Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[Loiosh]

Here’s a fun article about how Kyle killed the first amendment

Not everyone on the left is insane about Rittenhouse. This was "liked" by a ridiculously left speaker I admire.

 

[Mike]

I mean..... running towards a bunch of dangerouse idiots who are violently breaking the law is stupid on its face. Nobody does that unless there is something wrong with them.

And I have risked my life more than once to protect the week but that was in a clear case of someone being bullied or threatened or beaten or strangled by aggressor. I'm not afraid of violence at all.

But going to a riot you don't have to be at and bringing a loaded weapon is just plain stupidity. His life has been profoundly negatively impacted by this and he has killed two people in the process and im not saying that to save their lives here but his. There are few lives that this experience doesnt downgrade obviously.......

Killing people is not a positive experience.

When did he run towards anyone in an aggressive manner? Merely being armed isn't an aggressive act in and of itself. Why do you guys keep bringing up his presence there like that's some sort of evidence against him? Unlike the rioters, he was local to that area. Also unlike the rioters, he was there to help people in the community.

Where's all the judgment and questioning of motive for the people that came to Kenosha to loot, riot and assault people. Why do people find it so egregious that people are defending themselves and their community, which they're well within their legal rights to do? Where's the criticism for the police and government, that have failed to react to rioting appropriately and minimize damage? Finally, if the authorities aren't going to do that and you condemn citizens for standing up for their community, what do you expect to happen?

What recourse are you leaving for lawful citizens that don't want their cities burned down? It seems like you're saying they should stay in their homes and just let it happen. You're effectively removing all other options. Much of the time in here people condemn actions seemingly without providing any alternative of what they think should be done in the same scenario. It's easy to criticize someone else for reacting to an emergency situation.

 

[Poatan Power]

Just like when that sheriff said that the one guy who shot up his work said , he was having a bad day?

Wasn't that sheriff just quoting what the suspect said?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Wasn't that sheriff just quoting what the suspect said?

That was my impression.

 

[Poatan Power]

I mean..... running towards a bunch of dangerouse idiots who are violently breaking the law is stupid on its face. Nobody does that unless there is something wrong with them.

And I have risked my life more than once to protect the week but that was in a clear case of someone being bullied or threatened or beaten or strangled by aggressor. I'm not afraid of violence at all.

But going to a riot you don't have to be at and bringing a loaded weapon is just plain stupidity. His life has been profoundly negatively impacted by this and he has killed two people in the process and im not saying that to save their lives here but his. There are few lives that this experience doesnt downgrade obviously.......

Killing people is not a positive experience.

your posts are so diametrically opposed to themselves.

I value risk aversion as much as the next person, but I guess more than you because you "are not afraid of violence at all" (which would actually indicate there is something seriously wrong with you). If Kyle had not had a loaded weapon he'd had been battered or killed for putting out fires because he did fear violence, as he should. When good men do nothing, evil prospers, as we saw continuously throughout all of these riots. But for some reason we always have people defending those that are evil instead of those trying to do good.

Not going there is a great idea because it's risk averse and safe. But if nobody goes to oppose evil, evil prospers unfettered. You have to uproot weeds, not just pray for the crops.

 

[kenetics]

Wasn't that sheriff just quoting what the suspect said?

No lol

 

[Poatan Power]

No lol

"He was pretty much fed up and kind of at the end of his rope. Yesterday was a really bad day for him and this is what he did,"

that sounds like he was stating what the suspect had told them since the questions were all revolving around his motives for the crime

much ado about nothing imho. of course they tried to twist this into the officer being a racist who had empathy for the white suspect

jesus christ

 

[Mike]

your posts are so diametrically opposed to themselves.

I value risk aversion as much as the next person, but I guess more than you because you "are not afraid of violence at all" (which would actually indicate there is something seriously wrong with you). If Kyle had not had a loaded weapon he'd had been battered or killed for putting out fires because he did fear violence, as he should. When good men do nothing, evil prospers, as we saw continuously throughout all of these riots. But for some reason we always have people defending those that are evil instead of those trying to do good.

Not going there is a great idea because it's risk averse and safe. But if nobody goes to oppose evil, evil prospers unfettered. You have to uproot weeds, not just pray for the crops.

 

[jrams]

your posts are so diametrically opposed to themselves.

I value risk aversion as much as the next person, but I guess more than you because you "are not afraid of violence at all" (which would actually indicate there is something seriously wrong with you). If Kyle had not had a loaded weapon he'd had been battered or killed for putting out fires because he did fear violence, as he should. When good men do nothing, evil prospers, as we saw continuously throughout all of these riots. But for some reason we always have people defending those that are evil instead of those trying to do good.

Not going there is a great idea because it's risk averse and safe. But if nobody goes to oppose evil, evil prospers unfettered. You have to uproot weeds, not just pray for the crops.

You seem to be forgetting the moral obligation that, by nature of Kyle being an out of state combatant, Kyle needed to get into a karate fight with Rosenbaum first before resorting to using his fully automatic assault rifle

 

[terrapin]

When did he run towards anyone in an aggressive manner? Merely being armed isn't an aggressive act in and of itself. Why do you guys keep bringing up his presence there like that's some sort of evidence against him? Unlike the rioters, he was local to that area. Also unlike the rioters, he was there to help people in the community.

Where's all the judgment and questioning of motive for the people that came to Kenosha to loot, riot and assault people. Why do people find it so egregious that people are defending themselves and their community, which they're well within their legal rights to do? Where's the criticism for the police and government, that have failed to react to rioting appropriately and minimize damage? Finally, if the authorities aren't going to do that and you condemn citizens for standing up for their community, what do you expect to happen?

What recourse are you leaving for lawful citizens that don't want their cities burned down? It seems like you're saying they should stay in their homes and just let it happen. You're effectively removing all other options. Much of the time in here people condemn actions seemingly without providing any alternative of what they think should be done in the same scenario. It's easy to criticize someone else for reacting to an emergency situation.

You keep asking where the judgment is towards the rioters. How can you ask me that after my last post? Ive never supported the people who rioted and have always spoken against them. Im not being.partisan here and its easy to see stupidity on both sides. You dont "end up" at a riot wuth an ar 15 accidentally.

He made a terrible life altering choice that was mpre than a little unwise.

 

[terrapin]

your posts are so diametrically opposed to themselves.

I value risk aversion as much as the next person, but I guess more than you because you "are not afraid of violence at all" (which would actually indicate there is something seriously wrong with you). If Kyle had not had a loaded weapon he'd had been battered or killed for putting out fires because he did fear violence, as he should. When good men do nothing, evil prospers, as we saw continuously throughout all of these riots. But for some reason we always have people defending those that are evil instead of those trying to do good.

Not going there is a great idea because it's risk averse and safe. But if nobody goes to oppose evil, evil prospers unfettered. You have to uproot weeds, not just pray for the crops.

Now you are just trying to impune my character dishonestly. Partisan motives blind you.

 

[nhbbear]

Not everyone on the left is insane about Rittenhouse. This was "liked" by a ridiculously left speaker I admire.

There’s insanity on both sides about this case, but overall, the left seem to be particularly insane about this because of the lies they are believing

 

[Poatan Power]

Now you are just trying to impune my character dishonestly. Partisan motives blind you.

What? You're the one who said the words I quoted, not me.

I don't have any partisan motives. Standing up to evil isn't partisan.

 

[SBJJ]

No lol

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is what he told the cops. That's exactly what a psycho would say.

 

[Loiosh]

There’s insanity on both sides about this case, but overall, the left seem to be particularly insane about this because of the lies they are believing

It mostly stems from the belief that this kind of thing was planned and was always going to happen. A bunch of guys present with heavy artillery, someone was always going to get shot at some point.

Most of the people I'm talking to now on the left agree with the verdict and in how the liberal media coverage has been and is bad. There are a couple of dissenters arguing from an ideological perspective that I agree with in principle but can't support when discussing the verdict.

 

[kenetics]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that is what he told the cops. That's exactly what a psycho would say.

Smh.

 

[Mike]

You keep asking where the judgment is towards the rioters. How can you ask me that after my last post? Ive never supported the people who rioted and have always spoken against them. Im not being.partisan here and its easy to see stupidity on both sides. You dont "end up" at a riot wuth an ar 15 accidentally.

He made a terrible life altering choice that was mpre than a little unwise.

I'm asking you to explain why he made a terrible choice. It seems like the answer is because it ended with deaths directly because of the actions of the criminals there.

I've BEEN asking over and over, and it seems like I never get a straight answer. As far as we know from the available evidence, it only ended in violence because of those criminals. So why do I keep hearing this both sides were at fault narrative, when only one side is at fault.

What I'm saying so it's crystal clear, is KR is NOT at fault. Not at all. 0% at fault. Saying he is at fault seems to imply that law abiding citizens don't have a right to defend themselves or their communities. If you're not saying that, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But what are you saying?

 

[SBJJ]

Smh.

Shake it all you want. You are reaching on this and you know it.

 

[kenetics]

Shake it all you want. You are reaching on this and you know it.

Nope . They get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[nhbbear]

oh no!!


https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-verdict-could-191046552.html
On the surface, the jury’s Nov. 19 verdict in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse was all too simple. His defense team successfully pled the case that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed two people during a night of protests and unrest in Kenosha last August.

But Rittenhouse’s reasons for being in Kenosha, then-roiled by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, and the lack of accountability that’s being placed on his behavior is something criminal and racial justice activists are deeply concerned—and wholly unsurprised—about moving forward.

During an interview with Fox News broadcast on Nov. 22, Rittenhouse claimed that he supports the Black Lives Matter movement, and argued that his case had nothing to do with race. (While the circumstances were, broadly, related to a collective response to racial justice and police brutality, Rittenhouse and all three men he shot are white.)

However, according to some activists, the ramifications of his trial are less about Rittenhouse as an individual, and more about what he is now seen as representing—an opposition to protests and protesters that isn’t less about protecting property or supporting law enforcement, and more about a deep-seated disdain for racial equality.

Read more: The Kyle Rittenhouse Verdict Makes Us All Less Safe


The impact of Rittenhouse’s trial will be seen in “what happens when the people who respond to injustice are confronted by those who don’t agree with the response,” Dr. Amara Enyia, a public policy expert with Movement 4 Black Lives (M4BL) tells TIME. “This verdict is more about those who disagree with people who are protesting for whatever reason. It sends a message to those people—that they can get involved in ways that are reckless.”

“The jury’s verdict upholds white supremacy, even though the victims were white. The underlying issue was about the power of Black people to push back against police violence,” argues Delores Jones-Brown, a criminal justice professor at John Jay College in New York.

Blake, a 29-year-old Black man, was shot and paralyzed during a confrontation with police officers on Aug. 23, 2020. (The officers involved have not faced any criminal charges.) To many, the incident was yet another example of the injustices that often befalls Black civilians during encounters with the police—and resonated even more after George Floyd’s murder and the killing of Breonna Taylor.

“[Like with] many issues that people feel like are so important,” Enyia says of racial justice protesters, “the only way that they can get the attention of the powers that be is by being out in the streets engaging in their First Amendment rights.”

And it didn’t take long after news of Blake’s shooting broke for protests and unrest to spread across Kenosha. In addition to peaceful protests and demonstrations led by local organizers, individuals engaged in violence and property damage. On Aug. 24, 2020, the Wisconsin National Guard was sent to the city.


These are the circumstances that Rittenhouse arrived in, ostensibly to serve as a medic for people injured in clashes between protesters and counter-protesters, as well as to guard businesses deemed at risk of looting or property crimes. Regardless of his initial intentions, activists believe that his presence served to escalate tensions—to a fatal point. Before the night was out, Rittenhouse had fatally shot two men and injured a third. During his trial, Rittenhouse and others testified that his first victim, Joseph Rosenbaum, had initiated a conflict; Rittenhouse claimed he shot in self-defense. As he fled the scene, he then engaged physically with Anthony Huber, who was killed, and Gaige Grosskreutz, who was injured. Both of these men were armed.

“I think for white protesters, this may be their first brush with the idea that if you [are] for social justice or racial justice, you are at great risk that the system is willing to harm you,” Jones-Brown says. And activists are now concerned this verdict could “give license” and send a message to others that may identify with Rittenhouse’s actions. “It actually emboldens them. It sends a message that they will not be held accountable for their behavior and decision-making,” Enyia adds.

This in turn will most likely impact Black people engaged in protest work to a much larger extent than their white peers or “allies.”


These are the same voices that vilify Black protesters fighting for racial justice and defend state-sanctioned police violence against them. Rittenhouse is one person, but his actions are intrinsically tied to a web of white supremacist rhetoric and the nation’s longstanding history of anti-Black violence,” Rashad Robinson, president of the civil rights activists group Color of Change, said in a Nov. 19 statement.

“For those of us who believe in protest and who believe in the need for protest as a tool toward the end of systemic and structural injustice, it won’t stop us,” Enyia tells TIME. “Protesting is a tool and we will continue to use it.”

Other racial justice activists speaking with TIME in response to the jury’s verdict likewise say it will not impact their advocacy. But it presents serious complications, and may well change their tactics—forcing those on the ground protesting on the defense, focused on assessing potential threats and protecting themselves as well as uplifting their cause.

In some cases, this might mean carrying a legal firearm. (An August survey from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project revealed that demonstrations involving armed individuals are “nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive,” when compared to those that take place without firearms.) It could also mean that more organizers are trained in de-escalation tactics. The big takeaway is that this is another reminder that activists and protesters can’t rely on the system itself to protect them.

Furthermore, it reinforces the dangerous dichotomy that those protesting against white supremacy and racial violence will be at greater risk of it for calling it out.