Four Hours At The Capitol

Discussion in 'Politics 2.0' started by Moose, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    sydney_horn likes this.
  2. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    A terrifying ordeal for one officer, with extracts from the documentary.

     
  3. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    Terrifying ordeal?

    A couple of facts.

    No weapons carried into the Capitol.

    No insurrection charges brought in the ten + months since Jan 6.

    Only one person shot dead on the day. An unarmed woman surrounded by as many police officers as there were rioters. She was standing among police and security.

    All deaths on the day were Trump supporters.

    The policeman reported to have been bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher actually died of an unrelated stroke the next day, after having told his brother that all he got was pepper sprayed. His death is recorded as a stroke. No charges have been raised in relation to his death. Investigations have been concluded.

    No fires were set.

    AOC was not even in the building as she was tweeting she was in fear of her life. The 'rioter' whom she accused of coming to find her was in fact a security guard checking she was safe, but she still questioned his motivation for months afterwards, until her true circumstances were revealed.

    There is video showing 'rioters' telling others to respect the building and its contents.

    There are videos showing 'rioters' literally being ushered into the building by police and security.

    Nancy Pelosi and DC officials refused federal support, leaving the Capitol under manned and vulnerable.

    An antifa leader who videod himself in the building goading on the 'rioters' and who was standing next to the woman who was shot when it happened, was released.

    Provocateurs who were seen imploring Trump Supporters to enter the Capitol have not been charged, or even arrested. Genuine Trump supporters can be seen in videos calling them out as feds and telling them to shut up, and for people not to listen.

    Hundreds of 'rioters' are anonymously being referred to in evidence by the term 'person 1', etc., because they are exempt from charges, because they are FBI agents, or paid informers who were in the pay of the FBI at the time.

    Last month, at a Jan 6 demonstration, there were more press and FBI agents in attendence than Trump supporters. There was a hugely embarrassing moment when police arrested an armed insurrectionist, only to find out he was an undercover FBI agent. Agents were humiliated as they were picked out in groups because they were wearing 'civillian uniforms' and all looked like army clones.

    These police officers who stand in tears saying it was so terrifying, should be sent to police the antifa and BLM rioting where policemen were being killed and threatened, having industrial fireworks fired at them and ICDs, as genuine rioters were trying to prevent the government from working by burning down court houses and police buildings. The CHOP grew up as a result of police being chased out out their precinct. That was described as a Summer of Love, by the Democrat Mayor, until rapes, murders and drug abuse forced authorities to clear it out.

    Bad and stupid things happened in the Capitol. All guilty parties should be charged and tried.

    But when January 6 is put into perspective, and when you consider it based on the convictions, it was a mass tresspass with menaces, and that is about the sum of it.

    Bare this in mind. The feds/DOJ have refused to release the vast majority of the footage taken on the day, and when they have been ordered to do so by the courts, on the behest of the defendents, it has invariably proven to be underwhelming.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2021
  4. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    “Kill him with his gun”, but some how it ended up with not even a shot being fired by the insurrectionists. Why? Because they didn’t’t intend to fire any shots is the only possible explanation.

    He got tazed. Who stopped the people from tazing him? Who rescued him from being tazed and further assault? The “insurrectionists” did. You can even see the “rioters” stopping it happening and hear them shouting “No”.

    Here is a list of the people charged and what they are alleged to have done…

    https://eu.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/

    “Deadly or dangerous weapons” are mentioned something like 44 times in the list, sometimes 3 or 4 times regarding the same person, out of the nearly 700 people arrested. I estimate there were around fifteen people charged with using “deadly or dangerous weapons”.

    Here is a definition of deadly and dangerous…

    “deadly and dangerous weapons such as a baton, flag pole and crutch to assault an officer”

    Unpleasant weapons to have used against you, but hardly the stuff of armed insurrections deadly set on taking over the United States of America.
     
  5. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Some perfectly fair observations in your first post there Hooter, some a bit more dubious. But all missing the point that the insurrection was the attempt to disrupt and ultimately stop or corrupt the count of electoral votes on the day, not to physically occupy Congress and from there overturn the American system of government as part of a violent revolution. It wasn’t an invasion force, so it’s no surprise there’s an abundance of evidence that most of those wandering around the Capitol grounds or in the building were day tripper MAGA cosplayers. You use that to portray it as a type of harmless protest, but it was clearly part of the plan even if the cannon fodder making up the bulk of the crowd weren’t in on the conspiracy. All lot of them but for their political extremism are fundamentally decent people doing decent jobs in nice places. It’s no wonder they’d have reservations or objections to violent acts in particular.

    And there’s no overcoming the fact there was a very small but completely committed group of very concerning individuals at the heart of it, moving amongst the crowd and aiming to complete various objectives in order to disrupt the count. They’re slowly being rounded up and charged with more serious offences. They didn’t need firearms to achieve their aim - they had the numbers and their intercepted communications show they knew well that if they assembled brandishing guns they’d be in breach of D.C. law, which could result in early arrests, and would only provoke a far more determined residence at the Capitol itself.

    On a wider point, the stuff about provocateurs, agents in the crowd, feds withholding evidence etc, is all completely on message for extremists on both the left and right. It gets said by when things like Portland happen for the left and it’s definitely a favourite of the extremist states’ rights types on the right. Infiltration of domestic terrorist groups of any persuasion is the FBI’s job. It’s not in any way dodgy to then rely on their evidence. The fact guilty people then try to cast doubt on their convictions by claiming they only did what they did because the big bad anonymous G man made them is all a bit playground really.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
  6. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    There were varying levels of preparedness among the rioters. You are right that many were effectively ‘tourists’ milling around on the day, with no particular plan other than to hear Trump’s speech and follow the action.

    Trump mobilised them, prepared or not and as they marched on the capital the amount of body armour, helmets, fatigues etc showed that plenty had come for a fight, to try to intimidate a reverse on the ‘stolen election’. They also had plenty of weapons, including handguns, tasers, axes, metal bars etc.

    Most of them had little idea of what they intended to do beyond getting in. But some of the most extreme were prepared for violence or abduction.

    Every attempt to play down the significance of what happen is simply an attempt to exonerate Trump. One telling point made was that Trump and his side have never owned the debacle, never paused for contemplation over the subsequent four police officer suicides (though apparently ‘blue lives matter’ when that’s useful). Instead most of the GOP carried on opposing the election result and a rewrite of the events is in progress, to blame anyone else possible, state actors, opponents etc.

    That’s why it’s an important documentary in the clearest sense of the word. It’s meticulously put together and clear as to what happened.
     
  7. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    Fair comments, although when the Democrats claim it to be bloody armed insurrection, it is fair to point out that, at worst, it was an attempt to delay the process and not prevent it. That much is discernable from what you say above.

    The more serious allegations, now they are coming, are necessitating the provision of the release of video evidence being used to incriminate the individuals (defendants have not been allowed to view this evidence, because the DOJ are saying it is not in their interest to do so) I believe the latest release showed police, unharrassed but faced with a number of peaceful 'rioters' who would not go beyond the police line, standing their ground. Then an officer comes up, whispers in the ear of the front policeman, and they just withdraw, allowing the 'rioters' to peacefully enter, even holding a door open for them. You may not think that is suspicious, but I believe, in what is described as a violent and bloody insurrection, that neutral eyes would find such activity deeply suspicious.

    Ashley Babbit, the unarmed woman who was killed that day, was surrounded by police and security right up to the point where she was shot. She could have been stopped. She wasn't even warned. The agent that shot her just stepped forward and fired. You may not find that suspicious or unreasonable, but I think most neutrals would find that horrifying.

    There are also, as I mentioned before, a number of recognised co-conspirators who have not been charged who are being referred to anonymously (but, fair enough, not running into the hundreds). When the DOJ were asked in congress if FBI agents, and paid informers were in the crowd, the DOJ refused to answer. Which, as everyone knows, is confirmation that their were.

    In the Gretchen Widmer kidnapping plot, originally hailed as a far right wing plot, it was recently revealed that over a third of the plotters were either FBI or paid FBI informers. So perhaps the trend, on both sides, to point fingers at government conspiracy with political motivation, is actually fomented by the fact that it does happen.

    Just because they are paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't out to get them.

    Where are the insurrection charges for people burning down court houses, police stations and other government buildings? Now that is an attempt, successful as well, to stop the operation of government. It is a far more compelling case of insurrection than a bunch of MAGA supporters delaying the count for a few hours, particularly when, if the police and security were better prepared for the most telegraphed and preplanned insurrection in history, they could easily have been prevented from entering at all.

    You mention the communications prior to the 6 Jan. FBI were involved in those communications, as their officers are now testifying. If it was as serious as they say, why was nothing done?
     
  8. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    This is a disjointed and wholly illogical argument.

    What of unarmed Ashley Babbit? Allowed to progress without resistance until she was shot to death, egged on by an antifa rioter, John Sullivan (you can look him up) who took the very video that shows the moment of her death.

    And what were the causes of the police suicides? No one is interested whilst they can be blamed on Trump.

    And note how Dems had to back track on other down right lies, such as a police officer being battered to death with a fire extinguisher, which was presented as evidence at Trump's impeachment, despite Dems knowing it was a complete lie.

    Trump supporters are being accused of lying, yet Dems are proven to have lied.

    Watch the video, but make your own mind up. It was meticulously made, and completely fails to show the peaceful, if disruptive, behaviour of all but around fifteen of the people who went into the Capitol. Very different to the flame lit peaceful rioting in Portland and other US cities over the proceeding year.

    And just to say again, some of the provocateurs shouting for people to enter the Capitol have not been arrested or charged, despite being clearly identifiable from videos. Thats the ones who had Trump fans calling them out as feds even as they were doing it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2021
  9. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    There’s a lot of points there and some I accept.

    I’m sure I read somewhere this week that police officers who were on duty at the Capitol on the day are also being charged. It seems there were a few MAGA sympathisers in the ranks. I agree there was also widespread disorganisation and a break down in command and control. Frankly, a lot of the guys left manning the gates were sh1tting themselves, as would we all when the voice on the radio has no plan and no answers. I don’t doubt they decided to stand aside and open the flimsy barriers when the burly blokes in tactical gear asked them nicely to. Self preservation wins.

    The only other point of yours I’d pick up on is that I don’t agree Babbitt could have been stopped. What do you realistically envisage? “You’re under arrest” says an officer, as the mob stands aside and allows her to be carted off to the clink? Come on Hooter, you’re more switched on than that. Nor can I see much argument that she needed to be warned that attempting to fly kick that locked internal door, while men behind it with guns drawn shouted a the crowd to desist, might result in deadly force being used against her. It’s not like she was one of those soft-brained middle aged homely rural GOP Trumper women who were there and couldn’t help brag of their excitement on their big day out. She was a recent military vet and definitely on a mission with an objective, as opposed to acting the tourist.
     
  10. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    I have seen the video, and there is virtually no contact, there is certainly no press, and the security held the door open. There was no indication there would be a breach or that any threats were being made. The video was released, I understand, because accusations were being made against one of the individuals regarding that interaction. There does not appear to be anything incriminating, other than proof of entry, in the shots.

    I would also ask, in light of what you say above. Who is implying insider conspiracy now? Only to prove a point, and to show that such thoughts can fairly go both ways. I am not saying it wasn't the case that there were sympathisers among the police, but I am absolutely certain the FBI were among the rioters, and if it turns out they were the ones goading people on, then the insurrection must be considered in a very different light. They have a track record of doing this type of thing.

    As for Babbit. When it was clear from the vacinity of the security surrounding her that she was not armed, I am pretty sure that just stepping up and shooting her was an unreasonable thing to do. Particularly given that the guy who did it had no idea whether she was an apple pie mom or a steely eyed military vet.

    The least, very least, I would have expected, would have been the guard shouting:

    "Armed Security. Step back from the door or I will shoot."

    If you are trying to say that shooting her without warning, without any engagement, when no lives were directly threatened, was the right thing to do, then I will say I don't believe you. Because despite our occasional spats, I believe you are a decent bloke, and I think you do yourself a disservice in defending that shooting, in my opinon

    Watch the video. There weren't that many people, it could barely be described a mob. And there were nearly as many police as there were protesters.

    "I had to kill her in cold blood because I didn't want to wind up the mob" isn't a very convincing argument. If you would have asdumed that arresting her was too risky, with a potentially armed and bloody mob behind her, what do you honestly think the likely effect would be from killing her? Without the benefit of hindsight.

    Clearly the protest was not intending such violence, and there is enough evidence on video showing that many of the Trump supporters there were doing their best to calm things.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2021
  11. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Found a link to the Capitol police officer who was charged with obstruction of justice recently:

    https://www.npr.org/2021/10/15/1046...an-6-suspect-to-hide-evidence?t=1634991471904

    I sort of hope he is an agent provocateur, if only because that would at least explain his otherwise inexcusable actions.

    A handful of others were suspended back in February too, though I can't find any updates on them at the moment.

    There were many entry points to the Capitol on the day. Yes some of those there walked through open doors. Others smashed windows and forced entry. No point doing anything other than acknowledging it was a mixed picture. I expect the courts will do the same and look at each individual's involvement and culpability on a broad range.

    I also tend to agree that the protesters (as in the cannon fodder who made up 95% of the attendees) didn't intend violence. My guess is a lot of them talked a good game but ultimately were living out a bit of a fantasy anti-government, take it to the man scenario and having got as far as they did really didn't know what to do next. I also guess there was a hardened minority embedded within the protesters who wanted to exploit that fervour and subsequent confusion to achieve their aims. It's very plausible to have one thing happening within another thing.

    Can't really add more on Babbitt. I watched the video a few times earlier in the year and reached a view on it. I've not watched it again in responding to this thread. The door she was trying to kick through was quite close to a key area if I remember rightly. It wasn't a broom cupboard or main entrance door.

    I have no idea what US self-defence laws look like, but I think it even may have met the criteria over here. It wasn't over here though and so it's very difficult to judge beyond what I've already said.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2021
    HenryHooter likes this.
  12. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    There’s no speculation that he is an ‘agent provocateur’ required. No evidence has been found of anything of the sort. It’s simply the case that Police sympathies in the US are often not even-handed, inclined to the right even when the baying mob turns on them.

    Many people have commented that a black mob would have got very different treatment at the Capitol. US history suggests it’s unarguable.
     
  13. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    I agree that more than one thing was likely going on, and everything you say is pretty much spot on.

    But I would like to quote this from the article you linked to...

    The most prescient part, to my claims above, is that the individual he was communicating with, despite being not just a witness, but a party involved in the case, is not named, nor called as a witness. Exactly my point about direct involvement from feds in the insurrection, and this one clearly sought to draw Riley into it.

    Riley was not directly involved in the Capitol, he was not in the building and there is no indication he would have assisted rioters. Seems the biggest issue with Riley is not that he warned a fishing buddy to remove mentions of being in the Capitol, but that he deleted his own posts, destroying evidence (that the feds already had), to hide his tip off. He did that after the mysteron told him the feds were on to him -funny that though, seeing as he does not appear to have been charged for anything.

    He didn't know the unnamed agent:). The two never met, and did not start conversing until after 6 January. The unnamed third party sent Riley a friend request, out of the blue, on 2 January, stating he was a keen fisherman, like Riley. Riley replied to him on 7 or 8 of January, inviting the unnamed third party to come fishing in DC, but when he saw posts saying that the mysteron had been in the Capitol, he sent the above warning. It is something you or I might have stupidly done as an act of friendship, but, and rightly so, because he is a policeman, it is a more serious issue.

    I was already aware of this case, as it was covered on R+R Law's Watching the Watchers YouTube site.

    They are very critical of his behaviour (they prosecute cases against the police, so that is their natural position) but ultimately draw from the case the inevitable conclusion that there were feds involved, and they were fishing for people to draw into it.

    Riley was stupid, but, if it is proven that the mysteron was an agent, I do wonder if he may be able to claim that there was an element of entrapment. It doesn't forgive what he did, give the warning and destroy the evidence, but it may reduce his sentence.
     
  14. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    It is Good when I get to agree with posters. Though I don't imagine that anyone is going to enjoy my reasons for doing so. But I am compelled to mention the following, which starkly points out that the above post is indeed right, but for exactly the wrong reason.

    Recent history suggests it is unarguable that BLM and antifa rioters would be treated different, and more leniently. Most were released by the courts straight after being arrested for damaging government buildings (acts of insurrection) and assaulting police officers, and then allowed bail, resulting in further arrests and release situations. The January 6 “insurrectionists”, who didn't murder anyone, carry firearms, set fires, wield lasers or bring ICDs are still being held, refused bail, on charges of trespass. Some of them are little old ladies, some of them, shudder, are non-white Americans.

    How do you square that?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 23, 2021
  15. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    Right now Moose. I love you like a brother. 2-5, and they can stick their Richarlison up their arse!
     
  16. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

  17. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Yes, although it’s not rocket science for Hazza to have guessed this. Social media was awash with people advising each other not to go (or to go and right the wrong of the ‘stolen’ election). Everyone knew that a **** storm was coming, just not quite how it would play out. I watched live coverage of Trump’s speech in the full expectation history was going to be made in some shape or form.

    In fact the only people not well prepared appeared to be those in charge of policing at the Capitol.

    That Harry has a hotline to Dorsey comes as little surprise.
     
  18. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    It just make me chuckle to think the boss of Twitter would want input from that dullard. Or that him writing to the boss of Twitter would have any impact on events. Or that he had unique enough insight to make it worthwhile doing that in the first place. It's borderline delusional.
     
    Moose likes this.
  19. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    And he should know. People have been writing to his Grandmother for decades on this, that and the other unhappy thing with the end result of eff all squared.
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  20. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Ha, I hadn't thought of it like that but actually it's the perfect analogy.
     
  21. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Rittenhouse acquitted on all charges after travelling to a demonstration with a semi-automatic rifle and shooting two unarmed men.

    Let’s face it, if he was black he would have gone down for a very long time.

    That’s Amerikkka.
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  22. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    The Jury considered the case for three days and returned a unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts. The prosecution were scalded by the judge for serious breaches of the constitution, and for ignoring law that has been well established for over half a century.

    At least people are now saying he only drove there with a gun, rather than crossed state lines. Driving somewhere with a gun in America is not illegal. Defending yourself with a gun is not illegal when you are being charged down, whilst trying to run away, by a white 37 year old convicted rapist of children, who had only been released from a mental hospital that morning, had earlier said he would kill Rittenhouse if he got him on his own, and who, at a BLM protest, had spent much of the night, when he was not on video wrecking and burning things, challenging anyone who upset him with the phrase 'Shoot me n***er".

    After defending himself, he went to hand himself in to the police, but when he got around 100 yards from them, he was assaulted by at least six people, ending up on the floor, fairly believing he was fighting for his life.

    So thankfully, in America, it is also self defense when someone is slashing at your head with their very hefty skateboard whilst you are on the ground, and although the point was not stressed, when having done so, that assailant grabs your gun towards their chest, possibly causing the aim of the gun to be directly at their own heart.

    And it is also self defense when a guy who is advancing on you armed with a glock pistol puts his hands up when you make it clear you have seen him, but then starts to point his gun at you after you have lowered yours. This assailant actually agreed that Rittenhouse did not open fire until they had pointed their gun at him. He got his arm shot for doing so. He has recovered 90% of function in the arm.

    It's all on video.

    As even left wing politicos, who only found out that the guys Rittenhouse shot were white because of the trial coverage, are now saying without irony: It is the clearest case of self defense they have ever seen. They believed, like many over here, that Rittenhouse walked up and started firing indescriminantly at black people, letting off around 60 shots. He fired 8, and if he hadn't he would be dead.

    The prosecution are in line for some very serious charges, including tampering with evidence, which, magnificently, came to light in front of the judge when viewing a hotly contested video. One of the prosecutors said "oh, your version isn't as good as ours", to the defenses response "it is the one you sent us", and when the prosecutor tried to blame the defence for having only a low res version, they had the metadata from the two different versions read out to them, and it wasn't favourable. The Judge, at one point, said he would have the prosecutors questioned under oath.

    The only difference that would have occured if Rittenhouse had been black, is that he would never have even been arrested, let alone charged.

    That is today's America for you.

    Oh yes, and it turns out he is not a militia member or a white supremacist.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2021
  23. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Honestly, black people in the US should just start open carrying again, like the Black Panthers used to.

    That's a surefire way to see sanity return.
     
    sydney_horn and Moose like this.
  24. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    What has this case got to do with race? Apart from the first person to attack Rittenhouse, who, under the guise of being a BLM protester, was liberally refering to everyone as n***ers prior to attempting to carry out his threat of murder.

    Race and racism were not brought up at any point in the case, much like in the Chauvin trial, yet people are making it out to be some racially motivated act of self defence against three white men, who can now lawfully be described as assailants, rather than victims.

    It is quite incredible that, given the facts of the case, something like the above can be uttered in relation to it. No one can point to any racial element to it, or white supremacy beliefs of Rittenhouse. The businesses he was protecting were owned by local Indian Asians, who said they had been hugging Rittenhouse earlier that day, and thanking him for his support, and that the seventeen year old had been promising them he would support fund raising for the damage they had suffered.

    Race was just not a part of what happened, other than that it was used to justify the rioting and arsen that was going on in the name of BLM.

    Welcome to America.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 19, 2021
  25. domthehornet

    domthehornet Moderator Staff Member

    It does beg the question why was he there in the first place? Was he part of the BLM protest?
     
  26. sydney_horn

    sydney_horn Squad Player

    We refer to our American cousins but incidents like this show that their culture is completely different to ours.

    If anyone in this country deliberately went somewhere that was in the middle of civil unrest, carrying a firearm, there would be no doubt about their culpability in any deaths they cause.

    When it comes to guns the USA are simply bat crazy. There is simply no logical explanation or justification for what he did, and the fact he's been found not guilty, beyond that.
     
  27. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    No, he’d gone there to shoot them.
     
  28. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    That is a very Good question, but it is a very British outlook on an extremely American issue. It wasn't illegal for him to be there; it wasn't illegal for him to carry his AR15, and as the court found, it was not illegal for him to defend himself from very viscious attacks and two attempts to grab his gun.

    But if that question is going to be asked, and the idea put forward that rioting in the name of BLM was a legitimate reason to be there, then the motivations of the lone lunatic who threatened Rittenhouse's life and then charged him down in an attempt to grab his gun, as well as the six, at least, individuals who attacked an armed seventeen year old who was trying to hand himself in to the police (there is no question of that, and defense witnesses, including the person shot in the arm, acknowledge it) must also be questioned in context.

    Gaige Grosskreutz, the guy who got his arm shot, went there with almost the same claimed intentions as Rittenhouse, as a medic, and was also armed with a gun. After he was shot, the first person on the scene to give him medical aid was one of the local medics who was working with Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse, on Grosskreutz' own evidence, was treating rioters for minor injuries. Despite that, Grosskreutz is caught on his own video referring to local medics as 'F***ing stooges'.

    Asking what stupid reason Rittenhouse was there without asking what stupid reason his assailents had for being there is not seeking to understand the whole situation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2021
  29. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    That is wholly incorrect.
     
  30. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    There was perfect logic for what he was accused of doing. He defended himself from a vicious attack by one person who had threatened his life and tried to grab his gun. There is no question of that, and it was the findings of a jury who saw all the evidence and considered it for three days. The same for the other people that then went on to attack him.

    The question of logic is his being there. To us it is illogical, but is that not also the case with rioters turning up, some armed, who feel that assaulting a kid with a gun, without justfication or reason other than a baying mob, is a good idea. If they had not attacked him, he would have gotten to the police without further injury to anyone.

    I agree with the point you are making about America and guns, but your conclusion does not relate to what happened or the applicable law in any way.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2021
  31. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Guest

    For anyone suggesting that Rittenhouse would have been dealt with more harshly if he had been black, there is a near parallel case that shows that I am not mistaken in my take, that had he been black, he would not even have been arrested, let alone tried. Remember, Kyle Rittenhouse was arrested and charged despite prima faci videos (the same ones that led to his aquital) showing he was running away, and only acted in self defence when he had no other choice, and a charge sheet that appears more like it was written by his defence than a prosecutor. Timothy Simpkins, a black student in Texas, however walked away from his school and returned with a hand gun, and shot three people, one of them accidentally.

    Rittenhouse: 2 million bail, charged with 2 Intentional homicide charges, 1 count of attempted homicide, and was also charged with reckless endangerment of another person; go-fund-me blocked fundraising, he was described as a white supremacist (without a single shred of evidence) by left wing media and by the then Presidential candidate Joe Biden, and social media blocked videos and posts supporting Rittenhouse. The prosecution, despite freely being given Rittenhouses unlocked phone, could find no shred of evidence of white supremacy or nefarious actitity.

    Timothy Simpkins: $25,000 bail, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the left wing media reported he was responding to bullying, but the local Police Chief (sorry for the racial tones, but he is a black man named Al Jones) stated that the incident was related to 'high risk activity' (assumed to be drug gang related) in which Simpkins was involved.

    If people want to say that Simpkins was treated more harshly because of the colour of his skin, or that Rittenhouse was treated less harshly because of the colour of his skin, they are welcome to do so. It is good that should they do so, they can be judged on the argument they make in the face of reality, rather than the beliefs of a little bubble where the utterence of inconvenient information is discouraged.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2021
  32. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    So some white liberals/convicted peadophiles/looters/BUT ULTIMATELY WHITE got killed by Rittenhouse
    Let's all take the knee
    Tonight a bunch of kids will be shooting or stabbing eachother up and no one cares .
    Cos a virtuous opinion is all that counts
    Well done
    I sleep at night
     
  33. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    No, he went to act as a vigilante.

    He was recorded only about a week prior watching a probably looter leaving a CVS store and saying he wished he had his gun so he could shoot them, but the judge rather bizarrely blocked that from being entered into the record when it's pretty clear he went to Kenosha with the mindset of looking for a reason to shoot someone. He went looking for trouble, and he found it.

    Escalating to lethal force when you admit that the person you shot was unarmed and that you knew he was at the time you pulled the trigger is utterly ludicrous. Getting away with it is even worse.

    While it's has to be said that the prosecution presented an awful case, the whole situation is a farce.

    Expect to see civil cases brought, which he will lose.
     
    sydney_horn likes this.
  34. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    JFC.

    Those who got shot were at a protest against the shooting of a black man by the police.

    The galaxy sized chip you have on your shoulder is utterly ridiculous.
     
  35. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    Source ?
     

Share This Page