17 Year-old Blue Lives Matter Activist with AR 15 Charged With Murder After Two Killed at Protest

GermanSuplex said:
I bet this kid’s tears will dissipate quickly once he gets acquitted of all charges and is free to bask in his right-wing celebrity.

He’ll be a hero on Fox for a few months until he does something disgusting. I’ve seen this tape play out on Fox before with their previous heroes like Zimmerman and Cliven Bundy.

I would love to see a social experiment where people react to what they think is real footage of a similar circumstance Rittenhouse was in, where everything is recreated, except the underage person toting a rifle is a black teen.
Click to expand...
It would actually be an interesting experiment. It would also be nice to mix races like black shoots white, black shoots black, white shoots black, and white shoots white (like in this case).
Actually, it’s pretty ingenious.
 
P_X said:
Umm. So whose fucking gun was that again?
Click to expand...
He’s spoken about his “AR” before and there are pictures of him holding it. Then I see people saying that somebody in Wisconsin gave it to him the day of the shootings? He even referred to it as “his” during today‘s testimony.

One thing I just read: the judge called a recess when Rittenhouse started to cry on the stand. That is biased IMHO, leaving the jury with a memory of poor, crying Kyle instead of letting the cross-examination continue. He is not the victim! The judge seems to be “in the bag“ for the defense for this one.
 
SuperMatt said:
One thing I just read: the judge called a recess when Rittenhouse started to cry on the stand. That is biased IMHO, leaving the jury with a memory of poor, crying Kyle instead of letting the cross-examination continue. He is not the victim! The judge seems to be “in the bag“ for the defense for this one.
Click to expand...
Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.
 
More infuriating than watching this kid skate free and clear after killing two people will be his racist flunkies on the right like Don Jr. and Matt Gaetz celebrate. These nut jobs are fueling gun violence by glorifying this type of behavior. For people who claim to be conservatives, they must have forgotten the advice of their elders - like “you were looking for trouble and you found it”.

Of course, they seem to remember that just fine anytime the cops gun down a person of color for some minor misdemeanor offense. Or for no reason at all. These lunatics can not explain why they think the Rittenhouse killings AND the murder of George Floyd were both justified. That’s a gap they can’t bridge, but I’m sure they’d come up with some lame reason.
 
yaxomoxay said:
Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.
Click to expand...
You could be right… but usually I would imagine it is usually a victim (can we use that word?) on the stand suffering emotional trauma. Kind of weird for the defendant to get a mental health break…
 
SuperMatt said:
He’s spoken about his “AR” before and there are pictures of him holding it. Then I see people saying that somebody in Wisconsin gave it to him the day of the shootings? He even referred to it as “his” during today‘s testimony.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm gently eluding to. It was HIS gun.

yaxomoxay said:
Yes it’s true. I found it odd. I wonder if he did it precisely to avoid 20 minutes of a teary eyed testimony which would’ve probably biased the jury even more. Fyi He interrupted the defense argument.
Click to expand...
And he was really hurting the defense's credibility. Imagine concurrent lawyer commentary.
 
P_X said:
We're all guilty:D I was planning to wait out until this is over.
Click to expand...

😂
P_X said:
Prosecution does appear to be atrocious. Like the Call of Duty question, where KR almost LOL'd.
Click to expand...
That was stupid. First of all the line of questioning is idiotic and backfired, but If a single member of the jury is a video gamer or has a son/daughter (very likely) that is they will feel personally attacked.
 
yaxomoxay said:
😂

That was stupid. First of all the line of questioning is idiotic and backfired, but If a single member of the jury is a video gamer or has a son/daughter (very likely) that is they will feel personally attacked.
Click to expand...
I'm a hardcore pacifist (I suspect it's quite evident from my post history), but I still play(ed) a lot of CoD because it's soothing.
 
I've been struggling to find unbiased coverage of this thing as I don't have time for all the play by play but it seems that it's just too polarized. I don't care of it's a defense attorney or a prosecutor on either side of the aisle, I would just like to get unbiased feedback.

Yes, my personal opinions are biased but I always try to look for neutral coverage on anything high profile like this.

Dan Abrams seems to do okay with that but it's really just a segment on the evening news, I'll have to take it for now.
 
SuperMatt said:
Even The NY Times is on Rittenhouse’s side???

boingboing.net

New York Times article lionizes Kyle Rittenhouse for his "bravery and service" | Boing Boing

The New York Times has an unusually cozy relationship with white nationalists. The paper has a long history of normalizing neo-Nazis (“In person, his Midwestern manners would please anyone’s …
boingboing.net boingboing.net
Click to expand...

I've read the NYT since the 1940s, and believe that both it and I have evolved somewhat for the better since then. By that I mean not least that both the NYT and I now see phrases like "atom bomb" and "social value" differently.

But in the past 15 years I've started to think that if I do sometime cancel my sub to the Gray Lady, and if they do ask why I'm leaving, my answer will simply be "I'm not in your targeted readership any more and finally realize it."

See I'm not really sure what the hell the Times is going for lately. I seek a paper of record, a chronicler of our times, a paper that still understands that at core we must only seek the truth, even if it not to our liking. It is after all potentially fatal to paint over some disliked ugliness in the human condition with the gloss of a few carefully selected adjectives, or perhaps moving something from page A3 to page A14.

Keats at the wrap of his "Ode to a Grecian Urn" wrote that
​
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”—that is all​
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.​
​
But nowadays the Times seems not unlike plenty of other media outlets, offering what it hopes this or that reader will at least for today be content to label for themselves as the beauty of truth in some section... yes, a pleasing echo of one's own thoughts is perfect.

That must be what truth is, eh? Whatever I like best? I like world news, dance and book reviews best.​

And --leaving aside the dwindling print circulation-- the NY Times has over five million digital subscribers and god knows how many kibitzers and glance-in artists who see some of its reporting via discussion in social media. If everyone is to find his bliss in the paper, then god help us all. That's not actually what a newspaper is about. And so I slog through the reporting on politics and the agonies of assorted sports teams. So far our proclivity towards The Big Lie seems to stop a little short of the sports stats, as it's still impossible for every team to win

But in short the godblasted paper seems all over the map to me lately, and not just in its selection of Op-Eds and columnists but in its writing and even selection of items on which to publish news articles. And it has gone mealy-mouthed when covering anything remotely viewable as "controversial" in the political arena. For that approach to migrate off the opinion pages into the hard news section is disappointing to say the least.

Heh, was there a time the paper castigated Trump for having gone on about "good people on both sides" back during the aftermath of Charlottesville? They must have got too close to him while trying to hear his explanations.

On Rittenhouse, well.. there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching". I'm not at all sure anyone's seeking the beauty of truth here. The circus is pretty entertaining though, if one can detach from the disappointing humanity of it all. Still waiting for the Times to chronicle that part for us.
 
lizkat said:
On Rittenhouse, well.. there is video so we do get to see what the Times is seeing, and it's hard to tell whether it's the defense, the prosecution, the accused or the judge who is more aware that "the world is watching".
Click to expand...
The judge seems to be auditioning for his own “Judge Schroeder“ TV show.
 
Back
Top