Kansas Crimson

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:01 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:53 am

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:49 am

Again, you think you’re being so clever by picking and choosing the narrowest aspects of this and pretending there isn’t anything else going on.

Where do you think the defense got all the money for jury consultants, mock trials etc.? I believe the lead defense lawyer when he says he’s not a cause lawyer. But, the culture war-stoking right is what funded the defense. And that was very very VERY much about race.

So, you know this to be fact, or you just want it to be so? If it is the former, I’d love to see some evidence.

On what exactly? Who funded the defense? Go find the lead lawyer’s interview with Chris Cuomo from last night. He’s quite transparent about all of this.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:11 am 5 questions of the day for psych!

1.
a. Do you think anyone would have been out there protesting if a cop didn’t shoot a black dude 7 times in the back in front of his kids?

I'm sure some of them were protesting for that very reason. I'm guessing there were also plenty of opportunists who were out there to get their fire-starting, property-destruction, general mayhem jollies. At any rate, the Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful protest and peaceful assembly. Riots don't fall in that category.

b. Do you think the Kenosha protests would have been as likely or as escalated if the nation wasn’t already in the wake of the protests over a cop kneeling on a handcuffed black guy’s neck for 9 minutes as he cried for his mommy?

No idea.

2. Was Kyle out protesting in favor of BLM, or did he go out instead as some rogue force against it?
Since all I have to go on is his sworn testimony, I'll choose Option C - neither. He was asked to defend private property from being destroyed by out of control people.

3. Even if the OK hand sign was just an innocent coincidence, then why was Kyle posing for photo ops with the Proud Boys either way?
So, the Proud Boys are White Nationalists, even though they have membership from mutliple races? You are, I assume, aware that the Chairman of the Proud Boys, who is doing a 75 day stretch in the pokey for his actions surrounding January 6th, is a gentleman named Enrique Tarrio, who is decidedly not White.

4. If all the paramilitary cops just casually drove right past a kid fleeing with an assault rifle, who or what exactly were they looking for, then?
People burning and looting and destroying buildings, maybe? You know, the important stuff?

5. When an oppressed demographic says “race is totally a factor” and when the oppressor demographic says “this has nothing to do with race,” which view is more appropriate to hold as the more objective valid truth?
I don't buy the "opporessor" premise of your CRT talking points, so I have nothing to say to your question, aside from a protracted sigh and eye roll that you can neither see nor hear.

twocoach wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:09 am

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:20 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 9:15 am

The White man (actually kid) and those he shot were in conflict due to what began as a racial issue. True or not?
You really have no idea if Rittenhouse has any association to/with white supremacy - or not. Do you?

So, because it was a racial issue that touched off the riots, anyone who tried to defend private property being destroyed is racist? That’s a pretty big leap in logic.

As to your second question, I have no evidence to tell me that he wasn’t, other than the fact that he wasn’t targeting people of color, nor do I have evidence that he was. Neither do you. So, why jump to negative, unwarranted conclusions?

The notion that this had anything to do with defending private property is absurd. Give it a break.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 10:55 am Nice try, CoyDC!

If you’d like me to reply to your question, I only think it’s fair for you to reply to my questions first.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:36 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 2:34 pm Sour grapes around here are palpable. You all should go out and break some windows, set some fires, and throw some rocks. That'll show 'em!

Are there any reports of this? Or are you just showing your ass?

Overlander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:16 pm "He was asked to defend private property from being destroyed by out of control people."

No, he wasn't.

defixione wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:08 pm https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 298822001/

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:16 pm Not sure it works this way, but if they DID ask Kyle to be their security that night, would that put them on the hook for civil liability?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:48 pm

Overlander wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:16 pm "He was asked to defend private property from being destroyed by out of control people."

No, he wasn't.

Car Source, Inc. of Kenosha says hello.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:37 am

sdoyel wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 11:20 am Fox News was very much allowed in the Rittenhouse family and Legal Defense inner-circle. The lawyer admitted as much last night on Cuomo.

The lawyer had some pretty impressive thoughts on the challenges Rittenhouse will face going forward. Suffice it to say becoming Tucker’s apprentice is not consistent with what the lawyer advised.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:16 pm Not sure it works this way, but if they DID ask Kyle to be their security that night, would that put them on the hook for civil liability?

JKLivin wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:11 pm

defixione wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:08 pm https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cri ... 298822001/

Watch the testimony. Dude was bending over backward to either pretend he didn’t speak English or avoid admitting that he asked Rittenhouse to guard the lot. It was almost comical. Not believable in the least.