The ruling paves the way for Robert Zeidman to begin collection efforts after winning the MyPillow founder’s challenge to debunk his stolen-election claims.
Both you and the commenter you replied to are down-voted to hell, but I agree, and I’ll immolate myself on this hill with you. There’s little room for nuance on <insert_social_media_here>, but we must uphold a torch for civic comprehension and reasoning, despite the heavy taxation of internet points for doing so.
Are police a para-military gang with zero accountability and dog-shit standards of entry and education requirements? Yes.
Do black lives matter? I take the Cthulhu position: no lives matter, and that’s a fact.
Should Kyle Rittenhouse have been in that situation as an armed teenager with zero de-escalation skills? No.
Did Kyle Rittenhouse have the right to defend themselves and property (it wasn’t his property) from harm from threatening rioters and looters of any ethnicity with lethal force? Does anyone? Yes.
Did he have to use lethal force in that situation? My opinion is no, but it also goes back to the fact that he shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Should he go to jail for it? In this case, judging by the video evidence in his case, no.
Did the “soft-Authoritarian left” demonize him without nuance to make him into a scapegoat, radicalizing him even more towards authoritarian-right philosophies and talking-points? Absolutely.
I agree with all your points except your opening comment and your final point.
I’d replace your final line with:
Did he go there hoping to use his shiny new gun, and stay in a volatile environment he should never have entered until finally he got the legally defensible excuse he went there looking for? Yes.
Does anyone at all believe that ridiculous crying act he pulled during the trial? God I hope not.
The law is the law (especially if you are white) and he managed to stay within it. I acknowledge that without for one minute believing he went there for any reason but hoping to use that gun.
Edit: While I’m at it –
Did the “soft-Authoritarian left” demonize him without nuance to make him into a scapegoat, radicalizing him towards authoritarian-right philosophies and talking-points? Absolutely.
Huh. I thought “personal responsibility” was a big thing with right wingers. I say he made his own choices to be there and do what he did, and he made his own choices to behave like a racist scumbag. He can choose to stop on any day. That responsibility lies on him.
Morally, yes, I would say it does, but laws aren’t designed moral per se, they are (in part) designed to differentiate and assign culpability.
In the jury’s interpretation of the law, the mob of looters and their aggression is more culpable for the deaths in question than Kyle was. As a DA, I would have tried him for manslaughter, not capital murder (if I’m recalling correctly).
Under the law, in that situation, he acted in self-defense. Was he hoping to do so? Yes. He got his wish, tragically.
Did the auth-left narrative feed into his spiralling down the right-wing rabbit hole and the MAGA people’s victim-complex? Yes, absolutely. Also, a tragedy.
I’m just not seeing the justification for your last statement, though I continue to agree with your comment regarding legality. No one’s opinions about me are going to turn me into a maga, and I can’t see how they would.
A boy, whose brain and reasoning/dialectical thinking faculties are still maturing but is showing right-wing indoctrinated tendencies, gets called a racist (when he killed people of his own “race”), vile bigot, SS officer-in-training, murdering psychopath, who doesn’t deserve a trial, a boot-licker, <insert_not_completely_fair_pejorative_here> will cause them to double-down with more fervor to the aforementioned belief systems.
So you don’t think he’s deserving of any of those labels or any pejorative at all regarding his behavior before, during, and since? And that the presence of those absolves him of any responsibility for how he conducts himself going forward? If that’s your position I both understand your prior comment, and acknowledge that we’re not going to agree. Regardless, I appreciate that you took the time to clarify.
So you don’t think he’s deserving of any of those labels or any pejorative at all regarding his behavior before, during, and since?
No, not all of them, but that’s my opinion as someone who only knows him from the case.
And that the presence of those absolves him of any responsibility for how he conducts himself going forward?
If you’re talking about the presence of pejoratives, then, no, as I stated before, I believe they’re the primary reason he went further in that trend. That doesn’t absolve him of that “guilt”, but asserts why.
If that’s your position I both understand your prior comment, and acknowledge that we’re not going to agree. Regardless, I appreciate that you took the time to clarify.
The reason I choose to “die on the hill” with previous commenters is that English requires nuance and precision in its usage for ideas, and even then, people will still leap to hyperbolic flights of triggered rage while reading too much into lazy, vague language. Chances for clarification before the ridicule and hate should be given more often.
So sometimes, I see a comment, and I ask myself “what exactly is being discussed?”, and I find myself taking a contrarian stance. I think that’s what any person who values free thought, inquiry, speech, and the quest for truth should do, even at the risk of being pedantic.
I would argue he had the right to be there. He worked in that town, and lived maybe 15 minutes away. And further more, it was a public area. Angry mobs dont own the street.
He, and any American citizen, has a right to be anywhere that’s his property or public land/property. Freedom of movement, unless lawfully restricted, is one of our fundamental legal rights.
Should he have been there? Probably not. And definitely not armed with zero training or combat experience with an AR-15. Also, it’s safe to say he wasn’t trying to protect his property, or any property, in a de-escalation-first mentality.
Is that illegal? No. Is it reckless and dumb? Yes, very much.
Everyone knew he shot white people. They’re just mad that he didn’t let people kill him or burn down private businesses.
Everyone is a “class-traitor” to a mob of looters and bullies.
Both you and the commenter you replied to are down-voted to hell, but I agree, and I’ll immolate myself on this hill with you. There’s little room for nuance on <insert_social_media_here>, but we must uphold a torch for civic comprehension and reasoning, despite the heavy taxation of internet points for doing so.
Are police a para-military gang with zero accountability and dog-shit standards of entry and education requirements? Yes.
Do black lives matter? I take the Cthulhu position: no lives matter, and that’s a fact.
Should Kyle Rittenhouse have been in that situation as an armed teenager with zero de-escalation skills? No.
Did Kyle Rittenhouse have the right to defend themselves and property (it wasn’t his property) from harm from threatening rioters and looters of any ethnicity with lethal force? Does anyone? Yes.
Did he have to use lethal force in that situation? My opinion is no, but it also goes back to the fact that he shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Should he go to jail for it? In this case, judging by the video evidence in his case, no.
Did the “soft-Authoritarian left” demonize him without nuance to make him into a scapegoat, radicalizing him even more towards authoritarian-right philosophies and talking-points? Absolutely.
I agree with all your points except your opening comment and your final point.
I’d replace your final line with:
Did he go there hoping to use his shiny new gun, and stay in a volatile environment he should never have entered until finally he got the legally defensible excuse he went there looking for? Yes.
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/kyle-rittenhouse/prosecutors-want-to-use-video-of-kyle-rittenhouse-allegedly-expressing-desire-to-shoot-a-black-man-with-his-ar/
And as a bonus:
Does anyone at all believe that ridiculous crying act he pulled during the trial? God I hope not.
The law is the law (especially if you are white) and he managed to stay within it. I acknowledge that without for one minute believing he went there for any reason but hoping to use that gun.
Edit: While I’m at it –
Huh. I thought “personal responsibility” was a big thing with right wingers. I say he made his own choices to be there and do what he did, and he made his own choices to behave like a racist scumbag. He can choose to stop on any day. That responsibility lies on him.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-out-bail-flashed-white-power-signs-bar-prosecutors-n1254250
Morally, yes, I would say it does, but laws aren’t designed moral per se, they are (in part) designed to differentiate and assign culpability.
In the jury’s interpretation of the law, the mob of looters and their aggression is more culpable for the deaths in question than Kyle was. As a DA, I would have tried him for manslaughter, not capital murder (if I’m recalling correctly).
Under the law, in that situation, he acted in self-defense. Was he hoping to do so? Yes. He got his wish, tragically.
Did the auth-left narrative feed into his spiralling down the right-wing rabbit hole and the MAGA people’s victim-complex? Yes, absolutely. Also, a tragedy.
I’m just not seeing the justification for your last statement, though I continue to agree with your comment regarding legality. No one’s opinions about me are going to turn me into a maga, and I can’t see how they would.
A boy, whose brain and reasoning/dialectical thinking faculties are still maturing but is showing right-wing indoctrinated tendencies, gets called a racist (when he killed people of his own “race”), vile bigot, SS officer-in-training, murdering psychopath, who doesn’t deserve a trial, a boot-licker, <insert_not_completely_fair_pejorative_here> will cause them to double-down with more fervor to the aforementioned belief systems.
So you don’t think he’s deserving of any of those labels or any pejorative at all regarding his behavior before, during, and since? And that the presence of those absolves him of any responsibility for how he conducts himself going forward? If that’s your position I both understand your prior comment, and acknowledge that we’re not going to agree. Regardless, I appreciate that you took the time to clarify.
No, not all of them, but that’s my opinion as someone who only knows him from the case.
If you’re talking about the presence of pejoratives, then, no, as I stated before, I believe they’re the primary reason he went further in that trend. That doesn’t absolve him of that “guilt”, but asserts why.
The reason I choose to “die on the hill” with previous commenters is that English requires nuance and precision in its usage for ideas, and even then, people will still leap to hyperbolic flights of triggered rage while reading too much into lazy, vague language. Chances for clarification before the ridicule and hate should be given more often.
So sometimes, I see a comment, and I ask myself “what exactly is being discussed?”, and I find myself taking a contrarian stance. I think that’s what any person who values free thought, inquiry, speech, and the quest for truth should do, even at the risk of being pedantic.
Fair enough, thanks for the exchange! 🙂
I would argue he had the right to be there. He worked in that town, and lived maybe 15 minutes away. And further more, it was a public area. Angry mobs dont own the street.
I agree.
He, and any American citizen, has a right to be anywhere that’s his property or public land/property. Freedom of movement, unless lawfully restricted, is one of our fundamental legal rights.
Should he have been there? Probably not. And definitely not armed with zero training or combat experience with an AR-15. Also, it’s safe to say he wasn’t trying to protect his property, or any property, in a de-escalation-first mentality.
Is that illegal? No. Is it reckless and dumb? Yes, very much.