This is probably because he was humanized at the trial - both by way of his taking the stand, as well as the fact that his attorney kept going out of his way of referring to him as Kyle. It was a tactical choice Richards used to humanize and normalize his client to the jury and the TV audience - and it worked very well.
Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks
- Thread starter Drainy
- Start date
To be fair I'm billingual but it sometimes gets switched as i typed.
really?
Not again! This is such bullshit..
New bill quietly gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice | Home Office | The Guardian
thats just for starters over here.
Considering he got off you would have to say it did indeed work well. However, I can’t help but think that normalizing him would only have had the desired effect on people who, on some level even if it wasn’t a conscious one, felt as if what he did was not wrong.
What's bullshit about it? The NSDAP didn't have a majority in the Reichstag or in the first Hitler government and they did pass the Enabling Act a few months later.
Not again! This is such bullshit..
«Rittenhouse», or «Kyle Rittenhouse» would do just fine.
There are a lot of views of him that are almost entirely exculpatory with the lone qualifier that 'he was an idiot to go out there' and I get the impression that what they mean by that is along the lines of 'He's nuts. I wouldn't do it but fair play to him for having the balls' rather than feeling there was any moral failing on his part.
Yes I'm not sure what the bullshit part is. In the coalition cabinet 3 members of 11 were Nazis.
I don't think it's ok, but it's lawful because it was in self-defense. What's chaotic about this trial is that skateboard guy and guy with glock didn't necessarily know that the first shooting was in self-defense, so in their minds they were probably chasing what they thought was an active shooter and perhaps they didn't know that he was running towards the police to turn himself in. No of course I ovdiously don't think pr default that people should be shooting each other but if you are being attacked and people try to take your firearm to potentially use it against you especially with death threats, I think that's self-defense. But no I don't think Rittenhouse should have been there with a assault rifle. All these cases keep spiraling around the problem with guns in the US.
Last edited:
Do people still have single names in Java? The population is so vast I always thought it must be confusing.
Sukarno was a cool name though- sounded like a Star Wars character.
this is how its done. dimissed out of hand as a joke when theyre actually arguing with facts.
Yeah I agree. It’s not something I can really put my finger on but I am sure there are a lot of feelings of admiration of sorts even if they aren’t willing to admit it.
This still isn't close to what the Nazis did...why do I have to point that out again and again? It's plain obvious that the current state of the US/UK is far away from being early 1930/1933.
You don't have to educate me about my country's history. I'm very aware of it. The bullshit part is the connection to the current UK/US. It's hyperbolic to such an extent that it sounds ridiculous to any sane person.
I'm unsurprised by the result in the end. Each kill was proceeded by something about to hurt him, and obviously the jury didn't consider the moment he sped up into them as creating the situation. I don't think the prosecution did a great job of actually creating the case, and focused on the wrong things, plus pissing off the judge.
The whole thing does highlight how stupid America is with it's gun culture, which creates these problems. Every other developed country if you walking about with a gun like that the cops will be all over you.
I'd imagine they are now in for a few more protest before it is back to business as usual, with the addition of the right putting him up as a poster boy.
The whole thing does highlight how stupid America is with it's gun culture, which creates these problems. Every other developed country if you walking about with a gun like that the cops will be all over you.
I'd imagine they are now in for a few more protest before it is back to business as usual, with the addition of the right putting him up as a poster boy.
I was going to go on thedonald.win or whatever they changed the name to, America.win or something like that, to see what the cultists reactions were but it seems they’ve shut the website down.
My guess is that if you asked people in the US/UK who can name at least ten current elected politicians in their respective country, somewhere around half would agree that politics has a vibe of the rise of the Nazis about it.
You'd be perfectly entitled to call them insane if you so wish but I don't think you can dismiss their views as irrelevant in the way I think you wish to by doing so.
If he did, would he have been sent home by policemen?
2 or 3 in particular. I'd actually prefer it if they came out and said so (show some balls) but these nicey nicey posts
"I'm unbiased BUT.." is disengenous.
Oh ffs, he wasn't actually arrested on site? I don't think I ever knew that.
How is that justified? Surely in every shooting the shooter has to be be detained at the very least so they can establish the facts?
How was he found after? What if he couldn't be identified?
As if I was shocked enough.
It would be taken as that in America and you know it would. In this made up scenario the poster talked about, do you really think a black person brandishing a gun in a white neighbourhood who subsequently gets attacked and then kills their attacker in self defense would win that self defense argument in a court of law?
Don't be daft, they'd be lucky if they even got out of the neighbourhood alive.
There are countless videos out there of white men open carrying assault rifles and having no bother, but black men doing the same and getting surrounded by police with guns trained in them.
We have surnames now. But calling people by surnames is super weird around here. Even our president don't get called by his last name, but Jokowi , which is like calling Donrump for donald trump.
The cops testified. They didn't realise he was the shooter, saying that many armed individuals put their hands up to show them they aren't a threat,. They pepper sprayed him to get him out of the road when he tried telling them what had happened.
He drove with his friend to his house in Antioch Illinois to tell his mum what had happened, they then went to the police station in Antioch less than an hour and a half after the shootings.
Donrump is quite catchy
Exactly. Look at that couple around the same time at this shooting happened. They brought their rifles out to the BLM protesters and only got a slap on the wrist.
If that was a black couple at a trump rally it would be an entirely different scenario.
My post wasn't my personal view or opinion, it was a likely outcome for this made up scenario based on the current climate in America.
So they thought they were looking for someone else effectively? Not that they just outright ignored it and let him carry on his merry way?
Yeah maybe don't chase a guy with a rifle with a handgun yelling get his ass and you won't die ?
Yep, thought it was someone else
It all depends on your neighborhood. I live in a predominantly white liberal part of town and I've seen black gangs with guns more welcomed than a redneck with guns. Totally different case in other areas of course.
Get outta the road guy with gun trying to tell us something, we're looking for a shooter here
Isn't this also the reason chubby kids shouldn't go to a protest with an assault rifle and act as vigilantes?
Of course.
I think the route the poster was going was that after this case a precedent has been set that anyone can insert themselves into a situation that they know will cause trouble but as long as they get attacked first before they kill someone they will have a successful self defense case.
I don't think thatl work in every scenario.
I knew nothing about this case.
From watching this video though, I can understand why he was acquitted.
The first guy who is killed is a lunatic, chasing after a man holding a rifle. There is then another man behind him chasing that shoots into the air.
No doubt Rittenhouse is scared at this point and fires off in pure panic.
The whole situation is bonkers and i'll never understand how the public is allowed to roam the streets with rifles and handguns. Madness.
Its a bit mad isn't it?Get outta the road guy with gun trying to tell us something, we're looking for a shooter here
I admire rittenshouse composure in shooting the guy biceps off first when the glock was aimed at his head and that's about it.
Closer to reality to say he was acting as security, the mob were acting to mete out vigilante justice on Rittenhouse after the first shooting (which they believe was justified)
Well, I mean none of it makes any sense to me. I just glad I live here where you never see a gun anywhere.
Eh, no I'm pretty sure going to a riot with an assault rifle to protect stuff is being a vigilante. But let's call it security, I will change my position to
Isn't that also the reason chubby kids shouldn't go to a riot to act as security.
The dude with the skateboard is guilty of assault if you ask me, sure, but he did get a bit of punishment from Kyle the security guard.
But do you honestly think it's ok that he gets no penalty, slap on the wrist, stern talking to or whatever? I just cannot fathom that. It's like me going to a clash between Ajax and Feyenoord fans with a gun and wait to be attacked and kill people. It's madness. I can even say that I want to shoot Ajax fans a day before. How can you set such a precedent.
Now if his family owned a store there and they were protecting their own property I suppose it would be the American way to shoot all trespassers on sight. But it wasn't and he's not a security guard or police officer, he's a 17 year old redditindoctrinated proud boy sympathiser shitstain who should've been in bed playing with his Hitler and Goering action figures.
Last edited:
Black people have gotten harassed literally for owning a house and walking on pavements so I think that wouldn't go to well with the same lot who have no issue with this guy roaming around openly with a gun.
You strike me as a very rational individual who has put a lot of thought into this
Thank you. I'm also very good at reading sarcasm though.
However, do you think this precedent where someone can go to a riot with a rifle and wait to be attacked so he can kill people in self defence is a good, normal or sustainable thing? Surely there will be I'll willing people who make us of this by trying to get attacked by groups they dislike?
I didn't find that part very irrational honestly. I just wear my lack of objectivity on my sleeve rather than try and hide it. Wink wink nudge nudge.