Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Real timschochet

Kyle Rittenhouse faces civil lawsuit

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Context is everything. She was talking about the protests, not the riots (see Reuters fact check article above)

Sure she was. :rolleyes:

 

That's why she condemned the violence when making that statement. What do you think she meant by not letting up?

There's no letting up on a peaceful protest. You only let up when you've gone too far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

They raised money for "protestors" but the actual protestors were all released without charges. In fact all the money raised was for rioters. 

Not true regarding Kamala Harris:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/graham-twists-facts-on-harris-support-for-protesters/

Graham Twists Facts on Harris Support for Protesters

Last year, before she was vice president, Kamala Harris used her social media accounts to encourage donations to a Minnesota nonprofit “to help post bail” for individuals arrested in the state while protesting the death of George Floyd.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham twisted those facts to claim “she actually bailed out rioters,” one of whom, he said, “went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open.”

We found no evidence that happened.

[...]

As we wrote in September, Harris asked her Twitter and Facebook followers in early June to “chip in” to the Minnesota Freedom Fund “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” The nonprofit pays the bail amount — which is set by a judge — for individuals who would otherwise be unable to afford to secure their release from jail while they await their day in court.

[...]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

You are both assuming that the action he was taking was for whatever goal fits what you want to say. Only Kyle Rittenhouse knows what he was doing and his thinking and he ain't going to say anything, 

Only you know what he is thinking other than only he knows what he's thinking. :lol: The sniffles got you confused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, squistion said:

None of them did. They supported the protests but condemned the riots.

They told the police to stand down you squidbird. That is supporting the looting and arson and killing and assaults.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

So trannys and gay people are not able to be dedicated soldiers?

who said that, I said its the reason why they aren't recruiting him, thats all the military is after now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, squistion said:

Context is everything. She was talking about the protests, not the riots (see Reuters fact check article above)

So just how many “protestors” do you think needed nationwide bail fundraising for just “protesting”?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voltaire said:

The footage starts when Kyle Rittenhouse was fleeing from the deranged pedophile chasing him. He shot as the pedo as he was attempting to take his gun. Then, while fleeing again, Kyle fell down and got kicked by another felon who we'll never know his rap sheet because he refused to testify and remains anonymous. At that point the domestic abusing white strangler hit Kyle with his skateboard, then got shot. Finally, the white burglar charged up to Kyle but when Kyle took aim, he put his arms up so Kyle lowered the rifle to let him go. It was a fake surrender, he then promptly pointed his illegal gun at Kyle and got his bicep blown off.

All three white criminals that Kyle shot were clearly self-defense: the first lunging for gun, the second assaulted him, the third pointed a gun at him. It's all very clear on the video records.

The shooting started when somebody threw a plastic bag at Kyle. But hey, he could have suffocated if it landed on his head! Self defense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dogcows said:

The shooting started when somebody threw a plastic bag at Kyle. But hey, he could have suffocated if it landed on his head! Self defense!

Or maybe when the blue haired unemployed Libtard swung a skateboard at him?? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Without an organized invasion of violent leftists, Rittenhouse is still an unknown lifeguard at a public pool in Nowhere, USA. 

I choose to give the people involved more intelligence and agency than this.   Everybody made their choices and lives were lost.  

I would feel the same if it was Voltaire helping his buddy Raiders upthread.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

Not true regarding Kamala Harris:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/02/graham-twists-facts-on-harris-support-for-protesters/

Graham Twists Facts on Harris Support for Protesters

Last year, before she was vice president, Kamala Harris used her social media accounts to encourage donations to a Minnesota nonprofit “to help post bail” for individuals arrested in the state while protesting the death of George Floyd.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham twisted those facts to claim “she actually bailed out rioters,” one of whom, he said, “went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open.”

We found no evidence that happened.

[...]

As we wrote in September, Harris asked her Twitter and Facebook followers in early June to “chip in” to the Minnesota Freedom Fund “to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota.” The nonprofit pays the bail amount — which is set by a judge — for individuals who would otherwise be unable to afford to secure their release from jail while they await their day in court.

[...]

Did you read your own link or are you deliberately spewing lies?

YOUR LINK explicitly states that she bailed out rioters, including one named name Jaleel Stallings who'd fired multiple shots at police officers.

YOUR LINK also clarifies that not one cent of the money she raised/donated went to protestors because none were detained or charged. They were all released without need of bail.

Thank You for posting YOUR LINK to prove MY point.

  • Thanks 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I choose to give the people involved more intelligence and agency than this.   Everybody made their choices and lives were lost.  

I would feel the same if it was Voltaire helping his buddy Raiders upthread.   

Unlike you, I fail to see the intelligence in traveling to a location where you don't belong and engaging in illegal violent and destructive behavior to the detriment of a community to which you have no connection. 

Whereas I do see the intelligence in defending the livelihoods of innocent people who stand to lose everything at the hands of a violent mob. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Unlike you, I fail to see the intelligence in traveling to a location where you don't belong and engaging in illegal violent and destructive behavior to the detriment of a community to which you have no connection. 

Whereas I do see the intelligence in defending the livelihoods of innocent people who stand to lose everything at the hands of a violent mob. 

Cool, we disagree.  No worries. You also aren't even accurately representing my position.   I find both to be bad decisions, not that I think the rioters are making a good choice.  🙄

You frame it as though Kyle had no choice, Intelligence, or agency.  It's all the looters fault he was there.  They made him do it.  That is nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Did you read your own link or are you deliberately spewing lies?

YOUR LINK explicitly states that she bailed out rioters, including one named name Jaleel Stallings who'd fired multiple shots at police officers.

YOUR LINK also clarifies that not one cent of the money she raised/donated went to protestors because none were detained or charged. They were all released without need of bail.

Thank You for posting YOUR LINK to prove MY point.

No. Per the link Harris did not bail out anyone herself and Stallings was bailed out by MFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The shooting started when somebody threw a plastic bag at Kyle. But hey, he could have suffocated if it landed on his head! Self defense!

All in all, Rittenhouse was mostly peaceful

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Cool, we disagree.  No worries. You also aren't even accurately representing my position.   I find both to be bad decisions, not that I think the rioters are making a good choice.  🙄

You frame it as though Kyle had no choice, Intelligence, or agency.  It's all the looters fault he was there.  They made him do it.  That is nonsense.  

No, I'm saying without the rioters engaging in violence and mayhem, Kyle has no reason to be there that night. 

So, in a way, it is their fault he was there. That is not nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

who said that, I said its the reason why they aren't recruiting him, thats all the military is after now

Who cares who they recruit if they want to fight for the country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to just agree that a lot of terrible decisions by a lot of people on various sides of the aisle led to this and leave it at that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

No, I'm saying without the rioters engaging in violence and mayhem, Kyle has no reason to be there that night. 

So, in a way, it is their fault he was there. That is not nonsense. 

Exactly.  You seem to believe 1 party had a good reason to be there.  I believe 0 parties had a good reason to be there.   They all made their choices, and lives were lost.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

It is possible to just agree that a lot of terrible decisions by a lot of people on various sides of the aisle led to this and leave it at that

Impossible.  1 side has to be correct and noble, the other wrong and evil.  

Both sides making dumb decisions doesn't feed the narratives.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BuckSwope said:

Exactly.  You seem to believe 1 party had a good reason to be there.  I believe 0 parties had a good reason to be there.   They all made their choices, and lives were lost.  

 

1 party did have a good reason to be there. Unless you don't think defending the livelihoods of innocent people against a violent, destructive mob is a good reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BuckSwope said:

Impossible.  1 side has to be correct and noble, the other wrong and evil.  

Both sides making dumb decisions doesn't feed the narratives.  

Oh well...I'll just choose to say many people here messed up. That makes me a raging liberal to MAGA world on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

Impossible.  1 side has to be correct and noble, the other wrong and evil.  

Both sides making dumb decisions doesn't feed the narratives.  

Spot on.

The notion that there is a good and evil here is a big problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

It is possible to just agree that a lot of terrible decisions by a lot of people on various sides of the aisle led to this and leave it at that

Not surprising a soft teacher with emotional issues sees it that way.  Stay in your lane Nerf ball. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Not surprising a soft teacher with emotional issues sees it that way.  Stay in your lane Nerf ball. 

You just can't quit me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

1 party did have a good reason to be there. Unless you don't think defending the livelihoods of innocent people against a violent, destructive mob is a good reason. 

I don't, especially in his case.   We don't have to agree on that, and it certainly doesn't mean I think the rioters were right like you attempted to frame it.  

I don't agree with him doing some noble thing worth praising.  I am not Kyle, but IMO the people showing up with guns to that situation knew this was a possibility and was ok with it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogcows said:

The shooting started when somebody threw a plastic bag at Kyle. But hey, he could have suffocated if it landed on his head! Self defense!

They dead. They lose. Bye bye losers. :banana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Spot on.

The notion that there is a good and evil here is a big problem.

It's unfortunately the starting point for too many political discussions.  It also leads to unfortunate assumptions like from 5-points above.  Because I think Kyle was in the wrong that MUST mean I am team rioters.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, squistion said:

No. Per the link Harris did not bail out anyone herself and Stallings was bailed out by MFF.

Here's a fluffer piece about MFF from four days after the riots.

Initially, four days ago, MFF had two workers, eight volunteers and $150,000 to work with. Due to fundraising awareness by Kamala Harris and others, after four days, with contributions from 900,000 people, they'd raised over $31,000,000. 

Notice at 1:44 how how the craptivist lady explains two happening simultaneously: 1) peaceful protestors are being released without charges.....  and 2) other people are being arrested due to face recognition technology. Most all of us not suffering from cognitive dissonance can piece together who these other people being arrested due to facial recognition video are and figure out on who the $31 million they raises will be spent.

--------

Now, we know(source squistion's link) that Harris raised money for MFF by encouraging donations on her social media. Here's the MFF lady telling us who will need the money (people arrested days later due to face recognition technology) and who won't need any (protesters on the day of the riots who did nothing wrong and were released without charges).

Squistion wonders if Harris donated money or not. I never said she did or not. I would argue that asking people to donate to MFF while not actually chipping in any herself would have been hilarious and even worse than not giving. I don't make that claim, but apparently Squistion would see grifting the rubes while not ponying up herself as a virtue.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I don't, especially in his case.   We don't have to agree on that, and it certainly doesn't mean I think the rioters were right like you attempted to frame it.  

I don't agree with him doing some noble thing worth praising.  I am not Kyle, but IMO the people showing up with guns to that situation knew this was a possibility and was ok with it.  

You and I are just cut from a different cloth, I guess. 

If a violent mob comes to my town with the sole intent of destroying the livelihoods of innocent people, I would not think twice about putting down the shitbags trying to do so. In fact, I would blame them for forcing me to do so and not feel the least bit guilty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 5-Points said:

You and I are just cut from a different cloth, I guess. 

If a violent mob comes to my town with the sole intent of destroying the livelihoods of innocent people, I would not think twice about putting down the shitbags trying to do so. In fact, I would blame them for forcing me to do so and not feel the least bit guilty. 

Yep, we are.   

It would depend on the situation for me.  Never having fired a gun, I would also be of little use as well.  There are a few things I'd put my life on the line for, this is not one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yep, we are.   

It would depend on the situation for me.  Never having fired a gun, I would also be of little use as well.  There are a few things I'd put my life on the line for, this is not one.  

The spirit of ‘76

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Yep, we are.   

It would depend on the situation for me.  Never having fired a gun, I would also be of little use as well.  There are a few things I'd put my life on the line for, this is not one.  

A man has to know his limitations.  :cheers:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The spirit of ‘76

1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with an inexperienced, fresh faced kid inserting himself, individually and without backup, into a riot zone is exactly and predictably what happened.  He is inevitably going to attract very negative attention and will have to defend himself when predators do what they do when they see prey.

 

Those arguing that people and businesses had a right to defend themselves and their property are right. Those arguing that government shamelessly abdicted their responsibilities are, of course, also right.  None of that forgives or justifies this inexperienced kid with no plan from inserting himself and his weapon into a riot.  He was not guilty criminally for the shootings.  He may have been found guilty had he been charged with other crimes, instigating a riot, reckless endangerment, violation of a lawful police order or curfew violation.  Whether he is civilly liable is now the question.

 

I would submit that had a business sought private protection they should have gotten licensed, bonded security guards, Plural, security guards.  One fresh faced scared kid was not going to stop anything, and didn't.  He was going to be seen as a bluff, a challenge.  Now four grizzled fellows my size with shotguns ostentatiously displayed , I postulate the mob would have steered clear.  Had they not we would have fired our first rounds, rock salt, i.e. non-lethal force, to hold them back.  Frankly anybody who has ever had the misfortune of getting peppered with rock salt can tell you that would discourage most folks.  Had it not our second round of rubber birdshot would have been quite detering.  Had that not worked we would then have moved to lethal force.  We would then have revealed our fifth member, previously hidden.  That would make the mob wonder whether there are others.  That member would have had a birdshot load from the start just in case anyone threw molotov cocktails which had to be opened before impact.  Very few mobs will not diperse when flaming gas is raining down onto them and their flesh is stinging from rock salt burning into thier subcutaneous fat. That is a plan, it is coordinated.  The problem with Rittenhouse is there was no way a mob was going to perceive him as being able to impose or maintain order.  If a person was going to insert themselves as the face of order they needed a far sterner showing of potential force to make the mob acquiese rather than to give them a target.  The kid was there for excitement.  He got it.

 

As for Nazi comparisons, well they are rarely even remotely apt, and unless one is talking of Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Baby Doc Duvalier, or Pinochet the rule is to assiduosly avoid them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t think I’ve compared anything to the Holocaust. My dad and grandparents were Holocaust survivors so I’m pretty careful about that. 

Why did you throw in Holocaust when the subject was using Nazis as a correlation? Which you have done? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

The problem with an inexperienced, fresh faced kid inserting himself, individually and without backup, into a riot zone is exactly and predictably what happened.  He is inevitably going to attract very negative attention and will have to defend himself when predators do what they do when they see prey.

 

Those arguing that people and businesses had a right to defend themselves and their property are right. Those arguing that government shamelessly abdicted their responsibilities are, of course, also right.  None of that forgives or justifies this inexperienced kid with no plan from inserting himself and his weapon into a riot.  He was not guilty criminally for the shootings.  He may have been found guilty had he been charged with other crimes, instigating a riot, reckless endangerment, violation of a lawful police order or curfew violation.  Whether he is civilly liable is now the question.

 

I would submit that had a business sought private protection they should have gotten licensed, bonded security guards, Plural, security guards.  One fresh faced scared kid was not going to stop anything, and didn't.  He was going to be seen as a bluff, a challenge.  Now four fellows my sized with shotguns, I postulate the mob would have steered clear.  Had they not we would have fired our first rounds, rock salt, i.e. non-lethal force, to hold them back.  Frankly anybody who has ever had the misfortune of getting peppered with rock salt can tell you that would discourage most folks.  Had it not our second round of rubber birdshot would have been quite detering.  Had that not worked we would then have mioved to lethal force.  That is a plan, it is coordinated.  The problem with Rittenhouse is there was no way a mob was going to percieve him as order.  If a person was going to insert themselves as the face of order they needed a far sterner showing of potential force to make the mob acquiese rather than to give them a target.  The kid was there for excitement.  He got it.

 

As for Nazi comparisons, well they are rarely even remotely apt, and unless one is talking of Stalin, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Baby Doc Duvalier, or Pinochet the rule is to assiduosly avoid them.

Except he was part of a group. From which he got separated. Hence why the predators attacked him. And paid for it. 

The fact that a couple of them attacked a fresh faced kid should come as no surprise to anybody who has paid attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He’s a fine young man that I would be proud to call a distant relative through marriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×