One cop indicted on 3 counts in Breonna Taylor killing

Post Reply New Topic

Quite possible. That would have been added to the other bits - her (or registered at her address) car (white one in photographs) being used, his use of her address as being his residence, etc. also would have contributed, but there's no details on how recently these things occurred.

With the information in the video, there are a lot of possible opinions people can have - More information helps people make more informed opinions...What does seem clear is her race does not appear to have been a factor in the events that occurred that night, and the outcome would likely have been the same regardless of the race(s) of the people involved.

The police were white and they knew the house they were "raiding" was occupied by a black family. Why were you so confident that race wasn't a factor?

MAY have "mucked it up"...There was evidence that indicated this possibility, and there is also evidence to support the possibility that it was correct, but that the "stock" had been removed recently (earlier in the day\previous day).



No-one said he wasn't - He had a legitimate "self defence" claim (As I noted elsewhere, I have heard he had called 911 to report someone outside the appartment). Likewise the police also had a "self defence" claim in firing back (well, 2 did).

Similarly, had he not fired, the police would have been unlikely to have fired at either of the appartments occupants.



It would be nice if you could stop with the "right wing are evil" routine and the insinuation that trying to provide details\facts which your preferred media source ignore is "fiercly defending"...It is actions such as yours (trying to hide\discredit known (and inconvenient) facts and actual laws) which leads to problems when those who have not been provided all relevent information are surprised by the outcomes (such as in the Breonna Taylor case under discussion).



* Was Kyle approaching the people he shot (aggressor), or was he approached by them (making them the aggressor)?
* Did Kyle make the first known aggressive action in the interaction (remember, carrying a weapon is not an aggressive action, no matter how much you may wish it to be)?
* Was Kyle there to help people\protect property, or to cause destruction (Based on KNOWN facts, not wishes/opinions)?
* Were the people who were shot there to help people\protect property, or to cause destruction (Based on KNOWN facts, not wishes/opinions)?

Based on all known facts, at present Kyle does not appear to have been the aggressor, only fired as a result of an attack on his person, was there to help people, and those shot were there (at least in one instance) to cause damage\destruction and not to help people/protect property.

On a side note, as far as I recall, I only mentioned their background once, by the way, regarding how, of all the rioters present, all the ones who attacked him and were shot had criminal records, and how that probablilty may have reflected on the predominant make-up of the rioter's population....Their background was unimportant with regards to what occurred to them: It was their actions on the night that were the only relevent considerations.

Do you have evidence that they did anything special\different as a result of that, than what they would have done otherwise?

If not, then, as I stated, "her race does not appear to have been a factor in the events that occurred", no matter how much you may wish it was.

I think these two factors are what make our perspective/values on this so different. Let me put it another way

Right wing/conservative perspective - Kyle and his buddies in the Kenosha Militia had the right to turn up fully armed in the middle of a war zone where Antifa was waging a war on innocent police and public property. Kyle was brave in wanting to provide first aid and protect innocent people.

Mainstream perspective - Kyle was under-aged, he crossed state lines to put himself in danger and was not meant to be carrying a loaded weapon and not mean't to be out beyond a curfew imposed at 8pm. He put himself in a position where he was witnessed harassing people and pointing his loaded gun in a threatening manner prior to the shooting. By putting himself in this situation he caused the deaths of two innocent people and injured one who were all exercising their democratic right (ironically espoused by republicans as well) to protest police brutality.

There is no evidence Kyle was doing anything other than confront protestors with a loaded weapon and his narrative that he was there to support police and public property was a cover story to hide the fact he is a gun nut with visions of taking on antifa and BLM fed by propaganda from groups like the Kenosha militia who are now taking a vow of silence to pretend Kyle was not associated with their group (despite evidence was with them prior to the shooting) is some innocent kid who bravely took it upon himself to be a hero.

And do you have evidence the police involved wouldn't behave differently if they were staking out a nice white family? I call stalemate on that one

Notice how I said it did not APPEAR to have been a factor...I never stated it wasn't, just that there was no evidence to show that it was.

Before jumping in, please read and comprehend what you are replying to: It will save everyone some time.

I'm pretty confident we have different values when it comes to "comprehending" the difference between right and wrong.

I'll leave at that.

As far as I can tell from the facts that have been published:
He was in the town ealier in the day to help remove grafitti left by rioters the previous night (the town is the nearest major one to where he lives, and he worked in the town).
His friend, who he was with, was asked to help protect innocent people's property from the rioters, and he agreed to help.

Your "mainstream" claims seem more in line with the rioters and their enablers rather than an honest main-stream opinion, whilst your "conservative" opinion, although phrased in a disparaging manner, seems to include mainly known, verifiable facts.

There a lot of unfounded assumptions made in your assertions, too, which does nothing to increase the credibility of it. I will note, however, that it was the actions of those who attacked him which led to what occurred to them: Had they ignored him (there is no evidence that he had done anything to any of those people) and left him alone, then it is highly unlikely anyone would have been shot by him...



Except for that inconvenient footage of him offering first aid to the injured rioters earlier in the evening...And no footage of him confronting protesters with the weapon prior to his having been attacked.

How about we rephrase what happened:
To a sane person, knowing facts avaialble:
Kyle was a person who had been helping repair damage done to a nearby town the previous night. whilst there, he was asked to help protect the property of an innocent buisness owner in the town from the rioting mob expected to return that evening, he agreed to, attending in order to be able to provide first aid, but having been provided a weapon for his defence by a friend. Later in the evening, he was approached and chased by a male who threw an object at him, and attempted to wrestle the gun away from him, where he fired 4 rounds in self defence. When returning to call for help and perform first aid a group started chasing him, at which point he ran towards police. During this time he was attacked and fell to the ground, with multiple people attacking him (either kicking him, hitting him with an object, or moving at him with a gun in hand), to which he fired 1-2 shots at each threat (and only at those threats). He then approached the police to hand himself in and was told to move on.

To those with minimal interest\awareness of the facts:
Kyle was under-aged, he crossed state lines to put himself in danger and was not meant to be carrying a loaded weapon and not mean't to be out beyond a curfew imposed at 8pm. He put himself in a position where he was witnessed harassing people and pointing his loaded gun in a threatening manner prior to the shooting. By putting himself in this situation he caused the deaths of two innocent people and injured one who were all exercising their democratic right (ironically espoused by republicans as well) to protest police brutality.

I'm happy to revise my opinion, based on verifiable facts. I'm not going to make assumptions about something when there are no verifiable facts to support it, whether I wish it to have been a certain way or not, nor am I going to ignore verifiable facts which do not support my opinions.

I guess the different outlooks come from rational\logical thinking, as opposed to emotional thinking.

I'll address two glaring points you seem to be consistently supporting that require rebuttal.

No sane person would support a 17 year old going into a volatile situation with a loaded weapon. I'm afraid that's just nuts (to clarify the opposite of sanity which is insanity).

What friend would give a loaded weapon to a teen and ask them to defend themselves by shooting protesters?

Rittenhouse has a history of espousing right wing views so giving him a loaded weapon was dangerous like throwing meat to a starving dog.

I'm sorry but I doubt mainstream sane minded people don't buy Rittenhouses story or his motive or intent



I'm afraid you keep perpetuating a myth for the sole purpose of give Rittenhouse's actions credibility. 90-95% of the BLM protesters were peaceful, they can;t be described as rioters. The people Rittenhouse shot and killed were all unarmed as were most of the protestors who were there.

There is an attempt by Trump supporters to paint protesters as rioters which is incorrect
https://time.com/5886348/report-peaceful-protests/

You are falling for a narrative (rather enthusiastically I might add) thats evidently false

I suppose it depends on how responsible and community-minded the 17 year old was, and what he was there for...Just because you cannot imagine something occurring based on your own culture\beliefs\actions at that age doesn't mean they apply globally.


Setting aside the fact you don't know the age of the friend (Maybe he\she was 18), Weapons don't need to be fired in order to be defensive: The mere presence and possibility of harm if attacking an armed person can be sufficient deterent\defence. The fact that one of the peopl who approached him towards the end of the evening was NOT shot at also disproves assumptions that he was "trigger happy".



Not sure what you have against the "right", nor what evidence you have to support your constant, unfounded assertions against people on that side of the political spectrum...

There has been no evidence produced to indicate an intention to cause harm to innocent people by him, and the only time he fired the weapon was as a result of attacks upon himself, and only aimed at the attackers.



I'm sorry you have such a low opinion (and understanding) of the general public, and such a poor grasp of the facts and laws related to what occurred...Have you considered getting out and meeting people from outside your bubble to find out what the real world is like?



Person 1 - armed - projectile, chased Kyle with no known provocation, threw item (projectile in bag) at Kyle, then trying to take hold of and gain control of Kyles firearm.
Person 2 - Unarmed - trying to kick Kyle in the head (potential severe injury if contact made).
Person 3 - Armed - blunt weapon - tries to bash Kyle over the head with weapon and to wrestle control of Kyle's weapon from him.
Person 4 - Armed - Handgun - approaches Kyle while he is on the ground. Stops when Kyle moves his gun towardss him, then charges in when Kyles gun is no longer aimed at him.

You grasp of the facts is disappointing (though not unexpected), considering these have been provided on multiple occasions.



There were protesters. There were rioters. The rioters hid behind the protesters and the protesters did nothing to stop them, making them accomplices (wiling or otherwise) to the actions of the rioters.



Projecting your own flaws onto others isn't a good sign, you need to learn how to stop doing this.

The latest news is that Rittenhouse is trying to fight extradition.

Kyle Rittenhouse Attorneys Plan to Fight Extradition to Wisconsin
https://www.wsj.com/articles/kyle-ritte ... 1601050319

Which is weird and futile, however, there must be some reason.

Delay? Milk more donations? Keep it in the news?

Good to know the FBI is looking into the warrant.

Not having to spend months in custody awaiting trial?

It seems like right now he's being held in jail.

So, it seems like the opposite, he's delaying a bond release.

"Kyle Rittenhouse is currently at a juvenile facility in Illinois with his extradition hearing delayed for 30 days"
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1403514/ky ... nse%20team.