Mens Tennis Forums banner
181 - 200 of 299 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
The others you talk about didn't kill anyone so let's not talk about them because then you're just deflecting. Let's stick to the accused and in this case it was Rittenhouse parading his gun at everyone and when they attacked him he opened fire with an AR-15 in a crowded which is ridiculous. God knows how many more could've died that day. If others did that then they should be thrown in jail too. It has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment rather the intent of the troublemaker. He should've stuck to a pistol if he was so worried about his personal wellbeing.

You keep saying it's based on my personal desire. I don't even know this lunatic, so what personal bias do I have? Just because I disagree with your take doesn't mean I have a personal bias.

I don't buy the poor parenting excuse. That's just an excuse. There are kids who have had poor parenting and they became great people, some became serial killers. So it's an excuse. You yourself said he was mixed with the Proud boys. That makes it even more damning so the self defense is just an excuse.

I find it appalling that this kid who got off easy went on Tucker and goes off against Biden. That just shows he's culpable and doesn't offer any regard to the grieving families.

The right response should've been "Hey Tucker I just want to say I feel sorry for the families and I don't want to blame anyone for my actions even if they were in self defense. I wish that noone got killed." Instead he went on a right wing rant so he is guilty. The right celebrating this guy's release are pathetic.
It's based on your personal desire because there's no evidence he did or intended to do what you accuse him of. The fact he went to be interviewed by Tucker Carlson just intensifies your feelings (of wishing him to be behind bars) due to apparently you being firmly on the opposite side politically.

I agree with you about the statement he should've given. He also went to see Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Notice again his mother was with him, as she was in the bar when he mingled with the Proud Boys. I don't get your point about downplaying the impact of parenting. Certainly that plays a very significant part in someone's development. Parents/family, school, and friends being probably the biggest influences.

On where he lies ideologically: clearly on the right based on the people he has met recently and whose help he accepted (Lin Wood; Mike Lindell). I don't know about the sign you spoke of (the text/message of which is still unknown to me). How much that means simply "basic" Republican/conservative (God, family, country; lower taxes, gun rights, restrictions on abortion etc.), and how much sth else (more extreme views; racist views e.g.) is unclear. What is the distinction between Republicanism and Trumpism these days is a question in itself. I wonder also how much he has thought these things through and how much is he now simply being used as a vehicle in propaganda, the extent of which he may not fully understand. Or maybe he has seen this as a golden ticket/opportunity. I wonder who is talking in his ear currently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Just that it wasn't Rittenhouse who engaged first. Instead he tried to flee, just like Arbery. Prosecutor in the Arbery case stated that Arbery tried to flee, indicating he did not want to engage or have anything to do with the defendants. Same thing with Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum had no business/right to chase and attack him.
You cannot seriously believe there was anything similar between what Rittenhouse did and what Arbery had done to him. He was innocently jogging, minding his own business. Three white racists tracked him down like an animal, terrorized him and then murdered him in broad daylight.

The cases are absolutely nothing alike- the lengths Rittenhouse fanboys will go to just to serve their own deranged purposes is beyond me. Rittenhouse will be stuffing his punchable face this Thanksgiving. Arbery won't because he's dead, so like... yeah, not similar at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
You cannot seriously believe there was anything similar between what Rittenhouse did and what Arbery had done to him. He was innocently jogging, minding his own business. Three white racists tracked him down like an animal, terrorized him and then murdered him in broad daylight.

The cases are absolutely nothing alike- the lengths Rittenhouse fanboys will go to just to serve their own deranged purposes is beyond me. Rittenhouse will be stuffing his punchable face this Thanksgiving. Arbery won't because he's dead, so like... yeah, not similar at all.
It's all there in the post you quoted in plain English
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
It's all there in the post you quoted in plain English
You have a remarkable ability to tolerate stupidity and remain calm. At some point though, you have to ask yourself if it's worth engaging with people that clearly aren't interested in an honest debate, and just want to keep parroting the same debunked bullshit over and over again like a broken record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Yeah, @Ilkae you should refrain from what you are doing for your well being in the mental department. Defo not worth it.

And who cares if he's guilty or not, we have much bigger problems than an idiotic kid.
Two people are dead and unable to be with their families, but yeap who cares. And the problem is on our side. Sickening.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
This was the limbo into which Rittenhouse fell in the Republican imagination over the year after the shooting. He still received the occasional shout-out — the tweets of support from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance, in the weeks before his trial. But now he was more often the subject of uncomfortable silences. Shortly after the shootings, Erin Decker, the county party chair and county supervisor, told the hosts of “Fox and Friends” that “talking to people around the area, I would say about 80 percent of the people support what Kyle did.” In June, I asked Decker if she thought that was still true. “Most definitely,” she said. “They’re just quiet because they know that people will attack them, and the news media will go after them also for defending what he did.”

Rittenhouse’s current lawyers — led by Mark Richards, a criminal defense attorney in Racine — have crafted a conventional self-defense case that is unlikely to mention the battles of Lexington and Concord or Wood’s prophecies. Many people initially suspected that Rittenhouse was drawn to Kenosha by Kevin Mathewson’s Facebook post and the many bloody-minded comment threads trailing behind it. But a forensic audit of Rittenhouse’s phone conducted by the local police showed no engagement with the post or any of the other calls to arms in Kenosha. Rittenhouse was already in Kenosha by the time Mathewson posted it, having arrived the night before with Dominick Black, an 18-year-old friend who bought the gun Rittenhouse would carry the next day and, according to police reports, met the owners of the car lot he and Rittenhouse would end up defending.

As for Rittenhouse’s politics, his since-deleted social media accounts suggested they had been conventional enough: He attended a Trump rally in February, and he had an interest in guns and a total adoration of the police. His posts were scattered with images of the Thin Blue Line: a black-and-white American flag with a single blue stripe, embodying the tribal vision of law enforcement as the only thing keeping anarchy from overrunning society. This was the basis of his support for Trump, Dave Hancock insisted to me: “He liked Trump,” he said, “because Trump liked the police.”

After an early jailhouse phone interview with The Washington Post, Richards, Rittenhouse’s criminal defense lawyer, generally kept his client clear of reporters. Since then, Hancock, a former Navy SEAL who runs a private security firm, had become a de facto spokesman for the Rittenhouse family. In our conversations, he often seemed to be previewing Rittenhouse’s lawyers’ defense: Rittenhouse’s decision to go to Kenosha with a gun was an act of teenage knuckleheadedness derived not from political extremism but from a misguided desire to serve the community, and he acted understandably and legally, if regrettably, in undeniably chaotic circumstances. This argument challenged the claims of Rittenhouse’s detractors, of course, but it also more subtly challenged the more strident claims of his supporters and of other paramilitaries who were there that night, who continued to insist that their actions were a legitimate exercise of civic duty. As one man who guarded the car lot with Rittenhouse that night insisted on McKenna’s show three days later, “We were, like I said, there to help.”

The paramilitaries did not seem to understand what lay beneath the surface of that statement — how much privilege was required to declare yourself the defender of someone else’s neighborhood simply because you owned a gun. On Aug. 24, Koerri Washington captured on video an exchange on the street between three heavily armed young white men and a Black man who was loudly lamenting the Blake shooting, in which they tried unsuccessfully to persuade him that they were on the same side. One of the group, his face half-obscured by a yellow bandanna, approached Washington. “Just ’cause I don’t live in this neighborhood,” he asked, “am I that out of line?”

Watching the video, I thought I recognized the man. He had attended a gun rights rally the month before in Virginia, where he had been photographed with members of the Boogaloo: a nebulous far-right movement that gained traction online in 2019, espousing a wild-eyed anarcho-libertarianism that often involved calls to — and occasional acts of — violence against law enforcement. Rittenhouse had appeared briefly alongside the man in the yellow bandanna and several other Boogaloo bois, as they call themselves, in a scrum of paramilitaries gathered at a gas station the following night, an hour or so before the shootings. During one of our phone calls in August, I texted Hancock a photo of the man.

“Hey, Kyle, did you talk to this guy?” Hancock called out. He was at home in Reno, Nev., where Rittenhouse had gone to stay with him before the trial. Rittenhouse had been sitting in the room, I suddenly realized, as we were talking.

“I remember him saying, ‘I don’t give a [expletive], burn down the police station,’” Rittenhouse told Hancock.

He said it offhandedly, but it was striking: The one overwhelming theme of Rittenhouse’s since-deleted social media presence, and the videos of his post-arrest interviews with detectives, was that Kyle Rittenhouse loved the police — had wanted to be a cop or an E.M.T. since he was a little boy, had joined the Police Explorers (a youth law-enforcement program) as an adolescent, had seen what he was doing in Kenosha that night as some form of emergency service. And yet in the last minutes before he ended two lives and changed his own forever, he found himself in the street alongside members of a movement that had killed two law-enforcement officers and professed a desire to bring down the state.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,772 Posts
Blaming the victims for their own death. Sounds suspiciously like the sickening "she asked for it" defense if a woman is assaulted, but I'm sure your side is above that sort of thing. But by all means, flex away.
Your refusal to see reality for what it is baffles me, but more than that, I'm shocked by your choice of words. The only rapist here is Joseph Rosenbaum, and yet you seem to be on his side. The amount of intellectual (and moral) corruption on your part is unsettling.

Regarding this case: If you tell someone with an automatic weapon you are "going to kill them" and then tries to take their weapon by force, and they shoot you - that mean's you're not a victim. If you swing a skateboard at an armed person's head multiple times and he shoots you - that means you're not a victim. Come on now mate. No matter how brainwashed you seem to be, surely you can find some other case to try to push your agenda of republicans being bad. This simply isn't it, mate. Not to mention, the "victims" here were a convicted pedophile (who by the way kept screaming the N-word the night that he died) - and a domestic abuser. Not really the side any normal person would want to be on.

Now, I don't think Rittenhouse is a hero, in fact going there with a gun was pretty stupid. But for anyone who actually watched the available evidence and listened to the witnesses...all three of the isolated shootings were obviously self-defense. If you deny this then you are either mindblowingly stupid - or you are full of malice. In your case, I think it is the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SamprasHewittLOL

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
Your refusal to see reality for what it is baffles me, but more than that, I'm shocked by your choice of words. The only rapist here is Joseph Rosenbaum, and yet you seem to be on his side. The amount of intellectual (and moral) corruption on your part is unsettling.

Regarding this case: If you tell someone with an automatic weapon you are "going to kill them" and then tries to take their weapon by force, and they shoot you - that mean's you're not a victim. If you swing a skateboard at an armed person's head multiple times and he shoots you - that means you're not a victim. Come on now mate. No matter how brainwashed you seem to be, surely you can find some other case to try to push your agenda of republicans being bad. This simply isn't it, mate. Not to mention, the "victims" here were a convicted pedophile (who by the way kept screaming the N-word the night that he died) - and a domestic abuser. Not really the side any normal person would want to be on.

Now, I don't think Rittenhouse is a hero, in fact going there with a gun was pretty stupid. But for anyone who actually watched the available evidence and listened to the witnesses...all three of the isolated shootings were obviously self-defense. If you deny this then you are either mindblowingly stupid - or you are full of malice. In your case, I think it is the latter.
I literally don't care about anything you've written here. It's condescending, obnoxious guy speak. Full stop. All you need to know is this- not with God holding your hand, and if you lived 5000 lifetimes will you ever know 1 thing about me, how I think, or what my motivation is. The fact that you're so arrogant and ridiculous to think otherwise, is sketch comedy. You've long since aged out of MTF lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,772 Posts
I literally don't care about anything you've written here. It's condescending, obnoxious guy speak. Full stop. All you need to know is this- not with God holding your hand, and if you lived 5000 lifetimes will you ever know 1 thing about me, how I think, or what my motivation is. The fact that you're so arrogant and ridiculous to think otherwise, is sketch comedy. You've long since aged out of MTF lol.
Interesting post, you are being strangely honest here for once. Well, it's obvious that the only thing you DO care about is pushing your narrative... but you straight up ADMIT you do not care about documented, relevant facts? That's... horrifying. If it was me, I would at least like to know if the people I was defending was literally a racist pedophile and a domestic abuser. But to you, not even that matters huh. Well, it's like I said then. Malicious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,891 Posts
Discussion Starter · #199 ·
If someone attacks you in a crowded place like a protest march it would be dumb to use an assault rifle like an AR-15 as a mode of defense simply because you will most likely spray bullets which could hit multiple people as opposed to a 9MM which would only hit your attacker.

If someone jumps at you or throws a skateboard at you , it would be better to have a glock so that you have better control over your weapon, both aim and the release of bullets.

So while its true that he defended himself when he was being attacked the problem is the weapon used to defend was too powerful. Its overkill and that's why his self defense argument while it maybe logical is hard to digest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,394 Posts
If someone attacks you in a crowded place like a protest march it would be dumb to use an assault rifle like an AR-15 as a mode of defense simply because you will most likely spray bullets which could hit multiple people as opposed to a 9MM which would only hit your attacker.

If someone jumps at you or throws a skateboard at you , it would be better to have a glock so that you have better control over your weapon, both aim and the release of bullets.

So while its true that he defended himself when he was being attacked the problem is the weapon used to defend was too powerful. Its overkill and that's why his self defense argument while it maybe logical is hard to digest.
AR-15 isn't an automatic rifle that has a burst mode (where you simply hold down the trigger and it will keep on firing). You won't "spray" with it. You pull the trigger down and it fires one bullet. Then you need to pull the trigger again to fire another bullet.

 
181 - 200 of 299 Posts
Top