Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Got any examples?
Man of Honour
I tuned out earlier but off the top of my head until the live video finishes and turns into a watchable one on their channel:
- Commentary on how Kyle is now being turned into a hero for standing up for killing violent mod members and protecting stores from those rioters.
- Their opinion is that Kyle is laying when he said he only went there to protect the community.
- Tucker Carlson's nudging on to Kyle to sue Biden for "defamation"
- Questioning of Kyle's statement that he's pro BLM.
I can see how any points made can be applied and used by both sides of the boat though. He's been found not guilty of all charges by a jury of peers. Justice served correctly and all fair and square. I just find his reasons for being there questionable, him saying the president called him racist so is now suing him dubious, and the near immediate interview with none other than the guy hated by all but the far right.... curious.
We'll never get to the bottom of these things, it will forever be words thrown about on a screen until the next event happens and things start all over again.
- Commentary on how Kyle is now being turned into a hero for standing up for killing violent mod members and protecting stores from those rioters.
- Their opinion is that Kyle is laying when he said he only went there to protect the community.
- Tucker Carlson's nudging on to Kyle to sue Biden for "defamation"
- Questioning of Kyle's statement that he's pro BLM.
I can see how any points made can be applied and used by both sides of the boat though. He's been found not guilty of all charges by a jury of peers. Justice served correctly and all fair and square. I just find his reasons for being there questionable, him saying the president called him racist so is now suing him dubious, and the near immediate interview with none other than the guy hated by all but the far right.... curious.
We'll never get to the bottom of these things, it will forever be words thrown about on a screen until the next event happens and things start all over again.
So to summarize.
You found a channel that aligns with your political views and post it saying they have valid, but unproven opinions which continue to demonize a person who has been tried and acquitted.
Man of Honour
If by "political views" you mean thinking reasonably as opposed to siding with outright propaganda and the like then sure. I don't lean on either side if they're both shouting loudly pointing fingers not making logical sense. But if someone makes some valid points then I'll accept that because that's reasonable/logical. It just so happens the left is less insane than the right in this context.
But no, I said they had some valid points, which objectively speaking they did. There's no denying that the jury found him not guilty was all good and fine. The facts are the facts. The videos show that he was in a state that is fearing for his life and acting accordingly in self defence. Nobody reasonable is denying that.
The questions are around his statements now vs the ones he made in court. He's now saying he wanted to give medical aid in the heat of the moment, that isn't what the footage showed and isn't something mentioned in court either. But come on we know how the US justice system works. You can say anything to sound better after the court stuff is over and get away with it because what you say to news media isn't legally detrimental. We've seen this time and time again with so many members of congress, police and countless others in positions of power.
Could be wrong of course, but logically it does seem that way. I have no doubt that if he is sensationalising his story now interviews like with Tucker Carlson, then it's not of his own decision but things he's been told to say because the optics work in their favour that way. And besides, when has a Tucker Carlson segment ever not been about a specific agenda? I have seen plenty and cannot recall a single one.
Edit*
And for the record, I am all for self defence where your life could be in danger. If it were me I'd have done the same thing. The video shows he used amazing tactical thinking when firing his gun, he only fired at people actively attacking him, or about to and anyone that did approach but then raised their hands he pointed down from. He knew what he was doing and used excellent judgement to save his own life.
I wouldn't however then not even a full 2 days after the case ended do what I have no doubt be a ratings record breaking interview on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, a person who has categorically lied and continues to do so.
But no, I said they had some valid points, which objectively speaking they did. There's no denying that the jury found him not guilty was all good and fine. The facts are the facts. The videos show that he was in a state that is fearing for his life and acting accordingly in self defence. Nobody reasonable is denying that.
The questions are around his statements now vs the ones he made in court. He's now saying he wanted to give medical aid in the heat of the moment, that isn't what the footage showed and isn't something mentioned in court either. But come on we know how the US justice system works. You can say anything to sound better after the court stuff is over and get away with it because what you say to news media isn't legally detrimental. We've seen this time and time again with so many members of congress, police and countless others in positions of power.
Could be wrong of course, but logically it does seem that way. I have no doubt that if he is sensationalising his story now interviews like with Tucker Carlson, then it's not of his own decision but things he's been told to say because the optics work in their favour that way. And besides, when has a Tucker Carlson segment ever not been about a specific agenda? I have seen plenty and cannot recall a single one.
Edit*
And for the record, I am all for self defence where your life could be in danger. If it were me I'd have done the same thing. The video shows he used amazing tactical thinking when firing his gun, he only fired at people actively attacking him, or about to and anyone that did approach but then raised their hands he pointed down from. He knew what he was doing and used excellent judgement to save his own life.
I wouldn't however then not even a full 2 days after the case ended do what I have no doubt be a ratings record breaking interview on Fox News with Tucker Carlson, a person who has categorically lied and continues to do so.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,304
Anna Kasparian of TYT at least had the decency to admit she was wrong about Rittenhouse.
Soldato
Hollywood Blue Checkmarks are out in force mourning the death of a child rapist at Kyle’s hands.
The only thing I will say - I find it a bit odd how he ended up wandering around a crowd who he had earlier been involved with in a largely unfriendly interaction, despite being pushed into a threatening situation he still reacted with a certain amount of rationale and deliberation to his actions (despite some claiming he was out of control with a gun) beyond what many of us would have done in reality if faced with that situation not out of choice and in court was able to defend himself again with calculated rationale beyond what many of us would have been capable of in reality. IMO he is not as innocent (as in naive and inexperienced) as portrayed and quite possibly was trolling for trouble though we will never know the true intentions in the minds of those involved including Rittenhouse's.
That said it was a situation which initially took two to tango so to put it and as the situation unfolded his options increasingly became realistically limited with Rosenbaum having actual options to not turn the situation into what it became once it had kicked off, and it escalated from there.
It's interesting that you say this is a valid opinion, especially as it's Cenk's opinion that Rittenhouse went there because he wanted to kill people (because he was carrying his gun), you know the thing that's been disproven time and time again. Also white supremacist this, white supremacist that yet no mention of the ethnicity of the people that owned the business, the people he volunteered to help.
I wonder if he thought/thinks grosskreutz was being turned into a 'celebrity' after he did interviews, interviews were he straight up contradicted things he said under oath on the stand I might add.
Looks to me like it was typical tyt 2 hour rant, nothing factual, all opinion, all ******** that just happens to align to your political viewpoint as mentioned before.
Cenk is no better than Crowder, but at least Crowder can be funny occasionally.
Last edited:
I know, I've acknowledged and agreed with this point at least twice already. The point I was making (from the very start) was about them being used separately. I'd also note that @hurfdurf's original comment didn't specify them being used together — that's something you've added and then fixated on.
"Rather more specific/rather less context" is subjective and I'm not prepared to get into the minutiae of it. I've already explained why I think they're similar and we've gone off on rather a winding tangent from the original topic, so I'm going to leave it there.
Irrelevant to the court case and has nothing to do with Kyle. Unless you support a miscarriage of justice because of the actions of others.
They may have made a good point but you haven't presented any evidence just that they have an opinion. Also this would have been investigated in the court case.
Irrelevant to the court case. Also what is the problem with TC suggesting this?
Another statement where you haven't presented their arguments.
IF you say so.
Apart from the outright lies and the clearly poltically motivated court case?
If there was any merit to this it should/would have been brought up in court.
Why?
This is his opportunity to "take control" of the narrative from the media that has been against him from the start. Why do you think he should not be doing this? Why do you think he should not strike while the iron is hot?
Soldato
Not one valid point.
Unless you tell the the time in the video to watch.
tyt are known for being racist.
Soldato
Well, he was one of their own.
Man of Honour
Keep in mind he was 17 at the time too - How many 17 year olds could handle that kind of situation? And then the year that followed in legal scenes?
Ultimately it's all done and dusted and nothing anyone else says will change anything other than chuck wood onto the smoke pit that's still got some flames left. Opinions won't change and views will remain polarised.
Credit where due, he handled a tough situation well and came out the winner. As you note, I just don't agree with a number of aspects that followed and that's where opinions vary which is fine. He did all the right things to be legally safe and that's fine. But he is not the American hero/victim that he's being made out to be though because of some of these things that we are talking about above.
Soldato
I watched the video and all of the evidence. I think the verdict was correct.
case closed
The OCUK far-left do not agree with you....
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,304
I rather enjoyed Sam Harris's debate with Cenk. He lost any credibility he had 7 years ago.
https://youtu.be/WVl3BJoEoAU