Kyle Rittenhouse Trial (Jacob Blake Protest Shooting)

Bow to Royalty said:
Trash tweet. I swear some people just are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, hoping they can't do their own research. We all know what kinda situation is implied when you say someone got shot in the back, and anyone that's seen the video knows that's not the situation that happened.

Do any of y'all think saying someone was shot in the back doesn't imply they were trying to get away, or got snuck up on? Do any of y'all think his first victim was trying to get away from him or was snuck up on?

Don't support the spread of misinformation just because the person's on your side.
Click to expand...
You’re right Rittenhouse is the real victim.
 
5th Letter said:
You’re right Rittenhouse is the real victim.
Click to expand...

Bruh, read. My post wasn't about who was the victim.

Don't duck and divert shit. Regardless of who you think was in the wrong. Was that Tweet trying to mislead people to think the situation was different than what the video showed it to be?

If Rittenhouse was in the wrong, then tell the truth and let people decide he was in the wrong.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Bruh, read. My post wasn't about who was the victim.

Don't duck and divert shit. Regardless of who you think was in the wrong. Was that Tweet trying to mislead people to think the situation was different than what the video showed it to be?

If Rittenhouse was in the wrong, then tell the truth and let people decide he was in the wrong.
Click to expand...
He. Was. In. The. Wrong. Why do you care about how a murderous vile racist domestic terrorist is portrayed?
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Bruh, read. My post wasn't about who was the victim.

Don't duck and divert shit. Regardless of who you think was in the wrong. Was that Tweet trying to mislead people to think the situation was different than what the video showed it to be?

If Rittenhouse was in the wrong, then tell the truth and let people decide he was in the wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not understanding your point. Was the victim shot in the back or not? If the victim was shot in the back then how is a tweet that only says the victim was shot in the back misleading. You're basically criticizing the tweet because you make a bunch of assumptions when hearing someone was shot in the back and then assume that the person writing the tweet believes everyone thinks as you do and made the tweet with that knowledge in mind. That's silly.

I think the point being made is that people are acting like everyone Rittenhouse shot was some aggressor that was bearing down on him with the intent to do him harm. Obviously that's not the case if one of his victims was shot in the back.
 
5th Letter said:
He’s a domestic terrorist. Do you disagree with people who commit domestic terrorism?
Click to expand...

I never said I agreed with any of his views, or his choice to go up there armed. I said speaking legally he was defending himself.

Like I said earlier, you're having a problem being objective. You're saying he should be in jail because of your emotions and feelings. I'm just saying legally it looked like self defense.

Me: It looks like self defense. He was running away from the guy. So since he was running from the conflict, the other guy will probably be seen as the aggressor. That'll probably go down as self defense unless the other guy had a valid reason to be attacking him.

You: Oh ya? Well look at him attending a Trump event!

Me: um....OK? I'm just saying like with these guys. While he was on the ground after running away from them they kicked him in the head and pulled a gun on him. So after they were jumping him like that, it seems like he has a credible self defense claim.

You: SO WHAT?! HE POSTED BLUE LIVES MATTER ON HIS FACEBOOK. AND HE PUNCHED A GIRL BEFORE IN THIS VIDEO.

Screenshot_20200901-122032_Chrome.jpg
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I never said I agreed with any of his views, or his choice to go up there armed. I said speaking legally he was defending himself.

Like I said earlier, you're having a problem being objective. You're saying he should be in jail because of your emotions and feelings. I'm just saying legally it looked like self defense.

Me: It looks like self defense. He was running away from the guy. So since he was running from the conflict, the other guy will probably be seen as the aggressor. That'll probably go down as self defense unless the other guy had a valid reason to be attacking him.

You: Oh ya? Well look at him attending a Trump event!

Me: um....OK? I'm just saying like with these guys. While he was on the ground after running away from them they kicked him in the head and pulled a gun on him. So after they were jumping him like that, it seems like he has a credible self defense claim.

You: SO WHAT?! HE POSTED BLUE LIVES MATTER ON HIS FACEBOOK. AND HE PUNCHED A GIRL BEFORE IN THIS VIDEO.

View attachment 350134
Click to expand...
You typed all that but he wasn’t supposed to have that gun in the first place. Moot point.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I'm not understanding your point. Was the victim shot in the back or not? If the victim was shot in the back then how is a tweet that only says the victim was shot in the back misleading. You're basically criticizing the tweet because you make a bunch of assumptions when hearing someone was shot in the back and then assume that the person writing the tweet believes everyone thinks as you do and made the tweet with that knowledge in mind. That's silly.

I think the point being made is that people are acting like everyone Rittenhouse shot was some aggressor that was bearing down on him with the intent to do him harm. Obviously that's not the case if one of his victims was shot in the back.
Click to expand...

I'm down to have an honest discussion with you, but we gotta be honest. Does only saying someone was shot in the back imply anything to most people that hear it? And you think intentionally not listing any of the other places he was shot didn't have a purpose?

The person shot in the back was the first person he killed. It's on video. Have you watched it? And in the interaction between the 2 of them who did you see as the aggressor in the video?

Just looking for honest answers.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I'm down to have an honest discussion with you, but we gotta be honest. Does only saying someone was shot in the back imply anything to most people that hear it? And you think intentionally not listing any of the other places he was shot didn't have a purpose?

The person shot in the back was the first person he killed. It's on video. Have you watched it? And in the interaction between the 2 of them who did you see as the aggressor in the video?

Just looking for honest answers.
Click to expand...

I honestly haven't followed this story that much. I wasn't commenting on the details of the story as much as your contentions. I think the problem is less with people pointing out the victim was shot in the back and more with not saying that that person was shot in several places and its unclear which shot was first or most grievous.

I don't know what the person intended with that tweet, but I don't think you can automatically assume that person was trying to be misleading. I think it may be more likely that the person was succumbing to confirmation bias. He/she believed Rittenhouse was in the wrong, the information about the victim being shot in the back supports that, so the person ran with it. That's the pattern that's played out everyday for both sides.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
I'm down to have an honest discussion with you, but we gotta be honest. Does only saying someone was shot in the back imply anything to most people that hear it? And you think intentionally not listing any of the other places he was shot didn't have a purpose?

The person shot in the back was the first person he killed. It's on video. Have you watched it? And in the interaction between the 2 of them who did you see as the aggressor in the video?

Just looking for honest answers.
Click to expand...

Post the video of the 1st shooting I haven't seen it
 
The Lonious Monk said:
I honestly haven't followed this story that much. I wasn't commenting on the details of the story as much as your contentions. I think the problem is less with people pointing out the victim was shot in the back and more with not saying that that person was shot in several places and its unclear which shot was first or most grievous.

I don't know what the person intended with that tweet, but I don't think you can automatically assume that person was trying to be misleading. I think it may be more likely that the person was succumbing to confirmation bias. He/she believed Rittenhouse was in the wrong, the information about the victim being shot in the back supports that, so the person ran with it. That's the pattern that's played out everyday for both sides.
Click to expand...

It's fine for you to not follow the story like that. You're a normal person. But the woman that posted that is a news correspondent for NBC. So she doesn't get the same pass of posting without being informed. That was an original tweet by an established news anchor. She doesn't get to plead ignorance or run with information just because she likes it.

Bruh, it sounds like you haven't watched the video. Please do, so you can see the situation of the shooting. For the person they're talking about, you don't see him get hit and you can turn it off before they show his body. You don't have to see the gore, but check out the situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top