Proud Boys call for 'stacking up' bodies 'like cord wood' after Rittenhouse verdict

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  17 comments

By:   Matthew Chapman (Raw Story - Celebrating Years of Independent Journalism)

Proud Boys call for 'stacking up'  bodies 'like cord wood' after Rittenhouse verdict
On Friday, NPR reported that extreme right groups are rejoicing at the acquittal of Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse — and are fantasizing about instigating more violence in their private channels."In one Telegram channel for the far-right Proud Boys, some noted they had taken the day off work to aw...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



proud-boys-at-nashua-school-board-meeting-marc-nozell-twitter.png?id=28002047&width=980&height=551 Proud Boys at Nashua school board meeting (Twitter).

On Friday, NPR reported that extreme right groups are rejoicing at the acquittal of Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse — and are fantasizing about instigating more violence in their private channels.

"In one Telegram channel for the far-right Proud Boys, some noted they had taken the day off work to await the verdict," reported Odette Yousef. "'There's still a chance for this country,' wrote one. In another channel, a member stated that political violence must continue. 'The left wont stop until their bodie(s) get stacked up like cord wood,' he wrote."

As the report noted, "Rittenhouse himself is not known to be a member of an extremist group. But the trial, which from its beginning became a cause and rallying cry among conservatives who champion gun rights, has been particularly alarming to extremism researchers."

Rittenhouse successfully claimed self-defense after he crossed state lines to safeguard businesses with an AR-15 style rifle during the protests against the Jacob Blake police shooting, which led to confrontations that ended with him fatally shooting two people and injuring a third.

In addition to far-right groups, some Republican politicians are congratulating Rittenhouse, with Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) even suggesting he come work for them as an intern.

SmartNews


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Trump is fundraising off the verdict

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     2 weeks ago

Good upstanding Americans. /s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Let's all make generalizations about others based off one anonymous statement on the internet

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago

Defending the Proud Boys now? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago

Lol.. Who fucking knows who these anonymous people are. COuld be a Proud boy. Could be a fed. Could be the liberal journalist who needs a story. Could be a bored 13 year old. Could be a progressive false flag.

Cherry-picking  anonymous statements off the internet and claiming they mean something is a fools game. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

and Jan 6 was a false flag. we know all about it.... 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

n 6 was a false flag. we know all about it..

Did I say it was? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
4  Drakkonis    2 weeks ago

Great. Another illogical narrative.

As the report noted, "Rittenhouse himself is not known to be a member of an extremist group. But the trial, which from its beginning became a cause and rallying cry among conservatives who champion gun rights, has been particularly alarming to extremism researchers."

In other words, yeah, we can't link Rittenhouse to extremism but we're going to do our best to make the connection anyway. More, if you are an advocate for the second amendment we are going to link you with extremists. And, lastly, we're going to state it's alarming researchers but we won't tell you why so that you can feel free to craft whatever narrative works for you. Nice.

Rittenhouse successfully claimed self-defense after he crossed state lines to safeguard businesses with an AR-15 style rifle during the protests against the Jacob Blake police shooting, which led to confrontations that ended with him fatally shooting two people and injuring a third.

And, even though any relatively educated person knows Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with an AR15, we're going to continue stating that he did for the uneducated, which makes up most of our base. And we're going to continue to word it so it seems like Rittenhouse's fault. 

In addition to far-right groups, some Republican politicians are congratulating Rittenhouse, with Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ) even suggesting he come work for them as an intern.

Because doing so is obviously right up there with mass shootings, pedophilia, medical experimentation on the disaffected and leaving your shopping cart in a parking space at the supermarket. Okay, maybe that's a bit too flippant, but I doubt it. What's really going on here is the assumption that the Rittenhouse verdict is obviously a gross miscarriage of justice and these politicians are elevating a stone cold killer, thereby promoting what's usually labeled as fascism or some such nonsense. 

I've been watching YouTube vids on the left's reaction to the verdict. They are, of course, very unhappy. Most of them begin with some crap about how we need to respect the legal process and then immediately describing all the reasons why we need to disrespect it. To reject it. Near as I can tell, justice to the left is a court verdict should be determined by the prevailing narrative put out by the left rather than the facts of the case and what the law requires. If it doesn't do that, then it's an obvious miscarriage of justice. 

And our public education is producing these idiots in ever increasing quantities. Isn't that nice???

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @4    2 weeks ago

We have had individuals on this site who have claimed if you have a gun in public and someone "attacks" you , unarmed, you would be justified in shooting them.

Now, THAT , is a problem. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
4.1.1  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 weeks ago

Ok john. you’re out in public with your conceal carry weapon. All of a sudden an unarmed thug starts a fight with you. He starts beating the living shit out of you to the point you start to wonder if you’ll survive. You’ll lay there and take it rather than pulling out your gun, ensuring your survival?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

what percentage of those trigger happy gunowners will jump the gun on wondering if they will survive?

It sure as hell wont be zero. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
4.1.3  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

I take your non-answer to be yes, you’ll lay there and take it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

So you want everyone to be armed , shoot when they feel concerned about their survival, and leave it up to the good judgement of such individuals in a country where there are millions of morons?  Sounds like a plan. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
4.1.5  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

“So you want everyone to be armed ,”

no, only law abiding citizens. 

“shoot when they feel concerned about their survival,”

if they are legitimately concerned about their survival at that point then yes. That is called self defense, a right every single individual on the planet should have. 

by the way, where is your outrage at all the shootings in chicago? Innocent peopke getting shot and killed, even kids. Never once do i see you condemn those shooters and call for their punishment. Why is that?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
4.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 weeks ago
We have had individuals on this site who have claimed if you have a gun in public and someone "attacks" you , unarmed, you would be justified in shooting them.

I know. I'm one of them. What you apparently don't seem to want to pay attention to is that context matters. If some belligerent ass hat comes up and shoves me I'm not going to plug him. Whether or not I actually shoot an attacker will depend on the context of the situation. For instance, suppose I'm in the middle of an angry crowd that definitely doesn't have my best interest in mind and there's no obvious help close by. Further suppose some of them are running in and trying to do me damage. Just spit balling here, but suppose someone with a skateboard tries to cave in my head or some guy takes a running jump kick to my head. Maybe someone is in my face and points a gun in my face. I know. What's the likelihood of something like that happening, right? But. But if it did, that would be a situation where I'd probably start giving some people lead poisoning.  

I'm not going to attempt to speak for you but I'm perfectly cool with describing what I feel you are about concerning this. That is, I'm going to describe the impression I get from what you and others have to say about this. 

Sanctity of life. While I agree that life is sacred, what you guys try to do with it is a distortion. It seems that there is no justifiable reason for defending oneself. Apparently, if someone is attacking you in the manner Rittenhouse was being attacked, you feel there's some sort of fair play rule involved or that you have the responsibility to risk your own life in order to avoid taking the other guy's. 

Okay, so let's examine Rittenhouse's actions according to these rules. Rosenbaum, who had already threatened to take Rittenhouse's life, goes after Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse either points his gun at him or in his general direction while Rosenbaum is still some distance away. I don't know what your threat assessment skills are like but according to mine, I figure I would need a death wish to think it would be a good idea for me to start closing on a person with an AR-15 from that distance. But not Rosenbaum. If he did any sort of threat assessment it was either grossly inaccurate or he simply didn't care. He starts to run at a person he's twice threatened to kill if he can and has, you know, a gun? I can't help but wonder how much thought Rosenbaum was putting into the idea of the sanctity of life at that point. 

So, anyway. What does Rittenhouse do considering the man who obviously registers prominently on the crazy scale do about the situation? Why, he runs away! Why? Is he frightened? I know I would be. What he doesn't do and gives the lie he went there intending to shoot people is shoot the crazy man who's threatened to kill him. Nope. He runs away. 

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, it turns out the place Rittenhouse runs to is a bunch of cars that, up until the first shot, was peacefully being destroyed by peaceful protesters, many of whom had some sort of club or similar improvised weapons they were employing in a peaceful fashion. Now, I can't say with evidence what was going through Rittenhouse's mind when he reached the cars but it seems pretty reasonable to me that running further into a peacefully hostile crowd might not be a viable option for continued survival. So, he turns around and, from my perspective, when it becomes clear that Rosenbaum isn't going to stop and may intend to sanctify Rittenhouse to death, Rittenhouse shoots. 

Which brings up another point. The prosecution made a big deal about Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum four times, as if it was ridiculously unwarranted number of shots. Apparently, the prosecution felt that any reasonable person would have stopped after the first shot. After all, Rosenbaum was incapacitated by the first shot that hit his pelvis. Okay, let's play with that idea. Apparently, even if Rittenhouse had been justified in defending himself in that specific situation in the prosecution's estimation, the proper response would have been to fire one shot, raise an eyebrow and rub chin while he assessed the effectiveness of that shot. Did it hit? Did it do enough damage to save his own life? Should he shoot again? Where should I shoot him next if he's still a threat?

After all, that's what the police do. One of them fires one shot and then they have a palaver about the effectiveness of that shot. Oh. Wait. That's wrong. They pretty much throw as much lead as they can as fast as they can until they either run out of ammo and have to reload or it's obvious the target has moved on to a better place or simply isn't moving anymore. Rittenhouse didn't do anything any police officer wouldn't have done in the same situation.

But, but, but, they're police officers!!! Uh, yeah. The only difference between a police officer and a civilian is that the police have qualified immunity. They don't have a greater right to self defense than a civilian. Put another way, self defense protects civilians as much as it does police, while qualified immunity gives police protection for going after people, a privilege civilians don't have because they don't have the authority to go after people. 

Instigator. Even addressing this one makes me feel like I've entered the realm of negative I.Q's. Suppose peaceful protesters were peacefully burning down homes in my neighborhood. By the arguments I've heard, if I stood out in my front yard with my AR-15, which after twenty years in the Army I definitely know how to use, I would be the instigator if all the peaceful, home burning protesters went after me. Ah! But Rittenhouse wasn't defending his home! Fair enough. So suppose I stood in my neighbor's yard with my AR-15, which after twenty years in the Army I definitely know how to use, and defended his house? Now am I the instigator? But Rittenhouse wasn't defending anyone else's house, either. Okay, fair enough. So, suppose peacefully violent protesters wanted to go to the place where I work, intending to burn it down and I went there with my AR-15, which after twenty years in the Army I definitely know how to use, would I now be the instigator for wanting to defend my source of livelihood? But Rittenhouse didn't work there and it wasn't his source of income! Okay, fair enough. So, suppose I went to some other business, which other people depended on for their livelihood, with my AR-15, which after twenty years in the Army I definitely know how to use, and protected it? Am I now the instigator? 

If you answer yes to any of this, then it's pretty clear you aren't a rule of law kind of guy but, rather, a narrative kind of guy. 

Self Defense. This one is pretty fuzzy. You never actually state what you would consider to be legitimate self defense, so I can only surmise off of what you say. Since what Rittenhouse did doesn't qualify as self defense in your opinion and apparently what his attackers did does, I can only say I find that rather 1984. War is peace. Lies are truth and so on. Whatever you think about self defense it doesn't seem to be based on the rule of law but, rather, whether the actions fit your narrative. More 'end justifies the means' than any actual factual circumstances. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    2 weeks ago
We have had individuals on this site who have claimed if you have a gun in public and someone "attacks" you , unarmed, you would be justified in shooting them.

What they claim is true. When will you get that?

Now, THAT , is a problem. 

Perhaps it is your personal problem. I have zero problems with it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
5  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

The opposite retarded end of this case.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Snuffy
GregTx


39 visitors