The News Thread

[-CC-]

Century Link brought down the internet to a huge part of the planet last night. Pretty impressive stuff.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what causal mechanism you have in mind to lead to that conclusion.

I'm sure it wouldn't be one causal mechanism, but many. Studies have suggested that if you institute social programs to help people out a little, they'll actually work harder. Same goes for levels of UBI.

The rioting and looting we're seeing now aren't spontaneously arising. They're associated with peaceful demonstrations, which are in response to a lack of social conscience and programs. Address the central issues, alleviate the need for protest, and you take away the space for these kinds of criminal behaviors to happen.

There will still be crime, but what we're seeing now with the rioting is largely opportunism.

You're losing me. One minute we need to defund the police and the next "If you're arrested you're guilty."

I was merely pointing out the contradiction in saying that Rittenhouse isn't the latent criminal element that people with rapsheets are despite the fact that Rittenhouse now has a rapsheet--and a pretty bad one at that. Killing two people ain't nothing.

 

[CiG]

It seems he wasn't, no; but even cops aren't supposed to execute assholes.

If said asshole starts chasing a cop, and the cop shows all restraint by retreating instead of immediately shooting, and said asshole even with full knowledge that his target is armed continues to chase, what then?

I mean, he did those things earlier, no? In the video we see him approaching protesters with a rifle. I don't see how what he did earlier in the day is really relevant to what occurred once he was among protesters carrying a rifle.

There's no footage I know of yet that shows what happened before Joseph Rosenbaum started taunting someone/the armed group to "shoot me, n*gga." All we have is that footage of the taunting and aggression, then we have Joseph chasing Kyle into an area with cars and throwing something at him before the chase continues into the area of cars that obscures them for a few seconds, then you hear the gunshots.

After that we see a man taking his shirt off to put on the victim's head wound as Kyle stands next to the body on his phone, police records say he called 911 and said "I have just killed somebody" or something like that. Then a few seconds later he starts jogging away as the crowd starts chasing him when they realise he shot someone.

What he did earlier is relevant because you're trying to paint a narrative wherein Kyle came to a riot with a rifle and came at people with it. This is blatantly misleading, and I assume it's because you haven't really read much or watched most/all of the footage available. It's no different to saying the guy with the concealed pistol brought a pistol to a riot, when I would assume he brought it to the protest when it was peaceful and then it turned into a riot.

You can't say someone brought something to a riot if the riot formed way after they brought said something. Also just to reiterate something here; Kyle came with a large group. In the footage you can see many people standing around with their rifles. They all came armed before it became a riot and we're not talking a few minutes before but many hours before.

I didn't know you were referring to a legal concept. There's no precedent I'm referring to; I just think it's absurd to expect things to remain calm in a situation like this. I'm not saying the victims are blameless, but unfortunately they're dead. Everyone involved is responsible for this situation, and Rittenhouse is going to have to answer for his poor judgment.

No only two died of the three people he shot. The man with the pistol is alive, he was shot once in the arm.

What poor judgement exactly? Because from everything I know right now, he actually showed an incredible amount of restraint, both in the fact he exhausted his duty to retreat two times before shooting and when descended upon by a large mob of pursuers he only shot people who attacked him and he never wildly sprayed into a crowd or shot someone in excess of threat neutralization. The sad fact is, a 17 year old showed more firearm restraint than most cops involved in shootings that we see so often.

Not one single person was hit by a bullet (that I know of) that was just a bystander and not attacking him.

I have no access to Rittenhouse's internal thoughts or mental state; but given the situation as it's been described and as it appears in videos, one can't reasonably assume that nothing would happen. I don't think we can fall back on these appeals to self-defense and his efforts to retreat after having already arrived. We have to be able to expect people--especially responsible gun owners--to know when they shouldn't go somewhere brandishing a rifle.

There's no evidence he brandished his rifle, and I agree you don't have access to his mental state or internal thoughts, so perhaps it's best to stop pretending like you know his motives or secret agenda? Seems reasonable.

You're well within your legal right to openly carry a rifle at a protest in Wisconsin, so I completely disagree that we can't "fall back" on duty to retreat and self-defense when someone chases you with full knowledge that you're armed, throws something at you and then continues to chase you. How far was he supposed to run before the guy double his age caught up with him? Was he ever allowed to defend himself against Joseph?

My comments on the NRA aren't directly related here; they're in reference to a lot of shit that's been done over the years. I'm not going to rehash it or go find things, but I disagree wholeheartedly that the NRA is just looking out for gun owners' rights. They're an ideology machine, and they've been crafting and sponsoring a narrative about firearms in American history for years now.

I'm not a wholehearted fan of the NRA myself, but I think your claim that the narrative being sold is guns are neutral and do not impact situations makes no sense and I've never seen any evidence it exists.

I was merely pointing out the contradiction in saying that Rittenhouse isn't the latent criminal element that people with rapsheets are despite the fact that Rittenhouse now has a rapsheet--and a pretty bad one at that. Killing two people ain't nothing.

Didn't know he'd been found guilty of anything yet. Link?

 

[Dak]

I'm sure it wouldn't be one causal mechanism, but many. Studies have suggested that if you institute social programs to help people out a little, they'll actually work harder. Same goes for levels of UBI.

The rioting and looting we're seeing now aren't spontaneously arising. They're associated with peaceful demonstrations, which are in response to a lack of social conscience and programs. Address the central issues, alleviate the need for protest, and you take away the space for these kinds of criminal behaviors to happen.

There will still be crime, but what we're seeing now with the rioting is largely opportunism.

I'd agree the rioting is opportunistic but I'm not sure how everything you said here ties together with regard to defunding the police and how it won't eliminate crime, and poverty doesn't have a strong causal connection with crime that I know of, so I'm not sure what the UBI reference is for. It's been completely unclear what the "central issues" are, so it's pretty hard to address it/them.

I was merely pointing out the contradiction in saying that Rittenhouse isn't the latent criminal element that people with rapsheets are despite the fact that Rittenhouse now has a rapsheet--and a pretty bad at that. Killing two people ain't nothing.

Fair enough, I didn't realize rapsheets included arrests even if not convicted. But you know what I mean. Killing two people (and wounding a third) is "nothing" in a legal sense if he is found to have killed in self-defense. He has a pretty strong case and a high profile legal team now so it's certainly possible.

 

[CiG]

Patriot Prayer guy shot dead in Portland. Footage is rough as guts thus far but apparently the victim had pepper spray (eyewitnesses say he'd used it a few times that night) and from what I can see and hear on this video, he's shot a second or two after you hear the sound of his pepper spray (and see some of its mist too) and then the shooter flees.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Patriot Prayer guy shot dead in Portland. Footage is rough as guts thus far but apparently the victim had pepper spray (eyewitnesses say he'd used it a few times that night) and from what I can see and hear on this video, he's shot a second or two after you hear the sound of his pepper spray (and see some of its mist too) and then the shooter flees.

Has anyone determined if this was this an actual conflict between protesters and counter-protesters? The articles have been vague about who was involved in this shooting.

 

[CiG]

Has anyone determined if this was this an actual conflict between protesters and counter-protesters? The articles have been vague about who was involved in this shooting.

The only thing I would say comes close to a fact is that the victim was with Patriot Prayer because he's reported as wearing clothing marking him with that affiliation (I believe a hat).

Other than that yeah the details are sketchy. People have said the victim was using his pepper spray can that night but that's unconfirmed. It's also being called bear mace by others.

From CNN:

Justin Dunlap, who witnessed the shooting and captured some of it on his Facebook live stream, said he "didn't hear much lead up to it."

"I heard like three seconds of yelling and saw a guy spray bear mace," Dunlap told CNN.

"The victim sprayed mace and launched it right into the other guy." CNN has not confirmed if the victim is the person who sprayed mace.

This was streamed 5 hours ago but I haven't watched it yet:

 

[Einherjar86]

Sorry guys, I mixed up rap sheet and record in my mind. He now has an arrest record, which maybe he can get cleared... but I'm doubtful.

If said asshole starts chasing a cop, and the cop shows all restraint by retreating instead of immediately shooting, and said asshole even with full knowledge that his target is armed continues to chase, what then?

There's no footage I know of yet that shows what happened before Joseph Rosenbaum started taunting someone/the armed group to "shoot me, n*gga." All we have is that footage of the taunting and aggression, then we have Joseph chasing Kyle into an area with cars and throwing something at him before the chase continues into the area of cars that obscures them for a few seconds, then you hear the gunshots.

After that we see a man taking his shirt off to put on the victim's head wound as Kyle stands next to the body on his phone, police records say he called 911 and said "I have just killed somebody" or something like that. Then a few seconds later he starts jogging away as the crowd starts chasing him when they realise he shot someone.

What he did earlier is relevant because you're trying to paint a narrative wherein Kyle came to a riot with a rifle and came at people with it. This is blatantly misleading, and I assume it's because you haven't really read much or watched most/all of the footage available. It's no different to saying the guy with the concealed pistol brought a pistol to a riot, when I would assume he brought it to the protest when it was peaceful and then it turned into a riot.

It's the effect of language I've been using. All I mean is that if he had the chance to leave and didn't take it, his actions are irresponsible to my eyes--regardless of how he behaved once the violence began.

No only two died of the three people he shot. The man with the pistol is alive, he was shot once in the arm.

Did he discharge his weapon?

What poor judgement exactly? Because from everything I know right now, he actually showed an incredible amount of restraint, both in the fact he exhausted his duty to retreat two times before shooting and when descended upon by a large mob of pursuers he only shot people who attacked him and he never wildly sprayed into a crowd or shot someone in excess of threat neutralization. The sad fact is, a 17 year old showed more firearm restraint than most cops involved in shootings that we see so often.

You say he exhausted his duty. Again, I'm not convinced; if he ever had an opportunity to remove himself, then I don't think he has an argument. Unfortunately there's no video, so we may have to rely on eyewitness accounts.

There's no evidence he brandished his rifle, and I agree you don't have access to his mental state or internal thoughts, so perhaps it's best to stop pretending like you know his motives or secret agenda? Seems reasonable.

Regardless of whether I have access to his thoughts, I'm saying that if I were to have the chance to speak to him, I'd ask why he was there with a rifle to begin with--and how did he not assume anything would happen?

I can't think of a reasonable explanation to that question, based on the circumstances.

You're well within your legal right to openly carry a rifle at a protest in Wisconsin, so I completely disagree that we can't "fall back" on duty to retreat and self-defense when someone chases you with full knowledge that you're armed, throws something at you and then continues to chase you. How far was he supposed to run before the guy double his age caught up with him? Was he ever allowed to defend himself against Joseph?

I think if he ever had the opportunity to extricate himself (and timelines suggest he did), then he doesn't have much excuse for being caught off guard. Regardless of open carry laws, responsible gun owners know that you do everything to remove yourself from the situation. I'm not convinced he did.

Of course, all this might be irrelevant seeing as he's only seventeen...

I'm not a wholehearted fan of the NRA myself, but I think your claim that the narrative being sold is guns are neutral and do not impact situations makes no sense and I've never seen any evidence it exists.

It would be a whole other post and too much work to go find everything, sorry. Jon Oliver did a helpful segment on it once.

It has to do with their rhetoric, e.g. "good guy with gun" vs. "bad guy with gun." In such a statement, the gun is assumed to be neutral--the rational extension being that if said "good guy" is in a public place with his gun, the gun shouldn't have any impact on the situation.

I'd agree the rioting is opportunistic but I'm not sure how everything you said here ties together with regard to defunding the police and how it won't eliminate crime, and poverty doesn't have a strong causal connection with crime that I know of, so I'm not sure what the UBI reference is for. It's been completely unclear what the "central issues" are, so it's pretty hard to address it/them.

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?

 

[CiG]

It's the effect of language I've been using. All I mean is that if he had the chance to leave and didn't take it, his actions are irresponsible to my eyes--regardless of how he behaved once the violence began.

I suppose that's subjective, so we can agree to disagree there.

Did he discharge his weapon?

No he only brandished it. He also had no legal right to be carrying it, let alone concealing it because he's a felon. But that's an aside, as Kyle would have had no idea this was the case.

You say he exhausted his duty. Again, I'm not convinced; if he ever had an opportunity to remove himself, then I don't think he has an argument. Unfortunately there's no video, so we may have to rely on eyewitness accounts.

Removing oneself from a situation isn't the same thing as a duty to retreat though. His immediate reaction was not to use deadly force, it was to retreat away from a potential altercation. Unfortunately that altercation attempted to chase him down. There actually is video footage of Joseph Rosenbaum chasing him, if that's what you're referring to?

Regardless of whether I have access to his thoughts, I'm saying that if I were to have the chance to speak to him, I'd ask why he was there with a rifle to begin with--and how did he not assume anything would happen?

I can't think of a reasonable explanation to that question, based on the circumstances.

Why was he in the area armed? He was asked as part of a larger group of armed individuals by a local business owner of a car lot (which had already been partially destroyed the night before iirc) to come down and help protect his business from further damage. He was in the state because he worked there as a community life guard, and the rifle he had belonged to a friend of his who lived in the state (it's not true that he brought a rifle across state lines, for anybody who still thinks this is the case).

People who carry rifles openly do assume something will happen, just like someone puts a lock on their door assuming someone might try to break in. It's preventative. I'm not sure I understand the point.

I think if he ever had the opportunity to extricate himself (and timelines suggest he did), then he doesn't have much excuse for being caught off guard. Regardless of open carry laws, responsible gun owners know that you do everything to remove yourself from the situation. I'm not convinced he did.

You can only do so much. You can only run so fast. I don't think this is a reasonable expectation. Furthermore there were many armed people still in the area, you seem to only be applying this high standard to Kyle because he was the one who was targeted. Nobody else needed to leave, nor does it seem they did.

It has to do with their rhetoric, e.g. "good guy with gun" vs. "bad guy with gun." In such a statement, the gun is assumed to be neutral--the rational extension being that if said "good guy" is in a public place with his gun, the gun shouldn't have any impact on the situation.

I don't think the gun is assumed to be neutral, just good or bad based on context. Sorry, just don't think this is legitimate, and I'll pass on watching Jon Oliver.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Soph is the aunt of the girl Jacob Blake raped. Been killing it.

 

[Einherjar86]

All this probably comes down to this bit:

Why was he in the area armed? He was asked as part of a larger group of armed individuals by a local business owner of a car lot (which had already been partially destroyed the night before iirc) to come down and help protect his business from further damage. He was in the state because he worked there as a community life guard, and the rifle he had belonged to a friend of his who lived in the state (it's not true that he brought a rifle across state lines, for anybody who still thinks this is the case).

People who carry rifles openly do assume something will happen, just like someone puts a lock on their door assuming someone might try to break in. It's preventative. I'm not sure I understand the point.

Precisely that openly carrying a rifle in a volatile situation is never only preventative; it's also instigative. My earlier comments about neutral firearms are actually at play here, albeit tacitly. You're saying that Kyle is allowed to carry his gun openly in this scenario, and that people shouldn't have reacted the way they did. You're saying his carrying a weapon can't be part of the blame. It alone shouldn't affect people's behavior (there's another implicit belief here that lefties don't know how to act around guns, that they get all snow-flakey; I'm not attributing that to you, but it's part of the rhetoric).

I'm saying the gun can and should be part of the blame, and that truly responsible gun owners should know and respect this fact (that goes for Rittenhouse and the victim with the handgun). Guns are always more than just guns. It sounds like you don't buy this, but that's the way I see it.

His carrying a weapon in this situation can't be separated from the political statement of doing so--especially in the vicinity of what was happening, and then using it on people. The specifics of the assault, that he tried to retreat, that others pursued him... all these things don't make up for the fact that he didn't seem to think his being there with a gun would matter.

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.

 

[rms]

Soph is the aunt of the girl Jacob Blake raped. Been killing it.

fake bro.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jacob-blake-sexual-assault-charge/

Whoever created the widely shared graphic therefore took a screenshot of an authentic list of charges against Blake, including third-degree sexual assault, but juxtaposed it with an excerpt from the laws of a different state, in order to give readers the entirely false impression that Blake had been accused of committing an act of sexual penetration against a child. He had not. Claims that Blake was a “child rapist” and had “raped a child” were therefore baseless.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

fake bro.

Oh shit account suspended. https://twitter.com/lifeisasoph/

 

[CiG]

Precisely that openly carrying a rifle in a volatile situation is never only preventative; it's also instigative. My earlier comments about neutral firearms are actually at play here, albeit tacitly. You're saying that Kyle is allowed to carry his gun openly in this scenario, and that people shouldn't have reacted the way they did. You're saying his carrying a weapon can't be part of the blame. It alone shouldn't affect people's behavior (there's another implicit belief here that lefties don't know how to act around guns, that they get all snow-flakey; I'm not attributing that to you, but it's part of the rhetoric).

I'm saying the gun can and should be part of the blame, and that truly responsible gun owners should know and respect this fact (that goes for Rittenhouse and the victim with the handgun). Guns are always more than just guns. It sounds like you don't buy this, but that's the way I see it.

His carrying a weapon in this situation can't be separated from the political statement of doing so--especially in the vicinity of what was happening, and then using it on people. The specifics of the assault, that he tried to retreat, that others pursued him... all these things don't make up for the fact that he didn't seem to think his being there with a gun would matter.

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.

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."

As an aside, I don't personally count Joseph Rosenbaum among "the left" because I've seen no evidence to suggest he was ideological, probably just out with the crowd because it's an event and (I know big assumption here) he hates cops.

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.

 

[CiG]

RE Blake;

The "rape" charge against him is because he returned to his ex's home and during an argument he forced his hand into her genitals and said after sniffing his hand "it smells like you've been sleeping with other men" or something like that.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Soph is the aunt of the girl Jacob Blake raped. Been killing it.

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.

 

[rms]

RE Blake;

The "rape" charge against him is because he returned to his ex's home and during an argument he forced his hand into her genitals and said after sniffing his hand "it smells like you've been sleeping with other men" or something like that.

sounds like rape to me lol

 

[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.