with reality.

Why isn't it?

Besides, you were perfectly happy to accept it for the first few posts, why is it suddenly not an answer?

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.

You make fires go away by putting them out, the guns come in handy when the arsonists attack you. If that happened to a firefighter would anyone call them a murderer because they had to shoot a pissed off arsonist attacking them? I asked what you'd do in that situation, not if you would avoid it.

Only in his mind. In reality those roles require a certain level of training I believe...

In reality he was actually out there protecting people's property with a fire extinguisher and treating minor wounds with a first aid kit. That wasn't just in his mind, he was attacked for his efforts.

@Senethro said this was about who and not what. If Rittenhouse was putting out fires started by klansmen and had to kill one in self defense would 'the who' matter? I think most of the people calling for his head would be singing a different tune based entirely on 'who' was rioting.

 

[Ajidica]

I've forgotten a lot about what was going on in this case, but wasn't it essentially a high schooler decided to put on his cosplaytriot gear to go 'be a militia' in an area under curfew. He then got bored and wandered off. He then got spooked in a situation of mistaken identity and uncertainty at night. Rather than identifying the problem and either reducing tensions or removing himself from the situation, he opened fire? I don't know how Wisconsin self-defense law works, but I'm pretty sure in Minnesota that self defense claims are under a higher burden when you elect to insert yourself into a situation.

Back when Flying Pig was around (ex-British Army paratrooper who served in policing roles in Aden and Northern Ireland, fought in the Falklands) and similar self defense situation came up, he repeatedly noted that the number one lesson that should be hammered into every firearm owners head is that as the one with the gun, it is your obligation to take all appropriate steps to reduce tension and avoid the use of the firearm - and in his terms that would include not wandering off at night into the bad parts of Belfast by yourself.

 

[Senethro]

@Senethro said this was about who and not what. If Rittenhouse was putting out fires started by klansmen and had to kill one in self defense would 'the who' matter? I think most of the people calling for his head would be singing a different tune based entirely on 'who' was rioting.

No I didn't. I said that some people claimed to be arguing whats but were actually arguing whos.

 

[Gorbles]

You make fires go away by putting them out, the guns come in handy when the arsonists attack you.

Why would a gun be handy? Why would the arsonists attack you? You're literally just inventing justifications to have to use a gun. You don't have to use a gun. That's the entire point. You choose to. If these alleged arsonists (because lighting a bin on fire is a rather . . . loaded interpretation of "arson" to say the least) attack you - hypothetically - and then also happen to have firearms of their own - again, hypothetically - you'd have to ask yourself if that's a situation you want to insert yourself into.

"they might have guns so I need to bring mine" only works if someone else brings a gun. Otherwise, the only person escalating is you. Your choice. Your moral culpability. If you choose to go and put out fires in full knowledge that you're prepared to shoot someone who intervenes, that is your morality. You have decided that that is an appropriate response, ahead of time. That is a choice for which you are personally responsible for. I thought libertarians were big on that?

If that happened to a firefighter would anyone call them a murderer because they had to shoot a pissed off arsonist attacking them? I asked what you'd do in that situation, not if you would avoid it.

Once again, a firefighter has training. You can invent as many hypothetical scenarios as you want, but the reality is they need to discussed as and when they happen. There's no blanket ruling. We can't speculate on what'd happen to an armed firefighter, considering the rules for such will vary by state. That's "reality", as you put it.

As for what I'd do in that situation: I wouldn't let myself get in that situation. That is my answer, and you can't force me to change it just because you don't like it. If it's my personal choice to open carry a gun illegally, I would not. I might as well ask you "what if you were put in a sensory deprivation cell and forced to say you approve of Joe Biden". It's a pointless question. It demonstrates nothing. If I were forced into that situation through no fault of my own, it wouldn't be comparable to Rittenhouse's situation, who chose to be there and chose to be armed. My choice would be to not do either of those things, or at the very least, not be armed. Simple.

 

[FriendlyFire]

let us hope neo-Nazis dont adopt Spock's long live and prosper hand gesture

The Swaztiker isnt NAZI hate symbol, its a Buddist symbol of peace.
Everyone Knows that
/s

I suggest using some critical thinking skills to understand the differance.
On A buddist Statue (Not Nazi)
on a known white supremist (Nazi)

 

[tjs282]

So you mean that some far-right groups use the thumbs up as a surrogate of the nazi salute,

Not the thumbs-up, those White Power ****holes are trying to co-opt the "OK" sign (make an 'o' of your thumb + first finger, with the other 3 fingers fully extended).

As an aside, this actually really p***** me off (sorry, Mods) — because this hand-sign has been in standard use by divers (both commercial + recreational) for the past 50+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_communications

So there are likely more than a few photos online of me using this hand-sign (including here at CFC), and it does make me a little nervous to consider that anyone happening upon (or actively searching for) my online history, might then mistakenly assume that I'm one of those **********ers.

And PADI alone issues thousands of new diving-certs per year, so I'm sure I'm not the only one: this hand-sign is likely being flashed in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of diving-related photos online.

 

[Naskra]

those White Power ****holes are trying to co-opt the "OK" sign

It was the Wokelings who declared it a white power signal, the ^^^holes are just running with the gag.

 

[Gorbles]

It was the Wokelings who declared it a white power signal, the ^^^holes are just running with the gag.

More revisionist history in real time

See, this is exactly why people stop caring about the difference between "people who are deliberately spreading the dogwhistle" and "people who have made fighting progressives on literally anything their entire ideology, regardless of how sensible it is". Because one feeds into the other.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Both, firefighters and medics call people with guns to protect them in dangerous situations. The kid was right, he needed the gun. Cant argue with reality.

Big difference between calling in the police to protect you and being the one creating a dangerous situation.
Rittenhouse didn't need to be there, wasn't effectively defending anything, and chose to carry an illegal firearm.

 

[Sofista]

Not the thumbs-up, those White Power ****holes are trying to co-opt the "OK" sign (make an 'o' of your thumb + first finger, with the other 3 fingers fully extended).

As an aside, this actually really p***** me off (sorry, Mods) — because this hand-sign has been in standard use by divers (both commercial + recreational) for the past 50+ years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diver_communications

So there are likely more than a few photos online of me using this hand-sign (including here at CFC), and it does make me a little nervous to consider that anyone happening upon (or actively searching for) my online history, might then mistakenly assume that I'm one of those **********ers.

And PADI alone issues thousands of new diving-certs per year, so I'm sure I'm not the only one: this hand-sign is likely being flashed in tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of diving-related photos online.

Fight and reclaim it, I'd say. I know I use it often, not held high, but while speaking to make points (as in, I'd move my arm forward three times while doing it when I say 'One. More. Time.' for emphasis). It's an old, old gesture!

Also: fascinating to read the breadth of sign language divers use. I thought ELF radio would have supplanted that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I've forgotten a lot about what was going on in this case, but wasn't it essentially a high schooler decided to put on his cosplaytriot gear to go 'be a militia' in an area under curfew. He then got bored and wandered off. He then got spooked in a situation of mistaken identity and uncertainty at night. Rather than identifying the problem and either reducing tensions or removing himself from the situation, he opened fire?

No, according to the criminal complaint, he actually did remove himself from the situation, only to be chased and assaulted. He opened fire while those assaults were ongoing, per witness testimony and the complaint itself.

I'm pretty sure in Minnesota that self defense claims are under a higher burden when you elect to insert yourself into a situation.

The problem for the prosecution, and it's a massive freaking hurdle, is that it is THEIR story that the rioters approached Rittenhouse, and also THEIR story that he attempted to move away from them, only to be pursued and assaulted. They are attempting a murder conviction despite alleging these as facts of the case.

and in his terms that would include not wandering off at night into the bad parts of Belfast by yourself.

Being in a bad part of town isn't a crime, however, and would apply equally to all present there. It doesn't remove a right to self-defense when pursued/assaulted, which again is what the criminal complaint is alleging, not the defense!

So there are likely more than a few photos online of me using this hand-sign (including here at CFC), and it does make me a little nervous to consider that anyone happening upon (or actively searching for) my online history, might then mistakenly assume that I'm one of those **********ers.

The point of the 4 chan prank was to make people who took it seriously look extremely stupid, for accepting that something so common would mean something racist.

It says a lot about mainstream media and the targets of said prank that it was not only taken seriously, but unironically taken as fact and used against people to which it does not apply.

It was the Wokelings who declared it a white power signal, the ^^^holes are just running with the gag.

Specifically, it was a 4 chan prank to get a reaction from people who would accept it w/o rational thought. Not only did it work, it worked comically well. All that said, since it is a widely accepted gesture that has nothing to do with "white power", claiming people are making "white power" gestures is libel bordering on actual malice. Similar for "x is a white supremacist", when making such claims, there better be evidence to back them that will hold up in defamation lawsuits.

Big difference between calling in the police to protect you and being the one creating a dangerous situation.

Rioting and physically assaulting someone create dangerous situations.

Rittenhouse didn't need to be there, wasn't effectively defending anything, and chose to carry an illegal firearm.

We will see if the courts deem the firearm illegal, but it doesn't preclude right to self defense even it it were. The criminal rioters that assaulted him "didn't need to be there" either. Quoted is textbook victim blaming. He was not illegally trespassing or similar. He was chased and assaulted, only firing after being chased and assaulted. Do you dispute these facts, that the criminal complaint itself alleges? If not, why is it okay to blame a victim that defended himself?

 

[Gorbles]

Quoted is textbook victim blaming.

Just a repetitive reminder that no, it is not, because Rittenhouse is not the victim. The people he shot dead are, nomatter how often TMIT decides to - despite the facts of the case - pre-emptively judge them as criminals (in order to retroactively justify the shooting). Rittenhouse is on trial because he shot and killed other people, which by default makes him not the victim in this situation.

 

[Samson]

@TheMeInTeam Can I clarify your point, if I may. Is it that this guy may get off, or that it should be legal to take a gun to a demo and use it to shoot people who do not have guns?

 

[GenMarshall]

He was not illegally trespassing or similar. He was chased and assaulted, only firing after being chased and assaulted.

To add, one of the rioters Kyle shot, Gaige stated that his “only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him”.

It was the Wokelings who declared it a white power signal, the [Expletive Deleted] are just running with the gag.

If you look back. It was the Chaners from the-site-that-shall-not-be-named that thought I’d be funny to troll normies, news media, and SJWs into thinking that the OK hand gesture is some “white supremacst” gesture. Not surprising SJWs and the more lefty news outlets took the bait and started clutching their pearls whenever they see someone making an ok hand gesture instead of doing what any normal person would do, not take the bait and ignore the trolls.

 

[Birdjaguar]

NYT analysis of the events with video. Well worth finding a way around the paywall. If you want to understand what happened, watch this.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007409660/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-analysis.html

 

[Gorbles]

To add, one of the rioters Kyle shot, Gaige stated that his “only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him”.

Sounds like Rittenhouse shouldn't have shot and killed an ill man for the deadly crime of throwing a bag at him, then. Because that's what got people chasing him. The whole "killing someone" thing. Tends to tick other people off.

If you look back. It was the Chaners from the-site-that-shall-not-be-named that thought I’d be funny to troll normies, news media, and SJWs into thinking that the OK hand gesture is some “white supremacst” gesture. Not surprising SJWs and the more lefty news outlets took the bait and started clutching their pearls whenever they see someone making an ok hand gesture instead of doing what any normal person would do, not take the bait and ignore the trolls.

None of this explains why people with actual white supremacist beliefs use(d) the gesture then. I guess it's a complete coincidence.

And obviously, said site definitely has zero white supremacists on it. None whatsoever

Excuse the extreme sarcasm, but trolling is only trolling when it's not something the person believes. Because then it's just sharing their beliefs, using "just joking" as plausible deniability. Considering your obvious familiarity with the events around this gesture, it's pretty strange you don't know this.