Kyle Rittenhouse Case starts

[LeafByNiggle]

I think both sides practice leaving out information. However..

Tim or Joe Rogan is no more extreme right wing than other public commentators like David Reuben and Blaire White.

I never heard of David Reuben or Blaire White. Why even mess around with the commentators on the left or the right who have no guard rails when you can get news from real journalists who have established a reputation of at least nominally trying to be objective, following actual journalistic standards, like the ones I mentioned? It is not only the people themselves. It is the reputable organization they are a part of. This reminds them of their responsibility to objective journalism. Some people think the way to get objective information is to listen to all sides and take the average. This is dead wrong. All sides are not of equal reliability. When you want to know if you should have a heart operation, it is a good idea to get several opinions of real doctors. It is not a good idea to survey all your friends on Facebook and go with the average of that group.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The question I have is, what was Rittenhouse doing at the Kenosha Wisconsin BLM protest
carrying a weapon ?

He's from Illinois not Wisconsin and the fact that he showed up there armed with a weapon,
suggests to me that he had an agenda to use it against the protestors.

1) Kyle worked in Kenosha Wisconsin

2) The weapon was stored there too.
Gun used by Kyle Rittenhouse bought and stored in Wisconsin, prosecutor says

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be, like people who do range shooting in a particular place might want their weapon kept their for safe keeping, not to mention all the problems that happen with transporting weapons and varying state laws. especially for a minor.

This story from the New York times suggests that Rittenhouse did not even own the gun...

The friend who bought the weapon used by Kyle Rittenhouse was the first witness to testify.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

1) Kyle worked in Kenosha Wisconsin

2) The weapon was stored there too.
Gun used by Kyle Rittenhouse bought and stored in Wisconsin, prosecutor says

I can think of a number of reasons why that might be, like people who do range shooting in a particular place might want their weapon kept their for safe keeping, not to mention all the problems that happen with transporting weapons and varying state laws. especially for a minor.

This story from the New York times suggests that Rittenhouse did not even own the gun...

The friend who bought the weapon used by Kyle Rittenhouse was the first witness to testify.

I just read that it's illegal for anyone under 18 to openly carry a gun without a permit.

Rittenhouse was 17 at the time.

Also, Rittenhouse's friend bought the rifle because Rittenhouse was not old enough to
buy a firearm in Kenosha.

No mention of Rittenhouse working for his uncle's car dealership, but that's why he went
to Kenosha, to protect it from the riots.

He should've stayed home and not gotten in the middle of a riot. Let insurance work out the
details of the cars destroyed in the riots.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I just read that it's illegal for anyone under 18 to openly carry a gun without a permit.

Rittenhouse was 17 at the time.

Yeah they could get him on a charge like that.

He should've stayed home and not gotten in the middle of a riot. Let insurance work out the
details of the cars destroyed in the riots.

Oh no doubt, that would have been my advice as his father etc. Of course keep in mind this is a kid, that wants to be a police officer when he grows up etc. (prior to the shooting he was walking around giving out first aid to anyone who needed it).

But also the inverse or reverse also applies to all the Antifa rioters, some of which are still minors themselves as far as the crazy stuff going on in 2020 like the attempted arson of that one court house that was in the news back then.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yeah they could get him on a charge like that.



Oh no doubt, that would have been my advice as his father etc. Of course keep in mind this is a kid, that wants to be a police officer when he grows up etc. (prior to the shooting he was walking around giving out first aid to anyone who needed it).

But also the inverse or reverse also applies to all the Antifa rioters, some of which are still minors themselves as far as the crazy stuff going on in 2020 like the attempted arson of that one court house that was in the news back then.

His desire of wanting to be a cop is meaningless.

Not everyone who wants to be a cop should be.

 

[Norbert L]

Why even mess around with ..

They have spoken openly about their faiths, there's no reason to not to listen.

It's not often you can listen to a Catholic, Hebrew Christian, conservative Jew, Gay married Jew, Atheists and even occultists with the same kind of credit I give anyone else, including you.

Basically content creators on YouTube and other media have similar academic careers and or professions that give them as much credit as any one talking about Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[Hank77]

No mention of Rittenhouse working for his uncle's car dealership, but that's why he went
to Kenosha, to protect it from the riots.

Did he ever go to the dealership? If not, why not? And if he did go there why did he leave rather than stay and protect it?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Did he ever go to the dealership? If not, why not? And if he did go there why did he leave rather than stay and protect it?

I have no idea if he went to the dealership or not.

Why he left home to get in the middle of a riot is the problem for me. He should've stayed
home and not add to the problem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They have spoken openly about their faiths, there's no reason to not to listen.

Listening is one thing. Treating what they say as if it was of comparable journalistic integrity as Lester Holt and NBC News is quite another thing.

It's not often you can listen to a Catholic, Hebrew Christian, conservative Jew, Gay married Jew, Atheists and even occultists with the same kind of credit I give anyone else, including you.

I am not asking for any personal journalistic credit at all. I put forth no personal opinion on whether Kyle is guilty of murder.

Basically content creators on YouTube and other media have similar academic careers and or professions that give them as much credit as any one talking about Kyle Rittenhouse.

Some do. Some don't. How does anyone know which ones are responsible objective journalists? I would guess that more than 95% of the content posted by individuals on social media is worthless as objective journalism.

 

[iarwain]

He's from Illinois not Wisconsin and the fact that he showed up there armed with a weapon, suggests to me that he had an agenda to use it against the protestors.

That seems like a bit of a stretch. It says to me that he wanted it for protection. One of the cops testified that the majority of the people they encountered were armed in some way, whether it was a rifle, handgun, bat, or other object. I agree he should have stayed home, but that alone doesn't make him guilty of murder. He was attacked.

Also, too much is made about him being from a different state. It's a half hour drive from his town to Kenosha, and he apparently spent a lot of time there.

 

[Norbert L]

Listening is one thing..

How does anyone know which ones are responsible objective journalists?

Looking at your idea below, are you claiming that all journalists must be accredited/rubber stamped by a third party before they are viewed as having integrity?

Treating what they say as if it was of comparable journalistic integrity as Lester Holt and NBC News is quite another thing.

It's common knowledge and reasoning to understand that when both sides are leaving out information in order to suite their bias, it would be necessary for the consumer of news to hear what others are reporting in order to put it all together. This is not new, it's been known for thousands of years. Proverbs 18:17

That's not going to happen if Lester Holt and NBC is placed on a pedestal as being the sole enlightened standard for accurate reporting, while anyone else is to be considered substandard.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That seems like a bit of a stretch. It says to me that he wanted it for protection. One of the cops testified that the majority of the people they encountered were armed in some way, whether it was a rifle, handgun, bat, or other object. I agree he should have stayed home, but that alone doesn't make him guilty of murder. He was attacked.

Also, too much is made about him being from a different state. It's a half hour drive from his town to Kenosha, and he apparently spent a lot of time there.

It doesn't matter how much time it would take him to drive to Kenosha. The fact is, it's under
Wisconsin law and he lives under Illinois law. Stay home and speak from there if need be, but
don't go looking for trouble in Kenosha, which is exactly what he got by going there.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Looking at your idea below, are you claiming that all journalists must be accredited/rubber stamped by a third party before they are viewed as having integrity?

I wouldn't describe it as "rubber stamped", but yes, most real journalists, and more importantly, journalistic organizations, have earned their respect through adherence to high journalistic standards.

It's common knowledge and reasoning to understand that when both sides are leaving out information in order to suite their bias, it would be necessary for the consumer of news to hear what others are reporting in order to put it all together. This is not new, it's been known for thousands of years. Proverbs 18:17

I dispute the implication that main stream journalism routinely leaves out information essential to correct understanding of the stories they report.

That's not going to happen if Lester Holt and NBC is placed on a pedestal as being the sole enlightened standard for accurate reporting, while anyone else is to be considered substandard.

Lester Holt is far from the only respectable journalist, and NBC is far from the only respectable news source. There any many others. But Internet bloggers posting as individuals are not among them.

 

[iarwain]

It doesn't matter how much time it would take him to drive to Kenosha. The fact is, it's underWisconsin law and he lives under Illinois law. Stay home and speak from there if need be, but don't go looking for trouble in Kenosha, which is exactly what he got by going there.

If that was his uncle's car lot, I could understand him wanting to help protect it. I agree he used poor judgement by going there, but that still doesn't make him guilty of murder. What baffles me is why people think it's a good idea to attack someone with a rifle.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If that was his uncle's car lot, I could understand him wanting to help protect it. I agree he used poor judgement by going there, but that still doesn't make him guilty of murder. What baffles me is why people think it's a good idea to attack someone with a rifle.

It doesn't matter, he was a seventeen year old kid who had no business providing security
for his uncle. He broke the law even having the gun as it was his older cousin who bought
it for him and it's attorney's contention that the gun was already in Kenosha. So what ?

He had no business being there and certainly no business carrying a gun into the streets of rioting
people.

 

[Justin-H.S.]

>“There should be no borders. Free movement for all!”

>“ZOMG He crossed state lines!”

People who live in border towns know the deal. Not like he lived all the way in Peoria or something.

>“17 year old kid went out on a school night (in AUGUST). He shouldn’t have done that because if I were 17 I would’ve just stayed home.”

 

[IWalkAlone]

I think Rittenhouse defended himself.

 

[Tom 1]

>“There should be no borders. Free movement for all!”

>“ZOMG He crossed state lines!”

People who live in border towns know the deal. Not like he lived all the way in Peoria or something.

>“17 year old kid went out on a school night (in AUGUST). He shouldn’t have done that because if I were 17 I would’ve just stayed home.”

View attachment 308177

Do you imagine that some cretin with a gun wandering about and pointlessly killing people is somehow heroic?

 

[Norbert L]

I wouldn't describe it as "rubber stamped", but yes, most real journalists, and more importantly, journalistic organizations, have earned their respect through adherence to high journalistic standards.


I dispute the implication that main stream journalism routinely leaves out information essential to correct understanding of the stories they report.


Lester Holt is far from the only respectable journalist, and NBC is far from the only respectable news source. There any many others. But Internet bloggers posting as individuals are not among them.

Given your answer to my question, "are you claiming that all journalists must be accredited/rubber stamped by a third party before they are viewed as having integrity?" is "but yes".

Add to that, the indisputable nature of journalism, where they historically for decades have had to issue retractions due to inaccuracy of their reporting at times. Which includes such things as leaving relevant information out. Which basically means there's nothing there for you to dispute.

In remembering my initial comment about your view on Tim Pool, "Your not making any useful point unless I hear what Tim said was either wrong or at least in question. You would need to reference the time stamp he said it and supply a more rational answer." You still haven't made any useful response. Why?

Because all I can conclude is you don't like Tim Pool because he reports things you don't like without providing a rebuttal to anything he reported.

 

[Tom 1]

retractions due to inaccuracy of their reporting at times.

This appears to be the best argument of the ‘fake news’ mob. Just think it through - this almost never happens. We’re talking about a few instances a year of information that is mistaken and later corrected, out of millions of news stories. It’s like trying to argue that someone choking on an M&M proves confectionary companies have a plot to kill everyone.