5 ms·

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in g

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.
- yes_really 5y ago
  He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > He attacked Rittenhouse He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable. > that tried to blow up a gas station Can you support this with evidence? I haven’t seen anything that suggests they were trying to blow up the gas station. > one of the attackers was a convicted child molester Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge. > attempted beating [… with] the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc. I have seen the footage and I stand by what I said. If Huber’s intention was to kill or seriously injure Rittenhouse, he would have swung harder and from further away. From 0:14 in your linked video, you can see Huber approaching with his skateboard held at waist height, almost as though he has forgotten he’s carrying it. Others have made a big point about how heavy a skateboard is, but Huber doesn’t leverage any of that weight, by swinging it, he instead sort of jabs with it.
    - yes_really 5y ago
      > He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable. Rittenhouse was running towards the police and away from the mob. He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing. > Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge. > This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc. We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense as that it is obvious from the video footage and the trial. The fact that one of the attackers was a convicted child molester is one of the signals that indicate that the attackers would beat up (and possibly kill) Rittenhouse. Other signals include the fact that there were previous beatings in those riots, that rioters previously attacked police, etc. You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. You can see the trial for more information.
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        > He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing. And yet when Rittenhouse turns and shoots Rosenbaum instead of continuing to flee, that's self-defence? > We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense [...] You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. No, we were debating Facebook's response. I said that I thought it was reasonable for Facebook to act with an abundance of caution around the killing of two unarmed men. Someone objected to me calling him 'unarmed'. My contention is that although a skateboard can be used as a weapon, that wasn't how Huber used his skateboard. I'm not sure what I'm 'derailing', or what you think 'the conversation' is, but you're welcome to stop commenting if you don't want to debate further.

He tried to hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard. How does that not seem as "intended to kill or seriously injure"? I don't think you are arguing in good faith.

d1sxeyes 5y ago

I think I’ve put quite a lot of time and effort into responding in good faith to everyone who has entered into discussion with me, so I find your comment a bit rude to be honest. With regards to your specific point, my very next phrase explains what I see in the video instead of an intention to kill or seriously injure. You might disagree, which is your right, but please don’t accuse me of not arguing in good faith.

yes_really 5y ago
He attacked Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse was fallen on the ground surrounded by multiple people running after him and attacking him. The situation was extremely violent: it was during a violent riot that tried to blow up a gas station. At least one of the people attacking him was armed with a handgun and multiple people were armed with baseball bats. At least one of the attackers was a convicted child molester. It's pretty clear the attacker was part of the attempted beating of Rittenhouse. You wrote it seems like he was just "using it to try to push the assault rifle away from him" to justify the attacker's actions, but you failed to mention the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. Everyone can see high quality video footage at 0:15 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > He attacked Rittenhouse He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable. > that tried to blow up a gas station Can you support this with evidence? I haven’t seen anything that suggests they were trying to blow up the gas station. > one of the attackers was a convicted child molester Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge. > attempted beating [… with] the obvious consequence that Rittenhouse would die / be beat up had the attacker succeeded in disarming Rittenhouse. This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc. I have seen the footage and I stand by what I said. If Huber’s intention was to kill or seriously injure Rittenhouse, he would have swung harder and from further away. From 0:14 in your linked video, you can see Huber approaching with his skateboard held at waist height, almost as though he has forgotten he’s carrying it. Others have made a big point about how heavy a skateboard is, but Huber doesn’t leverage any of that weight, by swinging it, he instead sort of jabs with it.
  - yes_really 5y ago
    > He hit Rittenhouse with his board, sure. Whether it was attack or defence is questionable. Rittenhouse was running towards the police and away from the mob. He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing. > Disgraceful but ultimately irrelevant, unless you think that Rittenhouse knew that and acted on his knowledge. > This is not obvious by a long shot, although it is possible. The police were a few hundred yards down the road, and it is plausible that Rittenhouse would have been held on the ground until police arrived, or marched down to the police, etc. We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense as that it is obvious from the video footage and the trial. The fact that one of the attackers was a convicted child molester is one of the signals that indicate that the attackers would beat up (and possibly kill) Rittenhouse. Other signals include the fact that there were previous beatings in those riots, that rioters previously attacked police, etc. You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. You can see the trial for more information.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      > He ran after Rittenhouse to attack him instead of fleeing. And yet when Rittenhouse turns and shoots Rosenbaum instead of continuing to flee, that's self-defence? > We are not debating Rittenhouse self-defense [...] You are derailing the conversation and I do not want to repeat myself or extend my time on this. No, we were debating Facebook's response. I said that I thought it was reasonable for Facebook to act with an abundance of caution around the killing of two unarmed men. Someone objected to me calling him 'unarmed'. My contention is that although a skateboard can be used as a weapon, that wasn't how Huber used his skateboard. I'm not sure what I'm 'derailing', or what you think 'the conversation' is, but you're welcome to stop commenting if you don't want to debate further.