This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?  (Read 34589 times)

Rob Necronomicon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Blee
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2021, 02:52:29 PM »
One thing about this whole shit show that annoys me is that why Rausembaum's actions are not getting a large portion of the blame?

Here we have an aggressive fool who was already out provoking armed militia earlier (apparently he was a bit mental or some shit). Then, he chased and ran at Ritterhouse. Was Ritterhouse a threat at the time? Nope... Rausembaum turned him into one.

While we have established that Ritter should not have been there, legally, fair enough. But had Rosembaum not acted so stupidly the whole thing incident would not have happened.

Second rule of self-defense... Never approach or antagonize an armed target.
Attack-minded and dangerously so - W.E. Fairbairn.
youtube shit:www.youtube.com/channel/UCt1l7oq7EmlfLT6UEG8MLeg

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #61 on: November 11, 2021, 02:58:13 PM »
Trying to use it as such is a small step from 'you shouldn't have worn that short skirt if you didn't want to get dragged into the alley and raped up against the wall'.

Bit of a leap that...

I agree. To be comparable to the widespread riots, it would be closer to say that you'd be raped in the middle of the street.

I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

Binger needs to be disbarred before he gets elected to public office. Make no mistake - he *is* the type of scum who becomes entrenched political filth.  I'm willing to bet he'd fit right in in the UK where they love to prosecute the victims for fighting back.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #62 on: November 11, 2021, 03:00:11 PM »
One thing about this whole shit show that annoys me is that why Rausembaum's actions are not getting a large portion of the blame?

Here we have an aggressive fool who was already out provoking armed militia earlier (apparently he was a bit mental or some shit). Then, he chased and ran at Ritterhouse. Was Ritterhouse a threat at the time? Nope... Rausembaum turned him into one.

While we have established that Ritter should not have been there, legally, fair enough. But had Rosembaum not acted so stupidly the whole thing incident would not have happened.

Second rule of self-defense... Never approach or antagonize an armed target.

Nonoseebutbutsee - that doesn't fit the narrative that Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist who shot in cold blood three innocent people of color protesting.  Yes - there are people who still think that.

SHARK

  • The Great Shark Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5048
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2021, 03:22:37 PM »
Greetings!

Yeah, I have to disagree with the idea that Kyle was being "Foolish" for being there, for entering the riot zone. He wasn't being foolish. He was being courageous, inspiring, caring, generous, and patriotic. If anyone of YOU lived in an area owned a business that was being attacked, burned, and raped by swarms of fucking mutant thugs--would you consider some of your neighbors riding in, and blazing on them, defending you and your property, as being foolish?

Or would you consider it to be courageous, generous, and patriotic? The ide that someone else says, yeah, I care. I'm with you, brother, and as long as I breathe, the insanity is going to fucking stop. Safety and peace will be restored, and I am armed and ready to ensure it does.

That's as fucking AMERICAN as it gets. Regardless of whether or not the fucking sheriffs are around or not. Regardless if some politician clown give you fucking permission or not.

AMERICAN FREEDOM AND SECURITY BEGINS WITH YOU.

YOU, and your family, and your neighbors. Your church. All you giving a fuck about the folks down the street, or a few blocks away, and saying, yeah, if these people aren't worthy to fight for and defend, then who the fuck is? WHAT is? If you don't do it for them, why should anyone do it for you, when your hour comes?

All of America would be far safer, far more secure, and far more peaceful if MORE people thought like Kyle, and believed just as he does.

Personally, I entirely agree with Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions. I have on several occasions been in some fairly similar situations where dangerous and violent situations developed, and I intervened, to protect other people, that were innocent, against being preyed upon by criminals. In such situations, I could very well have been outmatched and killed for intervening. A supervising Sheriff at the time arriving on scene afterwards told me "Good Job, Marine!". My wife asked me why I was so willing to put my life on the line, for strangers. I can say now, just as I told her then, when someone cries for help, that makes it MY BUSINESS. When someone, a fellow citizen, is in need from being preyed upon by the monsters, I shall answer the call. Criminals and monsters should be AFRAID of us, of me, of the righteous citizen. We should live in fear of noone. We are AMERICANS. It was the way I was raised by my parents, taught by my neighbors and church, and trained in the Marine Corps. Like my father told me--he too was a veteran of World War II--he said if you aren't willing to stand up and answer the call, then who will? I have answered the call, both in uniform and as a civilian. I think every American citizen should believe the same way. At one time, in the past, probably most Americans believed similar. That's at the heart of how we became a prosperous land, ruled by Law. A land where we don't live in fear of any man.

That's where our freedom and security really lives and dies, my friends.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
Eh, I stand by the time honored truism: don't go to stupid places.

But as I also said, it's irrelevant. I may think he was foolish. I also think if you have some sawed-off mental patient screaming 'SHOOT ME N-BOMB!', threatening to 'kill you if I catch you', and then charging you to try and take your weapon away from you... yeah, it's self-defense. The end. And if Pedo-Manlet Rosenbaum's shooting is self-defense, then so is everything after; firing at Jump Kick Man, killing Domestic Abuser Huber stone dead, and vaporizing Grotesque Grosskreutz's arm... it's all as legal as church on Sunday.

Rittenhouse is clearly affected by this ordeal and the aftermath. I hope he manages to move past it and live a long life, free to marry, work, and grill.

And here's something to consider that the retard brigade is NOT thinking through. Remember that recent incident where a woman was raped on a subway and nobody stopped it? And everyone hemmed and hawed over how sad it was that no one tried to interfere?

I fucking wonder why.

Greetings!

Yeah, that's right my friend. I also understand that some people--many people--aren't as brave or stupid as I am, depending on how you want to look at it. ;D I do sympathize with the idea of carefully avoiding dangerous locations and situations--foolish environments--and saying, fuck it. Hold up in my fortress, mind my own business, and everyone else can go get fucked! That kind of self-preservationist attitude is natural to an extent--but also deeply encouraged and supported by our own corrupt, litigious, ass-fucking backwards justice system. "No Good deed goes unpunished" and all that. Fucking criminals have rights like the day is long, but throw the book at normal citizens. Bring the hammer down on them! You know? Geesus. Yeah, fuck 'em all. Someone getting raped in the subway? Too fucking bad. Monsters raping and slaughtering some girl behind the grocery store? Oh well! A group of young thugs robbing an older gentleman in the parking lot? That all is none of my business. Go on, let's get moving, and get out of here. The police will handle it.

I mean, fuck, our fucking system and the scum-fucking lawyers and judges PUNISH people for doing good, for defending themselves and their neighbors. So, yeah. Part of me feels the same way much of the time.

I wonder why? Indeed, man. It's because we as a society haven't jackhammered these fucking corrupt lawyers and judges. Put them in jail, fire them, break them, ruin their careers and lives for championing scum criminals and thugs--and actually neglecting and trampling down the righteous. I can see why lots of people say fuck it and don't want to get involved.

Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle. A friend of mine said Liberals attitudes and approaches to society reminds him of the movie Omega Man or some older dystopian move where the rich elites lived in super high-tech towers, guarded by walls, security, and gadgets, living a life of pleasure, while everyone else lived in the urban, blasted wasteland with hordes of mutants.

That's where our society is headed towards! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security b

Manic Modron

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 416
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #64 on: November 11, 2021, 04:59:48 PM »
Omega Man or some older dystopian move where the rich elites lived in super high-tech towers, guarded by walls, security, and gadgets, living a life of pleasure, while everyone else lived in the urban, blasted wasteland with hordes of mutants.
Just to stave off the inevitable, Omega Man is an adaptation of I Am Legend.  Everybody is a mutant except for Charlton Heston and MAYBE a handful of survivors, no sci-fi ivory towers to be found.

Because clearly, THAT is the important part of this thread, clearing up mixed metaphors and analogies.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #65 on: November 11, 2021, 05:13:35 PM »
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.

I would strongly NOT suggest you watch the livestreams with Rekieta Law doing the commentary. For fuck's sake, they keep talking over the actual footage and you miss everything. And yet they're being praised all over right-wing twitter. Am I the only guy who can't stand how they're doing it??
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2021, 05:28:39 PM »
Of course, the more entrenched and corrupted our system becomes, and the more they embrace Liberalism and cock-sucking Marxism, the more hellish and dystopian our entire society becomes. That's because Liberal Democrat Marxists are corrupt and evil, and they enjoy the mayhem and chaos. Our society becomes more violent and lawless, with gangs of thugs roaming everywhere, while the Liberals just laugh and giggle.

Here's the rate of violent crime per from from 1985 to 2020.



Source: https://crime-data-explorer.app.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

That fails to support your picture that our society is steadily growing more violent and lawless. While there has been a slight increase since the low in 2014, we are still well below the high that we hit at the end of the Reagan/Bush era in 1992. (Note that the graph is not zero at the bottom, which annoys me - but it's the most up-to-date primary source.)

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2021, 06:18:16 PM »
50% of that graph is Chicago.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2021, 06:47:51 PM »
I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

That's because Antifa & BLM are an extension of the state. It's obvious. Parents who oppose what the state is teaching their children are terrorists and the FBI will send helicopters and agents to the PTA meeting.

But the regime won't intervene to stop rioting, looting, arson, and murder when it's by the regime-approved gangs.
The only reason there's a prosecution is because regime-approved gangsters were stopped by a heroic American citizen who put himself in harm's way to try to protect & help innocent people.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2021, 06:50:51 PM by Zelen »

Ghostmaker

  • Chlorine trifluoride
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4013
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2021, 07:49:55 PM »
On a side note, if you want sane analysis, I strongly recommend Andrew Branca's coverage over at Legal Insurrection.

Branca has written books on the law and self defense as well as being a practicing lawyer, so it's not like he's some nobody off the Internet.

I would strongly NOT suggest you watch the livestreams with Rekieta Law doing the commentary. For fuck's sake, they keep talking over the actual footage and you miss everything. And yet they're being praised all over right-wing twitter. Am I the only guy who can't stand how they're doing it??
Yeah, I'm seconding that.

I don't hate Rekieta, but his goddamn panel of experts cannot shut the fuck up for five minutes.

Like I said. Follow Branca.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2021, 08:03:50 PM »
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.


Rob Necronomicon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1451
  • Blee
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2021, 08:09:44 PM »
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL





 
Attack-minded and dangerously so - W.E. Fairbairn.
youtube shit:www.youtube.com/channel/UCt1l7oq7EmlfLT6UEG8MLeg

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #72 on: November 11, 2021, 08:15:56 PM »
I find it especially disgusting that Binger tried to imply that Rittenhouse should have obeyed the mob of rioters - as if they had any authority whatsoever.  He's trying to lay claim to the idea that rioters are an extension of the state.  What. The. Actual. Fuck.

That's because Antifa & BLM are an extension of the state. It's obvious. Parents who oppose what the state is teaching their children are terrorists and the FBI will send helicopters and agents to the PTA meeting.

But the regime won't intervene to stop rioting, looting, arson, and murder when it's by the regime-approved gangs.
The only reason there's a prosecution is because regime-approved gangsters were stopped by a heroic American citizen who put himself in harm's way to try to protect & help innocent people.

That's just it - antifa, burn loot murder, or any of the bajillion other rebel without a clue anarchist groups know they won't be prosecuted as a mob. 

What really really needed to happen, in lieu of actual policing, last year would have been scores of well armed business owners and local residents making the streets turn into rivers of leftist blood.   It can't be militias or proud boys doing it - it has to be average citizens on a scale that can't be ignored or twisted by the media.

Its the*only* thing these leftist turds fear.  These morons advertise their socialist riots on social media.  Infiltrate, identity where they are going to be, and then turn them into grease stains.  It needs to be a A Bronx Tale "now youse can't leave" beatings of their worthless little lives on a grand scale because these leftists are organized and they are supported by leftist city/state government.

I'd even go far as to say that the national guard would have been justified in mowing down crowds of antifa with machine guns.

3catcircus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 721
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #73 on: November 11, 2021, 08:26:33 PM »
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL





 

You don't understand US or Wisconsin law.  Open carry is legal.  Possession of a rifle or shotgun by a 17 year old is legal.

Why should he not have been there? You seem to think that he should not have been there, but apparently you think it was ok for rioters to be there and be allowed to commit criminal acts...  You also seem to think that Rittenhouse is to blame for having been forced to defend himself after he, in fact, already met any potential duty to retreat even if the prosecutor wants to argue that he provoked a confrontation.  This is clear self-defense.  There is no ambiguity in that regard.  He fired on his attackers only to the point that they ceased to be a threat.

Bottom-line: your reasoning is not sound on this.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2021, 08:29:09 PM by 3catcircus »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: So, how about that Rittenhouse trial?
« Reply #74 on: November 11, 2021, 08:28:23 PM »
Your entire post seems to be based on the assumption that you're not allowed to defend yourself until after your attacker shoots and kills you.

Not what I said either... In fact, what part of 'it transcends into a self-defense situation' did you not get? Weird...
It's exactly what you implied. You said it was "technically" self-defense, as if it just barely qualified because of some narrow exception. On top of that, your entire post is framed with the whole he was there illegally and shouldn't have been, which is the equivalent of she was asking for it in that dress. And that analogy, despite your claim, isn't a stretch. It's the exact same method of blaming the victim.

You can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read.

Bollox...

I stand exactly by what I said. Ritter should not have been there or armed in the first place (according to your own US laws).  THEN, it went into a self-defense situation with Rosembaum's illogical actions by attacking and chasing an armed man.

You can set up that whole false dichotomy all you want. And you can pretend you didn't say what you said, but the words are right there for anyone to read. LOL
So if a 17 year old girl sneaks into a nightclub and gets raped, it's her fault because she was there illegally?

That's exactly what you've been implying. Constantly bringing up trivial offenses and the incredibly minor moral failings of a victim when purportedly discussing the severe offenses that were committed against them is an attempt to frame someone as a criminal or a person who deserves whatever happened to them, and thus make the violent, vile crimes against them seem more justified.

Yes, the words are still right there for everyone to read, however much you laugh at them.