15
   

Kyle Rittenhouse question

 
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 10:26 pm
He'll be dead within two years.

If it even takes that long.

He's a walking dead man. Child, actually.

He can't handle the psychological trauma of killing. He'll meet up with sympathizers and realism. None will have his best interests, all will champion in his honor. Or lack of it. He has none. Nothing.

And that's The End.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 10:31 pm
@neptuneblue,
Progressives are evil and full of hate.

The kid will be just fine.
glitterbag
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2021 11:07 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

If Rittenhouse was black and was assaulted by 3 white people, would it be ok for you progressives? Is it just about color for you?


Chances are that if Rittenhouse had been black and killed two people and gravely wounded another, no one would believe it happened because no one thinks the police let a black man run thru the streets with an automatic weapon and assume he was there to help them. Everyone would think it was a fake headline for the Onion.
0 Replies
 
Stacy24
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 03:26 am
@izzythepush,
This was a very nasty post. I watched this entire trial with my family. The teenager was proven innocent. I wonder if people here will admit they were wrong.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 05:04 am
@Stacy24,
He is a murderer. You are no different.

Do you also support the killers who shot up Sandy Hook.?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 05:07 am
@McGentrix,
I knew this would get you excited.

Fantasising about standing your ground yourself?

There must be a progressive neighbourhood nearby you've been itching to shoot up.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 06:23 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

Good to see an innocent kid be found non-guilty. The best thing he did was to hire actual defense attorneys and not charlatans.

If Rittenhouse was black and was assaulted by 3 white people, would it be ok for you progressives? Is it just about color for you?


If Rittenhouse were black...he never would have survived walking back towards the police with a weapon after killing two people.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 06:50 am
@oralloy,
I've advocated all along that Kyle's mental health is challenged and needs professional help. He's not fine, Oralloy, and he'll get worse without intervention. He needs psychiatric care now more than ever, especially with a not guilty verdict.

It's ironic that I care more about him as a human that you do. Maybe bring down the hatred of progressives quite a few notches and understand no one is ok after killing two people.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 07:34 am
Of Course Kyle Rittenhouse Was Acquitted

It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions.

Quote:
The United States is a nation awash in firearms, and gun owners are a powerful and politically active constituency. In state after state, they have helped elect politicians who, in turn, have created a permissive legal regime for the carry and use of firearms, rules that go far beyond how courts originally understood the concept of self-defense.

These laws have made it difficult to convict any gun owner who knowingly puts themselves in circumstances where they are likely to use their weapon—that is, anyone who goes looking for a fight. It should come as no surprise then, that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges after shooting three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020, killing two of them.
Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were killed; Gaige Grosskreutz was injured but survived to testify against Rittenhouse at his trial.

According to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse need not have proved that he acted in self-defense—rather, the state had to prove that he did not. Even if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha with a firearm because he wanted to put himself in the position to use it, as David French writes, “the narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense.” Under some circumstances, Wisconsin law allows an individual to provoke an attack and still claim self-defense.

It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful” in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies.

The shootings took place across the backdrop of protests and riots in Kenosha that followed a police officer’s 2020 shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year old Black man, in the back and side, and the nationwide protests over the murder of George Floyd. Rittenhouse’s critics contend that his intentions were racist, because he showed up armed in anticipation of protests on behalf of Black rights, while his advocates maintain that he was defending the city from rioters and point out that his victims were white.

The ideological battle lines recall the 2013 George Zimmerman trial. In Zimmerman’s case, prosecutors said he assaulted 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s defense claimed the then-29-year-old had been attacked by Martin, whom Zimmerman had been following. Even though Martin would have had reason to be concerned about a grown man following him, the law was designed to accommodate people like Zimmerman, who was armed, and his defense attorneys were able to create enough reasonable doubt among the jury to secure his acquittal.

Conservatives saw Zimmerman as a martyr who acted in self-defense, unfairly vilified by a liberal press. Martin’s supporters saw him as yet another Black teenager perceived to be menacing both by authorities and by those who consider themselves adjacent to the authorities, as one of many Black children never extended the benefit of the doubt to which others are accustomed. But Zimmerman wasn’t simply acquitted; some on the right embraced his actions as the fulfillment of a violent fantasy.

Few people ever use a firearm in self-defense—doing so is rare even for police officers—so the extreme elements of right-wing gun culture have to conjure the specter of impending catastrophe in order to maintain their political salience. Sometimes this manifests in deranged reveries of armed revolution, sometimes in overt fantasies of murdering urban minorities, and sometimes in the make-believe of resisting a supposedly tyrannical government. Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience, in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover.

Not content to maintain that Zimmerman was innocent of murder, some of his supporters lived vicariously through his gunning down a Black teenager. People bought Trayvon Martin shooting targets. Right-wing pundits marked his birthday with jokes, and spread falsehoods about his background in an attempt to retroactively justify Zimmerman’s killing him. Some people turned Zimmerman into a hero, because he killed the kind of person they liked to imagine themselves killing. The fact that then-President Barack Obama empathized with the fear of many Black parents, that their children will be seen not as children but as dangerous threats, by saying that if he had a son “he’d look like Trayvon,” only added to the fantasy’s appeal.

The legal questions in the Rittenhouse trial—like those of the Zimmerman trial—have become entangled with the political ones. In the aftermath of the January 6 attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, some conservative media have escalated their justifications of political violence. In this context, Rittenhouse has become a folk hero for the same reason Zimmerman became one—not because they see him as a scared child who acted rationally in a frightening situation, but because they see him as a soldier in a war against the enemies of America as they want it to be. Like Zimmerman, Rittenhouse killed the kind of people some on the right like to fantasize about killing.

As the historian Caroline Light writes in Stand Your Ground, English common-law traditionally held that self-defense could be invoked only as long as one attempted to retreat, if possible. There were important exceptions such as defending one’s home, a concept known today as the “castle doctrine.” In the aftermath of Reconstruction, American courts began expanding the circumstances under which certain men could invoke the right of self-defense; an Ohio court determined in 1876 that “a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise maliciously seeks to take his life, or to do him enormous bodily harm.” In the 21st century, state legislatures passed legislation such as “stand-your-ground laws” that extended the circumstances under which “self-defense” could be invoked further. But from the beginning, such laws were bound up in the perceived social morality of the invoker, and those whom the right was being invoked against. The “true man” could take his castle anywhere.

Consequently, which acts of violence are considered legitimate self-defense has always been highly political. For most of American history, white men alone had a right of self-defense that included both their persons and property. Although the concept of armed self-defense is not inherently racist in the abstract—many 1960s civil-rights figures bore arms when not protesting—in practice the American legal system has tended to see certain claims of self-defense as more legitimate than others. “Our embrace of lethal self-defense has always been selective and partial,” Light argues, “upholding a selective right to kill for some, while posing others as legitimate targets.”

Zimmerman had a right to defend himself; his supporters could see Martin only as the sort of person the right of self-defense was meant to be invoked against. In Georgia, Travis McMichael, on trial for murder after he, his father, and a friend chased Ahmaud Arbery through their neighborhood, before pulling guns on him, has similarly sought to justify his actions as self-defense. “It was obvious that he was attacking me, that if he would’ve got the shotgun from me, then it was a life or death situation,” McMichael testified. “And I’m gonna have to stop him from doing this, so I shot.” Even the white nationalists facing a civil lawsuit over their 2017 riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, have sought to invoke their right to self-defense.

There is a paradox of fragility here, in which a moment of fear—perhaps one imbuing the deceased with supernatural strength—is invoked to justify homicide, and the dead who would be alive but for this moment of terror, subsequently become a symbol of the frightened man’s valor. At a certain point the logic of this sort of “self-defense” becomes indistinguishable from a custom that simply allows certain people to get away with murder. This is the legal regime that a powerful minority of gun-rights advocates have built—one in which Americans are encouraged to settle their differences with lethal force, preferably leaving as few witnesses capable of testimony as possible.

The fact that Rittenhouse has become a folk hero among Republicans points to darker currents within the GOP, where justifications for political violence against the opposition are becoming more common. The party finds the apocalyptic fear of impending leftist tyranny useful not only for turning out its supporters, but also for rationalizing legislative attempts to disenfranchise, gerrymander, and otherwise nullify the votes of Democratic constituencies. Engineering the American political system so that Republicans’ political rivals are unable to contest their power is a less forceful solution than killing people, but the political goal is similar: to never have to share power with those they disagree with.

For this reason, the party defends those who engage in rhetoric threatening violence against their political enemies and silences those who denounce it. Whether it’s Donald Trump justifying his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Republican members of Congress threatening their colleagues, or Fox News hosts praising Rittenhouse for “doing what the government should have done,” the desire to kill your political opponents is a sentiment no longer confined to the dark corners of the internet. The principle that canonizes Rittenhouse as a saint for defending his city from rioters, and the mob that stormed the Capitol as martyrs, is the principle that the slaughter of the right’s enemies is no crime.

“At this point, we’re living under corporate and medical fascism. This is tyranny,” said an attendee at an event held by the conservative group Turning Point USA in October. “When do we get to use the guns?” The audience responded with applause. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” Most of this is idle bluster from keyboard gangsters on social media. But the more it is encouraged by mainstream political leadership, the less likely it is to remain mere talk.

Rittenhouse’s trial was a matter of law, and the outcome should not have been dependent on the political questions raised by the events that led to his indictment. But his acquittal will be seen by some on the militant right as a validation of the sentiment that someday, perhaps soon, they will get to kill all “these people.” No one they would listen to will tell them otherwise.

theatlantic

coluber2001
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 08:02 am
Kyrie Guttersnipe was on the cross, a real martyr, the Sheridan Road killer put on trial, but now he's escaped and is a cause célèbre for right wing extremists.


https://freedomrockradio.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Vicious-Joy-Behar-Mocks-Teen-Kyle-Rittenhouse-for-Crying-in-768x411.jpg
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 08:48 am
@coluber2001,
What is it with progressives and childish name-calling?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 08:52 am
@Stacy24,
Stacy24 wrote:
This was a very nasty post.

It is typical of that person. He lies about me all the time. He also lies about other posters all the time too.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 08:54 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
He is a murderer.

Wrong. Self defense isn't murder.


izzythepush wrote:
You are no different.

While I can't say I know Stacy24, so can't say I know that your accusation is false, there is certainly no reason to think that it is true.

And your long history of lying about people all the time makes it pretty likely that you are lying here as well.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 08:55 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
I've advocated all along that Kyle's mental health is challenged and needs professional help. He's not fine, Oralloy, and he'll get worse without intervention. He needs psychiatric care now more than ever, especially with a not guilty verdict.

He's fine.


neptuneblue wrote:
It's ironic that I care more about him as a human that you do.

You don't care about him. You want to abuse him.


neptuneblue wrote:
Maybe bring down the hatred of progressives quite a few notches and understand no one is ok after killing two people.

Progressives are bad people. It is proper that people do not like them.
0 Replies
 
Stacy24
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:13 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
He is a murderer. You are no different.


Wow, this is really nasty. It's OK to call people murderers just because they disagree with you?

Everyone in the nation saw the evidence. You seem very mentally unbalanced.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:16 am
Copy of an email sent to Pritti Patel Home Secretary.

Dear Mrs Patel,

I'm sure you're aware of the shocking verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse. This vigilante murdered two people and seriously wounded another, yet despite the fact that this murder was premeditated the corrupt legal system and mentally compromised judge allowed him to walk free.

I'm sure you agree with me that we don't want murderous thugs like Rittenhouse stalking our streets and killing our citizens. Therefore as a matter of urgency and as a matter of public safety can you ban this posterboy for the far from entering our country.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:18 am
@izzythepush,
The irony of that, England is the birthplace of White Supremacy.

Can I be banned too?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:19 am
@Stacy24,
You're the one supporting murderous vigilantes.

It was pre planned.

You are no different, people who supported the Nazis were no better than the Nazis themselves.

In any other court in any other country the murderer would not have walked free.
Stacy24
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:21 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You're the one supporting murderous vigilantes.

It was pre planned.

You are no different, people who supported the Nazis were no better than the Nazis themselves.


Is this person even real, or is this meant as a joke?
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 09:21 am
@izzythepush,
There we go .... NAZI's!!!!

The nasty liberal rage here is getting funny.
 

Related Topics

Martin/Zimmerman Case: Jury Selection - Discussion by gungasnake
The Slender Man Murder Case - Discussion by tsarstepan
Three cheers for the FBI. - Discussion by izzythepush
Chicago now a war zone - Discussion by gungasnake
Solving bank robberies the hard way... - Discussion by gungasnake
Flouri-DUH vs Shellie Zimmerman - Discussion by gungasnake
Stealing pop and skittles - Discussion by gungasnake
DB Cooper may be in FBI's sights - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/27/2022 at 02:37:02