Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
6:00 am, November 20th, 2021 - 255 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
https://player.vimeo.com/api/player.jsHer poem If Katherine Mansfield Were My ...
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Defying expectations: how New South Wales kept Covid cases low after reopening | Coronavirus | The Guardian
"The combination of an impressive and rapid vaccine uptake, together with mask mandates, contact tracing and isolation requirements as well as vaccination entry permits, has largely been credited for containing the outbreak and keeping case numbers low."
Evidence that the "traffic light" system may work for us.
So long as the anti-vacc, anti-mask, anti-restrictions, let her rip minority, don't fuck it up for us.
Yeah I am over the people who shit this all up for the rest of us.
I wonder… would the anti-vax anti-mask anti-mandate people have been the anti-conscription conscience objectors of past decades? I think not. They would have hung drawn and quartered the conscience objector…
I often put the mandated conscription / conscience objector point to anti people and they just look back at me with blank ignorance…
blank ignorance
I find the claim that the "antis" are like the "Conshies" particularly objectionable.
Going against the tide, because of a moral objection to killing other people.
Going against the tide, because you think your "rights to choice" are more important than the lives and livelihoods of your community.
One is "not like the other"!
Sure. My point was more about the mandated nature of conscription, than a comparison of conshies and antis. Not very well expressed on my part. The antis are not like the conshies at all – different planets.
The antis stop in their tracks when I raise the conscription point. It shows up their shallowing thinking and understanding imo
Most of them are so thick they wouldn't know what a conscientious objector was vto, and their knowledge of history would likely be zilch.
What they do have in common is the concept of 'duty'.
Bullshit.
An anti-vacc stance is the anti-thesis of the "concept of duty".
"Duty" is what you do for your mates, society or others.
The opposite of putting everyone at greater risk, to avoid a perceived risk to yourself.
Fuck me you're a total moron.
Just take some more Ivermectin.
That will fix it.
Ivermectin was being investigated as a potential anti-viral well before C19 which is why the original Monash University team trialed it as a potential treatment in the first place and continue to work on it.
Since then there have been reasonably strong clinical signals that when used correctly it may have a benefit. And meta-studies that combine these results seem to confirm this signal.
We also now have a reasonable idea of the mechanism by which it could act against viral replication.
Does it really work? That's something that's yet to be definitively answered, which is why more than a few entities continue to spend some serious money getting to an irrefutable yes or no. Even if there is only a remote chance the answer is yes – a cheap, safe and effective treatment would be of immense value.
On the other hand – right from the get go you knew the answer for certain. It wasn't a vaccine therefore it could not work.
In reality I've barely if at all, mentioned ivermectin. You are putting words in my mouth again.
Awaiting the results of definitive trials.
It may, or may not be of use after infection. Which is yet to be determined.
The mystery is why so many advocate for ivermectin, which I agree should be trialled, along with the many other treatments that may be useful, some already proven more effective than ivermectin, instead of a treatment that has been proven safe and effective over millions of doses. Not just “clinical indications”. Real life statistical population wide evidence. And helps prevent both infection and reducing severity.
Blinded by their opposition to vaccination.
instead of a treatment that has been proven safe and effective over millions of doses.
I lined up for my vaccination not because I though this brand new mRNA technology was well proven, or we had all the data available, or that it was going to eliminate C19, or that I thought the people promoting it are entirely trustworthy – but because sometimes in a crisis you have to do things that aren't all that attractive.
A sense of duty as it were.
The idea that the vaccine is not "well proven" After millions of doses where serious symptoms and transmission has been reduced for millions, compared with large "control groups", of the unvaccinated, that countries such as the USA have kindly provided, is frankly ludicrous. Or that a technology that has been researched since the 70's based on a medical advance from the 1700's, is "new"! You don't have to have "faith" in big Pharma to accept real world evidence, which is now so extensive as to make the initial trials almost irrevelent.
The real worry is those huge reserviours of unvaccinated, combined with vaccinated people in insufficient numbers, will result in vaccine resistant and/or accelerated mutations, before we have enough people vaccinated worldwide to slow the spread.
I linked to Sydney earlier. High levels of vaccination, masking and restrictions on the unvaccinated appear to be working, despite loosening lock down rules.
You got your vaccine out of "duty". You didn't join the unvaccinated. Despite your reservations.
At risk of falling out with both parties 🙂 I'd like to congratulate RedLogix in that succinct yet comprehensive statement ("I lined up for my vaccination…") which describes my position so very well, but also shout out to KJT who's describing the frustration around Ivermectin (about which the two of you seem to have similar views) and why it has been so passionately and uncritically championed by "the antivaxx crowd" – my own face to face discussions with such folk/friends leaves me lost for words; their vehement support/opposition to either the Pfizer vax or Ivermectin defies rational discussion and therein lies the bewilderment and head-shaking irritation.
The real worry is those huge reserviours of unvaccinated, combined with vaccinated people in insufficient numbers, will result in vaccine resistant and/or accelerated mutations,
Given that C19 cases are still very present in highly vaccinated populations – I'm not at all sure this logic holds up.
Equally likely is the idea that the virus will simply respond to vaccinations as just another evolutionary selection pressure and mutate to escape them. It's hard to blame the unvaxxed for that.
As Covid cases are in the hundreds in vaccinated populations, compared to in the thousands in unvaccinated populations, the evolutionary pressure in vaccinated populations is considerably less. Making the chances of mutations less, by at least an order of magnitude, also. It is all a numbers game.
Would Chris Trotter's latest help? I doubt it 🙂 (Great read though)
"A vast international crisis, the Covid-19 Pandemic, has exposed the irrational underbelly of twenty-first century society. Neuroses and delusions that the majority had reluctantly tolerated (if only because the harm they caused was almost exclusively restricted to those who suffered from them) now threaten the general welfare.
If the violent prejudices of the Jim Crow South, echoing through contemporary struggles, teach us anything, it is that the defence of rationality, science and progressivism must never be allowed to falter. Those pre-modern night-riders, filled with unrelenting hate, are still out there. If the troops of Reason and Justice are withdrawn; if Liberty’s bayonets are sheathed; there will be Hell to pay."
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com/2021/11/hell-to-pay-alarming-similarities.html
WHO the fuck knows what's going on…
I understood that Ivermectin and the vaccine are/were used at different stages. Vaccine is a preventative against developing full blown Covid. Ivermectin when it is used, and possibly is useful, is at the very start of a Covid infection. It is no use once Covid has left the body but the results of it having been there such as lung problems, kidney problems, covid pneumonia are remaining.
There are some people taking Ivermectin and high doses of vitamins, Hydroxychloroquine, bleach sprays etc as a preventative. Not sure they are effective at all.
.
RL
Perfectly put … cautiously optimistic is the most rational stance given the current evidence. Unfortunately the unhinged hyper-politicisation of Covid means that an innocent drug like Ivermectin that has benefited millions of people worldwide with parasitical diseases has been personified with the face of Donald Trump, & more broadly of US Republican-voting & British Brexit-supporting "deplorables" & various assorted anti-vaxxers.
If Ivermectin does indeed prove to be effective … then tough shit for all those who would've survived … but then again, to be scrupulously fair, petty politically-partisan point-scoring for purely narcissistic objectives is far more important than the potential prevention of millions of deaths.
Well yes.
Just as the vaccine is said to have been vindicated by its millions of doses , so has ivermectin in its millions of doses against covid in Indian regions like Uttar Pradesh.
There is really such a bias and unwillingness to take note of what has been successful in countries other than European
Well no. We haven't been ignoring it. Just that the evidence that ivermectin worked in India is being questioned, by Indian epidemiologists amoungst others.
Just one article.
No evidence suggests a causal link between ivermectin recommendation and the decline of COVID-19 cases in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh – Health Feedback
“The claim that Uttar Pradesh is now COVID-19 free due to the use of ivermectin is inaccurate and unsupported by scientific evidence. Uttar Pradesh isn’t entirely free of COVID-19, and comparisons with other states are challenging due to differences in testing capacity. Furthermore, many factors other than ivermectin use could have influenced the course of the second COVID-19 wave in Uttar Pradesh, including restrictions and immunity from previous infection and vaccination”.
I have not being following the case but when I first heard of it I thought white man shoots black man he will be found nor guilty.
same old same old
Here in the 'Tu, it looks like the vaccinated that are causing the trounle.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300457065/covid19-cases-in-midcentral-region-double-to-four
from the article: "United’s women’s team was not affected, and Hofmann believed all club members were vaccinated."
Yes!
Sanity prevails for a change, Kyle Rittenhouse found Not Guilty on all charges.
Now we await the rioting however I hope Kyle's lawyers go to the mattresses and sue everyone he can
Everyone that called him a white supremacist, a terrorist, a vigilante
Because he's going to need the money as the insane members of the left will not let this go
If the skin colours were reversed what would the outcome of the trial have been?
KJT deleted his post saying that Kyle Rittenhouse (white) shot black people which got me thinking about this post.
See Kyle Rittenhouse (white) shot three white people.
There were no black people shot.
I assumed that people commenting on this case would also know this basic fact yet I guess your comment makes more since if you also thought Kyle shot black people, is that what you thought?
Does it make you wonder what else the msm told you about this case that is not actually the case?
Does it make you wonder what else the msm lies to you about?
No, it is you mixing up the white and black. I am well aware they were all white and my question stands
Go on try again
I answered below (no. 3)
What do black people have to do with it?
The only possible interpretation of your question about reversal is, given that they are all white, "If a white man had shot three white men would the verdict have been different". In other words you are asking what would have happened if nothing had changed. That is the "reversal" of the colour of the parties in this case. Trying to pretend that changing a colour from "white" to "black" is a reversal is ridiculous. What would you call a change from "yellow" to "brown" which of course are both loosely considered to be skin colours?
When you claim that you "knew" they were all white I don't believe you. If you "knew" that you wouldn't have proposed such a silly question. Unless you were an idiot of course. Are you?
I deleted it because I thought for a few minutes it was referring to different murderous arsehole.
However, takes a gun to a protest looking for a fight, then shoots three people.
And he is "innocent" and only "defending himself"?
Pull the other leg.
And he knew they may have been convicted criminals when he administered, “justice”?
And. The Black reference is correct. What would have happened to a Black man who just shot three people, and wandered towards US cops holding a rifle?
No.
You deleted it because you didn't know so you deleted it because you didn't want to look like a chump.
'However, takes a gun to a protest looking for a fight, then shoots three people.'
Please provide proof that he was 'looking for a fight'
'And he knew they may have been convicted criminals when he administered, “justice”?'
He didn't but I just want to make sure everybody knows the type of people they're defending, the type of people at these 'peaceful protests'
'And. The Black reference is correct. What would have happened to a Black man who just shot three people, and wandered towards US cops holding a rifle?'
I'll spin that round, could a white man digitally rape a woman, have an open warrant for sexual assault, ignore police warnings, shake off a taser, kidnap a child, steal a car, get shot and be praised by the media, politicians of both sides of the house and have people riot on his behalf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake
In your dreams, Bro!
But congrats on your spin.
A job with Trump’s propaganda corps awaits you.
Or with ACT’s cut price version.
You want to defend kiddie fiddlers and domestic abusers, you do you bro
Rittenhouse knew that when he shot them.
Sure.
You want to defend someone who shot unarmed people?
Yes.
The kiddie fiddler had threatened Kyle earlier, chased Kyle and tried to grab his rifle off him
The domestic abuser assaulted him twice before Kyle stopped him
The convicted felon aimed an illegal pistol at Kyle before Kyle shot
All verified by witnesses and video evidence
Tried to grab his rifle off him. After he shot someone.
In NZ that would be heroic.
Keep spinning though. You'll drill yourself a well shortly.
Hi KJT.
Remember when you claimed Kyle shot black men and then deleted your post.
Well heres another error you made.
You said: 'Tried to grab his rifle off him. After he shot someone.'
Kyle didn't shoot until 'Mr Rosenbaum' tried to grab the rifle.
Listen I know its tough, I do, I get it. You're arguing with someone you just know is wrong, you just know it.
You don't have any proof, evidence, witness testimony or a conviction but you just know hes wrong and that you're right.
So I'll give you some advice.
In this instance I know more than you.
I know more than you because I followed the trial, not just read a couple of headlines, like you.
I also got information from different news sites, not just CNN, like you.
But by all means keep posting.
Nothing I like more than being right, being proved right and, as an added bonus, proving chumps like you wrong
Whatever delusions float your boat.
A picture speaks a thousand words:
https://imgflip.com/i/4d3h66
I'm guessing this is what you think:
https://progressive.org/downloads/15506/download/Screen%20Shot%202021-01-27%20at%205.57.23%20PM.png?cb=630dcb618b6e43235888c47893a2b31e&w=1260&h=
Actions have consequences:
https://img-comment-fun.9cache.com/media/a7LMv9z/aVlZKWwp_700w_0.jpg
Always good to have a pipboy handy:
https://i.redd.it/lzw4uu0rvrj51.png
Seen this, Pucky? I'm guessing you will have.
Larry Knight
3 September 2020 ·
[rest of over long cut and paste deleted]
What I was trying to say to Pucky.
But he is too blinded by his projection on someone, who has fulfilled his Rambo fantasy of "running around shooting the bad guys" and getting away with it!
"Proved yourself right".
In your own head.
But keep supporting idiot dangerous teens, that fulfilled your own Rambo fantasies.
If that makes you feel better about yourself.
Robert why are you involving yourself in this? Seriously, why?
Do you think someones opinion from last year is somehow a 'silver bullet'?
Fine you want to do this, lets do it.
Heres a link to the ABC news website, not a conservative bunch of people by the way explaining Wisconsin gun laws
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031
You can go through it yourself or just read this:
'Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.'
'Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.'
'This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 …” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.'
Heres another link to the NPR, I'll assume you've heard of them, you might find it educational:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
'The state's own witnesses at times helped Rittenhouse's case'
'Prosecutors called more than a dozen witnesses to help make their case. But legal experts said that, at times, those witnesses seemed to bolster Rittenhouse's self-defense claim.'
'The state called two men who had accompanied Rittenhouse that night, also intending to help protect private property. Both witnesses, Ryan Balch and Jason Lackowski, said Rosenbaum asked to be shot and "false-stepped" armed men in an attempt to provoke a reaction. One described him as "hyperaggressive."
[over long cut and paste deleted]
I'm not wishing to "involve myself" in arguing; I wanted you to see this statement, in case you hadn't.
You wanted me to see his statement from last year.
Why?
To point out how inaccurate it is.
I've previously posted links, with proof and evidence that refutes most of what he says.
So yeah I read it and hes wrong.. Happy?
Fine lets go through it, again, and see why we should wait for all the evidence to come out before someone tries to make a name for themselves.
'I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position… as well as from a former military position.'
– His opinion, as proven in the trial, is mostly incorrect
I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.
– His opinion, as proven in the trial, is mostly incorrect
Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone.
– His opinion, as proven in the trial, is mostly incorrect so I want him to link to Wisconsin law to verify this.
As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving.
– Kyle Rittenhouse was shown to be threatened, chased and attacked
That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.
– His opinion, as proven in the trial, is mostly incorrect. As proven in the trial he was legally allowed to carry his weapon and his weapon was legal so please tell me the crimes he committed. Innocent until proven guilty remember.
Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.
– The defence didn't use Castle Doctrine
First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.
– The defence didn't use Castle Doctrine
This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.
– The defence still didn't use Castle Doctrine
However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home… the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.
– Once again the defence didn't use Castle Doctrine
While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.
– Kyle tried to retreat, was chased, his rifle was grabbed at, he was threatened, he was attacked and he had a pistol aimed at him
If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.
– 'Little scuffle' He was hit twice with a skateboard, was kicked in the head and had a pistol aimed at him. He also tried to get back to the police, he didn't rush at the protestors and yes you can shoot someone unarmed depending on the circumstances as proven in the trial
He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.
– He didn't fire INTO A CROWD. He fired in self-defence at the people attempting to harm him, as proven in the trial and on video
And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.
– He was attempting to run away previously. Also his opinion, again.
The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.
– His opinion, again.
I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it."
– I suggest he does, especially in the light of the trials findings
First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry.
– I have not just linked to that?
None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.
– I've not heard anything about this but Joseph did anally rape young boys
– I took the paragraph of Jacob Blake out because its a separate issue
Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time.
– Oh yes they did, very much so
You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal."
– You can't and I agree however but I'm also not going to shed any tears over a child rapist that got shot while attacking another underage boy (Kyle was 17 at the time)
Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you.
– You mean like Kyle Rittenhouse being innocent until proven guilty even though you say he isn't?
This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive.
– Considering how wrong he is about this maybe thats why hes not a lawyer
May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.
– He had a trial and the video evidence, laws of the state, drone footage and witness testimony proved he was innocent of all charges so yes he faced justice.
please don't do such long cut and pastes. A snip, an explanation and link for those that want to read more is the preferred commenting style here.
Sorry, there was just so much incorrect stuff on there I felt I had to answer it all
your own long comments are fine, it's just copying from offsite to here at length that is the problem. For people on phones, and because debate is between our ideas, and it creates problems if someone has to read a long article to understand the point being made.
(also, see if you can make the quotation clearer, because it's possible I deleted some of your own words by mistake. The quote button is good, or use double "" because they're more visible. You need something at the start and the end that clearly show it's a quote. Back in the day we used to do this
>>>
Quoted text
<<<
Hi Robert, thanks for the links, although they are broken. From any FB page, click on the time/date stamp of the post you want to link to. Then cut and paste the address from the URL field.
As with PR's comment below, I deleted most of the quote. A snip or two, an explanation and a link for those that want to read more is the preferred commenting style here.
This makes things easier for people on phones, and it encourages people to make clear arguments rather than expecting people to read long articles to parse what is being said.
I must say, it's great seeing people in these in depth debates again 👍
It would be more interesting if those debating me…actually could.
Given how much information people posted on this subject was wrong and was proven wrong and since they got it from their preferred news sources, do you think any of them will work out that maybe their preferred news source is lying to them and that you might want to expand their horizons, just a little?
I haven't been following that closely. If that's the issue (you think they are wrong in what they're using as a source), maybe just pick one or two examples and focus on those. Fisking is sometimes necessary, but makes it hard to find resolutions or move things forward.
I'm quite enjoying it.
How it normally goes is something like this, he chuckleheads come on say something, usually wrong, I tell them they're wrong with a link to why they're wrong
They come back later, won't acknowledge they're wrong but move onto something else really minor and I prove them wrong, gain, and so on and so on
Its not often I'm 100% correct, that I have the moral high ground, backed up by proof and evidence (and links) and what are these guys reduced to…
Sticking up for child rapists and domestic abusers
Its a funny ol' world
There wouldn’t have been a verdict because there wouldn’t have been a trial because a black guy wouldn’t have made it through the police lines that Rittenhouse walked past after shooting three people.
https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1298556876804612096
exactly, thanks Joe, that is the point I was aiming at…
What Twitter is serious source now?
Watch the video.
Walking towards police giving the correct hand signal.
Walking towards police carrying a loaded firearm is asking for a death sentence. Even in NZ?
So you are suggesting he was a police operative of some kind? With some sort of pre-arranged signal that all the cops would recognise in a fleeting instant?
My reasoning is that it’s more likely everything on Twitter is deep fake.
that's one interpretation, it's not the only one. We don't actually know.
What are you talking about?
Are you not even aware Kyle shot three white people?
Are you not even aware Kyle was being chased?
Are you not aware Kyle was assaulted before shooting?
Are you not aware one of them actually pointed a pistol at Kyle before he shot?
Good to see you supporting a white supremacist, racist, homophobic thug who likes to gun down civil rights protesters.
And you work as a prison guard, around a population that is predominantly Maori.
I don't think we in the West have any right to complain about human rights in China with fascists like you working in our prisons. I bet you would would to the same as Rittenhouse and Chauvin did if you had the chance.
Millsy
Show me your evidence that Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, racist, homophobic thug who likes to gun down civil rights protesters.
Because he didn't shoot any black people, he shot white people
He did however shoot a convicted child molester (sodomised some young boys) and a multiple domestic abuser and you know what, just read about it here: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/
Also I'm not a prison guard
'I bet you would would to the same as Rittenhouse and Chauvin did if you had the chance.'
I don't even know what you're trying to say here
Some time ago, you said you got a job as a prison guard.
The fact is, that you supported Chauvin and you would have killed Floyd if you were in that position. I think you are an evil depraved man and shouldn't be working anywhere in prisons or law enforcement.
I never said I was prison guard Millsy
But keep going because this is fantastic
"He did however shoot a convicted child molester"
So, like, that guy was convicted, imprisoned, released and then justifiably shot?
Pucky? Have you lost the plot entirely??
Millsy called the men shot: 'civil rights protesters', they may have been
I called them a sodomiser of young boys, domestic abusers and convicted felons, which they were
Not saying they deserved death for it but if you're going to paint them in a certain way, which you can't prove, I'll say what they really were, which I can prove.
Absolutely Millsy, that's terrifying, a prison guard in NZ has these attitudes? I'm appalled. Rittenhouse had no right to carry a gun, travelled to another state uninvited, shat himself when confronted, and murdered 2 people, and you come onto a left leaning site to congratulate the wanker? You're really something man, pitiful.
"Rittenhouse had
nothe right to carry a gun, travelled 20 minutesto another state uninvited, shat himself when confronted, andmurdered2 people were killed in self-defence as the evidence showed and you come onto a left leaning site to congratulatethe wanker?the verdict. You're really something man, pitiful."I've edited your comment to remove unsubstantiated claims, or emotive language and it reads differently.
PR wilfully chose a contentious way to raise the issue, I agree. But thanks to millsy's initial jibe about Greenwald, I have looked into it, and found the video evidence that the jury considered in the self-defence, and accepted.
The justice system (which I believe to be flawed in many ways, but that is by-the-by here) should endeavour to convict on points of law. In this case, the prosecution's case did not hold up, for reasons not reported by the majority of the media.
The ability to carry arms is another legal right I have an issue with, but it is legal in many states in the USA.
Still not a prison guard…
So, what is your role? Come clean, don't muck us around any longer…
Corrections officer?
I'm a Corrections Officer.
Do you work in the office?
No. A bit too boring in there for me, prisoner facing is more interesting.
But more to it than 'guarding' these days, I am guessing.
A while back Corrections (or the government) decided that a change of direction was needed.
The old days of locking prisoners up and giving them hidings was a bad thing.
As part of the implementation to cut down on the rate of reoffending Corrections brought out some changes, part of it was to change prison guards (which also has very negative connotations) to Corrections Officers
This is done because thats what management want to have happens, correct prisoners behaviour.
Its only a very small piece of a very big puzzle but I think its important
He purposefully went looking for trouble, he sought it out. Legally he might have got off but morally, he's going to have a lot to live with. Hopefully, he gets taken to the cleaners in a wrongful death suit.
'He purposefully went looking for trouble, he sought it out. Legally he might have got off but morally, he's going to have a lot to live with. Hopefully, he gets taken to the cleaners in a wrongful death suit.'
See thats the MSM talking.
He didn't go looking for trouble, he had a weapon for self-defence and everything he did was legal.
Legal carry, legal weapon. Legal everything.
You know who wasn't doing everything legal, the protestors illegally rioting, the men (multiple) who assaulted Kyle (video footage), the man who threatened Kyle (prosecutions own witness), the man who aimed his pistol at Kyle (illegal ownership of firearm)
You're not informed, you're misinformed.
Do you think it's a good idea for untrained people to legally head off to a trouble hot spot carrying firearms??
'Do you think it's a good idea for untrained people to legally head off to a trouble hot spot carrying firearms??'
How do you know he wasn't trained?
In extreme circumstances he fired 8 shots (including two warning shots) and killed two and wounded one
By anyones reckoning thats impressive, just look at any of the police shootings to see how that stacks up
However I don't think he should have been there BUT thats me, I'm not in that city, my workplace wasn't under attack, I wasn't worried about my father
Kyle did nothing illegal, the rioters did, the people who attacked him chose to attack him, Kyle tried to get away and only fired after he was left with no other option
Kyle legally defended himself
Big difference in being trained to shoot straight and trained in de escalation and not getting isolated.
You are aware that Kyle was legally allowed to carry his rifle while one of the people he shot was illeglly carrying a pistol and Kyle only shot him once he raised the pistol and aimed at Kyle
He came from a different state. He wasn't a local out to protect the property (yes, he wanted to protect property) of people he knew, he knew noone there. All he did was heed the call of social media, a social media that had as its goal to harm Black people.
Have you actually followed the case at all? All you've done is read a few headlines.
'He came from a different state.'
Please explain to me what coming from different state have to do with anything.
Because I'd bet money that not all the rioters come from Kenosha, that some would have had to 'cross state lines' to get there or is this something you've heard from the msm and it sounds ominous?
'he knew noone there'
1. He travelled approximately15 miles to get there
2. He worked in Kenosha.
3. He has family and friends living in Kenosha
'All he did was heed the call of social media, a social media that had as its goal to harm Black people.'
He only shot white people, after he was threatened and assaulted.
Hopefully the prosecution will appeal.
Sure can, its their legal right
They won't let it go because he's just another murderer.
Equal justice wouldn't have seen him walk.
Once again you are wrong.
He was found not guilty so hes not a murderer.
Why do you think it wasn't self defence?
Stuart should remember Helen Clark's little error of this kind. It cost the taxpayer $55,000 when she called someone a murderer. He had been convicted of manslaughter but not murder. This person wasn't convicted of anything.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/cabinet-backing-for-pms-payout/XGLRV2YGY2EW6DBVXWKAYFNWZM/
Isn't it interesting that the three men Kyle shot were all convicted felons and jump kick man:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/16/maurice-freeland-jump-kick-man/
was also convicted felon with probably more convictions than all of them put together
Says a fair bit of the type of person rioting, not that anyone is surprised
It may astonish you to know this PR, but courts are not infallible. You may or may not be aware of the work of The Innocence Project, which works to correct errors made at the other end of the scale, wrongful convictions.
What makes someone a murderer is their act of wrongful killing, and, irrespective of the findings of what even you must admit was a highly politicized case, it looks on the face of it very much like Rittenhouse behaved like a vigilante, dispensing Hollywood justice in his own right.
Rittenhouse seems likely, like OJ Simpson, to attract a degree of scepticism for the rest of his life – assuming the prosecution do not successfully appeal.
You have to stop getting your information from outlets like CNN.
Heres some facts for you may or may not know. This is based on what other people on this site thought.
The prosecutions own witnesses back this up, official drone footage backs this up and smart phone coverage backs this up.
Go through the video footage here:
https://twitter.com/Pr_agmatik/status/1299088221633208321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1299089444298002432%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthestandard.org.nz%2Fopen-mike-20-11-2021%2F
You have to stop getting your information from outlets like CNN.
You mean relatively reputable sources? Ranting loons like Alex Jones don't do as much for your credibility as you might suppose.
He was legally carrying a legal firearm.
Oh I'm sure that makes all the difference – it's just happenstance he used it to kill three people – could've happened to anyone, right?
The child sodomiser and domestic abuser…
Are to meet justice through the institution of the courts, not summary justice at the hands of a teenage vigilante looking for cheap thrills.
I don't know if you're aware but they had a trial about this very thing and as it turns out I'm right and CNN was wrong, very wrong.
Try looking at more than one source for information and you'll be surprised at what you find.
they had a trial
Your faith in the integrity of US courts is touching, but misplaced. Rittenhouse is in some respects a victim of US dysfunctional gun culture.
Try looking at more than one source for information
They are not needed. One shooting might be happenstance, two coincidence, but three is unequivocally enemy action. Rittenhouse set out to kill people, and that's what he did.
The fact that you are fanboying a murderous child that should be in jail ought to have you thinking long and hard instead of crowing your inanity from the rooftops.
That you won't look at any other sources of information
That you ignore official drone footage
That you ignore footage from people on the ground
That you ignore the laws of the state
That you ignore what the witnesses said
That you defend child molesters and domestic abusers
All of the above says more about you than it does me
I don't know, and you don't know, the truth of the allegations of child molestation – but Rittenhouse did not murder those men to protect children from such abuse, he did so after the fact, when judgment should have been left to the apparatus of the state.
Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have been armed with a military weapon, and were he innocent he would have surrendered himself to police after killing his first victim.
I'm not interested in the excuses nor the prodigies of self deception you have to perform to justify the judicial whitewash. Rittenhouse walked through police lines because police didn't want to stop him, and the prosecution failed because it was never intended to succeed.
You are a lying, ignorant or arrogant.
Lie number 1. 'I don't know, and you don't know, the truth of the allegations of child molestation'
I have posted many links to the convictions of these people yet you say we don't know.
Yes we do know the truth, he was convicted.
Heres, another, link to his conviction, try looking at it for a change:
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/
I'll give you the crib notes.
'Joseph Don Rosenbaum lived in Kenosha. He had an open case for misdemeanor bail jumping that was filed on July 30, 2020.'
The conditions of bond read: “Not to Possess or Consume Alcohol. *Not To Possess or Consume Controlled Substances w/o a Prescription. No contact including the residence, electronic or 3rd party with: Kariann S, Park Ridge Inn.”
Rosenbaum also had open misdemeanor cases for battery (domestic abuse) and disorderly conduct (domestic abuse).
Court documents obtained by Wisconsin Right Now from the Pima County (Arizona) Clerk of Courts confirm Rosenbaum was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children, including anal rape, masturbation, oral sex, and showing minors pornography. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old. He was convicted of two amended counts as part of a plea deal. See those documents here.'
'Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there'
Maybe he should, maybe he shouldn't but he had every legal right to be there, unlike the rioters so that is a pointless statement.
'he shouldn't have been armed with a military weapon'
Another strait up lie, which I've covered previously. He had an AR-15 type rifle. Legal. Not a military weapon.
'and were he innocent he would have surrendered himself to police after killing his first victim.'
You really are a dumb, arrogant dick head. Where do you think Kyle was running when he was being chased, the police is where you was running to you fucking asshole.
Why are you arguing this case when you don't know the first thing about it,
You might have heard of this
group: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
Try reading it unless you think NPR is a right wing organisation but really all you need to know is here:
"Mr. Rosenbaum was chasing me. I pointed my gun at him, and that did not deter him. He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me, but he kept chasing me. It didn't stop him," Rittenhouse testified last week.'
'Afterward, Rittenhouse ran away toward a police line, he said during the trial. While he was running, several people started to chase him, including Huber and Grosskreutz. Huber struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard, evidence showed, and Grosskreutz was armed with a Glock pistol.'
Do you get that Stuart? He was running to the police BEFORE he was forced to shoot a child rapist
After he shot a child rapist he CONTINUED to run to the police.
You are a lying, ignorant or arrogant.
Right back at you, vigilante fanboy. Though you deny it – the child molestation was not occurring when Rittenhouse murdered the man you claim had that background – you must find another reason to exculpate Rittenhouse – he was NOT defending children from abuse.
Maybe he should, maybe he shouldn't but he had every legal right to be there, unlike the rioters so that is a pointless statement.
I think you'll find they had every legal right to be there also – just not to riot – but let us not pretend your argument is in any way rational – you exculpate Rittenhouse, not because he is innocent, which he manifestly is not, but because he took up arms against a group protesting the abuse of police power. For some reason you believe in noble cause corruption and qualified immunity – it is this that moves you to forgive Rittenhouse. Perhaps you expect to need qualified immunity yourself at some point.
Another strait up lie, which I've covered previously. He had an AR-15 type rifle. Legal. Not a military weapon.
Bullshit. The AR15 was designed as a military weapon, and is in most respects identical to the M16, the US military's weapon of choice. ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. You ought to know that lying through your teeth like this does nothing for your argument, except to demonstrate your disrespect for the facts.
You really are a dumb, arrogant dick head.
When you are reduced to abuse, my little cabbage, it is because you have already lost.
"Mr. Rosenbaum was chasing me. I pointed my gun at him, and that did not deter him. He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me, but he kept chasing me. It didn't stop him," Rittenhouse testified last week.'
No doubt Mr Rosenbaum, having watched Rittenhouse murder a fellow citizen, meant to disarm him, in the interests of public safety.
You are a lying, ignorant or arrogant.
'Right back at you, vigilante fanboy. Though you deny it – the child molestation was not occurring when Rittenhouse murdered the man you claim had that background – you must find another reason to exculpate Rittenhouse – he was NOT defending children from abuse.'
Maybe he should, maybe he shouldn't but he had every legal right to be there, unlike the rioters so that is a pointless statement.
'I think you'll find they had every legal right to be there also – just not to riot –'
'but let us not pretend your argument is in any way rational – you exculpate Rittenhouse, not because he is innocent, which he manifestly is not,'
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
'but because he took up arms against a group protesting the abuse of police power.'
'For some reason you believe in noble cause corruption and qualified immunity – it is this that moves you to forgive Rittenhouse. Perhaps you expect to need qualified immunity yourself at some point.'
Another strait up lie, which I've covered previously. He had an AR-15 type rifle. Legal. Not a military weapon.
'Bullshit. The AR15 was designed as a military weapon, and is in most respects identical to the M16, the US military's weapon of choice. ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt. You ought to know that lying through your teeth like this does nothing for your argument, except to demonstrate your disrespect for the facts.'
You think you can jump on google and find a link to prove your point. I've been dealing with people like you (ignorant and arrogant) for a very long time.
As you yourself stated the AR-15 was developed by Armalite as a military rifle. Fact.
But Kyle was not carrying a military Armalite AR-15. Fact
He was carrying a legal, civilian, Smith & Wesson AR-15 style rifle. Fact
You know virtually nothing about firearms. Fact.
I use links to show proof to others of what I already know. Fact.
You use links because you don't know. Fact.
Now I know what you're going to say next. Yes accuracy in trials matters and yes there is a difference, allow me to explain:
Heres the Trekka, looks like a Land Rover but is not the same thing as a Land Rover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekka
You really are a dumb, arrogant dick head.
"Mr. Rosenbaum was chasing me. I pointed my gun at him, and that did not deter him. He could have ran away instead of trying to take my gun from me, but he kept chasing me. It didn't stop him," Rittenhouse testified last week.'
'No doubt Mr Rosenbaum, having watched Rittenhouse murder a fellow citizen, meant to disarm him, in the interests of public safety.'
Also you're assuming what the noted child rapist and domestic abuser (noted to show how violent he is and how he lacks empathy) was thinking whereas I on the other hand am going off what 'Mr Rosenbaum' said previously in the night when he said if he saw Kyle alone he would kill him
I have the trial outcome
I have the prosecutions own witness testimony
I have drone footage
I have smart phone footage
You have nothing, nothing at all
Gosh you're full of yourself – and it is unbecoming in a moral teenager, a prating knave who endorses vigilantism.
My pointing out that the child anal rapist is a child anal rapist is to counter the claims that hes a peaceful, civil rights protester
Ah, so defaming the victim to lessen the gravity of Rittenhouse's murder formed no part of your motivation? The mens rea is so thick you're soaking in it.
An AR15 is a military firearm, no matter how you may try to deny it – and therein lies much of its appeal to deranged vigilantes. The technicality you're trying to push is less than wafer thin – it simply isn't substantial enough to support the nonsense you are trying to hang from it. Had your argument broad legitimacy you would not be constantly reduced to grasping at such flimsy technicalities.
Thank you for proving my point. Protest yes but rioting no and they were rioting.
Well someone would have to, because you couldn't sustain an argument through a wet paper bag. But of course Rittenhouse's rights are likewise curtailed when he presents that firearm, threatens to kill, does in fact kill, and so on.
He was running to the police BEFORE he was forced to shoot a child rapist
He was running to the police having threatened a civilian with a weapon, and failed to deter him. The child molestation is just your post facto get out of jail free card.
'Gosh you're full of yourself – and it is unbecoming in a moral teenager, a prating knave who endorses vigilantism.'
– Being that I'm the one linking to evidence, testimony, video evidence, drone evidence and factual information and at no point have I endorsed vigilantism (please find proof where I did, shouldn't be too hard to locate) I'll take what you say with a reasonably large grain of salt
My pointing out that the child anal rapist is a child anal rapist is to counter the claims that hes a peaceful, civil rights protester
'Ah, so defaming the victim to lessen the gravity of Rittenhouse's murder formed no part of your motivation?'
– What a stupid thing to say, as the trial proved Kyle is not a murderer.
The mens rea is so thick you're soaking in it.
– I'll point you towards the trial, its outcomes and the evidence
An AR15 is a military firearm, no matter how you may try to deny it – and therein lies much of its appeal to deranged vigilantes.
– The AR-15 (without getting too technical) is the civilian variant of the M4. It is legally sold to civilians because it can only be fired in semi-automatic mode.
'The technicality you're trying to push is less than wafer thin – it simply isn't substantial enough to support the nonsense you are trying to hang from it.'
– Facts matter, you don't like it but facts matter. He was carrying a legal, AR-15 type rifle. As you yourself said AR-15 is a military rifle made by the Armalite company.
– Kyle was carrying a Smith and Wesson AR-15 TYPE rifle, completely legal.
'Had your argument broad legitimacy you would not be constantly reduced to grasping at such flimsy technicalities.'
– Sorry if I think accuracy is important in a murder trial
Thank you for proving my point. Protest yes but rioting no and they were rioting.
'Well someone would have to, because you couldn't sustain an argument through a wet paper bag.'
– Interestingly enough my arguments are quite similar to the defences, yours are similar to the prosecutions
– Kyle found, correctly, not guilty, funny that. also from NPR since you must have missed it earlier (probably deliberately):
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
'But of course Rittenhouse's rights are likewise curtailed when he presents that firearm, threatens to kill, does in fact kill, and so on.'
– Another lie. Kyle never threatened to kill. 'Mr Rosenbaum' had earlier in the night threatened to kill Kyle.
He was running to the police BEFORE he was forced to shoot a child rapist
'He was running to the police having threatened a civilian with a weapon, and failed to deter him.'
– Why are you trying to prove me right and yourself wrong?
– Yes he was trying to get to the police. He wanted to get to the police so he wouldn't have to shoot anyone but 'Mr Rosenbaum' chased him
– Yes he aimed the rifle at 'Mr Rosenbaum' because he wanted 'Mr Rosenbaum' to stop chasing him
– He wanted 'Mr Rosenbaum to not chase him because 'Mr Rosenbaum' threatened Kyles life
– Look I don't need your help proving you know nothing about this case but thank you anyway
'The child molestation is just your post facto get out of jail free card.'
– The evidence, the witnesses, the video footage, the drone footage were Kyles get out of jail card.
– Also 'Mr Rosenbaum' died as he lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor, unfortunately for 'Mr Rosenbaum' this minor was able to protect himself.
My pointing out that the child anal rapist is a child anal rapist is to counter the claims that hes a peaceful, civil rights protester
'Ah, so defaming the victim to lessen the gravity of Rittenhouse's murder formed no part of your motivation?'
– What a stupid thing to say, as the trial proved Kyle is not a murderer. T
he trial proved nothing of the sort.
The mens rea is so thick you're soaking in it.
– I'll point you towards the trial,
Having no rational argument to support your contentions.
An AR15 is a military firearm, no matter how you may try to deny it – and therein lies much of its appeal to deranged vigilantes.
– The AR-15 (without getting too technical) is the civilian variant of the M4. It is legally sold to civilians because it can only be fired in semi-automatic mode.
'The technicality you're trying to push is less than wafer thin – it simply isn't substantial enough to support the nonsense you are trying to hang from it.'
– Facts matter, you don't like it but facts matter. He was carrying a legal, AR-15 type rifle. As you yourself said AR-15 is a military rifle made by the Armalite company.
– Kyle was carrying a Smith and Wesson AR-15 TYPE rifle, completely legal.
red herring – the legality of the weapon is not in dispute the AR15 or AR15 styled rifle remains the weapon of choice for vigilantes such as the Christchurch shooter and your latest unsavoury obsession, the murderer Rittenhouse. They are chosen because of the similarities between their design and the M16.
Yes, they no longer fire full automatic – but they were designed as a military assault rifle by a military supplier for a military customer. In most respects they are still that military assault rifle. These facts matter PR, and your determination to set them aside is consistent with the general dishonesty that means most of us don't believe a damned thing you say – links or no links.
'Had your argument broad legitimacy you would not be constantly reduced to grasping at such flimsy technicalities.'
Sorry if I think accuracy is important in a murder trial – gosh a rhetorical flourish! who'd have thought you had it in you! You're not in a murder trial PR, you're in a discussion, trying to salvage the shreds of your credibility for fanboying a vigilante, and by extension the dysfunctional US system that created him.
– Interestingly enough my arguments are quite similar to the defences, yours are similar to the prosecutions
'But of course Rittenhouse's rights are likewise curtailed when he presents that firearm, threatens to kill, does in fact kill, and so on.'
– Another lie. Kyle never threatened to kill. 'Mr Rosenbaum' had earlier in the night threatened to kill Kyle.
A presented firearm carries an implicit threat.
He was running to the police BEFORE he was forced to shoot a child rapist
He was running to the police BEFORE he chose to shoot a man he had threatened with a rifle. fixed it for you.
– Yes he was trying to get to the police. He wanted to get to the police so he wouldn't have to shoot anyone but 'Mr Rosenbaum' chased him
– Yes he was trying to get to the police. He wanted to get to the police so that he wouldn't beaten and killed by the men he had menaced with his rifle.
– Look I don't need your help
Brother, you need all the help you can get. I imagine you 'need' an AR15 'styled' rifle too.
'The child molestation is just your post facto get out of jail free card.'
– The evidence, the witnesses, the video footage, the drone footage were Kyles get out of jail card. – I imagine the gun lobby, and political parties had some influence too – but there is no mystery in Rittenhouse's release – the US plays by very different rules. It is you that need the get out of jail card, as you applaud the death by violence of a fellow human being, who, absent Rittenhouse's reckless provocation of a crowd, would probably still be alive.
Were that the case you would not have felt obliged to mention that the child molestation at every opportunity, as if it somehow made the victim
– Also 'Mr Rosenbaum' died as he lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor, unfortunately for 'Mr Rosenbaum' this minor was able to protect himself.
By shooting Rosenberg dead, together with some other members of the public – vigilantism victory! And you're smiling – so why do you imagine you escape the label vigilante fanboy? You patently are one.
Please explain why you know better:
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031
Also for s**ts and giggles:
Please explain why you know better:
I already have explained – at some length I might add – but you are either too obtuse, or too smug in your celebration of vigilantism to get it. Ultimately I suppose it is simply in accord with the rest of your sociopathic rightwing nonsense.
Gran Torino probably did it better anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HisV1xUcIFI
All charges?
Including possession of a dangerous weapon by a person aged under 18?
So he shot three people in self defense using a weapon that wasn't actually in his possession?
Seems legit, lolk
Well hey now its the noted expert on Wisconsin gun laws McFlock, throwing links out like hes Tiger Woods so lets just have a look at the link hes provided…
Damn dude looks like you got me with a link to ABC dated 11 Nov 21, theres no way this can be refuted.
Unless…you have a link from ABC dated 20 Nov 21, which I just happen to have:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031
'Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.'
'Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.'
'This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 …” That section of law isn’t specific to minors, but rather forbids any person from having a short-barreled shotgun or rifle.'
Fair call. Unlike you, I haven't been obsessing over the case.
They do have funny laws, judges, and juries over there.
I do think its an important issue so that helps
It's biggest importance was in showing, again, the sort of people US "self defense" laws are intended to protect.
'It's biggest importance was in showing, again, the sort of people US "self defense" laws are intended to protect.'
People going about their lawful and legal business that are then attacked?
You can't win this.
Bit circular there, because apparently running around with firearms and pointing them at people is lawful and legal, and getting scared when they respond accordingly is enough excuse to lawfully and legally shoot them dead.
Oh McFlock, McFlock, McFlock, are you enjoying this spanking I'm giving you?
See the thing is you didn't follow the trial at all.
You know that I did and yet you still try to put out these proven lies.
Kyle wasn't 'running around with firearms and pointing them at people' in fact once the trouble started he tried to run away, run away to the police
The trouble started when the sodomiser of children (just so you know who you're defending) threatened Kyle saying that he'd kill him if he got him alone
This information came from the prosecutions own witness
Just what "spanking" you're doing at the moment is none of my concern.
Maybe there will be appeals, maybe civil trials. But Rittenhouse still took a gun to a riot and shot three people. Jury or not, I won't be inviting him to dinner any time soon.
As for "lies", didn't the prosecutor say that Rittenhouse pointed guns at people? Was the prosecutor "lying", too?
'Just what "spanking" you're doing at the moment is none of my concern.'
You know you like it
'Maybe there will be appeals, maybe civil trials'
Sure. Its their legal right to do so
'But Rittenhouse still took a gun to a riot and shot three people.'
But Rittenhouse still took a gun, which according to the laws of the state and decided in court that he was in the legal right to do, to a riot and shot three people.
Woah, woah, woah just a second there buddy, it wasn't a riot because riots are illegal.
I was informed by the impartial and very honest CNN that these were 'mostly peaceful' protests
https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/08/1862/1048/CNN-Headline-Fiery-2.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
'As for "lies", didn't the prosecutor say that Rittenhouse pointed guns at people? Was the prosecutor "lying", too?'
He did when he, finally, had to defend himself. You've made it sound like he was going around aiming at people for the lols
Also just because: https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/174642-mostly-clueless-kool-aid-drinkers-the-meme/
"When he had to".
Not sure that got the same level of test it would have had in NZ.
'Not sure that got the same level of test it would have had in NZ.'
Yeah its almost like this happened in a different country with a different culture and laws to our own
Which kind of puts paid to your "He was found not guilty so hes not a murderer" thing.
By Wisconsin standards, he's not a murderer, or even a manslaughterer(? I guess that's the term). But that's not saying a huge amount. Even by US standards.
'By
Wisconsinany reasonable persons standards, he's not a murderer, or even a manslaughterer?Maybe some reasonable people could se it that way, if they squint really hard. But that depends on a generous interpretation of "reasonable".
'Maybe some reasonable people could se it that way, if they squint really hard. But that depends on a generous interpretation of "reasonable"
I know right, I mean even though the video footage backed up what Kyle said, even though the prosecution witnesses backed up what Kyle said, even though the laws backed up Kyle and even though 'activists' and news outlets were trying to find out the ids of the jurors…surely only an 'unreasonable' person would find Kyle not guilty
That's not actually what I said.
You switched this into a discussion about reasonableness rather than the vagaries of different legal jurisdictions and their respective burdens of proof for self defense arguments. Fair enough.
Reasonableness is much more subjective. Personally, I think grabbing a gun and running to a scene of civil disorder to protect property is unreasonable. But I can see how another reasonable person might disagree. But they'd have a significantly different values system.
I can't believe anyone would put a link up to arch nutter Alex Jones of Infowars as if it will add anything to anything. Even Wiki in its short pen portrait says he is known for the 'Promotion of multiple right-wing conspiracy theories'.
Presumably you are putting it up just to give us all a laugh. I actually don't find him funny just demented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones
I'm waiting for someone to round up these do*ks who persist in wearing their caps back to front. Followed by the sunglasses, cap back to front and hoodies over the top of the cap crowd, preferably worn inside a car. These outrages against fashion and world wide copy catting deserve the severest of punishment./sarc.
Truly sad is to see guys whose age should tell them better (say over 12years) continuing to do this. Perhaps Rittenhouse will be encouraged to lift himself above the do*k level crowds and throw his cap away.
Sorry McFlock ,,, theirs no reply button ….@ PR
they are known as MSSA the M says it all,I hope you have handed yours in as supposed to. .
A black guy shooting three other black guys in self defence?
The same verdict because the actual evidence (not the media evidence) was overwhelming in favour of the defence
Dagnabbit, that was to vto
PR look above.
Thank you for that, I've never heard that before. MSSA. Interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_(automobile)
'Compared to truck-based SUVs, they typically have better interior comfort, a more comfortable ride, better fuel economy, and lower manufacturing costs, but also inferior off-road and towing capability'
Crossover SUVs look like SUVs but are different to SUVs
AR-15s look like Military (Assault) rifles but are different to Military (Assault) rifles
The first S in MSSA (style) says it all
Their is you problem most people see these things as they see them MSSA,which by the way is/was the bain of our gun law.,
?
This Athena Swan charter sounds disturbingly similar to Stonewall's Equality index, and has been adopted by The Higher Education Authority (HEA) of Ireland.
Critics of free speech on this site will be pleased that these threats are unnecessary as Dublin University already has the matter in hand.
So how do you guys feel about your hero, Glenn Greenwald in the knowledge that he defends white supremacists who gun down civil rights protesters?
Go back to sleep, then when you wake up have a look at the video footage from the trail (specifically where Kyle is kicked, assaulted and has an illegal pistol aimed at him), read some coverage that isn't CNN and then come back and post again
Why dont you just admit that you want the USA to return to the good old days of lynching, segregation and Jim Crow. Which is the ultamite goal of the likes of Rittenhouse and Greenwald.
I suppose you think George Floyd deserved to die as well.
[RL: You are tolerated as the unhinged nutter that brings a little colour to every site – but your personal attacks here are over the line. Last warning.]
Mod note for you.
Hey RL I'm all good with it if that helps
Thanks – it's not necessarily you I'm acting in defense of.
And I’ve just noticed that weka has him in pre-mod – so my warning was redundant anyhow.
I find him funny more than anything else, you just can't take him seriously at all
millsy, like many in long-term relationships, I don't agree with my partner of 35 years on everything.
I don't even agree with myself from five years ago on some things.
If you abandon your expectation to find conformity and agreement in all things, then you'll understand how I can still appreciate Greenwalds work on Snowden and Assange while comprehending how law works, and the application of it matters even when we don't like the outcome. The inequality in representation demands scrutiny here too.
The fact that this teen deliberately armed himself and crossed counties to attend this protest deserves analysis regardless.
Given millsy's reference, here's Greenwald himself discussing the trial.
Might pay to have a look.
… and his article for the readers…
Kyle Rittenhouse, Project Veritas, and the Inability to Think in Terms of Principles
.
Greenwald's views are grounded in solid left-wing principles that take precedence over petty partisan politics … he has the integrity / honesty / courage to recognise & acutely critique the now very obvious Upper-Middle capture of the Left & how this is fundamentally subverting genuine traditional Social Democratic principles for its own narcissistic self-interest. Little more than a Vanity Project that viciously scapegoats whole swathes of the lower income, while further consolidating their own power, status & financial privilege. The Right & the political elites of the "Left" are increasingly just two warring sides of the same self-interested Establishment.
@swordfish, I take it you watched the video too, or, unlike me, have been following this case closely and critically.
I had to pause and do a few searches for the video footage etc, while watching to check, but I couldn't find any evidence that what Greenwald says in that video was inaccurate or biased.
Life is not black and white. People we love and admire can do the wrong thing, and conversely, people we don't like are not always guilty.
Hi Molly
The weapon was in Kenosha, Kyle works in Kenosha and his father lives and works in Kenosha.
The travel time is approximately 20 minutes
This hogwash about crossing state lines was an attempt to make it sound more 'sinister' then it really was
Should Kyle have been there.
I'd say no but he had the right to be there, nor was his weapon illegal nor was it illegal for him to carry the weapon.
It was illegal for the sodomiser of children to threaten to kill Kyle, it was illegal for the multiple domestic abuser to assault Kyle and it was illegal for the convicted felon to aim an illegal pistol at Kyle
But it was legal for Kyle to defend himself which he did with extremely good weapon control.
Just listening to Greenwald now.
Probably will find myself disagreeing with myself of an hour ago,
Thanks to millsy for making me look for the links.
I know as a devout homophobic wife beating creationist Christian, you think that people should be eternally punished for their crimes in both this life and the next, but in the secular world, these guys had served their time and paid their debt to society. The fact of the matter is that they were marching for civil rights and liberties, something that right wing Trump supporters like you cannot get your head round. Rittenhouse is a KKK sympathizing racist who thinks that minorities have too much rights and wants to return to the days of lynching and segregation. Like you
That actually made my day
Yes, you have persuaded Millsy to examine his prejudices and repent for his sins.
Now that he has admitted where his opinions come from he may find the way to redemption. After all Millsy admits his faults when he says "I know as a devout homophobic wife beating creationist Christian".
Its a lie because I highly doubt he has a wife, in fact I'd bet he couldn't even get laid on nzdating
Read that again. The full sentence makes that clear.
'devout homophobic wife beating creationist christian'
Do I need to point out here that I'm not:
1. devout
2. homophobic
3. a domestic abuser (interestingly enough three of the four guys Kyle shot at have been charged with domestic assault)
4. a creationist
5. christian
I am married so he got that right
Why don't you quote the full sentence which starts with "I know"?
However I still am quoting him fairly. He probably didn't mean to make such a confession but he did say it.
If I wrote a sentence that said “I know, as a totally degenerate alcoholic, that you can’t drink in moderation” the you wouldn’t be about other people it would be about the person who had written the “I”.
As a true wowser of course I never drink to excess. I also never lie. I follow in the path of St Jacinda.
Perfect response PR from that pile of words from Millsy (even if it was sarc)
You can't help but smile when Millsy gets wound up and loses the plot
Why are you going into bat for that guy, Pucky?
To fill in a boring Saturday morning fishing for bites,is my guess.
Actually I'm on a nice drive but it could also be its something I think is quite important
Kyle was innocent.
Isn't that enough?
The MSM were after him
The Democrat party were after him
Our tech overlords were after him
Hollywood was after him.
The presumption of innocence was on his side or should have been
The evidence showed what happened yet, as shown by some on this site, people still think he's guilty
Doesn't that bother you at all?
“…….The MSM were after him
The Democrat party were after him
Our tech overlords were after him
Hollywood was after him……….”
These people that you hate are the last people that are willing to stand up and defend civil rights in the USA.
Its clearly obvious that Kyle's supporters, including yourself, want to return to the days of lynching, segreation and Jim Crow, where blacks were lynched for whistling at a white women, or forbidden from access services in 'White' areas.
Your mate Donald John Trump, his cabinet and his supporters were all set to impose a theocracy which white supramacist characteristics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
'Southern laws were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by white Southern Democrat-dominated state legislatures to disenfranchise and remove political and economic gains made by black people during the Reconstruction period.'
A link always helps to know what you are talking about, especially if you are making claims about a controversial public figure
It's all over his Twitter feed. Guy has moved to the right. He supports Trump and wants cops to go round killing whoever they want
[in which case you could easily have posted a link. Please post links to your support your assertions now. I’m aware of GG’s positions, but this isn’t FB, we want informed debate here which means having access to what you are basing your opinions on – weka]
Watch the video by Greenwald himself for context.
https://rumble.com/embed/vmvhkl/?pub=4
The prosecution failed to prove murder as the evidence was not supportive of conviction.
Greenwald needs to realise that the people who he insists on defending are those that will gladly beat and murder him for being gay.
The guy stopped caring about civil rights long ago and now wants Trump back in.
[“and now wants Trump back in” definitely needs a direct citation. Popping you in premod until that happens – weka]
[Millsy quote from the sin bin: “Ok, I retract my statements about Greenwald.”]
mod note #2
Don't stop Millsy you've got them on the ropes
Keep it coming
Weka – perhaps you might read this piece on the Daily Beast Published in June this year.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-glenn-greenwald-the-new-master-of-right-wing-media
It seems it's all about money (around $2 mill US a year)
thanks. I'm aware of the controversy around Greenwald's views. I'm asking Millsy to up his game and present evidence that Greenwald wants Trump back in. This is about TS debate culture. Millsy knows better.
are you going to respond to moderation?
… in addition, evidence supported self-defence.
Whether I believe in the right to carry arms, as PR pointed out it is legal.
Do I think there is a problem with this teen's choices – yes – but he can't be convicted for murder on that.
Watch the video to get the full picture of why Greenwald has his position.
Greenwald needs to realise that the people who he insists on defending are those that will gladly beat and murder him for being gay.
The guy stopped caring about civil rights long ago and now wants Trump back in
Both those statements are irrelevant to the discussion, BTW.
mod note.
.
millsy
At the risk of incurring a mod note … can I just say that like so many Woke dogmatists … you're bordering on the unhinged … divorced from cold hard social reality … big on using social media for grandstanding & ostentatious prestige enhancement to impress your fellow dogmatists … hence the usual crude, sociopathic, intellectually lazy bullshit: entire demographics apparently eternally innocent & virtuous / other demographics entirely evil … Zero nuance & zero rationality going on your hippocampus.
Nothing unusual Millsy as always been prone to hyperbolic positions that are some distance from reality.
At least he's given up on the piano wire
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/453438/government-releases-consultation-document-ahead-of-emissions-reduction-plan
https://action.greens.org.nz/strengthen_the_erp
Please engage with the climate change processes already ongoing, make a submission to the emissions reduction plan. Closes 24 Nov 2021. The Greens provide a simplified form and a more comprehensive form above, or if you prefer the Ministry of the Environment form:
https://consult.environment.govt.nz/climate/emissions-reduction-plan/consultation/
I wont be doing a submission, but if I was it would be around lowering the deer ,goat population significantly, huge amounts of native forest is effectively "dead bush standing " with any young growth not getting a start, I'd prefer its done as meat recovery.
That’s a perfect submission, I encourage you to do it. Is there any particular reason why you feel your views aren’t worth contributing?
This is one of the few opportunities we have to communicate our desires for Govt action on climate change, it only need take 10-15mins and it’s imperative the plan is as ambitious and as democratic as possible. This Govt has shown it needs to be pushed, and we can do it through this process, rather than complain about their inaction after the fact.
As far as the things we can do to prevent the worst of climate change go, this one is the low-hanging fruit and I strongly urge everyone to make a submission.
I figured one would need to turn my 1 paragraph into a wordy 2 page document to be taken seriously,
Not at all, check out the simplified form at https://action.greens.org.nz/strengthen_the_erp just add and delete as appropriate. There's no requirement for length!
I think that if we all made a submission, the shear scale of the engagement would be taken seriously.
I hate the whole concept of the ets, its achieved nothing to date, is this sub mission up for removing nz from the ets and having any carbon tax spent in nz on real science and actions to reduce our footprint??
It comes across as leading me down a path to get the answers they want.
Select committees love short, focused submissions. Go for it.
Reading through the official submission trying to understand it ,so far I'm upto question 83!!!
Can one cherry pick the bits they want to fill in?
Very much so.
Na, extend yourself and put in a submission, there's plenty of evidence that pests are costing the country a lot in ghg emissions.
You've got a unique and valid view point and can think logically and succinctly. Despite what the grammar nazis think you get your point across in your voice / style.
Yip I reckon it'd be far better to spend some of the carbon tax supporting farmers to fence and control pests out of remnant native areas than send that money of to Bolsanaro in brazil.
But the nz left is so anti rural they'd rather see is hearded of to the cities in the last great clearance and the lad become a waste land of untended pines, !!
I see q 112 covers the very topic of pests
That's your one to respond on then.
Definitely a bit of homework for the evenings this week . Thanks to you supportive people .
Go for it. You talk sense.
This is Pickles, a baby pukeko about 8 weeks old. He’d only just learned to swim properly and was getting independent. He spent the night on the far stream bank (parenga), & it rained that night, and was still raining in this scene.
His family of two adult male & one female pukekos were over on my side, getting a handout of wheat grains from me. They can easily fly over a flooded stream.
Pickles had only ever swum in the stream before when the wai was flowing slow and gentle. He has no idea swimming across this rushing torrent was a totally different matter, & gets swept away downstream
The others all stopped eating immediately & ran off along the parenga downstream to rescue him. They came back about 5 minutes later with Pickles following along behind, none the worse for wear, and a little wiser. 🙂
"A Belemnite is an opalised, fossilized Squid that has been discovered mainly in Coober Pedy, South Australia. Formed over about 100 million years, these fossilized opals are very rare. They are an extinct order of Squid that existed from the late Triassic to late Cretaceous period on Earth."
Wow! That, I did not know! They are gorgeous!
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2948300868833620&set=gm.1310078859452226
nice
very cool!
Learn something new every day. Ta very interesting.
Manchester Pride now requires its attendees to take this Humanity Pledge before attending events:
Brings to mind that classic song:
https://youtu.be/mRCe5L1imxg?t=19
.
For some reason, it made me of this one
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dPSZJ3xH5sA
🙄 God I'm a frackin hopeless proof-reader 😠
* made me think of this one
.
Ah, Gezza.
Spent over an hour of my life unproductively last night, watching these Youtube videos:
Like a life flashback in song snippets, notwithstanding the American ratings.
So cool, Molly
Our geneneration was absolutely spoiled for music. So many styles and innovations; it all just exploded out from the 60s on into the 80s.
Every one of them carefully groomed and managed and MARKETED and how many more unsung singers sang and angels on earth recited ?
Nostalgia trip for me listening to songs that were present at certain times. (Though I agree, some of my more vivid personal recollections are friends, family and the occasional stranger singing with gusto rather than polish.)
Not all of them. For quite a few it was a hard slog, then a lucky break.
Guessing you're a glass half empty kinda guy. These days I try to be more of a glass half full type. Life's lived happier with that attitude.
Very sad but important story in the Herald today:
A mother and her baby died in Auckland Hospital. This is what went wrong.
Having received treatment in both the ADHB and Counties DHB over the last year, both while in lockdown and out of it, my personal experience has been of a disjointed below par delivery.
In addition to ICU capacity, these failings will make the medical response to Covid start on the back foot.
Absolutely tragic and so terribly sad. I don't understand why they ignored her pain. It's not a symptom of morning sickness.
Over two decades ago, was in the maternity ward with three other mothers. I opted to keep my bassinet by my bed. Two of the others alternated with that and the nursery. It was only just before leaving I heard the nurse speak to the remaining patient and discovered her child was stillborn.
The cruelty of it floored me.
See Tamaki is breaking bail condtions
Destiny Church leader Brian Tamaki has addressed protesters in Auckland Domain during “National Compassion Day”, an event railing against vaccine mandates.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300458896/antivaccine-mandate-protesters-gather-for-national-compassion-day
As much as I'd like the police to drag his sorry arse off to jail ,itll just rouse his muppet followers, hit him where it hurts in his wallet!!!
But but but he says he poor!!
From that Stuff story, a perfect explanation of why the mandates are necessary – to save lives:
"Among the speakers was Papakura High School deputy principal Kelly Te Ariki, who said she is losing her job due to the mandate. She said she last attended school on November 15 before she and several other staff were no longer allowed on site, presumably due to their vaccine stance.
She did not explicitly mention Covid-19 vaccines but congratulated others who have chosen not to receive the shot. (italics added)
“We’re showing that we’re practising what we preach,” she said."
Yes bizzare!!
Kelly Te Ariki said she is losing her job due to the mandate. Another way of putting that is to say she is losing her job because she won't have a vaccination.
Who could have forseen that after he ignored them the first time. Some judges must be on crack.
there's a process to go through? Now they can revoke his bail? Weird that Stuff aren't saying what the consequences of bail breach would be.
To vto
You asked me: 'If the skin colours were reversed what would the outcome of the trial have been?
IMHO
If it was a black man shooting other black men then chances are we probably wouldn't hear about it
If it was a white man shooting black men then Kenosha would probably be burning right now
If it was a black man shooting white men then probably something like this:
https://kstp.com/news/saint-paul-man-who-shot-at-minneapolis-police-in-self-defense-acquitted-of-all-charges-by-jury/6224974/
Don't be silly. You're not ignorant of the reality in the USA, you don't need to pretend to be.
Searching for an individual case to deny an overwhelming historical pattern is bad faith at best.
You want to know how silly this really is?
This all started when Jacob Blake was shot by the police but have a read about the rest it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake
This is what people were rioting about
There is an opinion piece on Stuff saying that overseas NZ citizens should have a greater right to MIQ then NZ-based NZ citizens.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/127011028/people-in-nz-should-not-have-same-right-to-miq
So, yea, screw that. If overseas citizens are paying NZ tax, paying off their students loans and paying off all their other obligations then they can have the same rights to MIQ as NZ-based NZ citizens. Screw that judgemental attitude about why NZ-based NZ citizens are going and returning to NZ.
MiQ is rationed. Who should get priority? We got delta from people coming through the border, and we are now gearing up for covid deaths and hospital overrun. I think there needs to be a bloody good reason to be leaving and coming back in again. Funerals and sick relatives, not holidays and unnecessary business trips. It's too soon, we don't actually know how effective the vaccine, other tools and traffic light system is going to be.
I had read about Stella O'Malley's 2018 documentary : Trans Kids. It's time to talk, but have only just watched it.
Bit dated, but its here for those interested,
Thanks Molly, by coincidence I watched her submission to the Conversion Practices Bill.
She was stunning and her points very difficult to overlook. I think even the very biased Labour Women couldn't help but listen. God knows their treatment of other people presenting who didn't support the bill was appalling.
The USA the only country in the world where it is legal for civilians to hunt and kill human beings.
Arming himself with a military style assault rifle Kyle Rittenhouse drives 20 miles between his home in Antioch to nearby Kenosha and shoots three people, killing two.. And walked away without even a conviction.
If Kyle Rittenhouse had driven 20 miles to hunt and shoot three deer he would have been fined possibly even jailed.
Another liar telling more lies, are the drugs kicking in early today?
Watch this and then see if you still hold the same views:
Ben Shapiro? Seriously?
Plot, lost.
How about, and this is just a suggestion, you try listening to what he has to say before you decide hes wrong
Or not, your choice
I could ignore all previous evidence of Mr Shapiro, going back years – sure.
I could also replace my Weetbix with dog turds, to find out if it is a delicious alternative.
On the one hand … "you don't know until you've tried".
On the other hand … logic, reason, knowledge and experience. The brain is a useful tool for making good decisions. That's why I stick with Weetbix.
Yeah wouldn't want to hear anything that might change your mind would you.
#bluepill
I will hear anything in good faith.
I have heard Ben Shapiro more than enough, to know what he is and does. (The retractions happen later). See Einstein's famous definition of insanity.
This correspondence is closed.
'This correspondence is closed.'
Its closed when I say its closed.
wonderfully expressed – got a chuckle here
The first person Rittenhouse shot and killed was a homeless man who had just left hospital who threw a plastic bag of his hospital belongings at Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse pointed his assault rifle at him.
Rittenhouse second killing was of a skate boarder who tried to strike Rittenhouse with his skate board to try to disarm him after Rittenhouse had killed his first victim.
Rittenhouse third victim drew a handgun and was wounded by Rittenhouse and survived the shooting.
In his defence Kyle Rittenhouse said he felt endangered by the three people he shot.
Kyle Rittenhouse would have no cause to feel endangered if he had not driven from his home in the company of other heavily armed men to confront his victims with his assault rifle.
Kyle Rittenhouse actions leading up his killings were premeditated.
Just as if he had driven from his home in the company of other hunters to shoot deer.
Only in a truly perverted legal system could a heavily armed killer like Rittenhouse have walked completely free without any legal sanction at all.
Kenosha Rittenhouse trial victims: These are the 3 men he shot – CNN
Fine we'll do this (again)
An assault rifle is a specific thing, you can't just label something an assault rifle because it looks like an assault rifle.
Kyle had a (legal) AR-15 type rifle. The AR-15 can only be produced as a semi-automatic.
To be designated an assault rifle the rifle, amongst other things, has to be able to be fired in both semi AND full automatic mode.
Kyle did not have an assault rifle.
Are we clear or do I need to explain it further?
Right lets move on shall we:
'The first person Rittenhouse shot and killed was a homeless man who had just left hospital who threw a plastic bag of his hospital belongings at Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse pointed his assault rifle at him.'
The first person Kyle shot was a convicted child molester and domestic abuser (amongst other charges) and had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the night.
Thats not hearsay, thats from the prosecutions own witness.
Kyle attempted to run from Joseph however it was only when Joseph was close enough to make a grab for the rifle that Kyle shot him.
Kyle shot Joseph him because Kyle was in fear for his life because of the threats Joseph made towards him and that he was trying to grab Kyles rifle.
'Rittenhouse second killing was of a skate boarder who tried to strike Rittenhouse with his skate board to try to disarm him after Rittenhouse had killed his first victim'
Anthony Huber had multiple convictions of domestic abuse (amongst other charges) and didn't try to hit Kyle with the skateboard, he actually assaulted Kyle so Kyle defended himself.
'Rittenhouse third victim drew a handgun and was wounded by Rittenhouse and survived the shooting.'
The third person had a previous conviction for being drunk with a firearm and was illegally carrying his pistol, Kyle only shot when Grosskreutz aimed the pistol at Kyle.
'Kyle Rittenhouse would have no cause to feel endangered if he had not driven from his home in the company of other heavily armed men to confront his victims with his assault rifle.'
He wasn't in the company of other heavily armed men, he wasn't heavily armed and, as stated previously it wasn't an assault rifle.
However nothing about his actions were illegal, he was allowed to do what he doing.
His legal right.
'Kyle Rittenhouse actions leading up his killings were premeditated.'
Incorrect. Kyle shot three people who directly threatened him. How could he pre determine that, had he just randomly fired at anyone you might have a point.
He didn't, he shot three people directly threatening him.
He was running away, they followed him.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/
'
'The first person Rittenhouse shot and killed was a homeless man who had just left hospital who threw a plastic bag of his hospital belongings at Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse pointed his assault rifle at him.'
The first person Kyle shot was a convicted child molester and domestic abuser (amongst other charges) and had threatened to kill Kyle earlier in the night.'
Wow…such accuracy!…so coincidentally he had to shoot everyone he came across..for whatever ..'reasons'!
Kinda missed a couple of paragraphs ie '
'Kyle attempted to run from Joseph however it was only when Joseph was close enough to make a grab for the rifle that Kyle shot him.'
Joseph threatened Kyle, Joseph chased Kyle and tried to grab Kyles rifle, at any point Joseph could have stopped but he chose not
'Kyle shot Joseph him because Kyle was in fear for his life because of the threats Joseph made towards him and that he was trying to grab Kyles rifle.'
Is that not clear enough for you?
No it's not…'the first person'=whoever for whatever lame excuse…i.e throwing a plastic bag'!..I'm in the mood for..murder.
Well if it helps they actually had a trial about this very thing and as it turns out that no matter what you think I'm right and you're wrong
Absolutement…just like O.J….'all done in the best..possible..taste.!
Might have to remind me about that case, pretty sure it was about a black man accused of killing a white man and white woman and not in self defence
Spin it how you like.
After gunning down an unarmed man Rittenhouse was running away.
The killer was chased by a witness to stop him getting away. Who then tried to disarm the killer.
You can spin the attempted disarming of an active shooter by a witness armed only with a skateboard as an act of aggression.
You can spin the killing of two people with a high powered military styled semi automatic weapon, as an act of self defence.
The facts are Kyle Rittenhouse in the company of other heavily armed men, killed two people, one of them completely unarmed, who presented no threat to him or his companions, and walked away free.
Kyle Rittenhouse was congratulated for his killings by the billionaire despot in waiting.
donald trump congratulates kyle rittenhouse – Bing News
The USA is on an arc to Third World despotism and collapse, where human life has no worth
Hi Jenny
You don't really understand the words you're using and thats ok, we don't know what we don't know.
But since you read what I wrote previously and have changed accordingly (the whole AR-15 v assault rifle) you seem like someone that will change their mind when given new information
'Spin it how you like'
See I'm not trying to 'spin it', I'm laying out the facts as presented by proof, evidence and witnesses, an example of spinning it would be:
'After gunning down an unarmed man Rittenhouse was running away'
So theres a couple of things you need to know here.
https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2020/09/08/kyle-rittenhouse-fire-extinguisher/
So what you'll see here, in a video clip (thanks smart phones) is several people including the paedophile (hes the short, bald guy in the burgundy t shirt) pushing a flaming dumpster towards the gas station (in fairness they might also pushing towards the police cars)
Next theres this
https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-key-points-bc51f3b9dd0fe0c1289fe2161d7c3ab3
'Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum threatened his life twice.'
'He said he had been putting out fires and asking people if they needed medical help when he saw Rosenbaum carrying a steel chain and wearing a mask. Rosenbaum began screaming at him, he said.'
“He was just mad about something. He’s screaming, ‘If I catch any of you (expletives) alone I’m going to (expletive) kill you.’”
When he encountered Rosenbaum again later, Rosenbaum shouted, “I’m going to cut your (expletive) hearts out and kill you,” Rittenhouse said.'
By the way aside from being a domestic abuser and sodomiser of little boys he also wasn't afraid of using the n word, in his own words
https://twitter.com/pr_agmatik/status/1299089444298002432
I think I can see where you are going with this.
American citizens have the right execute pedophiles. (Even if they don't find out they are pedophiles until after they have killed them).
Sounds like a recipe for social cohesion. Not!
'I think I can see where you are going with this.'
– Well if you were thinking you would have come up with a different conclusion
'American citizens have the right execute pedophiles. (Even if they don't find out they are pedophiles until after they have killed them).'
– American citizens have the right to self-defence
'Sounds like a recipe for social cohesion. Not!'
– How about not threatening to kill someone as the respectable 'Mr Rosenbaum' did
– How about not chasing the person he threatened to kill
– How about backing off when the person you threaten to kill presents a firearm
– How about not attempting to grab the rifle of the person you threatened to kill especially after they present a firearm
– 'Mr Rosenbaum' died as he lived, attempting to assault an unwilling, underage boy, only this time the boy was able to defend himself
I think I can see where you are going with this
Despite the not guilty verdict the families of OJs' victims sued the fuck out of him and ruined him. Odds are the years Rittenhouse spends fighting off his lawyers and the families of the people he killed will ruin him, too.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/watch-now-bond-money-could-be-next-legal-battle-for-kyle-rittenhouse/article_67a4f727-2237-55e7-abca-6f258a37a5a8.html
MAGA gofundme will cover it.
And then he'll be forgotten.
It is no exaggeration to say that everyone but George Zimmerman is to blame for his descent into the bowels of notorious obscurity, according to him. Near the end of his 36-page suit, the whining and caterwauling reaches peek self-pity in the following points:
https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/tony-norman/2019/12/06/George-Zimmerman-lawsuit-Trayvon-Martin-family-lawyer/stories/201912060054
I don't think he'll be needing any of that…
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-covington-kids-revenge-one-year-later/
'Sandmann beat CNN (the other suits are pending), which settled and paid rather than risk a trial. Assuming credibility and self-respect are worth about zero, we now know that the price tag for the agenda journalism CNN practices is reportedly $25 million.'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nick-sandmann-kyle-rittenhouse-defamation
"The parallels between me and Kyle Rittenhouse are impossible not to draw," Sandmann wrote in a column for the Daily Mail in which he directly reached out to lend support. "The way the media has treated you is terrible, and you don't have to face it alone."
It's pretty clear from the evidence that the verdict was correct. The Prosecution failed to establish the case, as its own witnesses showed.
Of course that doesn't mean Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero or that it was a good decision to be there armed – it wasn't. But neither is he thereby automatically a white supremacist devil. He appears like a slightly lost young man looking for a cause, much like many of the protestors there.
It's a definite lesson in the politicalisation and ideological projecting of justice. George Floydd was another. The verdict was legally correct, but none of surrounding valorisation and narrative of George Floydd was right.
What's most interesting is the media narrative here again. It's yet another example of a Liberal media delivering narrative and ideologically driven news. Like the Steele Dossier. Of course Fox can be just as bad, but they are only one channel.
Here, it is even worse. The mainstream media is a dull, homogenous, highly ideological, moralistic, AND solidly Left-wing bias, especially on social issues. I have given up on Covid media coverage in NZ. It's a one-sided lecture and Government advertisement, not news.
Yes to this.
You only have to look at the amount of posts on this subject filled with incorrect facts to see how insidious, and morally bankrupt, msm really is