Society/Culture Kyle Rittenhouse

[scoman]

Of course, Kyle's *mum has every cultural right to be a crap parent.

And let's be honest, it wasn't even a real rifle, it was a pop gun.

*Whoops - I meant "mom", we need to be culturally respectful here.

Why continue to embarrass yourself by not checking the facts?

Mumsy was not involved and the gun was not stored at her house.

 

[sherb]

Why continue to embarrass yourself by not checking the facts?

You mean it wasn't a pop gun?

 

[scoman]

You mean it wasn't a pop gun?

The mum part

 

[Chief]

Why continue to embarrass yourself by not checking the facts?

Can you not just set people straight without the pompous wailing? Come on. We’re all friends here.

 

[scoman]

Can you not just set people straight without the pompous wailing? Come on. We’re all friends here.

Im enjoying being pompous too much. But I probably could now you have asked nicely.

 

[SSwans2011]

Except it appears she didn't, and his rifle was stored in Kenosha. But hey it's good to see you have joined the crew on here spreading misinformation. I see this threads biggest twits have liked your posts. Well done again big Chief. Clap, clap

I thought facts mattered?

I thought you guys could internet?

Mom of shooter Kyle Rittenhouse did not bring him to Kenosha

With the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse nearing its end, a viral image on social media attacked the mother of the Illinois te

www.politifact.com

Hahaha love the fact that you can't just correct something, you have to point-score about it because this is all just tribalism apparently.

Whatever. Kyle's still a little shithead that killed 2 people and wounded another.

**** him and any complicit members of his family.

 

[sherb]

The mum part

I said she was a crap parent. I wasn't referring to the "drove him there" or "took him with a gun" allegations.

In fact my comment didn't even quote the poster who said those things.

I was actually speaking more broadly - about the fine upstanding citizen her son has become under her parenting.

But you keep assuming things instead of thinking.

 

[sherb]

Can you not just set people straight without the pompous wailing? Come on. We’re all friends here.

Mr "Facts" didn't even bother thinking about my post, he assumed. And he assumed incorrectly.

 

[scoman]

I said she was a crap parent. I wasn't referring to the "drove him there" or "took him with a gun" allegations.

In fact my comment didn't even quote the poster who said those things.

I was actually speaking more broadly - about the fine upstanding citizen her son has become under her parenting.

But you keep assuming things instead of thinking.

Well you did like the Sswans2011 post that was factually incorrect. Safe to say at that point you assumed he was correct and them joined in the mum pile on?

 

[SSwans2011]

Well you did like the Sswans2011 post that was factually incorrect. Safe to say at that point you assumed he was correct and them joined in the mum pile on?

If liking shit on the internet is verifiable proof of a person's exact views on any given topic we're all ****ed.

 

[sherb]

Well you did like the Sswans2011 post that was factually incorrect. Safe to say at that point you assumed he was correct and them joined in the mum pile on?

Just explaining the "facts" around my post mate, but it seems you suddenly don't like "facts" any more.

By the way, one problem with the "like" function here is that you may like one portion of the post and not necessarily agree with another portion.

I'll let you ponder that..........

I mean, you could have asked me what I meant by "crap parent" and I would have explained it to you. Too hard obviously. Anyway, now you know.

 

[Chief]

the mum pile on

Phwoooaarr!

 

[scoman]

If liking sh*t on the internet is verifiable proof of a person's exact views on any given topic we're all f’ed.

I think in this case both he and Chief liked it because they thought it was a good point that you had raised. I think they believed you. It would have been a great point if it was true. It was probably the first time that angle had been introduced to this thread. Can I ask where you got that information from?

On your other post about me being a smart arse I will admit my attitude has changed since I joined the conversation a few days ago. At that point I was fairly well behaved and was able to point out a number of facts about the case in a pretty calm manner. However as was always going to happen this thread has defended into a shit show of hot takes, sick burns and the like. I have given up and joined the shit show on a few occasions.

What I have found quite astounding in this thread is just how little some posters know about the case, and the reluctance to check any facts. Despite this they are some of the most regular posters. The information is all out there for anyone to check. Literally 5-10 minutes of research is all it would take to get up to speed on what did and didn't happen.

 

[SSwans2011]

I think in this case both he and Chief liked it because they thought it was a good point that you had raised. I think they believed you. It would have been a great point if it was true. It was probably the first time that angle had been introduced to this thread. Can I ask where you got that information from?

On your other post about me being a smart arse I will admit my attitude has changed since I joined the conversation a few days ago. At that point I was fairly well behaved and was able to point out a number of facts about the case in a pretty calm manner. However as was always going to happen this thread has defended into a sh*t show of hot takes, sick burns and the like. I have given up and joined the sh*t show on a few occasions.

What I have found quite astounding in this thread is just how little some posters know about the case, and the reluctance to check any facts. Despite this they are some of the most regular posters. The information is all out there for anyone to check. Literally 5-10 minutes of research is all it would take to get up to speed on what did and didn't happen.

To be completely honest, I wouldn't have a flipping clue. I could have sworn it was something I read here, or perhaps via a link on here. Maybe I completely misread a post, ****ed if I know.

I was out for dinner, probably obtained the information while catching up on BigFooty's finest political takes while on the shitter. Either way, I have updated the post which made the claim.

 

[scoman]

Just explaining the "facts" around my post mate, but it seems you suddenly don't like "facts" any more.

By the way, one problem with the "like" function here is that you may like one portion of the post and not necessarily agree with another portion.

I'll let you ponder that..........

I mean, you could have asked me what I meant by "crap parent" and I would have explained it to you. Too hard obviously. Anyway, now you know.

 

[sherb]

View attachment 1283042

 

[Red Black and Blue]

No, that wasnt the question.

Do you support a law that lets a person respond with lethal force in response to getting the sh*t kicked out of them?

Yes or No?

Are you serious? Every single rational member of society would say yes. You can’t determine the level of beating you are going to get. One punch could kill.

Yes, if someone attempts to assault you as you are fleeing you can kill them, if that is what is required to stay safe.

Never thought I’d see someone be against battered wives/rape victims being able to defend themselves with lethal force.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

For your consideration...

The Media’s Verdict on Kyle Rittenhouse

Here is what I thought was true about Kyle Rittenhouse in the last days of August 2020: The 17-year-old was a racist vigilante. I thought he drove across state lines, to Kenosha, Wisc., with an…

pca.st

 

[Malifice]

Yes, if someone attempts to assault you as you are fleeing you can kill them, if that is what is required to stay safe.

You realize that isnt the law either here, or in the States right?

 

[ChappyUK]

You realize that isnt the law either here, or in the States right?

Australia:

Looking to self-defence in legislation, we can turn to s 10.4(2) of the Criminal Code 1994 (Cth) which states the following:

A person carries out conduct in self-defence if, and only if, he or she believes the conduct is necessary:

• to defend himself or herself or another person; or

Wisconsin

(2014)
939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

939.48(1) (1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

You realize that isnt the law either here, or in the States right?

421 Self-defence--excessive force that inflicts death

(1) This section applies if--

(a) the person uses force that involves the infliction of death, and

(b) the conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them,

but the person believes the conductis necessary--

(c) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(d) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person.

Incredibly easy to justify section (b). Because I believe it. I’ve had a friend die in a king hit attack. You don’t **** around with someone attacking you.

Wisconsin State Legislation: “A person may employ deadly force against another if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect ones self from imminent death or great bodily harm”

Rittenhouse was absolutely in a reasonable mindset to think if they disarmed him, he would be beaten to death and at a minimum receive great bodily harm. Because that isnt just a rare possibility but a probability. Dozens of people died during the BLM riots.

I say the flee stuff cause I used to be a bodyguard and there is a burden on disengaging. Attempts to seperate from a threat need to be taken.

 

[The Passenger]

For someone who was supposed to be home by Monday night, they're making him sweat it out.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

For someone who was supposed to be home by Monday night, they're making him sweat it out.

I think there is a huge chance of a hung jury. Only need one loyal activist to be on there to hold out.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

MSNBC banned from courthouse after a reporter followed a juror home and filmed them.

Watch now: MSNBC producer suspected of trying to follow Rittenhouse jurors, judge says

The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial banned MSNBC News from the courthouse Thursday after he said a person who identified himself as a producer was suspected of trying to

www.kenoshanews.com

WTF

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

I think in this case both he and Chief liked it because they thought it was a good point that you had raised. I think they believed you. It would have been a great point if it was true. It was probably the first time that angle had been introduced to this thread. Can I ask where you got that information from?

On your other post about me being a smart arse I will admit my attitude has changed since I joined the conversation a few days ago. At that point I was fairly well behaved and was able to point out a number of facts about the case in a pretty calm manner. However as was always going to happen this thread has defended into a sh*t show of hot takes, sick burns and the like. I have given up and joined the sh*t show on a few occasions.

What I have found quite astounding in this thread is just how little some posters know about the case, and the reluctance to check any facts. Despite this they are some of the most regular posters. The information is all out there for anyone to check. Literally 5-10 minutes of research is all it would take to get up to speed on what did and didn't happen.

If people actually watched the trial like a juror, and looked at all the evidence I think they would have a very different view. Ive watched a lot of of it (not all) and the correct verdict is clear to me.