Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

35 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

moving the lily pads around?  the rifle was pointed (and rightfully fired) AFTER the guy hit him with a skateboard.

Rittenhouse had already shot and killed one man, ran and tripped. The man with the skateboard tried to disarm him, according to the timeline I read, while he was on the ground. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,381]

44 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Hard to say what someone might do given the fog of war, but given the perception that this kid was a threat, that the area was open with no shelter, that others might be endangered, I might be a sane choice.

 

If he was pointing a rifle at you, and you were unarmed, what would you do?

 

 

 

Retreat and discontinue my attempt to destroy said property 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

The interesting thing is the news sources you cited are just as credible as NYT, WaPo, CNN and the alphabet networks.  All news is politically biased, there are just more Left Wing sources.

This is your view, as I pointed out we are operating from different assumptions.

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

 

As to making things up, I guess that is up to you.  There are plenty of sources out there that have a plethora of information.  In the end it is what it is, the Left will have one narrative and the Right will have another.  Critical thinking will help one decide who was being aggressive, and who was defending themselves.

Rittenhouse will be given a chance to defend himself in court. The prosecution will be given a chance to lay out the facts including the reason for the misdemeanor weapon possession charge. I have more faith in that process than all of the disinformation flowing around.

 

4 hours ago, Dashinka said:

 

 I know with all these BLM/Antifa rioters expecting that everyone should take their antics, well sometimes they cross the line, one of these days a diner these “peaceful” protestors are assaulting is going to respond with force.

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Here was your "understanding of the facts":

 

He exercised poor judgment in transporting a weapon across state lines

He didn't transport a weapon across state lines. This is wrong.

 

into a city where carrying at his age is against the law

People 16 years and older can open carry in WI. This is also false.

The reason for the misdemeanor weapons possession?

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

He got in over his head very quickly

This can slide because its entirely opinion, even though I agree he was, given being chased by a mob.

 

 

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

and did not alert authorities that he passed that he had been involved in a lethal shooting

Already demonstrated wrong by others in the thread. He called police. 

Source? We know he called a friend and walked past the police.

 

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

which indicates consciousness of guilt. The young man is not someone I want my kids emulating.

And your conclusion of guilt, along with character+moral denigration, was based completely on things that were wrong. Shocked.

He knew he killed a man walked past the police after the third person was shot. He called a friend and said he shot someone.

 

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

How is it that the "junk" "consuming" Breitbart, FOX, etc. "people" can actually get their "understanding of facts" mostly right on this and you got it 100% wrong?

Which you did not prove

4 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

You didn't get a single thing right there. Then you selectively made character attacks about Rittenhouse, solely, while ignoring the criminals he shot, and their actions leading to them being shot. The very things that would best constitute facts, you either got wrong, or ignored. I certainly am not perplexed as to why you got the reaction you did. This is what people expect from the left.

Too much to unpack there.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

55 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

The reason for the misdemeanor weapons possession?

You tell me.. charges are guilt? Charges are evidence? 😃

 

Quote

Source? We know he called a friend and walked past the police.

 

Quote

 

He knew he killed a man walked past the police after the third person was shot. He called a friend and said he shot someone.

 

Which you did not prove

Too much to unpack there.

Source was footage the lawyer released showing him trying to call 911. 

 

They also released footage of him carrying a fire extinguisher and being chased (what's he doing with the extinguisher?), as the rioting mob was upset he was putting out their fires. Along with the first aid kit, it doesn't really demonstrate any ill intent whatsoever, along with the fact that the 3 people he shot were unambiguously attacking him. 

 

So, good luck hedging all your bets on a political prosecution with the comically narrow and presumptive declarations absent facts. Hopefully next time after this failure, your ire is directed toward people setting fires, causing serious destruction, and rioting rather than the teen trying to put them out and help people then defending himself. Otherwise, would save yourself a lot of time if you just said you support all this destruction and chaos caused by these marxists. Might save time rather than put on the charade.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You tell me.. charges are guilt? Charges are evidence? 😃

 

 

Source was footage the lawyer released showing him trying to call 911. 

'Trying to call", who was he actually talking to on the phone? Did he actually call 911?

 

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

They also released footage of him carrying a fire extinguisher and being chased (what's he doing with the extinguisher?), as the rioting mob was upset he was putting out their fires. Along with the first aid kit, it doesn't really demonstrate any ill intent whatsoever, along with the fact that the 3 people he shot were unambiguously attacking him. 

I don't think  I claimed ill intent. Poor judgement in getting in over his head yes. Conscious that he had shot someone who needed first aid yes. Did he turn himself in or did he cross the state line and go home? I don't want my kids emulating Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

So, good luck hedging all your bets on a political prosecution with the comically narrow and presumptive declarations absent facts. Hopefully next time after this failure, your ire is directed toward people setting fires, causing serious destruction, and rioting rather than the teen trying to put them out and help people then defending himself. Otherwise, would save yourself a lot of time if you just said you support all this destruction and chaos caused by these marxists. Might save time rather than put on the charade.

What ire? I don't wish the young man Ill will, I feel the situation is tragic. 4 lives ruined in one incident.

 

Facts are facts. If Rittenhouse is extradited, we may get to the bottom of this. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

'Trying to call", who was he actually talking to on the phone? Did he actually call 911?

 

I don't think  I claimed ill intent. Poor judgement in getting in over his head yes. Conscious that he had shot someone who needed first aid yes. Did he turn himself in or did he cross the state line and go home? I don't want my kids emulating Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

What ire? I don't wish the young man Ill will, I feel the situation is tragic. 4 lives ruined in one incident.

 

Facts are facts. If Rittenhouse is extradited, we may get to the bottom of this. 

You are correct, it is too soon to tell, and too many conflicting stories abound about the incident that night.  Just like the Floyd incident, what looked like a terrible injustice on the first video is turning out to be quite a different situation as details are released.  You may be right in your assessment of Kyle.  Only time will tell.

 

And in the big scheme of the matter, even if he IS found guilty of misdemeanor possession of the rifle (there is an attempt to exclude that due to the exemption for 16 & 17 year olds to be allowed rifles to hunt, we will have to see how THAT pans out), that is nothing compared to the homicide charges they are trying to get him with.

 

Not that their criminal background has anything to do with the shooting, but it sure leads me to personally judge the situation from this POV: "I doubt those men were there to do good, both based on their history as well as their activities on that night.  Had they stayed at home as has been recommended by city leadership, all of them would be doing well today."  The smart money is to stay home and do no harm.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

42 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

You are correct, it is too soon to tell, and too many conflicting stories abound about the incident that night.  Just like the Floyd incident, what looked like a terrible injustice on the first video is turning out to be quite a different situation as details are released.  You may be right in your assessment of Kyle.  Only time will tell.

 

And in the big scheme of the matter, even if he IS found guilty of misdemeanor possession of the rifle (there is an attempt to exclude that due to the exemption for 16 & 17 year olds to be allowed rifles to hunt, we will have to see how THAT pans out), that is nothing compared to the homicide charges they are trying to get him with.

 

Not that their criminal background has anything to do with the shooting, but it sure leads me to personally judge the situation from this POV: "I doubt those men were there to do good, both based on their history as well as their activities on that night.  Had they stayed at home as has been recommended by city leadership, all of them would be doing well today."  The smart money is to stay home and do no harm.

 

That's the best advice these days: Stay at home and drink tea, don't have fun.

 

On the side note of not having fun:

 

We retreated up to Whistler BC because, I can work from home and home can be anywhere with the bandwidth. The place we have comes with a spacious hot tub and a set of posted draconian rules:

 

Don't drink and use the hot tub.

Don't use the hot tub after 10 pm, violaters subject to a $500 fine and termination of rental agreement

Don't play music

Don't use illicit or legal drugs 

Don't stay in the hot tub more than 15 minutes

Don't get in the hot tub if you are young or old

Don't get in the hot tub with a member of the opposite sex with lustful thoughts ~I made the last one up but I bet they debated it!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2020 by CanAm1980

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, CanAm1980 said:

 

That's the best advice these days: Stay at home and drink tea, don't have fun.

 

On the side note of not having fun:

 

We retreated up to Whistler BC because, I can work from home and home can be anywhere with the bandwidth. The place we have comes with a spacious hot tub and a set of posted draconian rules:

 

Don't drink and use the hot tub.

Don't use the hot tub after 10 pm, violaters subject to a $500 fine and termination of rental agreement

Don't play music

Don't use illicit or legal drugs 

Don't stay in the hot tub more than 15 minutes

Don't get in the hot tub if you are young or old

Don't get in the hot tub with a member of the opposite sex with lustful thoughts ~I made the last one up but I bet they debated it!

I had no idea that Ban Hammer had increased his circle of mod powers that far North!  🤣

 

Meh, don't stay home and not have fun, just avoid those places where riots are known to be ongoing.  Down here, we are VERY fortunate that we only had one or two minor destructive events early on, but many peaceful protests.  Even if the cause they are protesting turned out to be #fakenews, I can respect and support their right to do so peacefully.  

 

I missed Whistler on my last trip thru that region, but spent a night in nearby Jasper.  Loved that country, very rugged and beautiful.  I'm sure you enjoyed it immensely!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

so if I agree with the video I am not sane?

 

    I'm not a psychiatrist.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

18 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I'm not a psychiatrist.

 

On 9/24/2020 at 6:25 PM, Steeleballz said:

 

  For starters, the average sane person would probably reconcile the fact that the video was produced by his defense attorney, and then probably want something that comes from a more neutral source before arriving at any conclusion(s).

And yet, you sometimes try to play one on CEHST.  Intriguing.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

 

And yet, you sometimes try to play one on CEHST.  Intriguing.

 

    An opinion on what the average sane person would do doesn't require a psychiatric degree. Evaluating someone's sanity does. Easy enough to follow I think, unless you are intentionally trying to misrepresent something.

 

   Anyway,  better luck next time!

 

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

It's interesting because the video presented showing things of Rittenhouse will be evidence a judge looks at. Is he/she gonna demand a "more neutral" source.. whatever the hell that is? While I certainly don't have qualms with going after the provider of information, I also tend to do it with evidence of their wrongness or bias. Merely because someone is a lawyer doesn't mean the footage they showed is fake. The complete unwillingness to address/refute evidence, that one should know will be strong in the courts (direct footage of these events is among the strongest), and the microscopic focusing on the character of *one* person in this equation, demonstrates they've picked a side and it's with the rioters. Would be nice if people would be more honest. Notice how I don't have this problem. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's interesting because the video presented showing things of Rittenhouse will be evidence a judge looks at. Is he/she gonna demand a "more neutral" source.. whatever the hell that is? While I certainly don't have qualms with going after the provider of information, I also tend to do it with evidence of their wrongness or bias. Merely because someone is a lawyer doesn't mean the footage they showed is fake. The complete unwillingness to address/refute evidence, that one should know will be strong in the courts (direct footage of these events is among the strongest), and the microscopic focusing on the character of *one* person in this equation, demonstrates they've picked a side and it's with the rioters. Would be nice if people would be more honest. Notice how I don't have this problem. 

 

     Are you suggesting the judge will just go with the evidence the defense attorneys present and not listen to any of the prosecution's evidence? I don't think that is how it will go sown.

 

    I am not saying the video is wrong, but it's not the only side of the equation, and one has to acknowledge that it was made to portray the defendant in the best possible light. So unless the prosecution is blowing smoke, this will not be the only evidence the judge considers. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

I had no idea that Ban Hammer had increased his circle of mod powers that far North!  🤣

 

Meh, don't stay home and not have fun, just avoid those places where riots are known to be ongoing.  Down here, we are VERY fortunate that we only had one or two minor destructive events early on, but many peaceful protests.  Even if the cause they are protesting turned out to be #fakenews, I can respect and support their right to do so peacefully.  

 

I missed Whistler on my last trip thru that region, but spent a night in nearby Jasper.  Loved that country, very rugged and beautiful.  I'm sure you enjoyed it immensely!

Once you cross the border into yee-haw territory you're a lot less safe, especially if you identify as a gendervoid foxkin demiqueer i.e. Johnny/Jessie Yaniv.