Kyle Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

Is there a place to find the entire video of events uncut? All the youtube links do not show the entire thing it seems.

Here's a video which I posted in the previous thread around the time the events occurred, that combines a lot of the footage that was available then, over the first 13 minutes of it (from memory), with a breakdown of each video afterwards:

Trash talk it is. How original...

Tell me you didn't bother to read it, without telling me you didn't bother to read it

There are in fact, very few, if any accusations whatsoever in that entire "wall of text" - that amazingly does in fact have paragraph breaks, thus precluding it being a "wall of text" unless you mean "writing a lot", in which case, yes, I did write a lot. So?

On a side note, having an autistic person hurl the concept of classical autism at another autistic person as an insult, just feels like a kid with big thick coke-bottle glasses calling another kid with big thick coke-bottle glasses, "four-eyes". All you do is hurl insults. Am I supposed to take you seriously cos you make fun of me at the expense of slurring a condition you share? Boy, you're really smart, you are...

Now, as mentioned above, I will reiterate, if you have a specific claim, please provide the appropriate reference material and explain it accordingly. If my previous statement is ever so unhinged, please demonstrate so. "BuT iT sHoUlD bE oBvIoUs!" So? Pretend I'm stupid. You do that anyways. Explain it. Demonstrate it. Prove it. Else you're just making noise and hope people believe it.

Which part was more unhinged? The part where I said that owning a firearm involves responsibilities, or the part where I said that firearms training and awareness were important. Yeah. Those are def the words of a madman. Utterly unhinged. Crazy talk.

Last edited by uncommondenominator on 18 Nov 2021, 10:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Okay thank you. So far at 4:00 into the video, you can hear shots fired and the subtitles say it was Rittenhouse shooting. But how can they tell, since the person with the rifle is so far away, you cannot identify him as the same person who turns up later (Rittenhouse).

@Dox47, As a matter of discussion protocol, while I agree with you that controversial statements should be backed up if one wants others to take them seriously, IMHO not every point needs back up. Personal observation points, personal experience points, personal opinion points, and generalized accepted knowledge points (like the sky being blue - or a blue looking version of purple, which some argue) should be free to post without requests for back up. This is a community discussion board, not a law board or news article, and at some level people should feel free to contribute their thoughts without being required to do homework and find the right links first. I'm a big advocate for making it clear which pool a contribution is being made from, but they can all have their place. Unsupported observational conversation may not always appeal to either of us, or feel challenging enough to draw our participation, but it is still a valid way to hold a community conversation, IMHO.

I feel like there are areas I know quite a bit about, as do you. Neither of us link out all our points when we discuss those areas; we assume our backgrounds (to the extent known) speak for themselves. I accept that not everyone will be willing to rely on my opinion, and may ask for the backup. At that point its my decision if I want to find the backup so they will see why I wrote as I did, or if I don't want to take the time because, honestly, I'm not sure it matters enough. If I care about what they will assume I will at least acknowledge the question. But sometimes I may not see the question or make it back within a reasonable time frame to locate and address it.

To "win" or hold influence, of course, more rigorous standards apply. But not everyone cares about winning. Sometimes people just like to have their piece heard. Or, at least, have it sit there in case anyone cares.

I know you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on all this because we see the concept of what makes a board strong differently. But if feels worth repeating how I feel given recent interchanges. We both want a strong, healthy, Wrong Planet; a place we both care a lot about. We just have slightly different ideas of what that looks like.

Since this is an open discussion board, it should all be OK. No one is forced to be here, and no one should be forced to conform to anyone else's idea of what a conversation should look like.

I'm just working with what you give me, I haven't engaged with you in months and not at all in this thread, yet you come in with this long post smearing me, and apparently expected a different result than the one you got. Unfortunately, I did read that mess you posted, and determined that there was nothing there worth really engaging with, but since you saw fit to insult me, protocol demands a rejoinder; I'm sure you understand.

You first, you made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about me in that post, and so you don't get to demand evidence without providing any of your own. Same standard, links and evidence.

Also, dude, the cAmeLcApS are super dated and you do them at least once per thread, get a new bit already.

I think you give a lot of your own, to be blunt.

But you also made what I believe are some valid points about the law in your posts in this thread.

I really have no interest in watching you all throw shade at each other, availability of popcorn notwithstanding. Nor do I want to be caught up on all the obvious history involved.

I made literally one claim about you: "As much time as you spend calling people biased, stupid, incompetent, emotional, and generally undercutting people personally..."

And given that your response to that is to hurl insults, and before that you were hurling insults, how is that wrong?

Who's doing any forcing? I'm not a mod, the most I can do is inflict some discomfort by exposing poor reasoning, or in this case, reacting to a lengthy insulting post directed at me with a brush off, I don't see where you're getting "forcing" from.

Are any of my observations about other posters here actually wrong?

Oh certainly. But it's not ALL I do. If people wanna play mudball, I can play that too. My only issue that there's ONLY trash talk. All noise, no substance. I'm ok with playing dirty. That's how the real word is. Hence why I don't tell them to be quiet, or to stop. I do in fact openly invite them to continue.

Even if I jumped through all the moral hoops they expected me to, they'd still say I was doing somethings wrong, and they'd still break the same rules they claim to value, only enforcing rules when YOU break them. Rather than get off topic into a debate regarding the rules of engagement, I just play by the same sketchy rules that they seem to follow.

Wait, did you somehow get the idea that that whole post is entirely about YOU?

I mentioned you ONE TIME. In a short two sentence paragraph.

The majority of the post was talking about gun laws and legal consequences and responsibilities of firearms owners.

No, really, tell me you didn't read it without telling me you didn't read it.

Did I say I thought the whole post was about me? Shouldn't someone with so much legal expertise know better than to respond to things that haven't actually been said?

And that, right there, is why I don't engage with you any more than I can help it, this thread has page after page of me, Pepe, Brictoria, and others explaining the legal aspects of this case at great length, but then you parachute in and brush all of it aside as so much "trash talk". What a joke.

I've found that their "contribution" to a thread is generally "ONLY trash talk. All noise, no substance", so I didn't even bother looking at their latest wall of text.

I can't even recall a single post they have made to\in reply to me that hasn't contained a significant amount of slights\abuse\insinuations....Maybe they have replied otherwise, but it's the frequent abuse from their posts which stands out in my memory.