By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
IvorEvilen said:
coolbeans said:

Trying to paint this situation WITHOUT acknowledging the riots isn't providing the proper context; stop humoring this "arming up against free assembly" narrative.  And if it still looks that way to many Americans, who're just as able to investigate the evidence themselves, then that's on them for being deliberately ignorant.  Not to mention the protests and riots in Kenosha were heavily influenced by the recent Jacob Blake shooting, which turned out to not be some racially-motivated execution (or whatever hyperbolic stories were initially brought up).

What is this limp-wristed judgment regarding Rosenbaum?  Yeah, "perhaps" you shouldn't make broad death threats towards armed individuals and then subsequently seem like you're looking to carry those out.  It's rather remarkable how your judgment cleanly shifts from half-hearted to resolute in just a couple of sentences.  For sure, there's a greater responsibility on Kyle... and he acted accordingly.  

If this were in a vacuum, maybe you'd have a case.  But there's actually been good compare/contrast scenarios to see how lines are drawn, like the ongoing Arbery case or Michael Reinoehl.  And I'm not sure why you're bringing up Rittenhouse as a "stand your ground type claim" when he was trying to retreat.  Maybe you're reflexively broadening the definition?

Plus, if this court case is anything to go by, any would-be vigilantes would probably think twice considering how dicey this open & shut case appeared:

-your right to due process damaged by a gleefully dishonest media, thereby tainting any prospective jury pool

-a target on your back by a small violent subset of political enemies (likely for years)

-gross prosecutorial malfeasance against you

If these issues (and more) can crop up here, it's an insanely risky gamble to think you'll be acquitted too.

Pure speculation.  Considering some of the other characters that'd still be there (hypothetically), that's a sketchy claim.

[EDIT: Had a misspelled word that was bothering me.

Proper context?  The proper context is that no one else died that night.  Riot or protest be damned.

There were 25 deaths over the course of 6 months during the 2020 protests, and Rittenhouse nearly accounts for 1 in 10.  An estimated 25 million people participated in the protests over the course of half a year.  There were an estimated $1-2 billion in damages from riots associated with the protests.  Most of that damage occurred in hot spots ($50 million in damages in Kenosha alone), and typically occurred during the chaos that would ensue AFTER police cracked down on demonstrations.  This was why the media often called the protests "largely peaceful".  But also, insert obligatory statement on how "property is not people".

I have no intention of defending rioters from legal consequences.  I merely ask that we as a society have a bit more respect for life when going into politically motivated conflicts.  De-escalation through prevention.  Anecdotally, I live in a major US city, and we were more worried about counter protesters coming in from out of town.  For whatever reason, the blue cities were supportive of the protests, and the red rural communities surrounding them were opposed.  And they would come into our streets with their guns... to protect us from ourselves I guess?  The riot narrative was largely overblown and fearmongered by the right-wing media, and I think that fear drove a lot of people to be nutty.

The reason my "judgment cleanly shifts from half-hearted to resolute" is because I was referring to two different details.  I do not want to imply that Rosenbaum is innocent of his involvement in the events that transpired.  But Rittenhouse was the one with the weapon, and the one who killed someone.  Rittenhouse not having a gun would have 100% changed the dynamics of that night, and crucially, would have given Kyle no means of lethal force.  Nor could Kyle have had the fear that his lethal weapon would have been taken and turned in his own direction.

Proper context is dead.  Long live proper context?

The initial framing from your first comment was "gun rights versus political intimidation."  The information you're now posting here literally demonstrates why that was wrong.  Torching private properties within a local community goes beyond intimidating others over ideological differences.  There's a clear dividing line there.  It's sorta like giving credence to corporate media's first volley of bullshit over this incident; as if armed counter-protestors (Kyle included) came out after simply seeing ACAB signs.  It's good fodder for this thread, but for little else.

I sympathize with what you're asking for, but I don't see why a respect for livelihoods wouldn't be in the equation.  Taking away the legal consequences, the notion of expressing this "eh... things happen" response I've seen regarding millions in property damage (over a justified shooting in Kenosha's case) shouldn't really cut it with anyone.  Why should some business (esp. family-owned) get to be target practice after the police are cracking down?  Plus, not often mentioned between deaths or property is general violence against said property owners.  For Kenosha, I believe a furniture store owner was beat up for (surprise, surprise!) protecting his business on Day 2.  I don't see why would-be counter-protestors should be compelled to wait for rioters to tire themselves out and move on - especially when police aren't handling the situation.

You provide a succinct split between city/rural there, because that opposed stance was loud and clear when visiting old family friends in MN.  You're free to characterize right-wing media as "overblowing" it (although the magical threshold for when it wouldn't be fear-mongering is typically kept close to the chest), but it's not as simple to handwave away when you're only a degree (or no degrees) separated from people who cleaned up the smoldering ruins of their establishment.  And just for the sake of re-emphasizing a previous point, one brief police clip stripped of all necessary context was enough to cause millions in property damage.

Right, but limiting the details AND your previous "little regard for life" judgment makes that criticism so myopic.  That's what makes both of your hypotheticals of either Kyle not being there or Kyle not having a gun run into two problems with the same individual.  And bringing up how other armed individuals there didn't kill anyone only highlights the situation Rittenhouse genuinely attempted to avoid in the first place.  Those other armed people didn't have to deal with a mentally-unhinged pedo deliberately charging them nor deal with a flash mob while he was running towards authorities.  To give a hazy "well... I'm not saying there isn't culpability on Rosenbaum either" response just rings as hollow and inconsiderate of the facts (something I've been dealing with in this thread since last year).

[EDIT] Made a couple of grammar & word tweaks.

Last edited by coolbeans - on 27 November 2021