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

[Sofista]

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.

Like TMIT said. Is that a thing in Denmark?

 

[Angst]

To both, no, it's not popularly understood yet. It's a dogwhistle. And yes, most dogwhistles aren't legally culpable for what they are. That's why they're dogwhistles.

 

[Berzerker]

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

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.

The 4 people involved are white... The kid was not reckless, 3 people attacked him and they got shot. Thats the opposite of reckless. If someone started wailing on your head with a skateboard and you had a gun, what would you do? The 1st guy who went after Rittenhouse did so because the kid put out a dumpster fire. He chased and cornered him and grabbed for the gun and was killed. Rittenhouse ran and 2 other men responded by attacking him. Those 2 can claim they were only attacking him because they suspected him of murder. That doesn't mean Rittenhouse is guilty for shooting them, they were mistaken vigilantes attacking the victim of a crime.

When the jury acquits him of murder I hope they recommend firing the prosecutors

edit: I'm assuming he was charged with murder

 

[Gorbles]

Apropos of nothing, because the people spreading misinformation either aren't going to read this, or aren't going to change their minds, Rittenhouse was not at the dealership at the request of the business owner. He took it upon himself to go there after hearing the business wanted help. He went out of his way to do so - there is no evidence he was personally requested to be there. He wasn't associated with the Kenosha Guard, either.

He was looking to start something. Again, with the funny, in how "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is only a conservative mantra so long as they can dehumanise their victims. Rittenhouse was playing a stupid game. He got lucky, more than anything.

As for the laughable claim that "It's not clear Wisconsin bans possession of long rifles to people his age in this context", open carry is only legal from 18 in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse was not 18. He didn't have any relevant concealed carry permit either. It was illegal for him to have the weapon he did. If folks want to play semantics over what "isn't clear", when they're very sure of how clear other aspects of the spectacle played out, all I can say is: pull the other one

If someone started wailing on your head with a skateboard and you had a gun, what would you do?

Easy. Not turn up with a rifle in the first place. Next question?

 

[Sofista]

To both, no, it's not popularly understood yet. It's a dogwhistle. And yes, most dogwhistles aren't legally culpable for what they are. That's why they're dogwhistles.

It's not, as far I as can see, seen like that in the Americas, it's not in (most of) Europe. I wonder if it's any kind of signal in the rest of the planet, of course.

 

[Angst]

It's not, as far I as can see, seen like that in the Americas, it's not in (most of) Europe. I wonder if it's any kind of signal in the rest of the planet, of course.

I think it's a largely Western thing, but I'm not sure.

 

[Sofista]

I think it's a largely Western thing, but I'm not sure.

I guess I don't live in Western Europe, then.

 

[Angst]

I take it that I don't live in Western Europe, then.

I don't understand your point?

 

[Berzerker]

Easy. Not turn up with a rifle in the first place. Next question?

Would you regret that decision when someone is bashing your head with a skateboard?

 

[Gorbles]

@Angst - Sofista is for some reason choosing sarcasm. They disagree with you, because they live in Western Europe and anecdotally haven't seen much evidence of it.

I don't get how the anecdotal evidence applies, but I could be missing something too.

Would you regret that decision when someone is bashing your head with a skateboard?

I mean, if I hadn't turned up with a rifle, I wouldn't be there to be allegedly bashed in the head with a skateboard.

If I had turned up, but without a rifle, I wouldn't have shot anyone which means the skateboard situation wouldn't have happened. Basic causality.

Next question? These are pretty easy.

 

[Berzerker]

I mean, if I hadn't turned up with a rifle, I wouldn't be there to be allegedly bashed in the head with a skateboard.

If I had turned up, but without a rifle, I wouldn't have shot anyone which means the skateboard situation wouldn't have happened. Basic causality.

Next question? These are pretty easy.

Please dont brag about answering questions you're dodging. What if you were attacked for putting out a dumpster fire? Yes yes, you wouldn't have put out a dumpster fire. You want causality, the firebugs and vigilantes caused this. Unless of course you think the real sin was putting out fires and that places the blame on Rittenhouse.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Won't anybody think of the poor dumpsters?

 

[Angst]

@Angst - Sofista is for some reason choosing sarcasm. They disagree with you, because they live in Western Europe and anecdotally haven't seen much evidence of it.

I don't get how the anecdotal evidence applies, but I could be missing something too.

Still not quite understanding what the sarcasm is even about. What does he mean with me not living in Western Europe, even if sarcastic?

 

[Edmund Ironside]

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.

The context of the white power sign is not a friend for young Kyle!

“Binger, the prosecutor, obtained the bar’s surveillance footage and could see that Rittenhouse’s group ultimately consisted of about ten people, all but two of them men. The party stayed at Pudgy’s for nearly two hours. Rittenhouse appeared unfamiliar with his hosts yet pleased to be there. W...At one point, five of the men started singing: “I’ve been one rotten kid / Some son, some pride and some joy.” The larger group eventually took a photograph with Rittenhouse in which most of them made the “O.K.” sign. Both the gesture and the song—“Proud of Your Boy,” from the stage production of Disney’s “Aladdin”—are hallmarks of the Proud Boys. The organization, which originated in 2016 as a club for “Western chauvinists,” with a logo of a rooster weathervane pointing west, has become a home for right-wing extremists who embrace violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center lists the Proud Boys as a hate group, and in Canada they are considered a terrorist entity. Associates are known to wear T-shirts that say “6MWE”—“Six Million Wasn’t Enough,” a Holocaust reference—and “Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong!” The “O.K.” sign can be code for “white power.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...hSAKilNP3b18BZ19sZO3soTiVrypAo5hoCyyUQAvD_BwE

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.

This sounds a bit like a vigilante group:

"Men with rifles set up on the roof. Balch, who described himself as “anti-establishment,” had been immersed in far-right circles on social media. He seemed to view the police as the enemy, and said that “the cops wouldn’t have been able to defend themselves” against some of the weapons on the roof. According to him, when a police officer stopped and remarked on all the “friendly guns,” he replied, “We’re not here to be friendly to you.”
...Harris and other live-streamers had been chatting on camera with Balch and a member of his cohort: a talkative teen-ager in a backward baseball cap, with a semi-automatic rifle slung across his chest. A videographer said, “So you guys are full-on ready to defend the property?” The teen-ager, whose name was Kyle Rittenhouse, replied, “Yes, we are,” adding, officiously, “Now, if I can ask—can you guys step back?”"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...hSAKilNP3b18BZ19sZO3soTiVrypAo5hoCyyUQAvD_BwE

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.

Gorbles “Rittenhouse was not at the dealership at the request of the business owner. He took it upon himself to go there after hearing the business wanted help. He went out of his way to do so - there is no evidence he was personally requested to be there. He wasn't associated with the Kenosha Guard, either."

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.

Gorbles “Open carry is only legal from 18 in Wisconsin, and Rittenhouse was not 18. He didn't have any relevant concealed carry permit either. It was illegal for him to have the weapon he did. If folks want to play semantics over what "isn't clear", when they're very sure of how clear other aspects of the spectacle played out, all I can say is: pull the other one.”

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.

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

Drakle “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.”

The pair of individuals who approached Rittenhouse did not know the context of the first attack. All they likely knew was that there was an active shooter killing protestors. Compare this with the below article about a terrorist attack in 2019 in London, and tell me how chasing down and trying to stop someone you have heard has just killed an unarmed civilian when you are only armed with a skateboard is different from chasing down and trying to stop someone you have heard has just killed an unarmed civilian when you are only armed with a whale tusk.” One difference is of course that none of those involved in the UK is armed with a gun, because guns aren’t their official religion!

“Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Frost said he was attending the rehabilitation event with colleagues when he heard a commotion downstairs.
He said he then grabbed the decorative whale tusk, which had been hanging on a wall...ran down the stairs, stood next to the man with the chair, and the two of us confronted the attacker."”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50870309

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:

Drakle “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.

Drakle “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.”

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.
3rd rioter straight up points a gun at Rittenhouse, while he is still on the ground. Obvious consequences.

Gorbles “He was looking to start something. Again, with the funny, in how "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is only a conservative mantra so long as they can dehumanise their victims. Rittenhouse was playing a stupid game. He got lucky, more than anything.”

Let me try provide an alternative summarization to MT.

Firstly what no one seems to have mentioned is that the first person Kyle Rittenhouse shot had serious mental health issues, and likely should not have been on the streets. But well we all know how good mental health services are in the US, particularly if you don’t have decent health insurance...

“Hours before the protest, he had been discharged from a psychiatric hospital. He apparently had wandered into the melee on the street, where it was difficult to perceive anything but his rage. At the Ultimate Convenience Center, he confronted the armed men, screaming both “Don’t point no motherfudging gun at me!” and “Shoot me! ””

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...hSAKilNP3b18BZ19sZO3soTiVrypAo5hoCyyUQAvD_BwE

Cause of first death: Perhaps poorly treated mental health issues. Everyone was the victim here.

The other two individuals would have likely not known the context of the first shooting. They may well have considered themselves heroes, trying to stop an active shooter from escaping. Good to know how little sympathy they get.

By the way the New Yorker article I used for this response is excellent and is politically neutral (it actually made me feel a little more sympathetic towards Kyle, he perhaps was trying to just help however rash his actions were, rather than just looking to take out some protestors) and is well worth a read.

*There is a reason why I indirectly quoted Gorbles and Drakle, but the reason is not important.*

Moderator Action: This proxy-discussion in the upper part of the post is seen as troling. Please don't do that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Gross.

 

[Gorbles]

Please dont brag about answering questions you're dodging. What if you were attacked for putting out a dumpster fire? Yes yes, you wouldn't have put out a dumpster fire. You want causality, the firebugs and vigilantes caused this. Unless of course you think the real sin was putting out fires and that places the blame on Rittenhouse.

I'm not dodging anything. I answered the questions you gave. It's not my fault you don't like the answers.

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".

Firstly what no one seems to have mentioned is that the first person Kyle Rittenhouse shot had serious mental health issues, and likely should not have been on the streets. But well we all know how good mental health services are in the US, particularly if you don’t have decent health insurance...

Thanks for highlighting this - I did actually come across this reading up on stuff again last night, but hadn't found a way to put it in yet.

Still not quite understanding what the sarcasm is even about. What does he mean with me not living in Western Europe, even if sarcastic?

I don't want to speak for them too much, because Sofista is more than capable of arguing for themselves, but in my eyes it was a counterpoint to your claim that the dogwhistle is in fact a dogwhistle in Western Europe, based on the evidence that they haven't seen much of it.

There could be more evidence that hasn't been stated, I just haven't seen it.

Anecdotally, I've absolutely seen it used. I don't think any of us can say how much a dogwhistle is used (or not). I agree with you (and others) on the subject - it's more important that it is being used at all.

 

[Sofista]

Still not quite understanding what the sarcasm is even about. What does he mean with me not living in Western Europe, even if sarcastic?

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.

 

[Senethro]

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.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if Kyle got treat better or worse than someone trying to put out these fires?

 

[emzie]

His parents should be the ones on trial.