Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's always apparent when you're struggling, you start to resort to the petty insults you criticize others for.  That being said, I did exactly as you asked and rewatched it, again.

Odd, I see at least four people in frame trailing Rittenhouse.  Of course, the footage is a bit grainy so I wouldn't swear to it.  Odd that you failed to see the guy who discharges a firearm into the air.  Or maybe not so odd, considering that would damage your position.

RE-direct from the Arbery thread: What I criticize others for is ad hominem and misrepresentation of other board members statements/arguments. A petty insult would be calling someone's argument "silly" or saying it makes me "sad" which I don't do.  If I did, I wouldn't then flag others for injecting emotion and feelings into argument.

I have seen the guy discharging a firearm on other video's. Don't see him on the FBI.  When he first appears, he is walking parallel to Rittenhouse before he begins to run. When Rittenhouse runs across the parking lot in front of him, he continues in the same direction at the same pace. He chases no one.

(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Odd, I see at least four people in frame trailing Rittenhouse.  Of course, the footage is a bit grainy so I wouldn't swear to it.  Odd that you failed to see the guy who discharges a firearm into the air.  Or maybe not so odd, considering that would damage your position.

Ahh, yes, the semantic argument.  How many people constitute a "mob", Dill?  Do apparently invisible people who fire guns into the air count towards that number?  

By the way, a "semantic argument" can only occur when people agree on the facts. If you agree there is only one person chasing Rittenhouse, but you still want to call him a "mob," then we have a semantic argument.  There might be a semantic argument around the word "chase" if you want to draw anyone standing around when R runs by them into the chase. E.g., they are "trailing" him if they continue walking down the street, in the same direction, after he runs through them.

Speaking of "facts,," here is another video showing the chase, from 00:06-16. It was presented in trial on Tuesday, and also shows the shooting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/enhanced-drone-footage-shows-first-two-fatal-shootings-kyle-rittenhous-rcna5094

One can clearly see that only three people are running: Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum some 10 feet behind him, and then McGinnis following 20 feet behind Rosenbaum with a camera. No one else is pursuing Rittenhouse. A couple of people were standing in the otherwise empty parking lot before Rittenhouse ran through it. They make no pursuit. People walking along the street continue walking along the street. The were walking ahead of R before the chase and continue walking as R runs through them into the parking lot, Rosenbaum in pursuit. The guy who fires a "warning shot" was walking prior to the chase, which crosses his path, and continues walking. Not clear he is even in R's vision. In any case, R was focused on Rosenbaum, as his court testimony made clear, the one person he saw chasing him.

Unless your ideology can trump facts, you can't just recruit every bystander into your "mob" because they happen to be in the frame. 

(11-08-2021, 10:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Suffice to say, you've offered zero, nothing, not a single factual point that shows Rittenhouse as the aggressor or disproves any of the arguments I and others have made regarding his valid self defense claim.  You've got nothing and have therefore resorted to snarky posts not so subtly deriding the positions of those who have proven you wrong with fact based arguments and video evidence.  Quite simply, your ideology can't trump facts, no matter how much you wish otherwise.  In conclusion, and based on your very bad faith attempts to discuss this issue, I will no longer be entertaining your posts on this subject until you offer facts instead of partisan conjecture.

I've been too "subtle," apparently.

As far as whether Rittenhouse was "guilty," it might help to stop framing the division on this thread as between people who are trying to prove Rittenhouse guilty according to the law and people who are complaining that there is a problem with the law, which could very well allow a teen with an illegally purchased gun to cross state lines, violate a curfew to wander armed among protestors and rioters with police approval, shoot three people in "self defense" and go scott free because it was his "right" to cross state lines and open carry in a riot, defend himself, and afterwards be waived out of the danger area by police, still open carrying. 

You are not "proving people wrong" when you explain how the law may let R walk if he shoots someone who grabs at the gun a friend illegally purchased for him because he thought it was cool and brought to a riot planning to "run towards danger."