FWIW the police in Kenosha did a pretty good job of shutting down the rioting. On the first day of the rioting the city used garbage trucks to block off roads, and was able to repel rioters from down town. The next day when it was obvious the city was in for more rioting, the Governor activated the Wisconsin National Guard, and the police were generally effective in driving rioters out of downtown Kenosha.
Note that quelling a riot isn’t going to be story book perfect. Things are still going to get broken and damaged. But at least in downtown Kenosha for the first two nights of the riot, it would not be fair to say the authorities didn’t resist the riots or didn’t shut them down–in fact they did, with force.
Where the shooting occurred was on the South side of Kenosha along the “main drag of town”, near a hospital complex and where the downtown area starts to give way to more residential areas. About .8 to 1mi further north is where the “heart” of downtown is, and is where the police had been successfully shutting down rioting. Part of the reason a lot of the people who were in and around the businesses further South had chosen to go down there is because it was where the police weren’t, and frankly they knew they would be able to get away with rioting and breaking shit down there.
It’s worth noting Kenosha had a daytime protest that was peaceful and with virtually no property damage. The simple reality is a huge proportion of the “protesters” who showed up that night, specifically avoiding areas of police control in the core of downtown, was deliberately to destroy property and cause damage.
Ironically I have the opposite complaint, where protesters are described as a mob bent on violence but Rittenhouse’s group of armed civilians also out in violation of curfew are just concerned citizens protecting themselves. I agree - if it’s fine for one group to be armed, why is it a sign of ill intent for the other to be? And if it’s not fine for one group to be out and acting in a confrontational manner, why is it fine for the other to be?
And if both sides were breaking the law, why were the police “glad” that one of the groups was there? Is it because the other side was protesting against excessive police violence? Why are the people demanding more accountability from the police not “exactly citizens out to help their fellow man” but the people wanting stronger reactions from the police - some of whom are in this very thread - somehow public-minded citizens?
So I’m “defending” them against people who appear to be perfectly fine with the exact same behaviors by the people on their side, and are de facto pro-police brutality to boot. I’m defending against rampant hypocrisy and a vast smear campaign against the victims of a shooting that didn’t need to happen. And I’m defending against the people who think there should be more Kyle Rittenhouses out there.
It’s never going to be admitted because to do so would be to admit that it’s fine to engage in political violence to advance far left ideology. The intellectual inconsistency and twisting of definitions and gaslighting aren’t accidental.
Hey, still waiting for that evidence from you that the three people shot were engaged in looting and rioting. You did insist it was a “FACT” so I assume you have some.
Because I haven’t been convinced by the narrative of the prosecution. Also, my defense, such as it is of Rittenhouse, it pretty narrow…I think he acted in extremely poor judgment, don’t think he should have either been there at all or taken a gun. However, based on the purely legal aspect of this, what I’m really opposing is the people who are trying to spin this to black and white Rittenhouse was some evil person and the protesters were some sort of concerned citizens just trying to protect people from harm. The reality is much different and doesn’t seem to be getting much play from those trying to paint the picture strictly in terms of the prosecution’s narrative. I understand why the prosecution painted this…I don’t understand at this point why people are still parroting it so vehemently.
At any rate, that’s why I’m ‘defending those people’.
Well, yes…exactly. But this doesn’t seem to be being acknowledged much by those trying to paint this wrt the prosecution’s narrative.
Well, that’s the thing…neither side was breaking the law simply by being armed. Where this went off the rails is when someone tried to take away another weapon and the shooting started. Until then wrt to the law and wrt just carrying a weapon openly no laws were broken. So, Rittenhouse et al were within their rights as were the protesters…until there was confrontation and shooting.
But you aren’t acknowledging the finer points, instead of trying to spin this the way you are. Do you acknowledge that the people who confronted Rittenhouse were felons, and the first guy especially had a history of instability and violent behavior? That this confrontation came about when this guy was confronting and ultimately trying to chase Rittenhouse and take away his weapon…something he didn’t have any more right to do than an anti-protester would have had to take away one of the protesters openly carrying a weapon? Because if not then that’s the crux of the disagreement.
Why would it matter? I see why if Octopus made the claim asking them to back that up, but the 3 people shot weren’t shot for looting…this was a strictly self-defense claim at its heart. I guess I don’t see the point of any of that.
That said, I think Martin’s excellent post a few up from here touches on the circumstantial evidence that the folks there weren’t there to protest…but, as far as I know, they hadn’t done anything wrong wrt looting at that point. In fact, none of these guys had, afaik, done anything wrong until this went off the rails.
Yep, this is just how it’s going to be spun in the future. Any gathering or protest by the “wrong” people will automatically be called a riot. The usual media suspects will churn up fear (and ratings!)
And no matter what the police response, the armed vigilantes will be encouraged to grab their guns and head on down. As soon as someone looks at them funny- well that will be provocation enough.
You mean like when a mainstream media person is on tv reporting “peaceful protests” when there is a video of a burning building on the screen behind him?
Ultimately my view of the situation agrees with yours, then. It was a massive clusterfuck. I don’t have a problem with the verdict per se - what Rittenhouse was guilty of (apart from the curfew thing) was being criminally stupid and bringing a gun into a volatile situation which could only make things worse. I’m aware that the guns there were (by and large) legally carried - but what were they hoping to accomplish with them? Because this “good guy with a gun” narrative is a fantasy.
Is their history relevant? Does the narrative you pick change the actions on the day? Gaige Grosskreutz has a criminal record but is also a trained paramedic who was wearing his paramedic hat and carrying medical supplies (which ended up being used to save his life) with the stated intent of being there in case medical assistance was needed. He also had a gun - does that trump his lifesaver role? Or does it make him a staunch defender of himself and innocent people?
I’ve asked previously about the timing of events because the timeline I’d heard involved a shot (not fired by Rittenhouse) going off before Rosenbaum charged Rittenhouse, and that Rosenbaum may have erroneously assumed Rittenhouse was an active shooter and wanted to stop him. If that’s so (and note that I have caveated this), it again places this firmly into “clusterfuck” territory rather than “crazed violent thug attacks innocent boy for no reason whatsoever”.
It matters in the context of his repeated characterizations of the three as “rioters and looters” while simultaneously decrying the practice “smearing the victim” (by which he meant Rittenhouse). He insisted that he wasn’t smearing the three and that it was a “FACT”, and that any attempts to say otherwise was “SPIN”. But he keeps forgetting to provide me with any evidence of this.
Well, I’d hate to think he’s been spreading a nasty smear against them in error. I’ve been led to understand that it’s a “very bad look”.
They certainly appear to be for you and for the right-wing media, given your previous reluctance to accept the fact that roughly 95% of the George Floyd protests were indeed peaceful and the deliberate and repeated conflation of those peaceful protests with the minority of violent ones by FoxNew et alia.
I haven’t heard that. So, your thought is that the shot fired caused the others involved to think it was Rittenhouse shooting and a direct, clear threat? Just trying to see where you are coming from.
I think it’s most relevant in the first guy’s actions, yes. Rosenbaum was, I believe, the catalyst for this going off the rails, and his actions were definitely both strange and erratic…again, IMHO. He seems to have confronted Rittenhouse, then tried to chase him and ultimately cornered him and tried to take away his gun. I believe the subsequent actions of the others involved stemmed directly from this initial confrontation and results. And I think the fact that Rosenbaum had a history of erratic behavior and violence is directly relevant to how this played out.
That’s fine and I think fair enough, so I’ll leave you two to work that out. I don’t have a dog in that fight, as, again afaik, there wasn’t any looting or rioting going on wrt the various players in this drama prior to the events that occurred. Was just curious.
That is an interpretation of events consistent with the timeline I’ve heard. And if Rosenbaum was inclined to react erratically, it might make him more inclined to jump to the wrong conclusion. Which wouldn’t change Rittenhouse’s view of needing to defend himself, but would explain the actions of the others.
I agree with a lot of the sentiment here, and I don’t think it’s productive, politically, or otherwise, for the left to try to be justifying rioting. I was highly dismayed today to see the following image shared by a friend of mine on Facebook.
I don’t believe there is ANY GOOD to come of anyone proclaiming shit like this. It’s almost like I wonder if that photo is part of some kind of false-flag disinformation campaign. Nobody should be saying shit like “I would burn the city down too.” First of all, cities haven’t “burned down.” Buildings WITHIN the city have been set on fire during riots, but literally “burning the city down” as if the entire city is on fire, is hyperbole of the type the right wing accuses the left of wanting to do, so why give them the validation? Secondly, deliberately setting fires, even if the buildings are empty of occupants, puts the lives of firemen at risk. A fire isn’t a protest sign with a message, fire is fire, it will spread wherever it wants to spread and burn whatever is in its path.
If we have a situation in in this country where “the left” or “the Democrats” are perceived as, in the main, being sympathetic to rioting and arson, then we are in extremely serious trouble, because it means the right is going to capitalize on this sentiment and promote the idea that every city in America is perpetually on the brink of rioting and that people need to “be prepared” the way that Kyle Rittenhouse was “prepared.”
The other shitty thing about that is just about every prominent black person who was killed by alleged or confirmed police misconduct in recent memory, the families have said the exact opposite, almost universally the families of these killed people have begged for protests to remain peaceful and not to engage in looting and rioting.
