Harrison Bergeron

As someone else noted, it is funny glancing through the old Garrett Foster thread (Austin guy carrying a long gun that got shot after he brandished it), and the many of the same guys ripping Rittenhouse oddly have sympathy for Foster and do not seem concerned with his carrying or his insane social media posts. To be fair, there are a couple of reasonably consistent posters.

Fucking a fake racism chicken somewhere per usual.

Expert means "agree with me" ...

You seem to have an unhealthy amount invested in the outcome of the trial of a Wisconsin minor.

Okay. That's actually funnier than anything on the Lulz board. I actually would love to read your Form 500 details.

You just described every member of antifa.

This is a great summary post. I will reiterate that I am sick and tired of a segment of the twattering class picking on minors and made exponentially worse by at best pushing misinformation and at worst intentionally lying about said minors. The ideological media should be embarrassed and ashamed. If one has to pick on children to make stupid political or cultural points, one should re-examine their lives. Made worse still by the fact that these same groups regularly defend actual criminal conduct if the perp is wearing the right jersey and demand that no prior information be considered when evaluating a particular incident. This obviously was purely a political prosecution (against a minor). It was refreshing to see an old school judge basically give the double bird to the twatters and hypocrites.

To be frank, given the shoddy nature of journalism in general and particular in this case, I would not believe anything around intent unless it was a primary source. Even that newspaper acknowledges "a voice that sounds like Rittenhouse." By today's journalism standards, that could mean it sounded male. Again, I am not assigning a motive either, but I do not think we have any evidence his intent was to shoot or to confront.

I agree with 90% of your post and appreciate the levity. It is rare these days, especially for high volume CRers. I am not sure I agree with your assign motive. Admittedly, I am not a scholar of this situation, but I am not familiar with clear evidence that his motive was anything other than to help people and to protect businesses. If he stated otherwise, I'll gladly stand corrected. I agree with you that he is not a hero, but I think it is a little Motte & Bailey to act like there is this great attempt to elevate him as such. If anything, this is an example of the frequently repeated (to cite another source) "Republicans Pounce" lines. What is meant by that is the Left will do something stupid, the Right reacts, and the story becomes "Republicans Pounce." In this affair, this case for no justifiable reason other than division was elevated to a national story, and the ideological media (once again) completely misconstrued a situation involving a minor to fan the flames of division and feed read meat to its ideologue audiences. So right are wrong, it is not unexpected that some would react to that slander and libel and exaggerate the "goodness" of his actions. I have said previously that I generally oppose the nationalization of these local crime cases. Our ideological media spends too much time trying to fan outrage and division by nationalizing local stories at the expense of good and comprehensive national and international journalism.

Please let this happen. It will be fun to watch.

In this crazy, divided world, there is one thing we can agree on ... the world cries out for more aggys.

It seems really weird that this elicits they typical tribal histrionic reaction. I have no idea if it will succeed or not, but there is a lot of information content in the cartoonish responses. U.S. higher education has some significant problems, and I welcome anyone attempting an innovative model. I also like the idea that it wants to return to the academy to its traditional values of liberalism and freedom. Time will tell if the market wants it.

It does great work ... although I wish it would avoid the high profile, money raising cases of people so obviously guilty.

Or that he's a crazy, mouth-breathing racist, MAGA deplorable ... depends on the hour.

That's probably the best outcome for him at this point. Get's the mistrial, keeps crazies at bay. Hopes nutjobs find some other read meat to get outraged about and quietly does not re-try.

He chose to be there. His presence did not violate any laws. He did not choose to be attacked. I have not seen any evidence that points to his provoking attack. If that is going to be your standard, fair. Now apply it equally not only to this case but to all cases as well as other issues where people put themselves in bad situations. I would be willing to bet you would not apply this standard across the board, i.e. if someone puts themself in a bad situation "they get what they deserve."

I get the sense that Rittenhouse is a naive, well intentioned kid ... kid being the operative word. I agree with the above that he wants to speak for himself and set the record straight. Too bad he is not old enough to realize that is not really possible in our system. The CNN headline will be: "White Supremacist who Stormed the Capitol Tells Jury He Wanted to Fight for Trump When He Killed Three Peaceful Protesters Who were Standing Up for Racial Equality."

Bless your heart.

FIFY.

You're basically trying to paint a hypothetical where a guy comes into a store, puts a weapon in the clerk's face and demands all the money from the til. You're asking the clerk to ponder whether his intent is the do a quick count to make sure the cash matches the receipts before returning all the money and wishing you a good day.

Where have you been hiding ... they don't do documentaries on innocent people.

And virtually every one of these cases that rise to some sort of "national dialogue." It is deliberately evil because it is divisive and creates a ignorant public. As you noted previously, there is a reason why those that identify themselves as "very liberal" or "liberal" believe there are thousands of unarmed black men killed by police every year. Even "very conservative" people reported they think there are hundreds. The CR crazies are telling: they had so much emotional hysterics invested in this case driven by deliberate misinformation they cannot process the actual trial testimony, which is why they've devolved into the usual bogey men and histrionics.

That seems like a textbook threat that would warrant a self-defense response. If person A is not pointing the gun at person B and person B attempts to take the weapon from person A, seems like the only reasonable inference person A could make is that person B is attempting to do person A harm with said weapon. The media coverage of this trial may be the only thing slightly more fascinating than the actual performance in the courtroom. Feels like its entered "mostly peaceful protests" realm.