Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

https://www.adl.org/blog/at-the-extremes-the-2020-election-and-american-extremism-part-2

[GMDino]

https://www.actionnews5.com/2020/09/04/facebook-posts-spark-investigation-mpd-officer/?fbclid=IwAR0ZBrR3by3elrGsFvstlEFeOxMX9UZ18W10ffo6QeiOuwENGxbPHaQiBX4

[GMDino]

https://progressive.org/latest/martyr-of-a-murderer-muerhoff-210129/

[jj22]

And so it begins....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-father-daughter-armed-kenosha-rittenhouse-protesters

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 04:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: And so it begins....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-father-daughter-armed-kenosha-rittenhouse-protesters

I definitely wouldn't want that guy "protecting" me.  He's got a long range scope on his rifle and no ability to use iron sights.

[Dill]

(11-23-2021, 04:05 PM)jj22 Wrote: And so it begins....

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wisconsin-father-daughter-armed-kenosha-rittenhouse-protesters

That's pretty scary.

A Wisconsin father and his teen daughter armed themselves with rifles to "protect" a large group of demonstrators protesting the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha on Sunday.

"I got a job to do — protect these people. That’s it," said Jordan, referring to speakers at a news conference that was held in the hours after the verdict.

"This is my town, my people," Jordan said. "We don’t agree on a lot of things, but we fight, we argue, we agree to disagree and go home safe, alive."
"That’s real self-defense," Jordan added.

[CJD]

(11-23-2021, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I definitely wouldn't want that guy "protecting" me.  He's got a long range scope on his rifle and no ability to use iron sights.

Are you telling me that people who open carry guns at political protests may not actually be gun experts that we should trust to uphold the law and maintain order in emotionally heightened situations? 

No, but for real, I hate that this ruling is going to cause open carrying at protests to increase. It's just going to increase the chances of people getting hurt...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 04:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Are you telling me that people who open carry guns at political protests may not actually be gun experts that we should trust to uphold the law and maintain order in emotionally heightened situations? 

Haha, no, sir, not at all.  Seriously though, that guy made his rifle useless for anything under 100 yards.

Quote:No, but for real, I hate that this ruling is going to cause open carrying at protests to increase. It's just going to increase the chances of people getting hurt...

I think it could also have the opposite effect.  While I concede your point has merit it may be that people being armed will force a bit more civility, or at the very least people will be less inclined to engage in violence against an armed person.  I will absolutely admit that if violence does occur it will be much more deadly than it otherwise would.

[CJD]

(11-23-2021, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, no, sir, not at all.  Seriously though, that guy made his rifle useless for anything under 100 yards.


I think it could also have the opposite effect.  While I concede your point has merit it may be that people being armed will force a bit more civility, or at the very least people will be less inclined to engage in violence against an armed person.  I will absolutely admit that if violence does occur it will be much more deadly than it otherwise would.

This is going to sound like a tangent and, you know, protests (even violent ones that involve rioting) are historically important and are often the primer towards real social change so I don't want to condemn protesting in any way (and I hesitate to roundly condemn rioting either). 

However, there is definitely a correlation between being someone who travels to multiple protests and being...not the most emotionally stable person. There was a big to do about how each of the men Rittenhouse shot were former felons or suspected felons as if this was meant to be a surprise or shocking detail, but I honestly look at it like this: If you are a person who is not only willing to travel to a protest and stay out past the legal curfew and, often times, violently engage with other people for days or even months on end, there's probably a fairly good chance you don't have a stable job, a stable home life or both. And people who don't have one or both of those things are more likely to be a bit...less rational, if you understand what I'm saying. 

As you could see in the videos from before the shooting, Rosenbaum was antagonizing the gun carriers a LOT prior to the eventual shootings. And all it takes is one Rosenbaum to create a new Rittenhouse situation.

Plus, as we saw with the other guy who shot his gun shortly before Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum, if both sides have guns, they may be more willing to engage with people who have guns.

It would basically come down to who is the more crazy gun owner haha.

To me, the fewer guns at a protest, the better for everyone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 06:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: This is going to sound like a tangent and, you know, protests (even violent ones that involve rioting) are historically important and are often the primer towards real social change so I don't want to condemn protesting in any way (and I hesitate to roundly condemn rioting either). 

However, there is definitely a correlation between being someone who travels to multiple protests and being...not the most emotionally stable person. There was a big to do about how each of the men Rittenhouse shot were former felons or suspected felons as if this was meant to be a surprise or shocking detail, but I honestly look at it like this: If you are a person who is not only willing to travel to a protest and stay out past the legal curfew and, often times, violently engage with other people for days or even months on end, there's probably a fairly good chance you don't have a stable job, a stable home life or both. And people who don't have one or both of those things are more likely to be a bit...less rational, if you understand what I'm saying. 

As you could see in the videos from before the shooting, Rosenbaum was antagonizing the gun carriers a LOT prior to the eventual shootings. And all it takes is one Rosenbaum to create a new Rittenhouse situation.

Plus, as we saw with the other guy who shot his gun shortly before Rittenhouse killed Rosenbaum, if both sides have guns, they may be more willing to engage with people who have guns.

It would basically come down to who is the more crazy gun owner haha.

To me, the fewer guns at a protest, the better for everyone.

You make an excellent point, it only takes one mentally unstable person to create the type of situation that overtook Rittenhouse.  I also agree that "professional" protestors are a bane, not only to the movement in question, but to law enforcement as well.  However, the only real solution to this problem would be unconstitutional.  So, like most freedoms, it comes with a price, that some A-holes will abuse freedom of movement and speech to basically become professional agitators, whether as a protestor or as a counter-protestor.

[jj22]

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article255964907.html

[CJD]

(11-23-2021, 06:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You make an excellent point, it only takes one mentally unstable person to create the type of situation that overtook Rittenhouse.  I also agree that "professional" protestors are a bane, not only to the movement in question, but to law enforcement as well.  However, the only real solution to this problem would be unconstitutional.  So, like most freedoms, it comes with a price, that some A-holes will abuse freedom of movement and speech to basically become professional agitators, whether as a protestor or as a counter-protestor.

Yea...it's a tough problem to crack, for sure. I think it's one of those things where you have to accept the bad with the good. If it weren't for, per their contemporaries, professional agitators like MLK Jr and Susan B. Anthony, women and black people's rights would almost certainly not be where they are today. But for every well meaning career agitator/protester, there are a lot of less well meaning ones. Like I said before, I will never condemn protesting even if the short term effects are perceptively negative, but it does get a little tiring when you have nut jobs like Rosenbaum making the whole movement look stupid and deranged. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 06:35 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article255964907.html

It's interesting to me that the headline states he said "Be armed, be dangerous", when his actual statement was "Be armed, be dangerous, be moral."  Now, I know being "moral" isn't important or alter the first two statements in any way, so that's why they omitted that part from the headline.  I mean, there couldn't be an alternative explanation for that omission, could there?

Please note I find the statement to be ill advised, the use of the word dangerous especially, but adding moral at the end absolutely changes the context of his statement.  

[*Nately120*]

(11-23-2021, 06:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Please note I find the statement to be ill advised, the use of the word dangerous especially, but adding moral at the end absolutely changes the context of his statement.  

I think it makes it sound like a more cliched bit of neo-conservative crap, personally.  Then again, I'm looking at this in a cultural sense.  10 years ago moral killings were viewed as taking out towel-head terrorists who want to come here and hurt Americans.  Now we are champing at the bit to morally shoot other Americans...you aren't supposed to admit that you are excited and sort of want to have to do it, but damn...what a rush that will be to defend yourself morally.

I suppose it didn't happen overnight.  For years we see a headline about a mass shooting and everyone holds their collective breath and waits until we see "which side"  the person who did it was on before were start gloating or deflecting.  We let politicians convince us our greatest enemies are fellow Americans, but maybe they are right. I don't see too many liberals using George Wallace being shot as a reason to slag on the value of lone gunmen.

I'd wager we are at the point where when we need to hold off on judgement of any shooting/death/action until we hear the political affiliations of all parties involved.  This goes for covid, too.  Did you see so-and-so died?  No I didn't.  Was he/she vaccinated or not?  I need to know so I can put the right inflection on my "Oh, that's a shame" reply before I move on.

Life is cheap.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-23-2021, 07:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think it makes it sound like a more cliched bit of neo-conservative crap, personally.  Then again, I'm looking at this in a cultural sense.  10 years ago moral killings were viewed as taking out towel-head terrorists who want to come here and hurt Americans.  Now we are champing at the bit to morally shoot other Americans...you aren't supposed to admit that you are excited and sort of want to have to do it, but damn...what a rush that will be to defend yourself morally.

I suppose it didn't happen overnight.  For years we see a headline about a mass shooting and everyone holds their collective breath and waits until we see "which side"  the person who did it was on before were start gloating or deflecting.  We let politicians convince us our greatest enemies are fellow Americans, but maybe they are right.  I don't see too many liberals using George Wallace being shot as a reason to slag on the value of lone gunmen.

I'd wager we are at the point where when we need to hold off on judgement of any shooting/death/action until we hear the political affiliations of all parties involved.  This goes for covid, too.  Did you see so-and-so died?  No I didn't.  Was he/she vaccinated or not?  I need to know so I can put the right inflection on my "Oh, that's a shame" reply before I move on.

Life is cheap.

Another excellent point, two in one thread!  I don't think I can honestly disagree in general, but I do stand by the point that adding that qualifier at the end is important.  Morality is subjective, after all there are parts of the world where throwing gay people off a roof or marrying an eight year old is acceptable, while here we find both activities utterly repugnant.  But in this context I think we can infer that he's speaking to standard Western morality, which would preclude murder or violence against someone simply because of their political views.

[*Nately120*]

(11-23-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Another excellent point, two in one thread!  I don't think I can honestly disagree in general, but I do stand by the point that adding that qualifier at the end is important.  Morality is subjective, after all, there are parts of the world where throwing gay people off a roof or marrying an eight year old is acceptable, while here we find both activities utterly repugnant.  But in this context I think we can infer that he's speaking to standard Western morality, which would preclude murder or violence against someone simply because of their political views.

This is where things get subjective.  I believe the American idea of morality can be called into question when people are deeming it moral to look for fights where they can use lethal force.  But again, that's me using my cynical mind to assume that people who take weapons to areas where people they want to shoot are gathering have anything but the purest intentions.  It's entirely possible my disinterest in taking an assault rifle to a protest of any type is merely evidence that I live a charmed life.  Then again, things change.  Imagine telling people years ago that an immunologist would require armed security.  We're through the looking glass, here people.

It also baffles me that people who legimately think they will have to answer to Jesus himself someday are confident their "clean by American standards" bill of innocence will hold up in the court of the Almighty.  Then again, perhaps Jesus appoints a good lawyer to you before your trial.  

And again, it's the hijacking and constant invoking of the concept of Jesus by the neo-cons that makes me double-down on my skepticism of the morality of armed counter-protesters. That and adding the morality part on there is a nice way for him to cover his ass in case all this "fight fight fight gun gun gun" rhetoric convinces people to get themselves into some morally gray areas.   

[GMDino]

On Newsmax, Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to a sprint, with the winner getting to have Kyle Rittenhouse as their intern pic.twitter.com/ZLi9mmxlN6

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 24, 2021

 


In case you don't know who she is talking about: https://cawthorn.house.gov/about 

[Benton]

(11-23-2021, 11:01 PM)GMDino Wrote:

On Newsmax, Lauren Boebert challenges Madison Cawthorn to a sprint, with the winner getting to have Kyle Rittenhouse as their intern pic.twitter.com/ZLi9mmxlN6

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 24, 2021

 


In case you don't know who she is talking about: https://cawthorn.house.gov/about 

In her defense, dumb people are notoriously slow.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-23-2021, 04:39 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Are you telling me that people who open carry guns at political protests may not actually be gun experts that we should trust to uphold the law and maintain order in emotionally heightened situations? 

No, but for real, I hate that this ruling is going to cause open carrying at protests to increase. It's just going to increase the chances of people getting hurt...

It's not really a ruling, and I get your point, but you were always allowed to open carry at protests so this really changed nothing except that maybe more people know you can.  I was down on Main St here in Cincinnati when people were gathering for a scheduled protest back in 2020 and I saw several people wearing holstered weapons.  I don't know that it's that rare.

[jj22]

The Kyle verdict has brought this case back into the spotlight.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1057976496/rittenhouse-verdict-chrystul-kizer-self-defense