Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[Cope]

Yes he did.

No he did not. No idea why those who, by their own admission, have no knowledge of the case, continue to spread falsehoods about it.

[Infidel144]

RH did not shoot three "unarmed men".

Yes he did..

Do you consider a person pointing a glock at your head unarmed?
Do you consider a person clubbing you in the head with a skateboard unarmed?

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes he did

So much evidence was presented in court that proves that he did not, including video of Rittenhouse being attacked with skateboard and a firearm.

[alhoon]

Glock: That man was armed, I was mistaken
Skateboard to the head: A skateboard is not weapon. Yes, it is certainly unpleasant but it's not like being hit by a crowbar or a baseball bat or, you know a fire extinguisher (like the guard that died in capitol hill).

But yes, I admit I was mistaken. Sorry, it should have been Rittenhouse shot 3 men, one of which was armed, one of which was harassing him with a skateboard and one was unarmed.

Similar armament to the actual issue we discuss, the "peaceful" protesters that brought guns, knives and molotov coctails in the Capitol hill, which resulted in 5 deaths.
One of the deaths was the death of a guard (Sicknick) by the peaceful protesters.
One of the deaths (Boyland) happened when the peaceful protesters clashed with police, you know "Cops opening doors and letting protesters in" in an attempt to peacefully fight their way through a police line.
One of the deaths (Babbit) happened when the peaceful protesters, some with their peaceful molotovs, guns and knives, were hoisting a woman through a broken window and one of the cops that were "opening doors and letting protesters in" shot her.
Two died from heart attacks as "walking around in good order in the capitol hill and taking selfies" and occasionally waggling fingers" is apparently too stressful for people with heart issues.

The things the peaceful protesters "occasionally yelled" included death threats towards elected representatives btw as videos the protesters have personally taken and uploaded in their media pages prove.


If the above insertions of "Peaceful protesters" sounds ridiculous to you in the context of my post, it is because they are ridiculous.
If they don't sound ridiculous to you given the context but you agree they are peaceful protesters despite these things, then you have been too immersed in propaganda and/or realize what peaceful protest is.

[Heathen Hammer]

you know a fire extinguisher (like the guard that died in capitol hill).

Was that like ever confirmed?

[Infidel144]

Glock: That man was armed, I was mistaken
Skateboard to the head: A skateboard is not weapon. Yes, it is certainly unpleasant but it's not like being hit by a crowbar or a baseball bat or, you know a fire extinguisher (like the guard that died in capitol hill).

But yes, I admit I was mistaken. Sorry, it should have been Rittenhouse shot 3 men, one of which was armed, one of which was harassing him with a skateboard and one was unarmed.

Man dies after being hit in head with skateboard during fight in Santa Ana Starbucks
https://abc7.com/starbucks-fight-san...board/1098183/
If someone was hitting you in the head with a skateboard, you would consider that person unarmed. But what would that person be charged with in Greece?

Similar armament to the actual issue we discuss, the "peaceful" protesters that brought guns, knives and molotov coctails in the Capitol hill, which resulted in 5 deaths.
One of the deaths was the death of a guard (Sicknick) by the peaceful protesters.

Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Died Of Natural Causes, Medical Examiner Rules
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/98887...al-examiner-ru

[alhoon]

If someone was hitting you in the head with a skateboard, you would consider that person unarmed. But what would that person be charged with in Greece?

If I died, he would be charged with murder whether he used a gun, a skateboard, his hands or a lightsaber.
If I didn't die, he would be charged with assault as possession of skateboards is not illegal in Greece. Also, I don't think there's a heavier penalty if you're attacked with an object than attacked with one's fists, but don't quote me on that. I am not a lawyer.

Was that like ever confirmed?

There are videos taken and uploaded by the peaceful protesters that show him being bludgeoned with the fire extinguisher, very peacefully.
He didn't die by that attack, but RH also didn't die by the skateboard hit.

[Infidel144]

[QUOTE=alhoon;16069615]If I died, he would be charged with murder whether he used a gun, a skateboard, his hands or a lightsaber.[./quote]
Duh...

If I didn't die, he would be charged with assault as possession of skateboards is not illegal in Greece. Also, I don't think there's a heavier penalty if you're attacked with an object than attacked with one's fists, but don't quote me on that. I am not a lawyer.

"possession of skateboards is not illegal"
Duh... stupid statement. Are baseball bats or fire extinguisher illegal in greece?

Well why don't you look in up in whatever greek law on google there is and see if there is an assault with deadly weapon charge.

And note, I've already linked to someone being killed with a skateboard.

Attacks with skateboard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2HtfZphsG4
https://www.10news.com/news/local-ne...spect-arrested
"Both men suffered serious injuries and were transported to a local hospital."
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/Ne...good-samaritan
Man Found Guilty in Skateboard Attack Death of Good Samaritan

There are videos taken and uploaded by the peaceful protesters that show him being bludgeoned with the fire extinguisher, very peacefully.
He didn't die by that attack, but RH also didn't die by the skateboard hit.

Sicnick died of natural causes. So you were wrong when you stated "One of the deaths was the death of a guard (Sicknick) by the peaceful protesters."
As was noted earlier "No idea why those who, by their own admission, have no knowledge of the case, continue to spread falsehoods about it"

[Cope]

If I died, he would be charged with murder whether he used a gun, a skateboard, his hands or a lightsaber.
If I didn't die, he would be charged with assault as possession of skateboards is not illegal in Greece. Also, I don't think there's a heavier penalty if you're attacked with an object than attacked with one's fists, but don't quote me on that. I am not a lawyer.

One of RH's assailants used a skateboard as a weapon to bludgeon him; another feigned a surrender before pointing a handgun at RH's head. Setting aside the incorrect claim that "RH shot three unarmed men", the acknowledgement that a murder or assault can be done with "hands" or "one's fists" undermines the attempt to suggest that RH's assailants being "unarmed" has some relevance when subtracted from its broader context.

[Heathen Hammer]

There are videos taken and uploaded by the peaceful protesters that show him being bludgeoned with the fire extinguisher, very peacefully.

Care to provide a link to those?

[alhoon]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...b08ff579396d46

A peaceful protester that peacefully threw a fire extinguisher at a police line - probably while nicely waiting for them to open the doors - admits he is a stupid idiot that believed Trump's lies.
That stupid idiot should still do jail time.

[The spartan]

The police/investigators were not wrong to examine the case beyond the footage. That doesn't mean that bringing murder indictments was justified. I don't recall a single piece of substantive evidence that the prosecution introduced against the self-defense claim.

Indictments are incredibly easy to secure, by design. If you have a critique about how our legal system is designed, I am all ears.

The only reason Rittenhouse stood trial for murder is because the case was unnecessarily politicized (sometimes politicization is justified if it is in response to corruption).

Yes, the only reason a double homicide case that occurred during a riot was brought to trial was "unnecessarily politicization". There is simply no way such a case would be brought to trial, otherwise.

Thanks for reminding me that you are simply playing a game of football and don't actually care about our judicial system. I almost was convinced we could be on the same side.

but there wasn't a concerted effort by powerful media institutions, activist organizations, influencers and national politicians to obscure or openly fabricate the facts of the criminal case.

Sure there was, such narratives were just cycled through right-wing alternative media. Much like with the Chauvin case, right-wing media spun their own narrative about the politicized and unreliability nature of the courts.

In principle and spirit, the treatment of Rittenhouse by relevant lib/left institutions and personalities (inc. Biden) was no different from Trump's election fraud conspiracy.

Wait, what did Biden say about the Rittenhouse trial that was like Trump's talk about election fraud? Not to mention that the election fraud stuff seems, idk, much more politically relevant to the nation and the president than Rittenhouse's trial.

[Cope]

Indictments are incredibly easy to secure, by design. If you have a critique about how our legal system is designed, I am all ears.

I know that indictments are "easy to secure". That doesn't mean that indicting a person when there is clear evidence of their lack of guilt is justified.

Yes, the only reason a double homicide case that occurred during a riot was brought to trial was "unnecessarily politicization". There is simply no way such a case would be brought to trial, otherwise.

Correct. The DA (which was under considerable pressure over the Blake shooting) rushed out charges despite the significant evidence that the shootings were done in self-defense (the whole encounter was captured on video from multiple angles). This could have been forgiven if the prosecution had presented countervailing evidence and/or unique argumentation at the trial, but it did not. Scroll back a few pages for more detailed discussion on this point.

Sure there was, such narratives were just cycled through right-wing alternative media. Much like with the Chauvin case, right-wing media spun their own narrative about the politicized and unreliability nature of the courts.

The pivot to "alternative media" and the Chauvin case exposes the lack of an argument here. Feel free to cite instances of major institutions or politicians running cover for Fields Jr with disinformation (which would make it inversely comparable to the RH case).

Wait, what did Biden say about the Rittenhouse trial that was like Trump's talk about election fraud? Not to mention that the election fraud stuff seems, idk, much more politically relevant to the nation and the president than Rittenhouse's trial.

The Biden team created an election commercial which smeared RH as a white supremacist, comparing him to the Charlottesville nationalists. Biden later suggested that RH was part of a militia. There is no substantive evidence to support either claim. After the verdict was announced, Biden reacted by standing by the decision of the jury (for which I praised him); his handlers later walked back the statement claiming the president was "angry and concerned" by the verdict. Psaki refused to apologize on Biden's behalf for the commercial.

[Infidel144]

Correct. The DA (which was under considerable pressure over the Blake shooting) rushed out charges despite the significant evidence that the shootings were done in self-defense (the whole encounter was captured on video from multiple angles). This could have been forgiven if the prosecution had presented countervailing evidence and/or unique argumentation at the trial, but he did not. Scroll back a few pages for more detailed discussion on this point.

LittleBinger says he would not have brought charges against anyone if Rittenhouse had been killed in this podcast interview:
https://nysba.org/prosecutor-defends...mits-mistakes/

Edit: Left out the words "against anyone" and "killed"

[antaeus]

LittleBinger says he would not have brought charges if Rittenhouse had been in this podcast interview:
https://nysba.org/prosecutor-defends...mits-mistakes/

Binger seems pretty unrepentant in that interview... and doubled down on his assertion that Rittenhouse's prior statements E.g.“Bro I wish I had my (expletive) AR. l’d start shooting rounds at them" both justified the charge, and their inadmissibility hamstrung the case. It seems to me that if he had the opportunity to go back, he would have brought the same charge, and changed his questioning approach to better his chances at getting some of this material in front of the jury.

What is clear from his statements is that he thinks that broadening the context illustrates intent... whereas in the trial the context was narrowed to the point where intent was impossible to prove and thus he was appropriately acquitted.

Much of the debate in this thread, and in the social sphere in general, is over this aspect. My opinion is that you can be a nasty piece of work and still not a murderer, or still believe you're in that place to vigilante good. So the outcome was appropriate given the evidence at hand. But I can also see why the lack of inclusion some information might lead others to be upset at the result - as it does significantly change the constructed narrative surrounding who Rittenhouse is: innocent carpark defender vs Evil little @#$%. Given the context of the incident, it is an inherently political conversation.

[Infidel144]

Had to fix my above post to make it clear LittleBinger was saying he would not have charged anyone who had killed Rittenhouse,

[antaeus]

Had to fix my above post to make it clear LittleBinger was saying he would not have charged anyone who had killed Rittenhouse,

That would be consistent though. And entirely understandable from his perspective. If Binger believed that Rittenhouse went there specifically to commit murder - as an intentional act, and he evidences his belief based on things Rittenhouse had said and done previously (that weren't allowed in court), then of course Rittenhouse's eventual victims would be acting in self defence if they had killed Rittenhouse.

If Binger suggested anything else, it would be an admission that he was wrong, and clearly he doesn't feel that way.

[Cope]

That would be consistent though. And entirely understandable from his perspective. If Binger believed that Rittenhouse went there specifically to commit murder - as an intentional act, and he evidences his belief based on things Rittenhouse had said and done previously (that weren't allowed in court), then of course Rittenhouse's eventual victims would be acting in self defence if they had killed Rittenhouse.

If Binger suggested anything else, it would be an admission that he was wrong, and clearly he doesn't feel that way.

The prosecutor defeats his own case by acknowledging the possibility that RH's assailants may have killed him. The reasonable fear that he affords to the crowd (esp Huber and Grossgreutz) in their incorrect assumption that RH was an "active shooter" he denies to RH.

[antaeus]

The prosecutor defeats his own case by acknowledging the possibility that RH's assailants may have killed him. The reasonable fear that he affords to the crowd (esp Huber and Grossgreutz) in their incorrect assumption that RH was an "active shooter" he denies to RH.

The idea that one may kill another in self defence does nothing of the sort. This is just a debate over whom would be justified in killing in self defence... It was either one or the other. It would be hypocrisy for Binger to not support Rittenhouse's victims here.

I don't think we need to get tied in knots over it. It's all very consistent. Binger's position also refutes your accusations that the case was brought about because of political pressure - Based on Binger's statements, you've probably gone too far with that. He claims to genuinely believe the merits of the case, and is sore about how the judge excluded what he thought were important aspects of the case (soreness stemming from his prior history with the judge that led to his anticipation that he could have introduced more).

It seems to me, that Binger believes that if he was better at his job... or just a better prosecutor... that he would have won the case. I can't tell if that is him being egotistical, or self depreciating. I think he just brought a flawed case that was never going to go his way.

[Infidel144]

Huber had no self defense case. Grosskreutz may have had a self defense case had he shot Rittenhouse. As far as the trial is concerned, despite LittleBinger's whingimg like a B(wub) about applying self defense to those who attacked Rittenhouse, it is entirely irrelevant. Only Rittenhouse's reasonable beliefs were relevant.