ObjectivityIncarnate

he should’ve been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasn’t hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.

He was the one endangered, aka put in danger by others! What the fuck are you talking about, lmao?

In my college there was a flyer in the restroom about how something like 1 in 6 women will experience sexual assault or rape.

And that was shown to be complete horseshit arrived at by defining ‘sexual assault or rape’ in a survey more broadly than any reasonable person ever would.

It’s similar to the survey in the 80s all the ACABers cite to claim 40% of cops are domestically violent–in that survey, even if a voice was raised one time in the past six months, and it was the cop’s spouse yelling at the cop, that survey dumped the relationship in the domestic violence bucket. Big surprise that 40% figure has never been replicated since, lol.

One example: at the end of a first date that you weren’t really feeling, the guy goes in for a kiss and you decline? Guess what, even if he ‘graciously’/completely accepts the denial and the date ends without incident, that went in the “sexual assault” bucket, regardless of whether the woman herself felt anything bad had happened.

Ever had sex while less than stone cold sober (keep in mind the entirety of the surveyed considered to arrive at this figure were college students)? Survey says you were raped. Doesn’t matter if you were just tipsy, doesn’t matter if you and your partner were equally drunk, doesn’t matter whether you think you were raped/assaulted, nope, we decided you were.

Stuff like that is the only way to get to a figure so absurd.

I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottles and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.

If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.

He went on to shoot people for imagined slights?

There is video, goofball. Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.

It’s not imagined that Rosenbaum screamed a literal death threat at him and then chased him down and tried to take his weapon to make good on said threat.

It’s not imagined that Huber tried to kill Rittenhouse with full swings of a skateboard (over 10 pounds on average, inarguably a lethal weapon when swung at the head) to the head, one of which connected.

It’s not imagined that Grosskreutz pointed his handgun (by the way, actually illegally possessed, unlike Rittenhouse’s rifle) at Rittenhouse’s head, before Rittenhouse raised his rifle and shot his arm (having a faster reaction time literally saved his life in that instance). Hell, he literally admitted to that being the sequence of events in court.

The only imagining is happening on your side. The facts contradict your narrative, that’s why you have no choice but to grasp at straws and lie when you’re confronted by them.

It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.

Edit: not a single inaccurate statement in my comment, but narrative-clingers gotta downvote because inconvenient facts just make them that mad, lol. Shameful.

Fact checking time~

the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to

The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.

to a state he didn’t live in

But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.

to shoot protestors he didn’t know

It’s obvious he didn’t go there “to shoot protesters”, for several factual, verifiable reasons:

1. He had hours of opportunities to open fire on protesters, and never did. He did not even anti-protest.
2. He didn’t shoot anyone unprovoked, and every time he was provoked, he ran away instead of escalating.
3. The only people who were shot by him that day were people who, when he ran away from their provocation, instead of letting him run away, chased him down and tried to kill him when they caught him. He prevented their murder attempts. This is crystal clear objective fact.
4. None of those who were shot were ever protesting; all three were destructive rioters with violent criminal records who were there not there to support any cause.
5. Actions speak louder than words. Tons more people, tell their buddies they’d ‘kick that guy’s ass if I was there’ etc., but do not act that way at all when they’re actually in the situation. What happens in the actual situation is what matters. Also, not that it’s relevant, but as a bonus, none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted, so they don’t even fall into the category he was speaking about.

ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with

There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed ‘thank you’ picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.

Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.

Nope, but I can understand how you’d reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That’s what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There’s a ton of hard video evidence, you know.

It’s funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.

This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what’s actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they’re fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.

It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.

Is this article about a newborn being killed?

Is the concept of an analogy really so far beyond you? Do you not understand my simple point that it would be completely unfair to point the finger at the entirety of the female sex and say “hey you, stop killing your babies”, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

And that therefore one might consider that it’s equally unfair to point the finger at the male sex, based on a crime that a tiny percentage of them commit?

This is not exactly cryptic, you know.

You’re the same clown that said [that it’s irrational to live life in fear of an event that has a 0.00147% chance of occurring]

I did say that. Stating simple facts is not exactly what clowns do, though, you seem a bit confused.

Fuck off, you hate women

No, I hate fear-mongering used to manipulate, in all cases. In this case, it’s feminist fear-mongering that tries to deceive women into thinking that murderous men are always all around them, waiting to strike the moment their guard is down.

Hate it just as much as sensationalized media that deceives the public into thinking the violent crime rate is much higher than it actually is. Just to give one sex-neutral example of the exact same phenomenon.

You could say I hate manipulation via deception in general.

and you’re trying desperately to gaslight them.

This is straight-up projection–by definition, gaslighting can’t be done with facts, lol.

Someone needs to learn that “strawberries are fruits, therefore all fruits are strawberries” is idiotic ‘logic’.

Basically 100% of parents who have killed their newborns by throwing them in dumpsters are women. Yet I have a feeling you’d instantly, somehow, understand the logical flaw in pointing to those instances and saying “what’s wrong with women?”, wouldn’t you? Maybe something to do with the fact that the vast majority of women don’t do that?

It’s only your misandry that prevents you from identifying the exact same illogic directed at the demographic you’re bigoted toward.

It’s not me, you’re literally the only one I’m actually having some sort of actual dialogue with.

Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.

Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

He was a staunch supporter of the ‘blue lives matter’ movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and… He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.

And yet, he didn’t do a single second of counter-protesting, nor did he act to inhibit the protesters in any way–in fact, it was primarily protesters who received his handed out bottles of water and basic medical aid.

The only real argument you can make that he was antagonistic is if you argue that cleaning up after and putting out the fires of rioters (those not protesting, but just running around creating havoc and destruction) is antagonistic toward them–I guess it is, technically, but…I mean, come on. No way my conscience would let me fault someone for undoing rioters’ damage.

He is on record stating he supports BLM, for what it’s worth.

I’m not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to “protect businesses” at?

Because it’s his community, so it makes perfect sense he’s more compelled to take action in his own neighborhood. He has friends in Kenosha, his father lives there, he worked as a lifeguard there, etc… He had spent lots of time over the course of his life in that area, and had ties to it. If he had gone to one protest, and it deliberately WASN’T the one in Kenosha, that’s what would look potentially suspicious, imo.

Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place? You could argue that it’s “just in case”

Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.

• which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way

Not really a long way at all (20 miles), especially not unusually long for him, who had made that exact trip countless times before. This was literally his regular commute to his lifeguard job, and spending time with his father, etc.

a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.

And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.

He (to my knowledge) didn’t have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.

Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.

Since the incident, he’s used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity,

All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that. Wouldn’t be nearly the first time such a thing has happened, sadly.

Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views. All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.

I speak from a position of knowing the facts, and being frustrated that, even though the facts are so readily available, there are still so many people saying things the facts don’t agree with, and drawing conclusions that make zero sense in the face of said facts.

That’s all there is to it.

What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.

But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if you’re actually being objective, and looking at the facts of the matter. He cleaned graffiti off a high school, then he showed up, he handed out water bottles, gave basic medical attention on request (literally walking around yelling “medic! friendly!”), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

Firstly, everything started going south because of an event nobody could have predicted: a guy who set a fire earlier had it put out by Rittenhouse, and his response to that is literal homicidal rage (?!) (later, we learned that he had literally been released from a mental health facility for a suicide attempt…looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think it’s reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to ‘murder by cop’, but I digress).

Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didn’t he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming “I’m going to kill you”, so it’d be a very strong self-defense argument to put him down right there as he charged at Rittenhouse. But instead, he ran away, and continued to run away as Rosenbaum chased him. This course of action makes NO SENSE for someone who is ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

He also didn’t shoot when he got cornered and was no longer able to flee. At that point, Rosenbaum had not only threatened his life, but had chased him down, leaving NO question he was intending to make good on his threat. Rittenhouse could have very justifiably shot him dead then as well. But he didn’t.

Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum had COMPLETELY closed the distance between them, and was LITERALLY trying to wrestle the gun of someone he had just threatened to kill, out of his arms. Objectively speaking, he did everything he could to keep the situation from escalating to the point of using his weapon.

His actions toward his other two attackers was similar–no aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didn’t ‘take advantage of the opportunity to shoot someone’–instead, he fled. Consistently. Every single person he shot had literally put him in a position where he had to choose to either protect his life, or forfeit it. And he never used his weapon a moment before he was in that position, all three times.

The argument that Rittenhouse was ‘hoping he’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone’ simply does not hold water.

“She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.

I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to “come onto her”, lol.

You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after she’s chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed “I’m going to kill you” moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.

Zero chance you’d be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think you’re kidding?

The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouse’s arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaum’s dumpster fire, makes that not really the best analogy, lol.

He did literally nothing that merited the aggression upon him. Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.

If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?

That’s not how it works, goofball.

If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state

She didn’t do that.

It’s really sad how many people are still so completely ignorant of even the simplest facts of that case. Whatever your ideology declared was the truth, you just swallowed, facts and truth be damned.

Pitiful.

P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.