Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[doubtingthomas]

factual record that our collective eyeballs witnessed

Don't blame Gad, that is what Rittenhouse just said in the interview, but I understand human memory can be very unreliable. A single video doesn't always give you all the facts. "Along with her research team, Emily Balcetis, an associate professor of psychology at New York University, studies biases in how people look at video evidence. "
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/10571150 ... dence-bias

Or simply read "Video evidence not immune from bias"
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2014/09/ ... from-bias/

If we keep promoting far-Left lies and narratives it’s not going to end well.

Just some questions.

1) Do you think Rittenhouse should have fled when he noticed Rosenbaum was following him? Rittenhouse was a lot faster, there was no way for Rosenbaum to get him.

2) Did Rittenhouse really have to kill Huber for trying to disarm him? Wasn't Huber simply trying to prevent a possible Parkland?

3. Did Rittenhouse have a good reason for fear for his life? If so, did Rittenhouse really have to shoot Rosenbaum four times?

[K Graham]

Conflation - Early reporting would often conflate or mix Rittenhouse details with Jersey Boy reporting in a confusing way that suggested Rittenhouse smoked black people. Or reporting would always mention Rittenhouse’s and Jersey Boy’s race while never mentioning the race of those Rittenhouse shot, this would have the effect that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist that killed POCs at a BLM “protest.”

You're throwing me off with the Jersey Boy reference. But I have to wonder just how much CNN and MSNBC you actually watch. I say this because your perception of what they report doesn't really jive with what I've seen. It is normal to mention the race of anyone involved in an alleged assault. I can see why him being white would upset those who think only black people commit crimes, especially after months of disinformation about the BLM protests, but simply reporting on his race doesn't seem to me to be an attempt to skirt the truth.

Omission - Rittenhouse was an aCtIvE sHoOtEr who indiscriminately shot protesters. News orgs omitted key facts while avoiding outright lying if possible. For example, “After a tussle near a car dealership, Rittenhouse, who openly associated with white supremacists, opened fire on BLM protesters protesting the killing of Jersey Boy, a black man, by a white police officer.”

"Indiscriminately shot protesters"? I've never seen anything from either outlets to support this version. And your quotation above doesn't appear to be an actual quotation from any news outlet.

And from what I can tell, the first time anyone referred to Kyle as an active shooter was in November of last year: “[Rittenhouse] was an active shooter, and my son tried to stop him,” Huber’s father John said at Rittenhouse’s November bail hearing. “My son was a hero … and anyone else who says something else, they are dead wrong.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcev ... 28e518429f

Ajax was laughing insisting this was something the "left" just came up with recently. No, it is the initial argument made by friends and family of the victims. Was Kyle an active shooter? Of course he was.

Misdirection - Media orgs routinely brought up right-wing militia groups and focused attention on them to shift attention away from the riots, the anarchists, the socialists/communists, and the millions in damages they exacted on Kenosha, to include on minority business owners.

You're saying news outlets only mentioned he was associating with militia groups, not because it was actually true, but because they were trying to deflect attention away from whatever crimes you think BLM protesters were committing? That doesn't even begin to make sense. They can report on dumpster fires in another piece, but this story is about how and why three people got shot. Bringing up alleged crimes from people unrelated to the story serves what purpose?

Selective Emphasis - Rittenhouse is a really bad guy, but never impugn the rioters he shot in self-defense, and do NOT bring up any of their past misdeeds.

I never once saw him referred to as a "bad guy" by either CNN or MSNBC, and bringing up the "misdeeds" of the dead serves what purpose exactly? All it does is get people who are inclined to side with Kyle to feel justified. It is classic vigilante mentality. "Well, the guy was a child molester so does it really matter if I murdered him?"

Make sure to point out uncomfortable things about Rittenhouse, but do NOT bring up any information that casts Rittenhouse in a good light.

Aside from lying about who he was (not an EMT) and why he was there (he wasn't asked to defend anyone's business), and aside from social media videos showing him throwing haymakers on a teenage female from behind (which CNN and MSNBC didn't really run with that at all), what's so great about Kyle? Here is the earliest piece on Rittenhouse by CNN and it seems to be reporting on everything we knew about the kid at that time, and using his social media accounts is typically what they do in these situations. https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/us/kenos ... index.html

For example I saw an especially egregious example of this ref Rosenbaum. His exposé detailed that he studied at Pima CC in Arizona, started working at Wendy’s in Kenosha last year, showing images from his Facebook page showing him with his fiancé and young daughter, and to top it off his aunt called him a “precious young man”and he was like a son to her. -_-

Rosenbaum is dead. It isn't typical for legit journalistic outlets to disparage the dead unless it is pertinent to the story at hand, and whether Rosenbaum was a choir boy or a serial killer has no bearing on Kyle's self-defense argument. Either it was legal self defense or it wasn't, regardless of who it is he shot.

Maybe the media isn't really shaping a narrative just to upset people, but rather some people will be upset simply because it throws their worldview into a tailspin. That in and of itself isn't evidence the media is manipulating the data.

[Gadianton]

I can never tell if someone who does this, you in this case Gad, simply hasn’t watched the videos, or if you just exist in such an ideologically predisposed space, that you can’t tolerate the truth and have to create an alternate reality that literally doesn’t jive with a factual record that our collective eyeballs witnessed.

Did you watch the exchange I linked to between Kyle and Tucker and did they say something other than what I transcribed? Am I misunderstanding what they said?

The kick appears to be unfolding as he shoots, and so it wasn't a reaction to being shot at, but neither did the shots come as a result of already having been kicked. (that in no way means that I'm saying the jury got it wrong. I was just surprised to hear Kyle and Tucker describing it that way based on the comments I thought I remembered from here.)

The other interesting part of the interview (just after) was that Kyle explains G-G wasn't threatening him with the gun initially. G-G is in a non-threatening stance, Kyle's breech has an issue and he fixes it, G-G reacts to that move with a threatening stance, gun bearing down (misunderstanding Kyle's gun mechanical problem and fix) and Kyle fires. Kind of like when the Minbari encountered earth for the first time in Babylon Five, they open a weapons bay as a sign of respect to earth's military, earth's military misunderstands it as a threat and fires, beginning the Earth Minbari war.

Anyway, that last interpretation of events from Kyle himself dispels the idea that G-G intended to kill him. Had G-G shot; he'd have a great self-defense case with Kyle's abrupt move putting his own life was in danger. As the judge points out in his jury instructions, the truth of the scenario doesn't matter, only what could be reasonable to the individuals from their perspective in their situations. For the sake of this discussion, a lot of the pushback hasn't been against the Jury's verdict, but against the arguments that Kyle had no other choice but do what he did at every step or die. No opportunity to de-escalate. And no, that doesn't mean that the opportunity to de-escalate means he's either legally or morally bound to de-escalate.

As for the bias of CNN -- yeah, I think we get it. I think yesterday they had a ridiculous piece about people everywhere being afraid of angry white males when they go outside. If so, then that's as much CNN"s fault as anyone's. My new keyboard is jacked up so that's all.

[doubtingthomas]

"Indiscriminately shot protesters"? I've never seen anything from either outlets to support this version. And your quotation above doesn't appear to be an actual quotation from any news outlet.

And Doc keeps complaining about "far-Left lies and narratives". Jesus Christ! That is embarrassing.

[K Graham]

"Indiscriminately shot protesters"? I've never seen anything from either outlets to support this version. And your quotation above doesn't appear to be an actual quotation from any news outlet.

And Doc keeps complaining about "far-Left lies and narratives". Jesus Christ! That is embarrassing.

I think Doc has a point, but only to an extent. I think he exaggerates the degree to which the "Left" media, if there is such a thing, is just like FOX News when it literally makes crap up from whole cloth every day.

Like just today FOX Reporter Stephen Doocey complained to Jen Psaki because President Biden was planning to spend Thanksgiving with his family after promising the American people he would be working hard on their behalf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-5HNYK88k

[doubtingthomas]

a 17 year old kid who defended himself. You damned disgust me.

Defended himself from what? From a weak homeless man who obviously couldn't run fast? Or from an adult trying to get his rifle?

[Res Ipsa]

https://youtu.be/do7sbWaZstQ?t=603

According to Kyle and Tucker, this is wrong.

Kyle is surrounded by 4 people. He points his gun and they back off.

Kyle: Jump kick man keeps coming, and that's when I fire two shots at jump-kick man

Tucker: and he, you miss him and he kicks you

Kyle: yes

I can never tell if someone who does this, you in this case Gad, simply hasn’t watched the videos, or if you just exist in such an ideologically predisposed space, that you can’t tolerate the truth and have to create an alternate reality that literally doesn’t jive with a factual record that our collective eyeballs witnessed.

I had the opportunity to sit through some training a long, long time ago that dovetailed with counterintelligence operations and there’s something called the "4 pillars of narrative craft.” The key was to identify the enemy’s disinformation campaigns and then figure out a way to de-brainwash a population, or captives, or whatever group of people you want to “liberate” from their ideology. Anyway. These 4 pillars are : conflation, omission, misdirection, and selective emphasis. Typically the ‘bad guys’, whoever they are, want to employ those four pillars to keep their population confused and misinformed.

I think misconceptions about the Ritters situation were deliberately broadcast by orgs like CNN, MSNBC, and various other heavy hitters who essentially cannibalize one another’s hot takes. The first few months were key to conflate the two parallel stories of Rittenhouse and Jacob Blake (JB) in order to sow confusion, omitting facts that’d make Rittenhouse seem less sympathetic and anything ‘wokey’ moralistic, misdirect people away from rioters and focus them on right-wingers and their ideologies, and selectively emphasize anything Rittenhouse did that could be construed as bad and his “victims” as angels or at the very least just not broadcast or print anything that’d cast them in a poor light. This is actually mirrored on this board depending on who’s posting and what their ideology is - I noticed that the Liberals on this board, when giving examples of some bad narrative tend to post fascist examples while ignoring bad socialist or communist examples, while the right-wing’s do the opposite. It’s fairly transparent.

Some examples that can bring this into sharper focus (I fully expect Liberals on this board to deny my examples, as they will do, just as I’d expect Conservatives would deny them if the situation were reversed):

Conflation - Early reporting would often conflate or mix Rittenhouse details with JB reporting in a confusing way that suggested Rittenhouse smoked black people. Or reporting would always mention Rittenhouse’s and JB’s race while never mentioning the race of those Rittenhouse shot, this would have the effect that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist that killed POCs at a BLM “protest.”

Omission - Rittenhouse was an aCtIvE sHoOtEr who indiscriminately shot protesters. News orgs omitted key facts while avoiding outright lying if possible. For example, “After a tussle near a car dealership, Rittenhouse, who openly associated with white supremacists, opened fire on BLM protesters protesting the killing of JB, a black man, by a white police officer.”

Misdirection - Media orgs routinely brought up right-wing militia groups and focused attention on them to shift attention away from the riots, the anarchists, the socialists/communists, and the millions in damages they exacted on Kenosha, to include on minority business owners.

Selective Emphasis - Rittenhouse is a really bad guy, but never impugn the rioters he shot in self-defense, and do NOT bring up any of their past misdeeds. Make sure to point out uncomfortable things about Rittenhouse, but do NOT bring up any information that casts Rittenhouse in a good light. For example I saw an especially egregious example of this ref Rosenbaum. His exposé detailed that he studied at Pima CC in Arizona, started working at Wendy’s in Kenosha last year, showing images from his Facebook page showing him with his fiancé and young daughter, and to top it off his aunt called him a “precious young man”and he was like a son to her. -_-

All I can say is if we, the center-Left to Left, keep pulling this crap all the while trumpeting how into the truth we are, it’s going to keep pushing the center and center-Right into the Right’s ‘big tent’ rather than attracting them to our side. I think, if we get away from the far-Left and their strategies it’d be better for our long-term strategy to attract voters. If we keep promoting far-Left lies and narratives it’s not going to end well.

- Doc

I wouldn't deny your analysis, Doc. But it's hard to assess it without reference to how CNN, MSNBC, and others reported the facts in real time after the shooting. I don't think a snippet here and a snippet there is enough to establish deliberate misrepresentation. I think it's really hard to assess without a complete record. I don't get my news from cable news outlets, so I have no idea. I also do not understand your jump from what you claim major media outlets did with what the "center-Left to Left" is doing. What is the "crap" that you contend the center left to left is pulling?

[doubtingthomas]

Thank god sometimes people do things with conviction.

Why did Rittenhouse have the need to shoot Rosenbaum four times? Rittenhouse waited about one second to shoot Rosenbaum again after his first shot. And why didn't Rittenhouse run away when he first noticed Rosenbaum was chasing him?

[doubtingthomas]

Binger. Don't let me repeat my questions over and over and over again. Just answer them.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯