Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(11-21-2021, 08:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm just going to leave this here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/liberal-guns-rights-activist-kyle-rittenhouse.amp

This part right here is I think some of us were trying to talk about in this thread:

Quote:I think the discussion should have been about what on Earth are we doing when we say that it’s OK to arm a 17-year-old to go out and defend property against legal protests? But I also think that if you attack somebody, you might get shot. And self-defense is a real defense. And even if we don’t like the person who was defending themselves, it shouldn’t be about whether you like or don’t like the people involved. Being there doesn’t automatically get rid of your right to self-defense.

...


I don’t necessarily like this verdict, and I want to be clear about that. But I understand this verdict. I don’t think this was exonerating a mass murder. I don’t think this was giving a carte blanche to shoot protestors. And I think that’s the two narratives that are being pushed. They’re both wrong. This was not about vigilantism. This was a whole series of horrible things. We never should have been having this trial. That kid should never have been there, and I think that’s the society’s failure. He just shouldn’t have been there at all.

I do think she poo-poos the chance of MORE gun violence if more people on both sides are carrying at a protest a bit more that she should though.  Too often after one of these shootings we get the survivors story without the benefit of the kind of evidence there was in this one.

I do agree more training and the use of common sense would help a LOT...but I don't see that happening when stats pass laws that you can carry without a permit and, like the article says, laws that allow you to hit protestors with your vehicle...which she acknowledges is a strategy more Liberals should be aware of.

[BengalYankee]

(11-20-2021, 11:18 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I remember it well, I was right in the thick of it. That said, the harsher sentences given for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine became the rallying cry for those saying the law was racist. And they are still saying it. They just forget who wrote it.

But what you are skillfully ignoring is the FACT that African American leaders/pastors begged political leaders including Clinton, Biden, etc to do something that was ravaging their community. Crack cocaine = high crime in urban areas, PERIOD. Powdered cocaine bad as it is/was did not constitute a high crime in non-urban areas as it did in urban areas. Don't get me wrong both forms of cocaine are bad as well as the result in the respected communities. 

Yes harsher sentences were given for crack cocaine buying/selling/possession but that was because of high crime and the urgency by  African American leaders/pastors.  

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 10:42 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: But what you are skillfully ignoring is the FACT that African American leaders/pastors begged political leaders including Clinton, Biden, etc to do something that was ravaging their community. Crack cocaine = high crime in urban areas, PERIOD. Powdered cocaine bad as it is/was did not constitute a high crime in non-urban areas as it did in urban areas. Don't get me wrong both forms of cocaine are bad as well as the result in the respected communities. 

Yes harsher sentences were given for crack cocaine buying/selling/possession but that was because of high crime and the urgency by  African American leaders/pastors.  

I realize that, you're preaching to the choir. I literally got sick of walking through the blood in the projects during the late 80's and early 90's. I fully understand the situation. But the point I am making and you are dancing around is that since that Crime Bill was passed, the African American community has pointed to it as racist and blames it for the disproportionate number of black males locked up in prison, all the while supporting the guy who wrote it. That's having it both ways. The law was either just, or it was not. If it is just, then people should stop whining about how racist it is, if it is unjust, then blame the guy who wrote it instead of trying to deflect it onto the other party. 

[BengalYankee]

(11-21-2021, 11:24 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I realize that, you're preaching to the choir. I literally got sick of walking through the blood in the projects during the late 80's and early 90's. I fully understand the situation. But the point I am making and you are dancing around is that since that Crime Bill was passed, the African American community has pointed to it as racist and blames it for the disproportionate number of black males locked up in prison, all the while supporting the guy who wrote it. That's having it both ways. The law was either just, or it was not. If it is just, then people should stop whining about how racist it is, if it is unjust, then blame the guy who wrote it instead of trying to deflect it onto the other party. 

Okay, I feel the Crime Bill was Justice and I lost respect for in particular Bill and Hillary Clinton and Biden. Why did I lose respect for especially Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden? Because they ran away from a Bill they championed up until recently. Bill begrudgingly went against the Bill when his wife was running in 2006 and she threw Bill under the bus when she said she had nothing to do with the Bill and it was her husband not her behind the Bill. That was issue one that left a bad taste for Hillary, the other was when she publicly stated that she would put coal miners out of business.  I was not for Trump, but then I was not for her either and I withheld my vote in 2016. 

[samhain]

(11-21-2021, 11:24 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I realize that, you're preaching to the choir. I literally got sick of walking through the blood in the projects during the late 80's and early 90's. I fully understand the situation. But the point I am making and you are dancing around is that since that Crime Bill was passed, the African American community has pointed to it as racist and blames it for the disproportionate number of black males locked up in prison, all the while supporting the guy who wrote it. That's having it both ways. The law was either just, or it was not. If it is just, then people should stop whining about how racist it is, if it is unjust, then blame the guy who wrote it instead of trying to deflect it onto the other party. 

Who exactly were they going to support that had an alternative view?  If HW Bush was in office, do you actually think he wouldn't have employed a similar countermeasure?  Are you trying to paint the Republican Party of the 90's as weak on drug crime policy?  The War on Drugs itself started during an administration in which Bush served as VP.  

Given that there are only two realistic options, what did you want them to do?  Vote for Gatewood Galbraith?  LOL. There wasn't a viable candidate in existence in either party in that era that would have taken any path other than the one that the public would perceive as being "tough on drugs".  If they did, they'd have lost whatever election they ran in in a landslide.  

It's false to try and apply blame to Clinton or any administration in this case.  If blame is to be assigned, it's to a majority voters who fell hook, line, and sinker for the narrative that all drug crime needed to be punished as harshly as possible.  It's to a media that scared the shit out of everyone with a TV by running stories and sensational headlines that made the average American think that their kids were all going to become or be harmed by a horde of zombie drug addicts if something heavy-handed wasn't implemented quickly.  

[jj22]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/kyle-rittenhouse-awarded-ar-15-for-defense-of-gun-rights-following-acquittal/ar-AAQWY12?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

That crying pitiful boy (so we are supposed to beleive). Either they know it was fake, or they are really blinded to insecurity, overcompensating, mentally weak, people. Either way it's embarrassing to not see through either act.

The ideal that a culture is so blinded by what is so obvious to just crazy to me.

But strip them of their guns and they'll be that crying snotty boy on the stand. To some that is lame. To others, they look up to that. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans look up to that.

[Sled21]

(11-21-2021, 12:10 PM)samhain Wrote: Who exactly were they going to support that had an alternative view?  If HW Bush was in office, do you actually think he wouldn't have employed a similar countermeasure?  Are you trying to paint the Republican Party of the 90's as weak on drug crime policy?  The War on Drugs itself started during an administration in which Bush served as VP.  

Given that there are only two realistic options, what did you want them to do?  Vote for Gatewood Galbraith?  LOL. There wasn't a viable candidate in existence in either party in that era that would have taken any path other than the one that the public would perceive as being "tough on drugs".  If they did, they'd have lost whatever election they ran in in a landslide.  

It's false to try and apply blame to Clinton or any administration in this case.  If blame is to be assigned, it's to a majority voters who fell hook, line, and sinker for the narrative that all drug crime needed to be punished as harshly as possible.  It's to a media that scared the shit out of everyone with a TV by running stories and sensational headlines that made the average American think that their kids were all going to become or be harmed by a horde of zombie drug addicts if something heavy-handed wasn't implemented quickly.  

You're totally missing my point. My point is not about who would have done what. The Democrats wrote the bill, the community considers is racist, and blame the Republicans. What part of that hypocrisy is escaping you?  And if you don't think those drugs crimes needed to be punished as harshly as possible, you simply were not there to see the crime scenes and the devastation those crimes brought to the community.

[samhain]

(11-21-2021, 01:59 PM)Sled21 Wrote: You're totally missing my point. My point is not about who would have done what. The Democrats wrote the bill, the community considers is racist, and blame the Republicans. What part of that hypocrisy is escaping you?  And if you don't think those drugs crimes needed to be punished as harshly as possible, you simply were not there to see the crime scenes and the devastation those crimes brought to the community.

OK so your answer is yes.  Republicans were weak on crime and would not have written such a bill.  Okey Dokey.  It's pretty impressive to witness the rhetorical gymnastics of far right individuals such as yourself in these kinds of discussions. You guys spend years making sure that you do everything possible to paint every centrist Dem politician as a Marxist until it suits your need to blame them for something perceived as right-wing and unpopular, then they're the "real racists". I guess it's good to keep your mind limber.


The harsh punishments did little to curb drug crime. It still proliferates in urban areas and is worse than ever in rural and suburban locales as well. Law enforcement's enhanced tools did jack squat to prevent heroin, fentanyl, or the resurgence of meth from spreading like wildfire. The policies did zilch to stop demand and even less to discourage the criminals supplying the product.

[Dill]

(11-19-2021, 10:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to limit my response to this; your posts and conduct in this thread have been very eye opening.  I guess when the facts don't support your position then snark and sarcasm is the best recourse left.

Lol, but you, the guy who "relies on facts and evidence," are not going to specify the "conduct" you are referring to, are you? You know very well that when I find your conduct "eye-opening," I don't hesistate to demonstrate with examples.

And you never withold "the facts" when you think you really have them.

Regarding your last claim that "facts don't support [my]position," here's a passage from your post #151, in which you say just that, claiming I made a false statement, the one bolded and underlined.

(11-03-2021, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:After Rittenhouse kills Rosenbaum, as he stands over the body calling a friend, bystanders finger him, correctly, as the shooter. He starts to walk away from the scene, then to run as angry people follow, apparently to prevent the shooter from “getting away.” He falls and, seeing their chance, several rush in to disarm him. One person kicks at R, and he fires wildly, missing him.

I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.

And you then proffer a link (which doesn't work) to a video which supposedly "proves this."

But what exactly does "this" refer to here? The "blatantly false statement" has three different predications.

Are we to believe there was no jump-kick man, no kick, R didn't fire at him? He did fire but not "wildly"? 
What is "blatantly false" here?  

If your "position" on the jump-kick incident is different from mine, and mine is false, then what should a "blatantly true" description of the incident look like look like?  

[jj22]

It is interesting my brethren from the far right are now highlighting and gloating about the judge being obvious and openly pro Kyle.

[jj22]

For those who have followed social media and the reactions and memes from those who supported Kyle, it's now apparent they too didn't' and don't believe the fake crying meltdown on the stand. Which most of us saw through anyway.

So I have to ask, why slam those who saw it in real time? Did you really believe it or did you just not want to admit it?

The truth is coming and and it is everything those who criticized this process said it was, and now we know the far right knew all along.

[Sled21]

(11-22-2021, 10:40 AM)jj22 Wrote: It is interesting my brethren from the far right are now highlighting and gloating about the judge being obvious and openly pro Kyle.

As far as I could tell, the judge called it right down the line according to the law. And according to those in Wisconsin, has a history of doing just that.

[Sled21]

(11-22-2021, 12:18 PM)jj22 Wrote: For those who have followed social media and the reactions and memes from those who supported Kyle, it's now apparent they too didn't' and don't believe the fake crying meltdown on the stand. Which most of us saw through anyway.

So I have to ask, why slam those who saw it in real time? Did you really believe it or did you just not want to admit it?

The truth is coming and and it is everything those who criticized this process said it was, and now we know the far right knew all along.

If you're going by memes, there's tons of them, and they are designed to provoke people on both sides of the issue.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2021, 12:18 PM)jj22 Wrote: For those who have followed social media and the reactions and memes from those who supported Kyle, it's now apparent they too didn't' and don't believe the fake crying meltdown on the stand. Which most of us saw through anyway.

So I have to ask, why slam those who saw it in real time? Did you really believe it or did you just not want to admit it?

The truth is coming and and it is everything those who criticized this process said it was, and now we know the far right knew all along.

Honestly, the non-idiots I know in the 2A community see it as real. The people that don't are those trying to deify Rittenhouse and glorify his actions. Any emotions he exhibits detracts from their image of him. Did you see his break down when the verdict was said? Seemed pretty damn similar to his breakdown on the stand.

For ***** sake, some of y'all are just ***** ridiculous.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-22-2021, 12:18 PM)jj22 Wrote: For those who have followed social media and the reactions and memes from those who supported Kyle, it's now apparent they too didn't' and don't believe the fake crying meltdown on the stand. Which most of us saw through anyway.

So I have to ask, why slam those who saw it in real time? Did you really believe it or did you just not want to admit it?

The truth is coming and and it is everything those who criticized this process said it was, and now we know the far right knew all along.

It’s really not hard to believe a kid had an emotional episode while testifying about the most dramatic event of his life where he nearly lost his life and took the lives of two others.

Lot of racism going on against the guy because he is white.

[jj22]

So they don't believe the "tough guy" Chuck Norris like meme's of him that they are sharing? Cause honestly when I see them I see the crying Kyle and can't see how they think we've forgot.

I don't know how race has anything to do with pointing out the tough guy memes going around with him vs skater, him vs blm protesters etc. I'm just asking because if they believe he is that guy in their memes..... I guess I'm just wondering how can they after the pics of his meltdown on the stand? Which is the real Kyle? That has nothing to do with race.

If you guys want to throw racism at me for only bringing up race when I state a well accepted by all sides belief that if he was a black teen it would have been different, then argue why it wouldn't be (if you can), but don't blame every criticism of Kyle on race personally. The only thing race has to do with any of this is the fairness (lackthereof) and inequality with our legal system and the lack of trust there is in these cases because of it.

My only thought goes back to stripping away the guns and getting the measly kid. But I do question if they want us to believe he's that measly snot nosed kid on the stand, how can we believe he is their modern day Chuck Norris? But again, that has nothing to do with race.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-22-2021, 06:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, the non-idiots I know in the 2A community see it as real. The people that don't are those trying to deify Rittenhouse and glorify his actions. Any emotions he exhibits detracts from their image of him. Did you see his break down when the verdict was said? Seemed pretty damn similar to his breakdown on the stand.

For ***** sake, some of y'all are just ***** ridiculous.

I stated the literal exact same point as you and got a predictable response.  Now that you've said it maybe some of those people will actually give the point a moments thought.  Sadly, for most people it's not what's being said, it's who's saying it.  I appreciate your reiterating the obvious for those people, honestly my thanks.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2021, 06:46 PM)jj22 Wrote: So they don't believe the "tough guy" Chuck Norris like meme's of him that they are sharing? Cause honestly when I see them I see the crying Kyle and can't see how they think we've forgot.

There are many of them sharing that stuff that think it's funny and do it out or irony to "own the libs." Your responses in this thread fuel them. Sure, there are some that believe in the stuff, but they are few and far between. And most of the community isn't involved at all.

[jj22]

I don't think we can keep excusing or covering for people we share politics with, but are embarrassed by and don't want to be associated with as their actions as being just to "own the libs".

The only thing I see it doing is proving the "libs" right when they claimed it was all an act, and now can claim Kyle's supporters knew it all along.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2021, 07:03 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't think we can keep excusing or covering for people we share politics with, but are embarrassed by and don't want to be associated with as their actions as being just to "own the libs".

The only thing I see it doing is proving the "libs" right when they claimed it was all an act, and now can claim Kyle's supporters knew it all along.

This post makes no sense. First, I am further to the left than most here. I don't share politics with most of the 2A community. Second, I have zero idea what you are trying to say in the second part.