Trayvon Martin Vs. Kyle Rittenhouse -- What's the Difference?

[Cuauhtemoc]

Trayvon didn't have a gun. Buy a gun, kids.

 

[Halifax]

Agree. Zimmerman was much smarter than Rittenhouse though, because he shot a guy alone, in the dark, not in the middle of a crowded street.

Smarter implies Kyle had a choice in the matter. He went there to defend stores and deter looters and assumed the rifle for show would be enough. I doubt he expected folks to be crazy enough to bullrush attack him while he was carrying an assault rifle.


But in Any case, being Canadian I decided to run a little social experiment. I posted the Rittenhouse video on facebook and made it private and only tagged 9 friends(6 woke Liberals, 3 Conservatives, all haligonians) i knew did not follow American politics and news at all, but are heavily into conservative vs Liberal/NDP politics in Canada. but I re-uploaded it to youtube on an Alias account called "Ontario News watcher" with the title "BLM supporter shoots in self defense against 3 White supremacists Toronto" and threw in an outrage line about "how dare this asshole intentionally go out looking for trouble and kill 3 unarmed civilians at a rally. It wasn't a white supremacist rally, just a People's party of Canada rally for Maxime Bernier"

I even gave the video a nice long fake news synopsis. Details like "the BLM/Antifa supporter went armed to confront a rally for PPC, known to have many supporters in Alberta.

Hilariously, the 6 Liberal/NDP BLM supporters all vigorously defended Rittenhouse in the video on the facebook post, stating he was under attack by obviously violent white supremacists and it was obvious he had no choice as they rushed him and wanted to get his gun and kill him. I parroted all the usual lines about how the BLM guy was obviously looking to start a fight and kill innocent folks at the rally and put himself in a situation where he could shoot somebody. They sat here literally arguing all the comments I make, but on the other side. 2 of the conservative guys immediately jumped on my side in the video, arguing for the 3 shot and the 3rd guy didn't respond for 8 hours.

When the 3rd Conservative guy responded hours later, he blew the whistle on it and said he could not find a single thing in the news about the Toronto shooting, but the shooting was widespread enough on social media by now that he saw it despite not following American news and informed the 6 Libs that they were taking the side of a Trump/Blue lives matter kid and told the 2 conservative guys they were actually defending Antifa/BLM. I was watching the fallout for that on that post for 4 days until they banned that youtube account.<{dayum}>

All in all it was fucking Hilarious and showed just how bad Partisan thinking and bandwagon hopping is at this point. Literally only 1 in 9 went digging for information before commenting.

The majority of people literally do not watch the physical evidence anymore without immediately picking a side before they even see it based on their political alignment.

The one guy at work I showed that video to without giving him details on anything said it was self defense, based on the video evidence alone. His only question during the video was "Why is that guy dumb enough to try to attack a guy with an assault rifle barehanded?", and I said "Shhhhh. just watch and tell me what you think"

 

[Fedorable]

Of course.

I don't believe Zimmerman went hands on first. You don't call 911 and then physically attack someone first. He was following him to be able to tell 911 were he was so the cops could stop and question. And if Trayvon wanted to run away and not be caught, he could have easily done that and out ran Zimmerman. Which is exactly what Trayvon did, but instead of just going home or running to a safe place and calling the cops, he then decided to gain the upper hand, surprise Zimmerman and turn the tables. Trayvon decided to get all badass, escalate the situation into a physical situation and that is the last thing you should ever do.

there was a 4 minute gap from when george told dispatchers he lost trayvon and when he was attacked. George went too far and had to turn around in order to get to the intersection (footpath) in order to meet back up with Trayvon, who could have walked to his stepfather's home and back 2 or 3 times or ran 10 times if he was afraid.

Trayvon had a history of attacking adults (busdriver) and other teenagers. He most likely had a history of burglary (burglary tools and jewelry found in his backpack at school), and had a thing for purple drank per facebook (I prefer to put my codeine with watermelon arizona iced tea with skittles in it).

The biggest difference is we have video of kyle defending himself and none of zimmerman---but everything corroborates his story. There just wasn't any evidence to convict zimmerman.

 

[Overtures]

I’m starting to think you guys are fucking retarded again....

 

[ultramanhyata]

Smarter implies Kyle had a choice in the matter. He went there to defend stores and deter looters and assumed the rifle for show would be enough. I doubt he expected folks to be crazy enough to bullrush attack him while he was carrying an assault rifle.


But in Any case, being Canadian I decided to run a little social experiment. I posted the Rittenhouse video on facebook and made it private and only tagged 9 friends(6 woke Liberals, 3 Conservatives, all haligonians) i knew did not follow American politics and news at all, but are heavily into conservative vs Liberal/NDP politics in Canada. but I re-uploaded it to youtube on an Alias account called "Ontario News watcher" with the title "BLM supporter shoots in self defense against 3 White supremacists Toronto" and threw in an outrage line about "how dare this asshole intentionally go out looking for trouble and kill 3 unarmed civilians at a rally. It wasn't a white supremacist rally, just a People's party of Canada rally for Maxime Bernier"

I even gave the video a nice long fake news synopsis. Details like "the BLM/Antifa supporter went armed to confront a rally for PPC, known to have many supporters in Alberta.

Hilariously, the 6 Liberal/NDP BLM supporters all vigorously defended Rittenhouse in the video on the facebook post, stating he was under attack by obviously violent white supremacists and it was obvious he had no choice as they rushed him and wanted to get his gun and kill him. I parroted all the usual lines about how the BLM guy was obviously looking to start a fight and kill innocent folks at the rally and put himself in a situation where he could shoot somebody. They sat here literally arguing all the comments I make, but on the other side. 2 of the conservative guys immediately jumped on my side in the video, arguing for the 3 shot and the 3rd guy didn't respond for 8 hours.

When the 3rd Conservative guy responded hours later, he blew the whistle on it and said he could not find a single thing in the news about the Toronto shooting, but the shooting was widespread enough on social media by now that he saw it despite not following American news and informed the 6 Libs that they were taking the side of a Trump/Blue lives matter kid and told the 2 conservative guys they were actually defending Antifa/BLM. I was watching the fallout for that on that post for 4 days until they banned that youtube account.<{dayum}>

All in all it was fucking Hilarious and showed just how bad Partisan thinking and bandwagon hopping is at this point. Literally only 1 in 9 went digging for information before commenting.

The majority of people literally do not watch the physical evidence anymore without immediately picking a side before they even see it based on their political alignment.

The one guy at work I showed that video to without giving him details on anything said it was self defense, based on the video evidence alone. His only question during the video was "Why is that guy dumb enough to try to attack a guy with an assault rifle barehanded?", and I said "Shhhhh. just watch and tell me what you think"

The talking points went out to the right-wing contingent concerning the first victim, Rosenbaum's, criminal sexual history because they know no reasonable human being believes the threat the unarmed, plastic bag-throwing Rosenbaum posed to Rittenhouse at the moment Rittenhouse killed him was imminently life-threatening.

So plan B was to make the child rapist Rosenbaum as unsympathetic a victim as possible in the court of public opinion.

Of course, this tactic won't be allowed at trial in an actual court of law and the jury is going to determine whether or not lethal force was justified strictly on the merits of the 's "threat" to Rittenhouse.

 

[lifelessheap]

Trayvon attacked a man who wasn't harming him in any way.

This is the problem when you are the type of person who strikes first when the situation doesn't call for it, eventually you meet your match and pay the ultimate price.

George was following directions from the 911 dispatcher. He stopped following and was walking back to his truck. Jabba the slut confirmed Trayvon stopped walking home to follow George to jump him.

He should have not attacked George.

 

[Bald1]

Lots of differences. The media spin portraying both shooters as white supremacists without any proof is similar though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I’m starting to think you guys are fucking retarded again....

Could be. But I didn't see you acknowledge or address a key difference. If it's true TM had gotten away from GZ and after that chose to go back and attack, then TM was not engaging in self-defense. At that point he would have been the aggressor.

 

[Overtures]

Could be. But I didn't see you acknowledge or address a key difference. If it's true TM had gotten away from GZ and after that chose to go back and attack, then TM was not engaging in self-defense. At that point he would have been the aggressor.

Yeah, the framework I’ve set up here and elaborated on in two follow up posts would grant Zimmerman the right to self defense and void, perhaps, Martin’s.


But I’ve not seen any concrete reports that that IS what happened. It’s just speculation. So the assumption I’m making in the OP is an assumption regarding what happened. If it’s an incorrect assumption, the guilt can change.

 

[TheGreatA]

Dead men don't tell tales. This is why, if you're going to get involved in a life and death confrontation, you better come out on top. Because you'll be the only guy left to tell the story (provided there are no cameras).

If Martin had killed Zimmerman, he could've probably spun the story in his own favour.

The biggest takeaway from both stories is that in both cases, the unarmed aggressor lost. Never a good idea to start a fight with somebody who's armed, while you're not.

 

[Overtures]

imo, OP's right. they're pretty similar: both self-defense.

and even a piece of shit like zimmerman has the right to defend himself.

funny enough, OP demonstrated modern leftism quite well - he doesn't think rights should apply to people he doesn't like.

Who said anything about likening Rittenhouse? In previous threads I’ve said he was a moron. Plus, based on his past actions. He seems like a jerk.

The OP is the exact opposite of what you’re describing, a case for Martin and Rittenhouse based on similar circumstances, not assumptions about their character.

On top of that, where did I even say anything about passing judgement on Zimmerman’s character!? I didn’t.



you’re spamming your identity politics tunnel vision

 

[rob mafia]

Who said anything about likening Rittenhouse? In previous threads I’ve said he was a moron. Plus, based on his past actions. He seems like a jerk.


The OP is the exact opposite of what you’re describing, a case for Martin and Rittenhouse based on similar circumstances, not assumptions about their character.

On top of that, where did I even say anything about passing judgement on Zimmerman’s character!? I didn’t.

dat reading comprehension.

hint: i didn't say that, either.

you’re spamming your identity politics tunnel vision

lolz @ believing i even HAVE identity politics.

Zimmerman forfeited his right to self-defense by pursuing Martin

lolz @ forfeiting a right because you approached someone to ask a question.

 

[SBJJ]

No, because he had no reasonable fear for his safety for someone walking down the same street as him. If zman had charged at him, sure.

Yea, that's what I remember from the case. That Martin was shot after attacking the dumbshit Zimmerman.

I still think Zimmerman was stupid and actually did probably initially instigate it by following him the way he did.

But yea, this is a stupid comparison

 

[Halifax]

The talking points went out to the right-wing contingent concerning the first victim, Rosenbaum's, criminal sexual history because they know no reasonable human being believes the threat the unarmed, plastic bag-throwing Rosenbaum posed to Rittenhouse at the moment Rittenhouse killed him was imminently life-threatening.

So plan B was to make the child rapist Rosenbaum as unsympathetic a victim as possible in the court of public opinion.

Of course, this tactic won't be allowed at trial in an actual court of law and the jury is going to determine whether or not lethal force was justified strictly on the merits of the 's "threat" to Rittenhouse.

Everyone who watched that video sees the threat of a near 40 year old man fearlessly rushing with intent to do physical harm to a minor.

His record of physical and sexual violence to kids even younger than the kid with the rifle merely enhances that perception.

Nice try tho. Keep defending the phile

 

[Overtures]

dat reading comprehension.



lolz @ believing i even HAVE identity politics.

dat reading comprehension.

hint: i didn't say that, either.


lolz @ believing i even HAVE identity politics.



lolz @ forfeiting a right because you approached someone to ask a question.

go ahead and make a case beyond lolz your a liberal



I’ll read it, probably won’t find it enlightening. But have at it.

 

[rob mafia]

go ahead and make a case beyond lolz your a liberal



I’ll read it, probably won’t find it enlightening. But have at it.

...you didn't ACTUALLY read it the first time. hence, "dat reading comprehension."

 

[Overtures]

...you didn't ACTUALLY read it the first time. hence, "dat reading comprehension."

Dumb it down for me

 

[BAM]

This guy:

Chased down a young and seemingly fit kid?

Maybe, but that seems SUPER unlikely. I thought that reports were that Trayvon got out of the immediate area of Zimmerman, but then came back to confront him? Martin's GF said that maybe?

IDK, Zimmerman seems like a POS but I cannot believe that whale ran down a younger, fitter kid.

lol Zimmerman gained literally 100 lbs in the 16 months between the incident and the trial. People thought that it was a strategy to seem less threatening.

I guess it worked.

here's the before:

Spoiler

 

[mkess101]

lol Zimmerman gained literally 100 lbs in the 16 months between the incident and the trial. People thought that it was a strategy to seem less threatening.

I guess it worked.

here's the before:

Spoiler

Holy crap yeah, that's a different story. I never followed it much, had no clue he ballooned like that.

 

[rob mafia]

Dumb it down for me

it's all there, in its unrefuted (yet, still quoted) glory.

perhaps you should have read it before making a dumb rant about "likening" and etc.