Kenosha shooting suspect Kyle Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Endus]

I don't disagree with assertions that Rittenhouse's actions are largely indefensible; however, whether he is actually a white supremacist is not known. While circumstantial evidence is important in trying to determine whether this is the case, what has been presented does not appear sufficient to make that determination and the appending of irrelevant descriptors (i.e.: white supremacist, KKK, etc.) just makes the core evidence for his wrongdoing seem weaker than it is (i.e.: it makes it seem like he didn't actually do anything wrong, so villainizing him through association to deplorable groups/beliefs is used to imply guilt). If there's evidence to the contrary I'm open to it, but from what I'm aware the rumors of his ties to white supremacists group all center around a single image of him with some Proud Boys, where we don't even know if he has any meaningful ties with the group or has a full understanding of what the OK symbol means within that context, especially considering that the OK symbol isn't something that many people understand (i.e.: how it is a white power symbol).

Again, I'm open to more evidence if additional developments have occurred, and I'm aware that prosecutors have requested restrictions on Rittenhouse's bond over the image (which I believe was approved), but I've not seen anything that actually convinces me that this evidence therefore means that he is definitely a white supremacist. Moreover, what he did wrong should be strong enough to condemn him without having to add on additional descriptors that may detract from criticisms of him.

He was ostensibly in Kenosha as part of a militia that opposed Black Lives Matter. Literally the only reason to oppose that movement is white supremacism.
He's been seen hanging out with Proud Boys since; they're a violent white supremacist terror group.
The judge had to adjust the terms of his bail a couple weeks ago to state he was no longer allowed to hang out with white supremacists, because Rittenhouse was doing so flagrantly.
He's flashed White Power symbols himself, personally.

I don't need to see his Klan hood literally on his head to figure this shit out.

And no; recognizing that this shithead is a white supremacist doesn't reduce the merit of the evidence arrayed against him or indicate that it is somehow weak. I have literally no idea where you're getting that concept from.

[cubby]

He was ostensibly in Kenosha as part of a militia that opposed Black Lives Matter. Literally the only reason to oppose that movement is white supremacism.
He's been seen hanging out with Proud Boys since; they're a violent white supremacist terror group.
The judge had to adjust the terms of his bail a couple weeks ago to state he was no longer allowed to hang out with white supremacists, because Rittenhouse was doing so flagrantly.
He's flashed White Power symbols himself, personally.

I don't need to see his Klan hood literally on his head to figure this shit out.

And no; recognizing that this shithead is a white supremacist doesn't reduce the merit of the evidence arrayed against him or indicate that it is somehow weak. I have literally no idea where you're getting that concept from.

Have they found him yet?

[Felya]

This is an oddly hostile reaction, unless this event was personal to you. Strange to insert the KKK out of nowhere as well.

Sorry, it wasn’t intended with hostility... I’ll try to be more sensitive to... who exactly? Whose feelings did I hurt? Educate me, so I don’t do it again.

Also, please tell me you are not referring to the “ok” hand gesture.

No, I mean the white power gesture... Kinda like when I say swastika, I am not talking about Buddhist. Is this the part you are sensitive about? Is the okay symbol a religious symbol, nazis are taking over again? Because if that’s it, might want to complain about nazis using it, instead of those pointing out that they are.

- - - Updated - - -

The KKK are white supremacist terrorists who have murdered people.

The people who took a picture with, are indeed the modern version of KKK. I can call them by their militia names, but then the complaint will be about Hawaiian shirts and frogs named Pepe... you know... how the white power sign is just an okay symbol... it’s just Hawaiian shirt fans and people who really like break dancing movie sequels...

[Magical Mudcrab]

He was ostensibly in Kenosha as part of a militia that opposed Black Lives Matter. Literally the only reason to oppose that movement is white supremacism.

As far as I am aware, the militia was formed against the riots which were damaging local businesses, which were perpetuated by the black bloc (i.e.: anarchists) and unrelated to BLM. That is, the "militia" he was a part of were there in opposition to property damage that was occurring because of riots, and these riots were regularly condemned by BLM. From the evidence we have, he didn't go there with the sole intent of killing black people, as you seem to be implying.

He's been seen hanging out with Proud Boys since; they're a violent white supremacist terror group.
The judge had to adjust the terms of his bail a couple weeks ago to state he was no longer allowed to hang out with white supremacists, because Rittenhouse was doing so flagrantly.
He's flashed White Power symbols himself, personally.

I don't need to see his Klan hood literally on his head to figure this shit out.

No, but you at least need a reasonable amount of evidence that he is a white supremacist. If you could prove that he knew the people in the photograph prior to the meeting in question, that would be at least sufficient to show a preexisting relationship with members of the Proud Boys. As of right now, there's as much evidence that he simply met people in a bar and got along with them (i.e.: local Proud Boys notice that he's at the bar and the meeting is coincidental, with them approaching him because of the controversy).

And no; recognizing that this shithead is a white supremacist doesn't reduce the merit of the evidence arrayed against him or indicate that it is somehow weak. I have literally no idea where you're getting that concept from.

If someone were to rob a store, and you were to describe their crime and then followed up by adding various other problems you believe they have (such as stating they have ties to racist groups), what it appears as though you're doing is attempting to convince people of wrongdoing by marring them with irrelevant descriptors, rather than focusing on the issue in particular. What's more is that when you add irrelevant descriptors of people, and if those irrelevant descriptors are ever proven as being untrue, or are ever in question, people will be less likely to believe other statements made about the individual because it calls into question your description/interpretation of events.

Just as a side note, as I know someone will try and say that I am in support of Rittenhouse, I just want to be unequivocally clear: Rittenhouse almost certainly guilty of what has been alleged, having committed multiple counts of homicide (esp. reckless homicide)\. He knowingly injected himself into a potentially dangerous situation, aware that some of rioters had been violent in the past, and ended up killing people. This was a 2+2=4 situation and it is not surprising that it played out as it did.

[Elegiac]

As far as I am aware, the militia was formed against the riots which were damaging local businesses, which were perpetuated by the black bloc (i.e.: anarchists) and unrelated to BLM. That is, the "militia" he was a part of were there in opposition to property damage that was occurring because of riots, and these riots were regularly condemned by BLM. From the evidence we have, he didn't go there with the sole intent of killing black people, as you seem to be implying.

Y'all really out here just taking dogwhistles at face value, huh.

No hun. "Protecting local businesses" is code in the same way that "protecting local women" was code. Ask Emmet Till how that turned out.

[Edge-]

It's weird how casually we treat an armed group of untrained militia members that show up without being asked, to protect property that's not theirs and they weren't asked to protect, in a city where they don't live, using weapons that may or may not legally be theirs, and this is like...normal.

I mean, just think about it on its face. Where the fuck else does this happen other than America? Any developed nation? Or is this the realm of third world bullshit and America just has a lot of cosplay paramilitaries?

[Endus]

As far as I am aware, the militia was formed against the riots which were damaging local businesses, which were perpetuated by the black bloc (i.e.: anarchists) and unrelated to BLM. That is, the "militia" he was a part of were there in opposition to property damage that was occurring because of riots, and these riots were regularly condemned by BLM. From the evidence we have, he didn't go there with the sole intent of killing black people, as you seem to be implying.

Given that the protest they were counter-protesting was a BLM protest, you're wrong.

You really should engage in a bit more critical thinking when white supremacists lie to you about shit like this.

Also, I said nothing about any "sole intent of killing black people". Don't make up ridiculous shit.

No, but you at least need a reasonable amount of evidence that he is a white supremacist.

Frankly, no. I don't. I am not a court of law, and there is no standard of evidence to which I am to be held.

At best, you might try and make a claim that I am engaging in slander, but then the onus would be on you to demonstrate that no reasonable person could believe that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, based on what I have stated.

And that's not just an uphill battle, that's a cliff face.

[quote]If you could prove that he knew the people in the photograph prior to the meeting in question, that would be at least sufficient to show a preexisting relationship with members of the Proud Boys. As of right now, there's as much evidence that he simply met people in a bar and got along with them (i.e.: local Proud Boys notice that he's at the bar and the meeting is coincidental, with them approaching him because of the controversy).

Whether there's any "pre-existing relationship" is completely fucking irrelevant.

Why are you playing defense for a white supremacist murderer?

If someone were to rob a store, and you were to describe their crime and then followed up by adding various other problems you believe they have (such as stating they have ties to racist groups), what it appears as though you're doing is attempting to convince people of wrongdoing by marring them with irrelevant descriptors, rather than focusing on the issue in particular. What's more is that when you add irrelevant descriptors of people, and if those irrelevant descriptors are ever proven as being untrue, or are ever in question, people will be less likely to believe other statements made about the individual because it calls into question your description/interpretation of events.

Hate crime laws exist, dude.

Just as a side note, as I know someone will try and say that I am in support of Rittenhouse, I just want to be unequivocally clear: Rittenhouse almost certainly guilty of what has been alleged, having committed multiple counts of homicide (esp. reckless homicide)\. He knowingly injected himself into a potentially dangerous situation, aware that some of rioters had been violent in the past, and ended up killing people. This was a 2+2=4 situation and it is not surprising that it played out as it did.

And yet, you're trying to hand-wave away the ethnonationalism and bigotry, for some reason. They may not be relevant to his criminal prosecution (though they may be), but they're absolutely relevant to us thinking his a colossal fucking shithead of a human being, even aside from the whole "multiple murders" thing.

[Elegiac]

It's weird how casually we treat an armed group of untrained militia members that show up without being asked, to protect property that's not theirs and they weren't asked to protect, in a city where they don't live, using weapons that may or may not legally be theirs, and this is like...normal.

I mean, just think about it on its face. Where the fuck else does this happen other than America? Any developed nation? Or is this the realm of third world bullshit and America just has a lot of cosplay paramilitaries?

Weirder how we're in 2021 and still pretending a bunch of armed conservative reactionaries assembling to oppose POC and their allies isn't a lynch mob, to boot.

[Edge-]

Weirder how we're in 2021 and still pretending a bunch of armed conservative reactionaries assembling to oppose POC and their allies isn't a lynch mob, to boot.

"There's no history of angry, armed, white 'counterprotesters' showing up to any Civil Rights protests, either to actively intimidate or to engage in the actual use of force."

To boot, a lot of them carry the thin blue line flag...you know, the one carried by the same folks that assaulted the Capitol building and assaulted dozens of officers, potentially killing at least one. Because it's totally not a racist symbol that only exists as a racist reaction to BLM.

[Elegiac]

"There's no history of angry, armed, white 'counterprotesters' showing up to any Civil Rights protests, either to actively intimidate or to engage in the actual use of force."

To boot, a lot of them carry the thin blue line flag...you know, the one carried by the same folks that assaulted the Capitol building and assaulted dozens of officers, potentially killing at least one. Because it's totally not a racist symbol that only exists as a racist reaction to BLM.

Ban the Punisher logo while we're at it.

[Edge-]

Ban the Punisher logo while we're at it.

Fuck that noise, they can't co-opt that shit. That shit is extremely anti-them, though I'm not surprised to see these mouth breathers don't actually know what the Punisher actually fuckin stands for.

He's way too cool to be tainted by these fuckwits. Superpowers? Nah, just guns. And he'll still take on plenty of superheroes with actual superpowers. And win.

[Endus]

Ban the Punisher logo while we're at it.

Disney owns Marvel.

Disney's real lawsuit-y.

If Disney's gonna pull shit like fining a school for showing "The Lion King" without paying for licensing, they can and should sue every single police department where an officer is caught using that emblem. Sue the entire department, and put the number in the eight-figure range.

The silliest damn thing about this is the kind of cops that use that emblem are exactly the kinds of fuckers that Castle would hunt down and hate-murder in the first place. Even if they want to consider Frank Castle a hero (problematic, at best), they'd be the villains they're cheering him for butchering.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Also, I said nothing about any "sole intent of killing black people". Don't make up ridiculous shit.

No, but you have implied it.

Frankly, no. I don't. I am not a court of law, and there is no standard of evidence to which I am to be held.

At best, you might try and make a claim that I am engaging in slander, but then the onus would be on you to demonstrate that no reasonable person could believe that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, based on what I have stated.

And that's not just an uphill battle, that's a cliff face.

OK, then there's nothing to actually discuss here because, by your own admission, you aren't concerned with actually demonstrating this fact. I can only assume you're doing it with the intent of piling on descriptors, hoping people don't question them.

Whether there's any "pre-existing relationship" is completely fucking irrelevant.

Why are you playing defense for a white supremacist murderer?

Being concerned about whether people are correctly describing a situation is not the same as playing defense for a white supremacist, especially considering that I've, at multiple points, condemned his actions. I've even gone so far as to leave caveats because, if his connection with white supremacists is shown, I'm more than happy to acknowledge this and back off the point. The fact that you are unwilling to demonstrate that he is a white supremacist, which I'm open to, and still persist in trying to group anyone who disagrees with you with him shows you are pretty blatantly trying to be a bad faith actor. I'm concerned with people not taking the situation seriously because people like you appear more concerned with piling on irrelevant descriptions that make people question the legitimacy of the other claims, rather than focusing on what he did.

Hate crime laws exist, dude.

Yes, but that's totally irrelevant. The quote there was stating that adding these descriptors with the intent to mar people, especially if it's irrelevant to the case, only risks people calling into question the entire series of events you describe. If you want to demonstrate its relevance by giving building the case that you believe what he did was a hate crime, that's fine.

And yet, you're trying to hand-wave away the ethnonationalism and bigotry, for some reason. They may not be relevant to his criminal prosecution (though they may be), but they're absolutely relevant to us thinking his a colossal fucking shithead of a human being, even aside from the whole "multiple murders" thing.

Implying that anyone who disagrees with your assertion that he is, without question, a white supremacist is inherently OK with white supremacism or are white supremacist themselves is so disgustingly degenerate. He is an awful person, and he is not being defended. As I've stated multiple times, my problem is with people piling on these irrelevant descriptors because they will, at best, do nothing, and at worst make people question the legitimacy of claims made against Rittenhouse.

- - - Updated - - -

Y'all really out here just taking dogwhistles at face value, huh.

No hun. "Protecting local businesses" is code in the same way that "protecting local women" was code. Ask Emmet Till how that turned out.

If people want to make the argument that Rittenhouse and the militia was there with the intent of instigating a fight with and killing members of BLM, I'm open to hearing that; however, that doesn't appear to be what has been asserted here. If I have fundamentally misunderstood what someone is arguing for, I'm OK with addressing that.

[Elegiac]

If people want to make the argument that Rittenhouse and the militia was there with the intent of instigating a fight with and killing members of BLM, I'm open to hearing that

I'm about to blow your mind with this, but fun fact: "innocence until guilt is proven" and "people raised in X culture are inherently racist" are not mutually exclusive statements.

Y'all perpetuate the myth that racism is an active decision that requires specific intent when that is not how it has ever worked in reality; we're just told it works like that in order to absolve most people of being complicit in perpetuating an unjust system since in that worldview racism is a function of a few bad apples. It's the analogue to Disney's Pocahontas interpretation of colonialism: "it was only bad because of this one greedy dude and once they got rid of the greedy dude it was all kino. Now buy our toys.".

[Edge-]

If people want to make the argument that Rittenhouse and the militia was there with the intent of instigating a fight with and killing members of BLM, I'm open to hearing that; however, that doesn't appear to be what has been asserted here. If I have fundamentally misunderstood what someone is arguing for, I'm OK with addressing that.

What other motivation is there for a group of armed white men to travel to a town they don't live in to "protect" property that isn't theirs, that they weren't asked to protect, knowing full well that their "enemy" would be BLM protesters?

The closest comparisons to that behavior I can think of are groups like the 3% and Patriot Prayer which...are actual white supremacist groups. Rittenhouse may not have specifically intended to join a group of white supremacist fucks that night, but it seems that's what he did.

And that he continues to hang out with them, specifically Proud Boys, at a bar where he's flashing known white supremacist symbols (the context is obvious, this wasn't a call sign for a NBA play or whatever they're called and he wasn't just giving an "OK" gesture) speaks to the fact that even if this was all unknowing to begin with, he's continuing that behavior.

Sure, he may not be joining local cross burnings, but his repeated choice of company seems pretty telling. Him being on the run from the cops is just a "bonus" that speaks to his criminality, separate from any views on race.

[Dead Moose Fandango]

Snip.

Stop apologizing and making excuses for some kid that murdered people and seems to enjoy hanging with racists. Seriously, it's not a good look.

[Endus]

No, but you have implied it.

That's not how implication works.

I said Kyle was a white supremacist. There's a whole hell of a lot to white supremacy other than just "killing black people".

OK, then there's nothing to actually discuss here because, by your own admission, you aren't concerned with actually demonstrating this fact. I can only assume you're doing it with the intent of piling on descriptors, hoping people don't question them.

I already have demonstrated that fact. Both to you directly, earlier today, and earlier in the thread. I was pointing out that even though I had clearly done so, there isn't even a requirement that I do so. Despite you claiming there was.

Being concerned about whether people are correctly describing a situation is not the same as playing defense for a white supremacist, especially considering that I've, at multiple points, condemned his actions. I've even gone so far as to leave caveats because, if his connection with white supremacists is shown, I'm more than happy to acknowledge this and back off the point. The fact that you are unwilling to demonstrate that he is a white supremacist, which I'm open to, and still persist in trying to group anyone who disagrees with you with him shows you are pretty blatantly trying to be a bad faith actor. I'm concerned with people not taking the situation seriously because people like you appear more concerned with piling on irrelevant descriptions that make people question the legitimacy of the other claims, rather than focusing on what he did.

I've already demonstrated that he's a white supremacist. That's why I'm calling you out on this sealioning tactic you're using.

He's done white supremacist things, supported white supremacist movements, hung out with white supremacist people, and killed racial justice protestors that we was counter-protesting as part of a white supremacist movement.

We're past just walking like a duck and talking like a duck, here. He's laying eggs like a duck and the DNA in his feathers came back as "totally a duck".

Yes, but that's totally irrelevant. The quote there was stating that adding these descriptors with the intent to mar people, especially if it's irrelevant to the case, only risks people calling into question the entire series of events you describe. If you want to demonstrate its relevance by giving building the case that you believe what he did was a hate crime, that's fine.

Calling a white supremacist a "white supremacist" is not a "mar" or a "slur". It's just a simple truth. It's only a "mar" or "slur" if it isn't true.

There's a reason truth is one of the ironclad defenses against accusations of slander.

Implying that anyone who disagrees with your assertion that he is, without question, a white supremacist is inherently OK with white supremacism or are white supremacist themselves is so disgustingly degenerate.

You're putting a lot of effort into hand-waving away the mountains of evidence that point to Rittenhouse being a white supremacist, while providing absolutely no counter-narrative. You don't have an alternative better explanation of the facts, you just don't like the conclusion.

I also didn't call you a white supremacist. I simply questioned why you'd even make the attempt.

He is an awful person, and he is not being defended. As I've stated multiple times, my problem is with people piling on these irrelevant descriptors because they will, at best, do nothing, and at worst make people question the legitimacy of claims made against Rittenhouse.

If you're arguing that he's not a white supremacist or at least harboring such leanings, then you are defending him, in point of fact.

And you vastly overestimate the influence of one Canadian on the Internet over how seriously people will take the accusations against Rittenhouse. Particularly as, frankly, the facts speak for themselves and I've been clear about basing my position on those facts from the beginning.

[Magical Mudcrab]

I'm about to blow your mind with this, but fun fact: "innocence until guilt is proven" and "people raised in X culture are inherently racist" are not mutually exclusive statements.

This may shock you, but I don't disagree. I fully understand the purpose of BLM and how individuals in a culture can be racist, even if it's in a covert manner (i.e.: support of minimum sentencing legislation, which disproportionately affects black people, for instance).

[Elegiac]

This may shock you, but I don't disagree. I fully understand the purpose of BLM and how individuals in a culture can be racist, even if it's in a covert manner (i.e.: support of minimum sentencing legislation, which disproportionately affects black people, for instance).

The sealioning for Rittenhouse says otherwise, sweaty. Lol.

You really don't get how arguing "calling out Rittenhouse for being a white supremacist means people won't take the other charges against him as seriously" makes you part of the problem, huh?

[Elegiac]

Have you actually been calling people "sweaty" on purpose, or is it just a typo for "sweety"? lol I wonder every time I see it.

I'm protesting Twitter by reviving Tumblr lingo. Duh.