Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

[dovervolz]

First, your side has run over people and we see in this case shooting some people, and on other occasions recklessly confronting them. Or invading the capitol and threatening to hang the vice president. So don't pretend like violence or threats of violence is one-sided. That's just an idiotic claim by you.

Second, I have said in this thread many times and in other threads that I agree 100 % that protestors who engage in violence ought to be prosecuted, whether they light a couch on fire or throw a rock at a cop. Absolutely 100 % agree.

Why is it SO HARD for the right to condemn people within its ranks that run over peaceful protestors, raid the capitol, or go looking for trouble like this young man did? Why do you insist on circling the wagons around these people that make your cause look so awful? I truly don't get the reticence to disavow them.

Surely you're not stupid enough to believe that " your side" are all saints. But, then again you probably are that dumb.

 

[Vol8188]

I'm not applying anything to one side. The conversation is about Kyle, you chose to single out my comment and now want to redirect.

Hell I'm not saying he didn't defend himself but to pretend that moment happened in a vacuum where he wasn't AT A RIOT WITH A LOADED AR15 is ridiculous.

The conversation was about the incident as a whole. You responded to that conversation by blaming Kyle for being there and acting as a vigilante. While completely ignoring the fact that at no point did him attempting to enforce a law lead to this incident. This isn’t a case of a 17 year old attempting a citizens arrest or shooting people for rioting.

That’s what makes this so absurd. The other side was actual behaving as vigilantes and they willing went to and participated in a riot. Yet you seem to only take issue with why the kid was there, but have no issue with why the people he shot were there.

It seems you have everything here backwards. You even take issue with the kid having a gun. Isn’t the gun what saved his life here? Seems this incident would’ve had a far worse outcome if he was unarmed. I’d rather we lose a pedophile than a kid who’s worst crime is not wanting people to burn businesses to the ground.

 

[clarksvol00]

Uhhhh......there is video of a guy that went around to different crowds encouraging them to go in before the riot. The FBI has never and will never arrest him. He is an informant.

I guess the people that followed him completely lost all self control and had no idea what they were doing after this mind-controlling fbi wizard told them what to do.

 

[volinbham]

I guess the people that followed him completely lost all self control and had no idea what they were doing after this mind-controlling fbi wizard told them what to do.

you don't have any concern that our government may have tried make this happen? is that a proper role for our government?

 

[norrislakevol]

I guess the people that followed him completely lost all self control and had no idea what they were doing after this mind-controlling fbi wizard told them what to do.

Reminds me of the liberal media wizards that whip a story into a frenzy and "protesters" take to the streets and burn down businesses, set up chop zones, and loot. Guess the lefties lost all self control.

 

[RockyTop85]

I thought Turley was a respected legal mind. Is that not the case?

”Was” is the operative word.

He started doing cable news guest spots as a side hustle and just sort of went downhill.

Now he does a lot of written analysis that assumes the facts necessary to maintain the legal outcome that Fox News audiences want to hear.

The tweet or story or whatever is a good example: There are reasons for NBC to be tailing the jury other than doxxing them. They have better opportunities to doxx them in court. Yet he does a legal analysis that assumes the worst because that’s the Fox narrative and it’s what his audience wants to hear.

Did the same thing with Mark Milley. Analyzed it immediately as if Milley had gone rogue, sworn fealty to the Chinese, and disobeyed Trump. There was no evidence of that. Turned out to not be true at all.

He also recently misrepresented the contents of a publicly available judicial order in a way that lined up with a conservative media narrative.

He also reversed prior position about impeachment after the end of the presidential term.

At some point, he realized he could make more money telling people what they wanted to hear and settled into a target market where he didn’t have to compete with Larry Tribe or Jeffrey “the Exhibitionist” Toobin.

 

[clarksvol00]

you don't have any concern that our government may have tried make this happen? is that a proper role for our government?

Long answer, but I tend to overcomplicate things sometimes...
I don't know what this informant did and I haven't seen the videos. Informants are informants for reasons, including that they are criminals trying to keep themselves out of trouble and willing to turn on their buddies for leniency. If this is what happened it doesn't mean the fbi instructed him to do so. It may mean he was doing what he and his friends went their to do. We don't know what he told the FBI about his plans or what they told him to do. If they did instruct him to try and get people to storm the Capitol, I find it completely inappropriate. I also find the actions of the rioters inappropriate no matter who egged them on.

 

[clarksvol00]

Reminds me of the liberal media wizards that whip a story into a frenzy and "protesters" take to the streets and burn down businesses, set up chop zones, and loot. Guess the lefties lost all self control.

I don't approve of or excuse any rioting or looting.

 

[volfanhill]

First, your side has run over people and we see in this case shooting some people, and on other occasions recklessly confronting them. Or invading the capitol and threatening to hang the vice president. So don't pretend like violence or threats of violence is one-sided. That's just an idiotic claim by you.

Second, I have said in this thread many times and in other threads that I agree 100 % that protestors who engage in violence ought to be prosecuted, whether they light a couch on fire or throw a rock at a cop. Absolutely 100 % agree.

Why is it SO HARD for the right to condemn people within its ranks that run over peaceful protestors, raid the capitol, or go looking for trouble like this young man did? Why do you insist on circling the wagons around these people that make your cause look so awful? I truly don't get the reticence to disavow them.

Lol. "Mostly peaceful protests." Remember that nonsense while cities were burning? GTFO with your selective outrage. Your side is just as ridiculous. Do you see a hypocrite every time you look in the mirror or have you just stopped looking? It's truly amazing you don't see your own nonsense.

 

[volfanhill]

Surely you're not stupid enough to believe that " your side" are all saints. But, then again you probably are that dumb.

He is

 

[volinbham]

Long answer, but I tend to overcomplicate things sometimes...
I don't know what this informant did and I haven't seen the videos. Informants are informants for reasons, including that they are criminals trying to keep themselves out of trouble and willing to turn on their buddies for leniency. If this is what happened it doesn't mean the fbi instructed him to do so. It may mean he was doing what he and his friends went their to do. We don't know what he told the FBI about his plans or what they told him to do. If they did instruct him to try and get people to storm the Capitol, I find it completely inappropriate. I also find the actions of the rioters inappropriate no matter who egged them on.

I'm firmly in the "if it happened" camp and I'm not claiming it did. There is sufficient evidence to merit concern and further investigation; particularly with the Michigan incident.

I agree the rioters are inappropriate no matter what. That said, if our own government played a pivotal and intentional role in the events then I find that to be of far greater concern.

 

[clarksvol00]

I'm firmly in the "if it happened" camp and I'm not claiming it did. There is sufficient evidence to merit concern and further investigation; particularly with the Michigan incident.

I agree the rioters are inappropriate no matter what. That said, if our own government played a pivotal and intentional role in the events then I find that to be of far greater concern.

I can agree with that, i just don't have any reason to believe they had some kind of pivotal role. So far we've got one fbi informant confirmed that I'm aware of. There were lots more than this guy and many were very vocal and visible and have been identified and charged. Do I think the FBI is above shenanigans? No. Do I have some kind of hard evidence to believe they orchestrated this? Also no.

 

[VolnJC]

 

[RikidyBones]

I assumed so but if it relates to this MSNBC issue remember that:

1) We first heard itt that the reporter was an employee of MSNBC.
2) We then learned that his employment status is not clear, at all.
3) We then learned that there are statements that he is a free lance journalist who does some reporting for NBC.
4) We then learned that he claimed he had been ordered by someone at either MSNBC or NBC to follow the jurors.
5) We then learned that both networks say they are looking into it and will cooperate with any investigation.

Seems like it was wrong for some in the right wing media to gleefully, but incorrectly, report that the reporter was from MSNBC. But that's about all we know for sure right now. It will be investigated.

So I don't think I'm an idiot for making these rather important distinctions, though I know it at least temporarily robs the Fox echo chamber and the other media hating folks here of a talking point and that maybe its not simply as clear cut as first reported.

He blames the "right wing media".

Don't be a child.

 

[Vol8188]

He blames the "right wing media".

Don't be a child.

How dare they report things that happened.

“Republicans pounce”

 

[85SugarVol]

”Was” is the operative word.

He started doing cable news guest spots as a side hustle and just sort of went downhill.

Now he does a lot of written analysis that assumes the facts necessary to maintain the legal outcome that Fox News audiences want to hear.

The tweet or story or whatever is a good example: There are reasons for NBC to be tailing the jury other than doxxing them. They have better opportunities to doxx them in court. Yet he does a legal analysis that assumes the worst because that’s the Fox narrative and it’s what his audience wants to hear.

Did the same thing with Mark Milley. Analyzed it immediately as if Milley had gone rogue, sworn fealty to the Chinese, and disobeyed Trump. There was no evidence of that. Turned out to not be true at all.

He also recently misrepresented the contents of a publicly available judicial order in a way that lined up with a conservative media narrative.

He also reversed prior position about impeachment after the end of the presidential term.

At some point, he realized he could make more money telling people what they wanted to hear and settled into a target market where he didn’t have to compete with Larry Tribe or Jeffrey “the Exhibitionist” Toobin.

Thank you for the synopsis.

 

[volinbham]

I can agree with that, i just don't have any reason to believe they had some kind of pivotal role. So far we've got one fbi informant confirmed that I'm aware of. There were lots more than this guy and many were very vocal and visible and have been identified and charged. Do I think the FBI is above shenanigans? No. Do I have some kind of hard evidence to believe they orchestrated this? Also no.

The problem is we will likely never know since the DOJ would have to investigate itself.

 

[volinbham]

”Was” is the operative word.

He started doing cable news guest spots as a side hustle and just sort of went downhill.

Now he does a lot of written analysis that assumes the facts necessary to maintain the legal outcome that Fox News audiences want to hear.

The tweet or story or whatever is a good example: There are reasons for NBC to be tailing the jury other than doxxing them. They have better opportunities to doxx them in court. Yet he does a legal analysis that assumes the worst because that’s the Fox narrative and it’s what his audience wants to hear.

Did the same thing with Mark Milley. Analyzed it immediately as if Milley had gone rogue, sworn fealty to the Chinese, and disobeyed Trump. There was no evidence of that. Turned out to not be true at all.

He also recently misrepresented the contents of a publicly available judicial order in a way that lined up with a conservative media narrative.

He also reversed prior position about impeachment after the end of the presidential term.

At some point, he realized he could make more money telling people what they wanted to hear and settled into a target market where he didn’t have to compete with Larry Tribe or Jeffrey “the Exhibitionist” Toobin.

Paul Krugman syndrome I reckon

 

[clarksvol00]

The problem is we will likely never know since the DOJ would have to investigate itself.

Time may tell. We've learned a lot about how they dealt with dissidents in the 60s over the years.

 

[Vol8188]

Time may tell. We've learned a lot about how they dealt with dissidents in the 60s over the years.

By then it’s too late

 

[clarksvol00]

By then it’s too late

Maybe so, but at this point, one informant in the crowd doesn't make me think this Capitol riot wouldn't have happened but for the fbi.

 

[NCFisher]

One protest and the MAGA crowd was a perfect one for one on the rioting. Unless you want to count the Unite the Right party and then they are 2 for 2.

You know better than that bit of sophistry but use it to glide past someone who won't argue critically. It's akin to concluding a town that averages one murder annually and now has two, suddenly has a murder epidemic. More starkly, it's Jesse Jackson saying he's relieved when he sees the footsteps behind him belong to a white person.

'Propensity' is the concept your logic avoids. The less a person or group is occupied with societally useful, fulfilling things - family, employment, owning a business, civic engagement, pulling their own weight - the more time subscribing to dystopic victimhood and participate in congenitally coercive, violent Marxist movement. Or whatever psychological meme that afflicts them month to month. Even among the idle-hands collegiate or marginally employed well from which the left draws its protest water, you have no right wing mirror image.

There's no correlating malady on the right because they aren't disproportionately nihilistic opponents of Western society generally, and America specifically. In practicality, the right simply do not wage large scale demonstrations or riot. That a handful of a large rally did protest and a smaller subset of that group actually committed violence is a fact; that it is the whole of your argument speaks to the right's lack of propensity to demonstrate or riot at all.

And you can stick the neo-Nazi inference in your chute. Unlike the Marxists, they have no political party endorsing and running interference for them.

 

[C-south]

I find that hard to believe unless 6 people got paid to render a guilty verdict.

 

[volinbham]

Maybe so, but at this point, one informant in the crowd doesn't make me think this Capitol riot wouldn't have happened but for the fbi.

I don't even think that's the most important issue. I really question why the FBI would have an informant who appears to have been so active in promoting action. I'd sure like to hear a candid explanation of the rationale. Even if intentions are pure it is ultimately up to the citizenry to decide if that's what we're comfortable with. As it stands now this is all in the shadows. It's similar with the Snowden stuff. Even if you assume the intentions of NSA and all the connection agencies are as pure as the driven snow we ought to be able to know (or some real oversight authority) so we can decide if that's the type of apparatus we support. I think most people recognize the Patriot Act in all its iterations has some real issues of concern.

I don't want to derail this thread but would be glad to discuss further elsewhere.

 

[85SugarVol]

The Kyle Rittenhouse jury ends its third day of deliberations without a verdict