ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Kyle Rittenhouse , murder cases

Reply
Old 11th September 2020, 02:35 AM   #81
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,843
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Perhaps to portray the shooter as a kid, to humanise him and to generate sympathy.

The victims are referred to by only their last names for the opposite reason - and to stress (((Rosenbaum)))
But even those who think it is clear cut murder are doing it so it doesn't seem to be anything to do whether you think he murdered someone or not.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 02:43 AM   #82
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
Perhaps to portray the shooter as a kid, to humanise him and to generate sympathy.
The person who established this trend on the thread was SuburbanTurkey. In post #1 SuburbanTurkey refers first to Kyle Rittenhouse and then to just "Kyle". By post #7 SuburbanTurkey is talking about Kyle and Rosenbaum. By post #9 Thermal is referring to Kyle Rittenhouse as Captain Kyle. SuburbanTurkey does it again in post #10. smartcooky bucks the trend for 1 post in post #11

I don't think your explanation holds water.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 02:50 AM   #83
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Home.
Posts: 8,195
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The person who established this trend on the thread was SuburbanTurkey. In post #1 SuburbanTurkey refers first to Kyle Rittenhouse and then to just "Kyle". By post #7 SuburbanTurkey is talking about Kyle and Rosenbaum. By post #9 Thermal is referring to Kyle Rittenhouse as Captain Kyle. SuburbanTurkey does it again in post #10. smartcooky bucks the trend for 1 post in post #11

I don't think your explanation holds water.
Don't forget the adequately explained "Ky-Ky".
__________________
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:03 AM   #84
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,850
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Catching up on this thread and I noticed something that I find curious so I'm going to ask about it: Why are members referring to the killer by his first name but the dead by their last?
I refer to them all by their surnames, because I'm not too lazy type out their full names
__________________
"Silence is Donald Trump's concession speech" - Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:10 AM   #85
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,850
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
What was the alternative?
How about don't bring your ******* gun to a protest in the first place?

You start bringing guns to places where there is likely to be intensely conflicting attitudes, and its a recipe for disaster. People bring guns to these sorts of things for only two reasons

1. To participate in an intimidating dick wagging competition.

2. Because they intend to shoot people if things turn nasty.

Bringing the guns ramps up the tension and the fear. We have seen the result!
__________________
"Silence is Donald Trump's concession speech" - Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:29 AM   #86
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
How about don't bring your ******* gun to a protest in the first place?
Its not a protest, it's a riot. You can see that from the dumpster being set on fire and pushed towards a gas station that Rittenhouse put out. The "protesters" had also brought guns to the riot as we see with Grosskreutz.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You start bringing guns to places where there is likely to be intensely conflicting attitudes, and its a recipe for disaster. People bring guns to these sorts of things for only two reasons

1. To participate in an intimidating dick wagging competition.

2. Because they intend to shoot people if things turn nasty.

Bringing the guns ramps up the tension and the fear. We have seen the result!
I'm not at all sure that those are the only two reasons. What the situation needs is for the police to come in and arrest all the people engaged in public criminality and for the DA to prosecute them. At that point BLM can march up and down and do their thing, and the militia guys can either go home or march up and down and do their thing, and the police can stand in the middle and make sure nothing crazy happens.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 04:15 AM   #87
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
The test isn't going to be "is it possible that". So far the evidence we have backs up the defence claim that he had reason to fear for his life from Rosenbaum. Presumably at any trial we will have testimony about what happened and probably other video. I'm not sure where the certainty on the forum is coming from that Rosenbaum was merely intending to disarm Rittenhouse in the interests of public safety.


What has that got to do with anything?


Sure, but we also know that the protesters had at least one concealed illegally held pistol, don't we?


I suppose this is possible. I'm not sure that that changes anything if we are talking about his beliefs with respect to a claim of self defence.


How would this matter with respect to Rittenhouse's beliefs with respect to a claim of self defence?


Why would it matter if it is ever shown that there definitely was a gun, who had it, or the direction in which it was fired? We hear what sounds like a gun on multiple recordings, and have a witness on tape saying that they hear a shot just before the confrontation, in other words the story I'm presenting was what was understood by witnesses not involved with the shooting at the time.

More evidence will probably come out, so things may change, but for now I am baffled by your confidence in your narrative. It defies the evidence that we have.

It's relevant because Rittenhouse didn't shoot the gunman, he shot the unarmed Rosenbaum. Unless there's some evidence showing that the two men were attacking Rittenhouse as accomplices, the actions of a third party can't justify a self-defense killing. Rittenhouse may have been in legitimate danger, but the relevant question is was he in danger of serious injury from Rosenbaum. Perhaps, perhaps not. The probable cause statement with the eye witness states that a armed individual was present in alliance with Rittenhouse. This may well be our pistol shooter seen on video. It's a big leap to assume the pistol shot was in hostility to Rittenhouse.

I think it quite odd you assume quite a bit of intentions on all those involved, despite no evidence of this. You claim Rosenbaum was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, yet I see no evidence of this. You claim Rittenhouse was targeted in retaliation for some dumpster fire skirmish, which is a massive assumption without evidence. You've filled in many details that paint Rittenhouse as a victim of aggression through no bad action on his part, which we simply cannot know at this time.

The probable cause statement interviews the journalist (who is also the victim of a reckless endangerment charge from the shooting) who was very close to the action. I can't quite tell with exact precision the exact order of events. It almost sounds like Rittenhouse fired a shot into the ground before Rosenbaum tried to grab the muzzle. If Rittenhouse was pointing or firing a "warning shot" before Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, then Rosenbaum may well have been legally justified in trying to disarm his soon to be killer.


Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Rosenbaum was attempting to take the high-powered semi-automatic weapon from Rittenhouse and was being followed by other rioters. Had he not shot Rosenbaum he would have found out what Rosenbaum and the rioters intended to do to him once Rosenbaum had the high-powered semi-automatic weapon and Rittenhouse did not.


What was the alternative? Wait for the rioters to beat him unconscious and hope for the best? Again, Huber attempted to grab the gun. If Rittenhouse doesn't shoot Huber he is going to find out what happens when the rioters have the gun and he doesn't.


Not entirely true. The man who was shot in the arm was armed (presumably illegally, given the burglary conviction) and says he was intending to empty the magazine into Rittenhouse.


Not at all, I think the police should go in and arrest all the criminal rioters and they should be kept off the streets until things quiet down. They should also be policing the militia since, even if it is legal, it is a tense situation in which bad things can happen. Order needs to be restored.

Surely arresting the rioters and looters would be good for BLM? No more images of burning buildings.
If the first killing was unlawful, Rittenhouse has basically no right to defend himself from people attempting to detain or disarm him, even violently. If the first shooting is criminal, the later shootings are those of a fleeing, dangerous criminal. The actions of Huber could be considered one of someone attempting a citizens arrest of a fleeing murderer, and the murderer has no right to defend himself from such an action. It's quite clear that this is what people on the street felt in the video, that Rittenhouse was a killer fleeing the scene of his previous shooting.

If you have a source about the intentions of the man with the handgun wanting to "empty the magazine into Rittenhouse", I'd appreciate a link. From my own viewing, it appears to me the man with the handgun had ample opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse and chose not to, which is unfortunate given that Rittenhouse would continue to kill.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 11th September 2020 at 04:30 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 04:49 AM   #88
bluesjnr
Professional Nemesis for Hire
 
bluesjnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Home.
Posts: 8,195
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's relevant because Rittenhouse didn't shoot the gunman, he shot the unarmed Rosenbaum. Unless there's some evidence showing that the two men were attacking Rittenhouse as accomplices, the actions of a third party can't justify a self-defense killing. Rittenhouse may have been in legitimate danger, but the relevant question is was he in danger of serious injury from Rosenbaum. Perhaps, perhaps not. The probable cause statement with the eye witness states that a armed individual was present in alliance with Rittenhouse. This may well be our pistol shooter seen on video. It's a big leap to assume the pistol shot was in hostility to Rittenhouse.

I think it quite odd you assume quite a bit of intentions on all those involved, despite no evidence of this. You claim Rosenbaum was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, yet I see no evidence of this. You claim Rittenhouse was targeted in retaliation for some dumpster fire skirmish, which is a massive assumption without evidence. You've filled in many details that paint Rittenhouse as a victim of aggression through no bad action on his part, which we simply cannot know at this time.

The probable cause statement interviews the journalist (who is also the victim of a reckless endangerment charge from the shooting) who was very close to the action. I can't quite tell with exact precision the exact order of events. It almost sounds like Rittenhouse fired a shot into the ground before Rosenbaum tried to grab the muzzle. If Rittenhouse was pointing or firing a "warning shot" before Rosenbaum tried to grab the gun, then Rosenbaum may well have been legally justified in trying to disarm his soon to be killer.




If the first killing was unlawful, Rittenhouse has basically no right to defend himself from people attempting to detain or disarm him, even violently. If the first shooting is criminal, the later shootings are those of a fleeing, dangerous criminal. The actions of Huber could be considered one of someone attempting a citizens arrest of a fleeing murderer, and the murderer has no right to defend himself from such an action. It's quite clear that this is what people on the street felt in the video, that Rittenhouse was a killer fleeing the scene of his previous shooting.

If you have a source about the intentions of the man with the handgun wanting to "empty the magazine into Rittenhouse", I'd appreciate a link. From my own viewing, it appears to me the man with the handgun had ample opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse and chose not to, which is unfortunate given that Rittenhouse would continue to kill.
Having read your response it seems that you've not seen the videos posted earlier or, if you have, you've completely ignored the one that shows Rittenhouse (with only a small chance that it wasn't him) actually extinguishing the dumpster fire and being set upon.

Which is it, please?
__________________
bluesjnr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:07 AM   #89
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
I question the need for this thread. It's entirely predictable that reasonable people would argue that Rittenhouse is guilty of at least lesser charges of murder, given that we can see them being performed on video. Right wingers will defend Rittenhouse using whatever lies and cherry picking they can muster because they rely on the narrative that "protecting property" (killing left-wingers) with a gun is a just and moral act. The result is yet another thread where right wingers lie and obfuscate and the rest of us are frustrated, eventually leading to shouting matches and mod action.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:13 AM   #90
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,003
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
How about don't bring your ******* gun to a protest in the first place?

You start bringing guns to places where there is likely to be intensely conflicting attitudes, and its a recipe for disaster. People bring guns to these sorts of things for only two reasons

1. To participate in an intimidating dick wagging competition.

2. Because they intend to shoot people if things turn nasty.

Bringing the guns ramps up the tension and the fear. We have seen the result!
Two important Wisconsin laws: (939.48)

Quote:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

....

(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
So if he provokes it by committing a tort such as assault (putting someone in fear of immediate bodily harm) then the legal bar for self defense increases and requires him to try to escape.

Maybe more important:

Quote:
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
This is where social media posts and such come in. If he was there because he wanted a chance to shoot antifa, then no self-defense.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:16 AM   #91
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,003
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
The guy should plead guilty so he's sentenced before Trump loses and no longer has the ability to pardon him.
These are state crimes prosecuted by a state. Trump can only pardon federal crimes.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:26 AM   #92
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
It's relevant because Rittenhouse didn't shoot the gunman, he shot the unarmed Rosenbaum. Unless there's some evidence showing that the two men were attacking Rittenhouse as accomplices, the actions of a third party can't justify a self-defense killing.
Surely self defence is a question of whether the person claiming it holds a reasonable belief that they were about to be attacked/killed? Whether or not they actually are doesn't enter into it.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Rittenhouse may have been in legitimate danger, but the relevant question is was he in danger of serious injury from Rosenbaum. Perhaps, perhaps not.
No that is not the question. The question is whether he held a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious injury from Rosenbaum.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I think it quite odd you assume quite a bit of intentions on all those involved, despite no evidence of this. You claim Rosenbaum was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse, yet I see no evidence of this.
From one of the newspaper articles about the case:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ms/5654579002/
Quote:
The criminal complaint says Rosenbaum was unarmed. Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum ended up in a parking lot, with the reporter close behind them.

The reporter said Rittenhouse reached a car and had his gun in a "low ready position," with the gun angled down, before raising it. Hearing a gunshot, the reporter dove to the pavement.

A video cited in the criminal complaint captured a loud bang, presumably the first gunshot, then a man shouting an expletive. Rosenbaum can be seen appearing to approach Rittenhouse. As Rosenbaum gets closer, four more loud bangs ring out and he falls to the ground.

The reporter told police Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun. Rittenhouse pulled the rifle away, then raised it, and as the two came together, Rittenhouse fired a second time.
That is eye witness testimony of a reporter (Richard McGinnis) who was on the scene.

McGinnes caught the start of Rittenhouse running, which I had forgotten:
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2...e-rittenhouse/
Quote:
McGinnis said that as they were walking south another armed male who appeared to be in his 30s joined them and said he was there to protect the defendant. McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant.

McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant. When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running. McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly.
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
You claim Rittenhouse was targeted in retaliation for some dumpster fire skirmish, which is a massive assumption without evidence. You've filled in many details that paint Rittenhouse as a victim of aggression through no bad action on his part, which we simply cannot know at this time.
I am repeating statements made by witnesses and what we have in terms of video. We haven't had any video or witness statements that I am aware of that indicate any initiation from Rittenhouse, or any reason for the attack beyond putting out the fire. Something else may come to light. You guys have been either ignoring all the evidence in favour of self defence, or have not bothered to find out anything about the story.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If the first killing was unlawful, Rittenhouse has basically no right to defend himself from people attempting to detain or disarm him, even violently.
I'm not sure that that is true. What are you basing it on?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If the first shooting is criminal, the later shootings are those of a fleeing, dangerous criminal.
That may mean that they are entitled to attempt a citizen's arrest. It may be that their reasonable understanding of the situation entitles them to self defence. I'm not sure that denies Rittenhouse the possibility of self defence.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
The actions of Huber could be considered one of someone attempting a citizens arrest of a fleeing murderer, and the murderer has no right to defend himself from such an action.
I'm not sure that that is true. I checked the statute and I don't see anything like you describe in it: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
If you have a source about the intentions of the man with the handgun wanting to "empty the magazine into Rittenhouse", I'd appreciate a link. From my own viewing, it appears to me the man with the handgun had ample opportunity to shoot Rittenhouse and chose not to, which is unfortunate given that Rittenhouse would continue to kill.
The quote is all over the place, but I don't have any sources I'm comfortable with either confirming or refuting them. For what it's worth here is an article from the Blaze.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/armed-...ooting-regrets
This looks to come from a now deleted Facebook post from a friend of Grosskreutz.
https://archive.is/AaXvi
I don't see that hearsay like this is going to change things one way or the other, so I'm content to assume that it is false for the moment.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th September 2020 at 05:31 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:33 AM   #93
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
This is where social media posts and such come in. If he was there because he wanted a chance to shoot antifa, then no self-defense.
Indeed, and nor should there be.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:35 AM   #94
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
Surely self defence is a question of whether the person claiming it holds a reasonable belief that they were about to be attacked/killed? Whether or not they actually are doesn't enter into it.


No that is not the question. The question is whether he held a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious injury from Rosenbaum.


From one of the newspaper articles about the case:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ms/5654579002/

That is eye witness testimony of a reporter (Richard McGinnis) who was on the scene.

McGinnes caught the start of Rittenhouse running, which I had forgotten:
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2...e-rittenhouse/



I am repeating statements made by witnesses and what we have in terms of video. We haven't had any video or witness statements that I am aware of that indicate any initiation from Rittenhouse, or any reason for the attack beyond putting out the fire. Something else may come to light. You guys have been either ignoring all the evidence in favour of self defence, or have not bothered to find out anything about the story.


I'm not sure that that is true. What are you basing it on?


That may mean that they are entitled to attempt a citizen's arrest. It may be that their reasonable understanding of the situation entitles them to self defence. I'm not sure that denies Rittenhouse the possibility of self defence.


I'm not sure that that is true. I checked the statute and I don't see anything like you describe in it: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48


The quote is all over the place, but I don't have any sources I'm comfortable with either confirming or refuting them. For what it's worth here is an article from the Blaze.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/armed-...ooting-regrets
This looks to come from a now deleted Facebook post from a friend of Grosskreutz.
https://archive.is/AaXvi
I don't see that hearsay like this is going to change things one way or the other, so I'm content to assume that it is false for the moment.
My reading of the journalist's account is that Rittenhouse had already fired the first shot before Rosenbaum grabbed the gun. Grabbing the gun wasn't the inciting incident.

Self-defense is explicitly denied by the statute for those engaging in unlawful provocation. I think a broader argument that illegally carrying a rifle while intentionally violating a riot curfew in order to confront other rioters could be construed as unlawful provocation. Every second that Kyle was on the streets armed was unlawful.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 11th September 2020 at 05:39 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:36 AM   #95
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I question the need for this thread. It's entirely predictable that reasonable people would argue that Rittenhouse is guilty of at least lesser charges of murder, given that we can see them being performed on video. Right wingers will defend Rittenhouse using whatever lies and cherry picking they can muster because they rely on the narrative that "protecting property" (killing left-wingers) with a gun is a just and moral act. The result is yet another thread where right wingers lie and obfuscate and the rest of us are frustrated, eventually leading to shouting matches and mod action.
Stop lying and obfuscating. Nobody got killed here to defend property. This is a self defence argument based on a mob of armed arsonists chasing down a 17 year old who may have had a reasonable basis to fear for his safety.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 05:49 AM   #96
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
My reading of the journalist's account is that Rittenhouse had already fired the first shot before Rosenbaum grabbed the gun. Grabbing the gun wasn't the inciting incident.
https://www.wispolitics.com/wp-conte...-Complaint.pdf
Quote:
Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it. McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
In this account he had either grabbed the gun, or had attempted to grab the gun when he was shot.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Self-defense is explicitly denied by the statute for those engaging in unlawful provocation. I think a broader argument that illegally carrying a rifle while intentionally violating a riot curfew in order to confront other rioters could be construed as unlawful provocation. Every second that Kyle was on the streets armed was unlawful.
I think it is going to difficult to argue that engaging in something legal (open carry) would count as provocation in this sense. Maybe, I don't know. In any case, the statute also says this:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48
Quote:
A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
He attempted to get away. Rosenbaum caught up with him and attempted to get his gun. I'm not sure even if being armed counted as provocation, it would matter since he did indeed attempt to escape from the situation.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th September 2020 at 05:53 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 06:00 AM   #97
SuburbanTurkey
Philosopher
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 6,695
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
https://www.wispolitics.com/wp-conte...-Complaint.pdf

In this account he had either grabbed the gun, or had attempted to grab the gun when he was shot.


I think it is going to difficult to argue that engaging in something legal (open carry) would count as provocation in this sense. Maybe, I don't know. In any case, the statute also says this:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...tes/939/iii/48

He attempted to get away. Rosenbaum caught up with him and attempted to get his gun. I'm not sure even if being armed counted as provocation, it would matter since he did indeed attempt to escape from the situation.
I suppose we'll get clarification from that eyewitness as the case proceeds. I think it's unclear exactly what the timing was. The way I read it, the first shot did not strike Rosenbaum, and only after that did he lunge for the rifle. Perhaps that is not correct, we only have the PC document.

Rittenhouse will claim his open carrying is lawful. Seems like a long shot to me, and he has been charged with unlawfully carrying the gun since he is a minor. It is quite plain he is violating the curfew, despite the cops not bothering to enforce it on the armed mob.

I don't think there's much more point in going back and forth on this. Witnesses will be called, timelines will be hammered out. I suppose we just have to be patient.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 06:04 AM   #98
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I don't think there's much more point in going back and forth on this. Witnesses will be called, timelines will be hammered out. I suppose we just have to be patient.
Fair enough.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 06:05 AM   #99
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Which Wisconsin statute did Kyle break?
The homicide one, mostly.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Have you notified the prosecutors of your allegation since they have not changed Kyle of brandishing in their official charges?
They probably didn't charge him with "obstructing a public way" or hunting outside of deer season, either.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 11:44 AM   #100
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Rosenbaum know people were there to protect property with guns. Why would be assume Kyle was a mass-shooter?
Wow. You seem to have information about what Rosenbaum knew. Evidence derived from a seance may be questionable.

And who said anything about mass shooting? A sniper can plink at a single individual. Please share your source for these factual assertions.

Or you could drop the Socratic horse **** and get to the point?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 01:08 PM   #101
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Wow. You seem to have information about what Rosenbaum knew. Evidence derived from a seance may be questionable.
Of course be knew. He encountered and fighting with militia guys standing next to property with guns. If I'm near a celebrity and someone a big guy with a gun next to them, I'm going to assume they are their to protect them.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Or you could drop the Socratic horse **** and get to the point?
*Sign*, the point is you seem to be implying that someone with a rifle must be a potential shooter and attacking them is justified.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 01:16 PM   #102
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,779
Kid in riot with AR-15 is not analogous to celebrity bodyguard. In my humble opinion.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 02:21 PM   #103
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Of course be knew. He encountered and fighting with militia guys standing next to property with guns. If I'm near a celebrity and someone a big guy with a gun next to them, I'm going to assume they are their to protect them.



*Sign*, the point is you seem to be implying that someone with a rifle must be a potential shooter and attacking them is justified.
*le sigh*

No, attacking them is not necessarily justified right out of the gate. But you can be 100% sure that someone without a badge running around with a gun during a riot after curfew is a criminal. No ifs, ands or buts. You seem to suggest that you could look at Ky-Ky and know he was just playing Avengers and thought he was in some kind of righteous militia. Bad news for you: martial law was not declared, nor was Ky-Ky an agent of law enforcement. He was nothing but another punk on the street, like the rest of them. Except that he brought a killing tool. So yeah, Rosenbaum and anyone else have no reason to assume he was a good guy. His very armed presence indicates he was not.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 02:22 PM   #104
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Wow. You seem to have information about what Rosenbaum knew. Evidence derived from a seance may be questionable.

And who said anything about mass shooting? A sniper can plink at a single individual. Please share your source for these factual assertions.

Or you could drop the Socratic horse **** and get to the point?
One clue might have been that Rittenhouse prevented Rosenbaum's group from carrying out whatever arson they were working on in the vicinity of the building the militia were protecting.

It hardly matters though if we are talking about Rittenhouse's justification for the shooting.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 02:41 PM   #105
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
*le sigh*

No, attacking them is not necessarily justified right out of the gate. But you can be 100% sure that someone without a badge running around with a gun during a riot after curfew is a criminal.
You can be sure they are criminals in a sense that is different from the sense in which the people pushing the lighted dumpster towards the gas station were criminals? The first sounds like a misdemeanor, the second sounds like a felony.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You seem to suggest that you could look at Ky-Ky and know he was just playing Avengers and thought he was in some kind of righteous militia.
The other militia standing with him is probably a clue. The fact that he goes to put out the dumpster is a clue.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Bad news for you: martial law was not declared, nor was Ky-Ky an agent of law enforcement.
Obviously.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
He was nothing but another punk on the street, like the rest of them.
Defending stores, putting out fires... a punk, just like the group trying to burn down the gas station.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Except that he brought a killing tool.
Sure, just like Grosskreutz.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
So yeah, Rosenbaum and anyone else have no reason to assume he was a good guy. His very armed presence indicates he was not.
When Rosenbaum and his group were prevented from pushing a flaming dumpster towards the gas station... they assumed the group that stopped them was up to no good? They thought the heavily armed group was looking for an opportunity to shoot somebody so they shouted in their faces and pushed? Wouldn't the militia acting calmly in the face of their provocation be a clue that they weren't up to no good? They then chase down the youngest member of the group when he got seperated? They really don't seem too concerned that the militia are going to use the guns.

None of this relates to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in shooting Rosenbaum or the others.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th September 2020 at 02:48 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:08 PM   #106
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
You can be sure they are criminals in a sense that is different from the sense in which the people pushing the lighted dumpster towards the gas station were criminals? The first sounds like a misdemeanor, the second sounds like a felony.


The other militia standing with him is probably a clue. The fact that he goes to put out the dumpster is a clue.


Obviously.


Defending stores, putting out fires... a punk, just like the group trying to burn down the gas station.


Sure, just like Grosskreutz.


When Rosenbaum and his group were prevented from pushing a flaming dumpster towards the gas station... they assumed the group that stopped them was up to no good? They thought the heavily armed group was looking for an opportunity to shoot somebody so they shouted in their faces and pushed? Wouldn't the militia acting calmly in the face of their provocation be a clue that they weren't up to no good? They then chase down the youngest member of the group when he got seperated? They really don't seem too concerned that the militia are going to use the guns.

None of this relates to whether or not Rittenhouse was justified in shooting Rosenbaum or the others.
You were so close, but still missed it.

If Ky-Ky and others were putting out fires, that does not mean they don't plan to shoot you. That's the problem with criminals; you don't know how far their moral compass will swing back and forth. They might well put greasing an anarchist right along side of putting out a fire in terms of public service. Why, absurd as it sounds, they might kill one of them, then flee and wax another while blowing another guy's arm apart for good measure. Am I being too hyperbolic there?

The question asked was how anyone would know if Kyle was bad news? My answer is that he declared himself law enforcement/militia in defiance of police orders, so he for god damned sure isn't on the side of law and order. You're just throwing dice with how far he is away from them.

Oh, and he is charged with homicide et al. The 5-0 seems to agree with me.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Last edited by Thermal; 11th September 2020 at 03:09 PM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:16 PM   #107
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,742
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Catching up on this thread and I noticed something that I find curious so I'm going to ask about it: Why are members referring to the killer by his first name but the dead by their last?
It's a term of endearment/derision. Ky-Ky, the kyster, the kymeister it's something an unhip dad would say to his daughter Stacy in the 80's.

As in,

"Yo, Stace, you going out with the kymeister tonite?"

Dad!!! Don't call him that!!!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:20 PM   #108
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
It's a term of endearment/derision. Ky-Ky, the kyster, the kymeister it's something an unhip dad would say to his daughter Stacy in the 80's.

As in,

"Yo, Stace, you going out with the kymeister tonite?"

Dad!!! Don't call him that!!!
Did the Kymeister also murder two people and injure a third in the 80's?
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:28 PM   #109
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
It's a term of endearment/derision. Ky-Ky, the kyster, the kymeister it's something an unhip dad would say to his daughter Stacy in the 80's.

As in,

"Yo, Stace, you going out with the kymeister tonite?"

Dad!!! Don't call him that!!!
But does he got it goin on with Stacy's Mom?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:32 PM   #110
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You were so close, but still missed it.

If Ky-Ky and others were putting out fires, that does not mean they don't plan to shoot you. That's the problem with criminals; you don't know how far their moral compass will swing back and forth. They might well put greasing an anarchist right along side of putting out a fire in terms of public service. Why, absurd as it sounds, they might kill one of them, then flee and wax another while blowing another guy's arm apart for good measure. Am I being too hyperbolic there?

The question asked was how anyone would know if Kyle was bad news? My answer is that he declared himself law enforcement/militia in defiance of police orders, so he for god damned sure isn't on the side of law and order. You're just throwing dice with how far he is away from them.

Oh, and he is charged with homicide et al. The 5-0 seems to agree with me.
So the rioters knew the gun he was carrying was illegal? And why would a group of rioters care about legality?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 03:34 PM   #111
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You were so close, but still missed it.

If Ky-Ky and others were putting out fires, that does not mean they don't plan to shoot you. That's the problem with criminals; you don't know how far their moral compass will swing back and forth.
On the one hand you have a group of people with criminal convictions and a history of violence involved in arson. On the other you have a group whose only crime at that point seems to be breaking curfew. I don't see that people open carrying can give you a self defence justification for assaulting them as we see in the video. I also don't see how a would be arsonist breaking curfew is in a position to argue they were making a citizens arrest of Rittenhouse on the basis that he was open carrying while breaking curfew.

In any case, none of this matters since the state of mind of Rosenbaum isn't relevant to Rittenhouse's self defence justification.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
They might well put greasing an anarchist right along side of putting out a fire in terms of public service. Why, absurd as it sounds, they might kill one of them, then flee and wax another while blowing another guy's arm apart for good measure. Am I being too hyperbolic there?
I don't see that legally open carrying can't be a justification for people to claim self defence when they attack you.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The question asked was how anyone would know if Kyle was bad news?
How can any of them know that any of them aren't bad news? Can everybody assault everybody else like it's the purge?

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
My answer is that he declared himself law enforcement/militia in defiance of police orders, so he for god damned sure isn't on the side of law and order.
That is a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You're just throwing dice with how far he is away from them.
I have no idea what that means.

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, and he is charged with homicide et al. The 5-0 seems to agree with me.
It was certainly homicide. The question is whether it was self defence. He has to assert self defence. The police/DA aren't going to do that for him.

Last edited by shuttlt; 11th September 2020 at 03:35 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2020, 04:32 PM   #112
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Guys...

The police set a curfew. Captain Kyle and the Avengers retorted "**** you cops, WE are the law" and sauntered over to some random burned out car dealership that the owner did not ask them to defend (probably add trespass on the list). They declared it Fort ******* Apache and prepared to defend it. Who were they going to shoot? Cuz that was the plan: shoot em up, or maybe wave guns around and intimidate rioters with threat of disproportionate response.

The Avengers here were not in the right from word go. But don't get me wrong: I'm ok with being out in a riot. Just check your halo at the door. You have elected to be a bad guy, one way or the other.

Anyone think everyone would still be alive if heroic Kyle had left that illegal carried weapon at home? Er, I mean loaded thousand dollar rifle that apparently fell off the back of a truck?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 04:55 AM   #113
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Guys...

The police set a curfew. Captain Kyle and the Avengers retorted "**** you cops, WE are the law"
No. Kyle was working with the police. There is video of them thanking the militia 15 minutes before the shooting. He was only breaking curfew because the rioters were.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 05:29 AM   #114
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,147
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
No. Kyle was working with the police. There is video of them thanking the militia 15 minutes before the shooting. He was only breaking curfew because the rioters were.
So he was deputized then? Strange that the police would deputize a 17 year old illegally carrying a weapon.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 07:34 AM   #115
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,074
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Guys...

The police set a curfew. Captain Kyle and the Avengers retorted "**** you cops, WE are the law" and sauntered over to some random burned out car dealership that the owner did not ask them to defend (probably add trespass on the list). They declared it Fort ******* Apache and prepared to defend it. Who were they going to shoot? Cuz that was the plan: shoot em up, or maybe wave guns around and intimidate rioters with threat of disproportionate response.
Gee, you mean to say that if everybody had listened to the cops and did what the cops told them to do, nobody'd be dead?

Hey everybody, listen to the cops and do what they tell you to do!
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 08:21 AM   #116
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
No. Kyle was working with the police. There is video of them thanking the militia 15 minutes before the shooting. He was only breaking curfew because the rioters were.
If I showed you video of a cop thanking a hooker for a hummer, or thanking his dealer for dope, does that legitimatize it? The criminal is off scott free because a crooked cop appreciates the crime? Are you remotely serious here?
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 08:29 AM   #117
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 12,505
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Gee, you mean to say that if everybody had listened to the cops and did what the cops told them to do, nobody'd be dead?

Hey everybody, listen to the cops and do what they tell you to do!
Not at all. I sympathize with the protesters. What I don't sympathize with is the lame ass excuses for one that murders, under whatever flag he claims.

(G)You take a gun into the streets, you want to shoot someone. Period. No cowardly excuses. Your sole intent by carrying a gun is to put a bullet in someone's someone's center mass, or maybe the skull, as Kyle did to Rosenbaum. Your are not carrying it for some
sporting target shooting competition. You intend to kill people. Own that ****.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 08:49 AM   #118
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Not at all. I sympathize with the protesters. What I don't sympathize with is the lame ass excuses for one that murders, under whatever flag he claims.

(G)You take a gun into the streets, you want to shoot someone. Period. No cowardly excuses. Your sole intent by carrying a gun is to put a bullet in someone's someone's center mass, or maybe the skull, as Kyle did to Rosenbaum. Your are not carrying it for some
sporting target shooting competition. You intend to kill people. Own that ****.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The kid was guarding private property from rioters.

Last edited by Jerrymander; 12th September 2020 at 08:51 AM.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 08:51 AM   #119
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 624
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
If I showed you video of a cop thanking a hooker for a hummer, or thanking his dealer for dope, does that legitimatize it? The criminal is off scott free because a crooked cop appreciates the crime? Are you remotely serious here?
So Kyle was bad for breaking curfew but the rioters weren't?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2020, 08:54 AM   #120
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
sauntered over to some random burned out car dealership that the owner did not ask them to defend (probably add trespass on the list).
What is your source for this assertion?
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.