Some new (Perhaps small) updates to the Rittenhouse case

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
"I shot two white kids"
Well, let's not be too hasty to ascribe to malice what we can ascribe to incompetence.

I am to a large extent happy enough that he feels really bad about shooting people. Hopefully it's an intense feeling of guilt, rather than just fear of consequences. I still think he needs to be jailed, but I'm always in favour of rehabilitation, and if he takes the right lessons from this, so much the better.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
Well, let's not be too hasty to ascribe to malice what we can ascribe to incompetence.
Oh, I'm ascribing malice to whoever wrote that headline. There are dozens of perfectly reasonable reasons why he might say that sentence, and they give no context in the article, and choose to make that juxtaposition in the headline. For all we know, that was his answer to "who did you shoot?"
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,684
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Oh, I'm ascribing malice to whoever wrote that headline. There are dozens of perfectly reasonable reasons why he might say that sentence, and they give no context in the article, and choose to make that juxtaposition in the headline. For all we know, that was his answer to "who did you shoot?"
Yeah, itā€™s really weird being angry at a murderer
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Oh, I'm ascribing malice to whoever wrote that headline. There are dozens of perfectly reasonable reasons why he might say that sentence, and they give no context in the article, and choose to make that juxtaposition in the headline. For all we know, that was his answer to "who did you shoot?"
You're ascribing malice to that because you are excessively suspicious of the media and are sympathetic to Rittenhouse.

The police record is now public domain. It doesn't have many "quotable" statements from Rittenhouse, and "I shot two white kids" is probably the most salient recorded, which the police record says was stated freely and umprompted. So effectively there is no context from the police report to affect how we might interpret that statement, and the reporter has therefore not done any particular disservice with its use.

After that, we are all free to apply our own subjective assessment of what Rittenhouse meant by it. If you think it was innocent, that's fine and up to you. But there's no point attacking the media because some other people chose to interpret it negatively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
You're ascribing malice to that because you are excessively suspicious of the media and are sympathetic to Rittenhouse.

The police record is now public domain. It doesn't have many "quotable" statements from Rittenhouse, and "I shot two white kids" is probably the most salient recorded, which the police record says was stated freely and umprompted. So effectively there is no context from the police report to affect how we might interpret that statement, and the reporter has therefore not done any particular disservice with its use.

After that, we are all free to apply our own subjective assessment of what Rittenhouse meant by it. If you think it was innocent, that's fine and up to you. But there's no point attacking the media because some other people chose to interpret it negatively.
I don't think it was innocent. I think he killed multiple people and was confessing to it, characterizing that as innocent wouldn't be correct. But I think it's insanely malicious to present it as though he wouldn't be upset and vomiting if he had shot black people instead. That's dishonest and irresponsible.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
I don't think it was innocent. I think he killed multiple people and was confessing to it, characterizing that as innocent wouldn't be correct. But I think it's insanely malicious to present it as though he wouldn't be upset and vomiting if he had shot black people instead. That's dishonest and irresponsible.
That he wouldn't be upset had he shot black people is what you (and others) have chosen to infer for yourselves.

Don't blame the reporter for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
Country
USA
That he wouldn't be upset had he shot black people is what you (and others) have chosen to infer for yourselves.

Don't blame the reporter for that.
Yeah, now you're just playing devil's advocate.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Yeah, now you're just playing devil's advocate.
No, I'm really not.

The article in toto is intended as a neutral and factual report. The quotation selected is a highly salient one of his from the police report, and as such draws attention:
as Rittenhouse really said that, there's good reason readers should know he did. The quotation is not inconsistent with or unrepresentative of anything else, so doesn't look like an attempt to paint a false picture. Whether there was a racist undercurrent to that quotation is unknown. The reporter doesn't know, we don't know. But it's a possibility, and to hide that possibility from us by burying the quotation would be to skew the article, to "protect" Rittenhouse unduly, and impose the reporter's opinion on the facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,632
2,849
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
No, I'm really not.

The article in toto is intended as a neutral and factual report. The quotation selected is a highly salient one of his from the police report, and as such draws attention:
as Rittenhouse really said that, there's good reason readers should know he did. The quotation is not inconsistent with or unrepresentative of anything else, so doesn't look like an attempt to paint a false picture. Whether there was a racist undercurrent to that quotation is unknown. The reporter doesn't know, we don't know. But it's a possibility, and to hide that possibility from us by burying the quotation would be to skew the article, to "protect" Rittenhouse unduly, and impose the reporter's opinion on the facts.
Agema, this article leads with the headline as if Rittenhouse threw up and was distraught because he shot white people but in the actual article him throwing up is seperate from him talking about shooting white kids. This is another case of the media displaying facts in a way to make them appear to be something they aren't because they know most of the people they cater to will just read the headline, see that it affirms their beliefs, and then move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Agema, this article leads with the headline as if Rittenhouse threw up and was distraught because he shot white people but in the actual article him throwing up is seperate from him talking about shooting white kids. This is another case of the media displaying facts in a way to make them appear to be something they aren't because they know most of the people they cater to will just read the headline, see that it affirms their beliefs, and then move on.
Frankly, I disagree. The headline does not say "because". The "as" clearly indicates contemporaneity, which is accurate. He was distraught throughout the interview.

Let's imagine the headline had not drawn attention to that quotation, and Kyle Rittenhouse did turn out to be racist and is upset more from killing white people. In that case, the headline would have huidden a potential indicator to his real attitude, be "less accurate". From the perspective of journalistic accuracy, that would be a bad thing, wouldn't it?

But it's an unknown what he meant by that. We're primed these days to notice certain mentions of race, because sometimes they do mean something. The officer interviewing quite possibly knows this and that's why he/she made sure it was recorded. The journalist possibly knows it, and likewise that it's potentially significant. Lots of us spotted it, and know what it potentially means. And the fact is, he said it. The important thing we all have to remember is that whilst it does sometimes mean something untoward, sometimes it doesn't. Someone's just chucked a descriptor in there, and race is a pretty significant thing people might think about even without any adverse feelings towards that race. If we rush to judge, that's our problem.

I don't think it's the journalist's job to make that decision for us. I don't think the journalist should decide "Hmm, people might take this a certain way and they might be wrong, so I'm going to hide what he said". The journalist is there to report the facts as faithfully as they can, and let us decide. It's not fair to criticise the journalist because we don't like the outcome of our own interpretation.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,275
794
118
Country
United States
Hmm on one hand if you ban AR-15s anti-fascist goons will rule with their mobs, and bats, and knives. If you keep the AR-15s, mass shootings, militias, and civil war creep will occur.

I say we ban both, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,275
794
118
Country
United States
Ok then Premier Xi.
It's general secretary of the Chugish Communist capitalist, and also somehow socialist party to you, you bougie westerner.

Also, I like honey, sent me some.

1604369679468.png
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Hmm on one hand if you ban AR-15s anti-fascist goons will rule with their mobs, and bats, and knives. If you keep the AR-15s, mass shootings, militias, and civil war creep will occur.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
I don't consider it self-defense when you're open carrying and I imagine there are some judges and juries out there that would agree. Because open carry is always an explicit threat. Rittenhouse went there looking for trouble and he got it. Now he has to pay the consequences for his cavalier stupidity.
He was open carrying and some fools still tried to attack him.
How is it not self defence again?

"Oh He was open carrying so it was a threat so they were justified to physically assault him" Really?

So a tall guy being tall is a threat to some people.

Hell years ago I walked back to halls with some people from the course I was one. One of whom was 6'5 and some idiots tried to start on us because they didn't like students.


And that is a giant crock of shit because any ************ dumb enough to open carry is looking to start some shit. They're looking for an excuse to use that gun.
Or they're saying "Don't start shit with me you know I've got this gun"


Good. Though I will believe him being actually held accountable when it happens. He is the right's new action hero, they are going to do everything within their power to get him off.
Accountable for self defence after people tried to attack him?



Oh no. The murderer is sad. šŸ˜¢
Oh no the people who believe it's fine to try and beat people over the head and attack people just because they're not letting them burn shit down out of anger are angry. Guess they'll have to burn more shit down and show how much they are sociopaths who can't understand the concept of empathy.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,912
646
118
Why bring up that the kids were white if race didn't matter šŸ¤”
Cause you're less likely to be charged with racially motivated violence or suspected of it if they're your own race.

I mean it was BLM protests the shootings happened at so probably best to be specific.
 

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Jun 24, 2010
4,028
1,401
118
Country
Texas
Cause you're less likely to be charged with racially motivated violence or suspected of it if they're your own race.
What?

He could have said that he'd gunned down an entire BLM protest or a mosque, and he wouldn't have been charged with a racial violence crime cuz he hadn't actually done any of that, he wasn't charged based on his statement, only on his actions.

That is some Olympics level mental gymnastics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118

Hey, so this is still happening. But the big loud lawyers who's been dutifully raising funds for Kyle's defense is withdrawing from the case. Because the opposition noticed he's super far in debt, near insolvency, and is e-begging off of Rittenhouse. Said lawyer will continue to e-beg off of Rittenhouse, but will also be e-begging off of Trump, a man he closely resembles...

EDIT: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...nosha-kyle-rittenhouse-back-court/3775895001/

And the guy who got him the gun is being charged as well. For providing a firearm to a minor, for those of you saying he was allowed to have the gun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh