rigorousintuition.ca

My choice: Court Tv coverage:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Ce-qjCzZY

Other yt streams are available to view this trial:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kyle+rittenhouse+trial+live+coverage

...but why would you subject yourself to this?

^^^ I see this story as historically significant for several reasons but succinctly, I watch only to learn more than I already know, like the kid who gave Rittenhouse the gun is being tried for two related felonies. (He seems to me to have already provided enough conflicting and damning evidence against himself to be found guilty.) But I get so tired of listening to pbs & fox, change is good.

Hmmmm....

.

“We found him to be a civic-minded patriot with a history of helping his community as an EMT and fireman in training, in his removing hate graffiti earlier that day from a local school, and ultimately in volunteering to protect a business during the night of August 25th in Kenosha"

“Our first hand impressions of Kyle were materially different from those we had previously formed based on media reports and opinion pieces that we had consumed.”

“I have always been frustrated to read an inaccurate press report about a subject I know well, yet somehow I continue to believe other articles in the same newspaper about subjects I know less well. Media and political bias are dividing our country and destroying lives. While we have not heard the entire trial, based on our assessment of Kyle on the stand, we believe that he will be found innocent by the jury.”

"Kyle Rittenhouse’s life is at risk. Justice demands a fair trial. Society would benefit greatly if politics did not enter the court room and convict innocent people."

...

"Just got a call from the media asking if my Twitter account was hacked. That is, the reporter couldn’t conceive of the idea that I could believe that Kyle is innocent because I am not a right winger. Crazy."

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1 ... 80232?s=20

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1 ... 11106?s=20

stickdog99 » 13 Nov 2021 10:36 wrote:

I don't really follow this trial. But there was a description of events in some magazine months ago and it was obvious from that that he acted in "self defense". After a fucked up abuser decided to make a martyr of himself by committing suicide by redneck.

The real questions for me are what is a kid doing walking around with an assault rifle in another state but you lot seem okay with that and obviously the judge not calling the victims of this shooting victims even tho its been a description for every other situation that is similar that's the term used.

Self defense in Australia is justifiable if you believe you are in in danger, so if you';re in fear of your life and that seems obvious. I thin k its the same over there.

Not calling the people who were shot victims is pretty biased tho. As is the crap about the other victims that was spread on twitter. Falsifying their criminal history and basically lying about them for political purposes. That's how toxic the environment is over there.

If you want real evidence of white supremacy tho then how about a cop counseling Gregory McMicheal over his feelings why his victim lies dying in the gutter.

"Just got a call from the media asking if my Twitter account was hacked. That is, the reporter couldn’t conceive of the idea that I could believe that Kyle is innocent because I am not a right winger. Crazy."

"not a right winger"? Only if you accept this country's thoroughly slanted definition of right-wing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ackman#Philanthropy wrote:Ackman endorsed Michael Bloomberg as a prospective candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 presidential election.[86] He is a longtime donor to Democratic candidates and organizations, including Richard Blumenthal, Chuck Schumer, Robert Menendez, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.[87]

I am torn about the Kyle Rittenhouse case; while I see the merits of his side, I still doubt it's as clear-cut as the alt media is gleefully presenting it. He has a good case for self-defense, though it's reasonable to believe that all of his victims after Rosenbaum (and possibly Rosenbaum, though it is less certain) were going after him because they thought he was an active shooter, in which case they'd have had equally good cases for using deadly force against Rittenhouse. And I find it hard to believe that a Blue Lives Matter supporter brandishing a rather obvious rifle at this event was not in some way trying to send a message to protesters whom he clearly opposed. His known viewpoint of believing it's justified to shoot people over property theft suggests a willingness to kill people for lesser reasons than would justify self-defense, particularly "looters" who are of course associated with those who he opposes politically. Indeed, this shows he possesses a rather warped ideology of valuing property over human life. Obviously, evidence like this is prejudicial and was rightfully not part of the legal case over self defense, but in the broader sense of weighing Rittenhouse's actions, he's still pretty clearly an awful person who may (although it's likely unprovable) have come looking for a fight.

Other things about the case make me question if it was a black op of some kind, designed to inflame both sides of the political divide while ultimately culminating in a "crazed protesters/heroic young conservative" narrative. Given his Blue Lives Matter support, background as a police cadet, and ability to literally turn himself into police after the shootings yet be allowed to leave, I have wondered if Rittenhouse was a police agent of some kind. The dropping of the weapons charge, the most unequivocal thing against Rittenhouse in the trial, makes me feel like the fix continued to be in for him; there was seemingly a technicality in the law that benefited Rittenhouse, but the prosecutors should have been more vigilant in clarifying the law at an appellate court and the judge shouldn't have waited until the trial was basically over to suddenly drop his ruling. I also wonder about whether some of the alleged protesters were provocateurs. The first victim Joseph Rosenbaum being a convicted pedophile jumped out, as it seemed almost tailor-made to turn Rittenhouse into a heroic figure for killing him, and the association between intelligence operations and pedophiles is a long and storied one. I'd also want to find out more about Joshua Ziminski, who may well have instigated everything: he fired a gun in the air just before everything went down, and then, per Rittenhouse's testimony, egged Rosenbaum on to attack him, making me wonder if Ziminski had tried to deceive everyone in the protester crowd into believing Rittenhouse fired the first shot.

Look, I don't think KR is blameless. But this is just one kid who did something stupid that definitely contributed to the deaths of 2 people who were also clearly not blameless.

So really, what is this single case supposed to prove?

I have slowly come to the conclusion that roughly 99% of the non-stories that our corporate media outlets try to hype are broadcast to keep the 99% fighting among themselves while the 1% continues to destroy our planet, to destroy our health, and to ratchet up their authoritarian control while robbing us all blind.

Anything story that would unify everyone, such as lowing prescription drug prices in the US, is totally ignored, while non-stories that can inflame and divide people, such as Kyle Rittenhouse's case and Dave Chappell's jokes about transgendered individuals are constantly hyped up.

Marionumber1 » 19 Nov 2021 07:39 wrote:
I am torn about the Kyle Rittenhouse case; while I see the merits of his side, I still doubt it's as clear-cut as the alt media is gleefully presenting it. He has a good case for self-defense, though it's reasonable to believe that all of his victims after Rosenbaum (and possibly Rosenbaum, though it is less certain) were going after him because they thought he was an active shooter, in which case they'd have had equally good cases for using deadly force against Rittenhouse. And I find it hard to believe that a Blue Lives Matter supporter brandishing a rather obvious rifle at this event was not in some way trying to send a message to protesters whom he clearly opposed. His known viewpoint of believing it's justified to shoot people over property theft suggests a willingness to kill people for lesser reasons than would justify self-defense, particularly "looters" who are of course associated with those who he opposes politically. Indeed, this shows he possesses a rather warped ideology of valuing property over human life. Obviously, evidence like this is prejudicial and was rightfully not part of the legal case over self defense, but in the broader sense of weighing Rittenhouse's actions, he's still pretty clearly an awful person who may (although it's likely unprovable) have come looking for a fight.

You've summed up how i feel quite nicely.

A couple of things I've thought in relation to this that i mentioned earlier. Rosenbaum being suicidal and choosing suicide by cop/redneck given he seems like a bit of a shithead as well. Maybe he was trying to redeem his reputation by martyring himself.

Also he was in hospital being treated for mental illness until that very day yeah? At least that was the impression I had. And on top of that he was released from care because of attempted suicide? That seems pretty strange to me. Wouldn't happen in Australia unless something went wrong.

I probably have a little more sympathy for Rittenhouse given he is a kid who is (or was) 17 years old and who spent the last ten years growing up in the most socially toxic environment I can remember in the US (wasn't around for the 60s tho, I was born in 1969.) Easy to end up a shithead in that situation given the whole GIGO thing that goes with raising kids. He's not even an adult. And trhe US is a society that, from the outside anyway, has always valued property over human life. (Not saying we're much better here in Oz but its not as overt for sure. Queensland maybe it was a bit more overt once upon a time but not anymore.)

From the outside it does seem like a situation where everything has just gone to hell really quickly. Nothing good happens in those situations.

Other things about the case make me question if it was a black op of some kind, designed to inflame both sides of the political divide while ultimately culminating in a "crazed protesters/heroic young conservative" narrative. Given his Blue Lives Matter support, background as a police cadet, and ability to literally turn himself into police after the shootings yet be allowed to leave, I have wondered if Rittenhouse was a police agent of some kind. The dropping of the weapons charge, the most unequivocal thing against Rittenhouse in the trial, makes me feel like the fix continued to be in for him; there was seemingly a technicality in the law that benefited Rittenhouse, but the prosecutors should have been more vigilant in clarifying the law at an appellate court and the judge shouldn't have waited until the trial was basically over to suddenly drop his ruling. I also wonder about whether some of the alleged protesters were provocateurs. The first victim Joseph Rosenbaum being a convicted pedophile jumped out, as it seemed almost tailor-made to turn Rittenhouse into a heroic figure for killing him, and the association between intelligence operations and pedophiles is a long and storied one. I'd also want to find out more about Joshua Ziminski, who may well have instigated everything: he fired a gun in the air just before everything went down, and then, per Rittenhouse's testimony, egged Rosenbaum on to attack him, making me wonder if Ziminski had tried to deceive everyone in the protester crowd into believing Rittenhouse fired the first shot.

I certainly agree it comes across as a kind of black-op. Even the descriptions of the environment given by the surviving victim, where he compares the vibe on the night to other protests and says its a bit like a war zone point that way. Releasing someone like Rosembaum given his state of mind and associations with BLM (he was know to protestors apparantly,) seems potentially provocative.

I wonder if that sort of thing happened very often that night, ie how many unstable peoiple were officially made available, released from some sort of custody, to be at the protest. Sometimes things go to hell and there is no blame, and sometimes decisions can be made that increase the instability and potential for chaos in a situation like this.

There is a website called revolver that released a investigation of sorts that claimed a guy named Ray Epps was acting to direct protestors at the Jan 6 incident in Washington, that he is easily traceable and was scrubbed from the FBI wanted list pretty quickly. Epps' actions on the day seem the opposite. he seems to be in control of several people and acting to keep the situation relatively calm despite what is happening. The suggestion is he is a provacateur working to maintain the perception of the event as less of a threat more of a protest. Revolver seems like a sus site from my pov but the article itself is reasonable.

Its here:

https://www.revolver.news/2021/10/meet- ... s-capitol/

Its an interesting contrast. Especially if we're speculating on someone like Ziminski (who may be more an informant than a provacateur.)

One final point that isn't completely related but you might be interested.

A mate showed me this tweet.

Revealed in Manhattan Supreme Court just now: J Edgar Hoover withheld information that many of the witnesses involved in the Malcolm X assassination trial were in fact FBI Informants.

https://twitter.com/JasGarsd/status/1461415627646767107

stickdog99 » 19 Nov 2021 09:55 wrote:Look, I don't think KR is blameless. But this is just one kid who did something stupid that definitely contributed to the deaths of 2 people who were also clearly not blameless.

So really, what is this single case supposed to prove?

I have slowly come to the conclusion that roughly 99% of the non-stories that our corporate media outlets try to hype are broadcast to keep the 99% fighting among themselves while the 1% continues to destroy our planet, to destroy our health, and to ratchet up their authoritarian control while robbing us all blind.

Anything story that would unify everyone, such as lowing prescription drug prices in the US, is totally ignored, while non-stories that can inflame and divide people, such as Kyle Rittenhouse's case and Dave Chappell's jokes are transgendered individuals are constantly hyped up.

I agree with the bolded bit.

I dunno about apportioning any blame here, to anyone in the media spotlight alive or dead. Its just a clusterfuck of a situation.

But its easy to see how powerful people with a divisive agenda could have manipulated that situation to their advantage. I'm also a bit annoyed about the way the people who were shot had their reputations smeared, at least the other two, not so much Rosenbaum, who seems like a bit of a scummy person. I know people who fell for that and it changed their outlook on the situation.

Its hard to tell from outside the US but it seems this case is getting all the attention while the other murder trial, the one about the lynching, gets comparatively very little coverage.

He appears to be relieved...

Justice was served today.