The News Thread

[CiG]

sounds like rape to me lol

I mean yeah it is, but it's different to what a lot of people are trying to say about him, which is that he raped a minor/child. He Donald Trump'd his ex during a heated domestic.

 

[Dak]

I feel like it's a long and involved conversation that goes beyond the matter at hand. Plus, we've probably already hashed it out before.

Tough to find things you and I haven't argued about. What's your opinion on stoves? Are you a gas or electric man?

It is long and involved because there aren't any central ideas among the people making the most noise. If it there were a clear central idea it wouldn't be that long really, at least not between you and me because we have indeed gone over so many things. I'm sure you have ideas on what is "central", as do many. Just none agree on what is "central". I've done a ton of reading online of people Very Mad right now and very pro BLM and there's no coherency beyond wanting money spent *somewhere*.

As far as stoves go I'm pretty pro-environment so electric all the way, plus I don't care for the latent possibility of getting my house blown up.

I'm not condoning the actions of those who charged him; but armed "militias" aren't helping the situation at all. Rittenhouse killing two people isn't making the world a better place.

If the people who collect taxes did their jobs, the taxpayers wouldn't need to.

Even if it is true, it has nothing to do with him getting shot in the back seven times. We are supposed to have the right to a trail by a jury of our peers, not extrajudicial killings by police.

Well 1. He is still likely to get it and 2. When you resist arrest to the degree that he did, you are actively trying to hand that right to trial by jury away.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Well 1. He is still likely to get it and 2. When you resist arrest to the degree that he did, you are actively trying to hand that right to trial by jury away.

1. Because he beat the odds and didn't die from seven bullets to the back.

2. Resisting arrest in and of itself is not a capital crime, and the cops are not judge, jury and executioner. That's why we have the 6th amendment, so that the state can't just go around killing us with impunity. If he was holding a gun at them, driving a car directly at them, or doing something else that put their lives at risk, we would have a different story. He wasn't. This was excessive use of force, plain and simple.

 

[CiG]

I agree that 7 shots point blank was excessive, but wasn't he shot not just for noncompliance but because he continued walking away while guns were drawn on him and entered his vehicle?



Should be auto-timestamped @0:30.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I agree that 7 shots point blank was excessive, but wasn't he shot not just for noncompliance but because he continued walking away while guns were drawn on him and entered his vehicle?



Should be auto-timestamped @0:30.

I’m not saying his actions were rational in that moment and for one’s own sake, you should never walk away from cops. However, cops need to be able to deal with irrational people. Let’s say he got in the car. Shoot out the wheel. Or take down his license and track him down later. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t have a warrant for his arrest. If his only crime was non-compliance and having a knife in his car (which may or may not even be a crime depending on the size of the knife and local laws) then their reaction was totally unjustified. Now, if he comes out of the car with the knife, we enter into more of a grey area. But that didn’t happen.

 

[CiG]

Let’s say he got in the car. Shoot out the wheel. Or take down his license and track him down later. Correct me if I’m wrong, but they didn’t have a warrant for his arrest. If his only crime was non-compliance and having a knife in his car (which may or may not even be a crime depending on the size of the knife and local laws) then their reaction was totally unjustified. Now, if he comes out of the car with the knife, we enter into more of a grey area. But that didn’t happen.

I'm not up on all the details of the case, but wouldn't that require foreknowledge of what his intentions were trying to enter the car, as well as what was or wasn't inside the car?

As to the arrest warrant, as far as I'm aware they were responding to a 911 call from someone at his ex's house saying he was there in violation of a restraining order. So police were arriving on the scene with the understanding that a man was violating a restraining order placed on him by a woman he sexually assaulted, and that he still had an open warrant for arrest for felony sexual assault.

If this information is no longer legit and has been corrected, I'm not aware of it.

 

[Dak]

1. Because he beat the odds and didn't die from seven bullets to the back.

2. Resisting arrest in and of itself is not a capital crime, and the cops are not judge, jury and executioner. That's why we have the 6th amendment, so that the state can't just go around killing us with impunity. If he was holding a gun at them, driving a car directly at them, or doing something else that put their lives at risk, we would have a different story. He wasn't. This was excessive use of force, plain and simple.

1. True 2. I guess alleged rapists/abusers don't have to be arrested if they don't want to be, in your estimation.

 

[Dak]

Interesting to see the MeToo movement die because of other social constructs.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

I'm not up on all the details of the case, but wouldn't that require foreknowledge of what his intentions were trying to enter the car, as well as what was or wasn't inside the car?

Innocent until proven guilty. Cops can't ASSUME that he's going for a knife and then shoot him.

As to the arrest warrant, as far as I'm aware they were responding to a 911 call from someone at his ex's house saying he was there in violation of a restraining order. So police were arriving on the scene with the understanding that a man was violating a restraining order placed on him by a woman he sexually assaulted, and that he still had an open warrant for arrest for felony sexual assault.

If this information is no longer legit and has been corrected, I'm not aware of it.

Was the restraining order on Blake?

1. True 2. I guess alleged rapists/abusers don't have to be arrested if they don't want to be, in your estimation.

No, of course they shouldn't. If there is reasonable cause, they should be detained. It sounds like they had a warrant, so they would have been justified in arresting him. They were not justified in attempting to kill him. My question to you is do you think resisting arrest is a capital offense? And if not, how can you justify the cops' actions here? If it's that he MIGHT have been going for a knife, then presumably you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Interesting to see the MeToo movement die because of other social constructs.

The Dems nuked that movement when they nominated Biden.

 

[CiG]

Was the restraining order on Blake?

Yes. The restraining order was vacated the Friday just gone, which I believe was done in order to make up for the fact he was paralyzed in hospital handcuffed to his bed, which caused outrage. Before that the order was in full effect afaik.

 

[Einherjar86]

No that's not true in the slightest. I'm saying the context in which the gun is at play should determine its situational impact. Granted you can never predict how someone will react to the mere presence of a gun, but as we've seen from all the video footage there were dozens of people openly armed. Kyle was the only person we know of that got into an altercation.

Furthermore the gun isn't neutral even at the point that Kyle started retreating. If you're openly armed with a rifle and run away, and someone chases you and keeps on chasing you, it's reasonable to assume this person has factored in the potential force and has decided to keep chasing anyway. This implies violent intent more than simply two unarmed people chasing each other.

I would also assume he didn't think his gun's presence wouldn't matter. You're just pulling that out of thin air. You arm yourself openly because you think it will matter to others, the entire point stated by the militia was to make a show of force with the intent of protecting businesses from further destruction, and a few of the militia members are on camera telling the protesters that "no lives matter until black lives matter" and "we're here to protect you."

For what it's worth, I don't buy the "protecting businesses" angle. I think they were there to make a political statement.

The "militia" (I'll keep using scare quotes, sorry) was asked to come by businesses (already a questionable prospect), but was asked by local law enforcement to stay away, or at least to stay outside the city center. They agreed, but then broke this agreement. I don't see their actions as noble or community-focused. They wanted to be in the breach, among rioters, in a historical moment when the U.S. president openly condones violence.

Crazy times.

In summation; I don't think there's any truth to this claim that pro-gun types consider a gun to be neutral. It's the opposite, it's a neutralizer. It might antagonize some, but mostly it puts a lid on rising aggression that, if otherwise not armed, might have spilled over. Again, this is why nobody else who was armed got into a conflict that night (that we know of), only Kyle and seemingly only because his fate got entangled with Joseph's who seemed to be a very aggressive man.

I tend to read it the opposite--that guns often lead to altercations otherwise avoided.

It is long and involved because there aren't any central ideas among the people making the most noise. If it there were a clear central idea it wouldn't be that long really, at least not between you and me because we have indeed gone over so many things. I'm sure you have ideas on what is "central", as do many. Just none agree on what is "central". I've done a ton of reading online of people Very Mad right now and very pro BLM and there's no coherency beyond wanting money spent *somewhere*.

Well, I do have ideas, but those come mostly from reading the literature that has influenced BLM. The leadership also has ideas, and these usually get lost in translation. Not sure what you're reading online, but BLM isn't an after school club. They know what they want: better funding for education in urban districts, police reorg that focuses on outreach and not discipline, political conversations that benefit black citizens and not election campaigns, etc. I think it's pretty cut and dry.

As far as stoves go I'm pretty pro-environment so electric all the way, plus I don't care for the latent possibility of getting my house blown up.

Good man. Our old place was electric, but the lease we recently signed has a gas stove. It makes me nervous (especially given the gas explosions in Merrimack Valley two years ago), but my wife loves it. Might be a tough argument when it comes time to buy a house.

 

[CiG]

For what it's worth, I don't buy the "protecting businesses" angle. I think they were there to make a political statement.

I suppose if destroying property is a political statement, protecting it is too.

The "militia" (I'll keep using scare quotes, sorry) was asked to come by businesses (already a questionable prospect), but was asked by local law enforcement to stay away, or at least to stay outside the city center. They agreed, but then broke this agreement. I don't see their actions as noble or community-focused. They wanted to be in the breach, among rioters, in a historical moment when the U.S. president openly condones violence.

Crazy times.

Rioting isn't noble or community-focused either. If I were being charitable I could say both "protesters" (there's a scare quote for you) and militia/armed peacekeepers/property defenders/whatever have noble intentions, sometimes terrible outcomes result from their actions, and both have a tendency to ignore police demands/requests.

Also let's not pretend like Donald Trump is the only politician openly condoning violence, since so many are implicitly supportive of or explicitly calling for more of this "protesting" we're seeing.

I tend to read it the opposite--that guns often lead to altercations otherwise avoided.

Not sure you could actually provide any evidence for such a reading. There's a reason policing and security personnel openly carry firearms rather than conceal carry. There's also a reason the Black Panthers chose to openly carry firearms. None of the people who do this would seem to agree with your theory that pro-gun types/people who are armed view firearms as neutral and without situational impact.

 

[Einherjar86]

I suppose if destroying property is a political statement, protecting it is too.

Oh, it absolutely is.

Rioting isn't noble or community-focused either. If I were being charitable I could say both "protesters" (there's a scare quote for you) and militia/armed peacekeepers/property defenders/whatever have noble intentions, sometimes terrible outcomes result from their actions, and both have a tendency to ignore police demands/requests.

The protests are largely peaceful and community-focused. It's a very small portion of them that result in violence like this. The social media myopia machine works hard to paint them as significantly violent movements. BLM is nonviolent, and the vast majority of their protests are nonviolent.

I don't doubt that the gunmen see themselves as noble; but I think they also probably perceive shooting rioters as noble. That's a problem.

Not sure you could actually provide any evidence for such a reading. There's a reason policing and security personnel openly carry firearms rather than conceal carry. There's also a reason the Black Panthers chose to openly carry firearms. None of the people who do this would seem to agree with your theory that pro-gun types/people who are armed view firearms as neutral and without situational impact.

Just because there are many scenarios in which the presence of guns is correlated with minimal or no violence doesn't mean that the scenarios in which it's correlated with violence wouldn't have been otherwise had guns not been present.

That was wordy--basically, yes, there are nonviolent scenarios in which guns are present. But this doesn't mean that guns don't actively contribute to escalations of violence, and that said violence (especially in cases of mortality) couldn't have been avoided even if the guns were hypothetically removed from the situation. This probably seems tautological, and to a degree it is. To put this in more contextual terms, I think that had Rittenhouse not been present in Kenosha there would have been no increase in violence, but rather a decrease. Even if his victims hadn't been there, the odds are still much greater that we would have seen similar violence--simply because he was there with a gun.

 

[rms]

Only 3 dudes got shot right? And all by Kyle?

Weird thing is he was very controlled yet there was something unique to him that brought out lethal violence.

 

[CiG]

The protests are largely peaceful and community-focused. It's a very small portion of them that result in violence like this. The social media myopia machine works hard to paint them as significantly violent movements. BLM is nonviolent, and the vast majority of their protests are nonviolent.

A very small portion that result in shooting deaths? I agree. The portion that result in chaos, rioting and looting is larger though. But I agree that #BLM is overwhelmingly non-violent however the problem is that these gatherings don't just attract #BLM activists, they attract all sorts from people like Rosenbaum with huge rap sheets to opportunistic ideologues like AntiFa.

For example, a lot of people were trying to condemn #BLM for what was going on in the Seattle "antonymous zone" but anybody who was following what was going on knew that #BLM had officially pulled out of that area way before it turned into a violent clusterfuck.

I don't doubt that the gunmen see themselves as noble; but I think they also probably perceive shooting rioters as noble. That's a problem.

If this were the case, a lot more rioters would be getting shot. It just isn't happening. On the contrary, anybody who attempts to oppose the rioting unarmed gets knocked out, sucker punched, kicked in the face while unconscious, mobbed etc. By contrast the people who did successfully oppose rioters and looters with a firearm often only needed to fire warning shots or brandish it because most people when confronted with a weapon tend to comply.

Also just to reiterate, nobody in Kenosha was shot for rioting that I know of.

That was wordy--basically, yes, there are nonviolent scenarios in which guns are present. But this doesn't mean that guns don't actively contribute to escalations of violence, and that said violence (especially in cases of mortality) couldn't have been avoided even if the guns were hypothetically removed from the situation. This probably seems tautological, and to a degree it is. To put this in more contextual terms, I think that had Rittenhouse not been present in Kenosha there would have been no increase in violence, but rather a decrease. Even if his victims hadn't been there, the odds are still much greater that we would have seen similar violence--simply because he was there with a gun.

I disagree. I think if Joseph Rosenbaum, a man who had spent the greater part of his life in and out of prison and clearly had an aggressive disposition whether he started it or not, hadn't been there and attempted to assault Rittenhouse which resulted in him being shot, that night would have been a lot less violent.

I already agreed that a firearm contributes to escalation of violence (openly carrying is a statement of intent to use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others). It doesn't enter a situation neutrally. If you attempt to assault someone who is armed, especially if they have a rifle on a sling, you will be shot. You cannot get into a melee scrap with someone with a rifle on a sling. At the very least it would be difficult to do so. It will go from hands to bullets, that is the escalation.

If Kyle Rittenhouse had instead concealed a pistol to take with him and someone tried to fight him and he shot them, I might have more sympathy for your argument because at the very least it would be reasonable to assume they did so without knowledge of Kyle's ability to escalate force in self-defense. If you do what Rosenbaum did however, and chase him beyond all reasonable reaction to at best brandishing, you're expressing intent to do harm in spite of an AR-15.

That's another example of nobody claiming a gun is a neutral element and ineffectual situationally. If you attack someone who is openly carrying a rifle, it has implications about your state of mind.

Only 3 dudes got shot right? And all by Kyle?

Weird thing is he was very controlled yet there was something unique to him that brought out lethal violence.

Yeah 3 people. He shot less people than the amount of people who attacked him that night.

 

[Dak]

Well, I do have ideas, but those come mostly from reading the literature that has influenced BLM. The leadership also has ideas, and these usually get lost in translation. Not sure what you're reading online, but BLM isn't an after school club. They know what they want: better funding for education in urban districts, police reorg that focuses on outreach and not discipline, political conversations that benefit black citizens and not election campaigns, etc. I think it's pretty cut and dry.

If they know what they want they would specifically outline it clearly on their website. They don't. I'm not saying it's not buried on there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. The "not election campaigns" thing though is patently bullshit (although I wouldn't doubt they claim that), otherwise they wouldn't be blanket endorsing one political party, which has placed a corrupt DA who kept innocent Black Lives locked up and Joe 1994 Crime Bill (+Dementia) Biden at the top of the ticket.

Good man. Our old place was electric, but the lease we recently signed has a gas stove. It makes me nervous (especially given the gas explosions in Merrimack Valley two years ago), but my wife loves it. Might be a tough argument when it comes time to buy a house.

I like gas for grilling because it's quick and convenient, and the risk of an explosion incident is pretty low due to being outdoors. I had a gas oven in one place I lived and I didn't see any benefit over modern electric ranges in terms of cooking, and huge tail-risk. Minimal steady and tail reward + high tail-risk should be a nonstarter.

No, of course they shouldn't. If there is reasonable cause, they should be detained. It sounds like they had a warrant, so they would have been justified in arresting him. They were not justified in attempting to kill him. My question to you is do you think resisting arrest is a capital offense? And if not, how can you justify the cops' actions here? If it's that he MIGHT have been going for a knife, then presumably you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

These types of situations are difficult. Expecting the police to wait until one of them is dead/seriously injured before shooting seems a bit unreasonable. There are clear situations of unjustified use of force, this isn't one of them. There are clear cases of wild/undisciplined police shooting putting others in danger, this isn't one of those either.

The Dems nuked that movement when they nominated Biden.

Ehh, nuke is probably too strong. They just stabbed it in the back and then will revive it as needed, which will probably be relatively soon. See the following progression in a matter of like 4 months, with the last two being within the span of like a week or two:

"These are peaceful protests, not riots."
"Actually, riots are good."
"Riots are actually bad and right-wingers are doing it."
"Right-wingers are rioting based on Trump's rhetoric."

 

[crimsonfloyd]

These types of situations are difficult. Expecting the police to wait until one of them is dead/seriously injured before shooting seems a bit unreasonable. There are clear situations of unjustified use of force, this isn't one of them. There are clear cases of wild/undisciplined police shooting putting others in danger, this isn't one of those either.

Ok if that is your position then it follows that police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner and kill people based on the suspicion that they MIGHT do something deadly. If that's your position, that's your position, but it is fundamentally contradictory to the principle of innocent until proven guilty and is also contradictory to the 6th amendment. It's definitely a radical authoritarian position that cops can take it into their own hands to kill people based on suspicion.

Ehh, nuke is probably too strong. They just stabbed it in the back and then will revive it as needed, which will probably be relatively soon. See the following progression in a matter of like 4 months, with the last two being within the span of like a week or two:

"These are peaceful protests, not riots."
"Actually, riots are good."
"Riots are actually bad and right-wingers are doing it."
"Right-wingers are rioting based on Trump's rhetoric."

Well the partisan hacks on both sides will always play those games and their sycophants will always buy into the bullshit their team is selling. And I'm sure the next time a Republican is an accused of sexual assault Pelosi and Schumer will be kneeling in the middle of congress with pink scarves preaching about "believing all women." However, no one outside of their base will take them seriously on this again.

 

[CiG]

Some updates on that shooting in Portland.

Who is Michael Reinoehl, the main suspect in Patriot Prayer killing?
Although police investigations continue into the fatal shooting in Portland, the suspect's sister has identified the man captured in the video footage.

The man who describes himself as ‘100% ANTIFA’ is a father of two children and is believed to be the one captured in a video pulling the trigger. The victim was identified by Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, and since then even President Trump has used his name, Jay, in a tweet. Police Chief Chuck Lovell has said that the investigation is ongoing and so little information is being released at this time.

A New York Times report cited two unidentified witnesses saying a small group of people got into an argument with other people in a vehicle and someone opened fire. The man who was shot and killed was wearing a hat with the insignia of Patriot Prayer, a far-right group based in Portland that has clashed with protesters in the past, according to the newspaper.

According to local reports, Reinoehl had been seen via social media attending Black Lives Matters demonstration and he had previously been accused of taking a loaded gun to an earlier Portland protest, although they had been dropped. He had been arrested before, accused of car racing against his 17-year-old son.

“We reached out to police and confirmed that we recognized Michael in the screenshots,” Reinoehl’s sister was reported to have said after seeing the footage of her apparently estranged brother who is a professional snowboarder.

“On the one hand, this whole thing surprises the daylights out of us, because we always thought he is a lot of bark, not a lot of bite. But he's also been very impulsive and irrational.”

 

[CiG]

He was mad at kyle for pointing his gun at him and we have no idea what started that

This is a pretty good video:



Go to 1:48 to skip the pointless intro and backstory on Joseph Rosenbaum.

It's a little sloppy but she's done a good job putting all the footage in order, as well as pointing out that the guy Rosenbaum was saying "shoot me, n*gga" to wasn't actually Kyle but a completely different guy dressed similarly who kinda looks like him. There's also footage which seems to be the catalyst for why Rosenbaum was so annoyed, at one point there's a dumpster on fire being pushed towards the gas station by Rosenbaum and another guy and Kyle runs over and hands another guy a fire extinguisher which he then uses to put it out.

Rosenbaum (or at least it's indicated he says it, sounds like him I guess) reacts angrily to this and says something like "that's bullshit, why you do that?"

@5:00 Rosenbaum pushes his way through the crowd and steps right up into the space of one of the armed men who even at this level of aggression doesn't brandish, keeps his gun aimed at the floor.

@5:18 Rosenbaum shouts at the guy who looks like Kyle asking him "why you do that?" which I assume is about the dumpster fire being put out.

@8:12 protesters start throwing objects like hazard cones and poles. A protester in blue pulls out a pistol and cocks it.

@8:56 Rosenbaum says "I say we jack them and take their guns. That's what I say." (This seems to corroborate with Rittenhouse's claim that Rosenbaum lunged for his rifle.)

She also points out that Rosenbaum's face is visible throughout all the video footage except for the very last footage showing him chasing Kyle Rittenhouse. In this footage he randomly has his shirt off and wrapped around his face into a ninja-like mask.

Also just to point out, the whole time it seems like every black person there is trying to calm Rosenbaum down, he's kicking bins and ranting while black women tell him to stop, saying he's going to get them all shot, it's not worth it etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Dude sounds like a jackass.

Sorry guys, the semester starts today and I don’t have the time to keep up with this if I want to keep up with my own writing/research outside of teaching.

Thanks for the responses though.