I didn't buy anything. There are multiple videos that aren't being shown on most news sites.

Youtube is banning them as fast as they get posted.

Here is one: https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE

This is from Newsweek(https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-sef-defense-murder-protests-1528301) who had access to the videos:

How the Kenosha shootings unfolded
In the wake of the shootings, several videos appeared on social media showing the moments before, during and after the first shooting took place.

In one video, Rittenhouse is seen being chased into a parking lot by several people while still armed with his gun.

One man then fires a gun into the air from several feet away from the 17-year-old before several others shots are fired.

In another clip from a different angle, one man seen chasing Rittenhouse appears to lunge at the 17-year-old before the suspect fires at least four times.

A body, later identified as Rosenbaum, is then seen on the ground and is assisted by another male. Rittenhouse appears to make a call on a cellphone before fleeing.

It is unclear why the 17-year-old was being chased in the first place. The parking lot is reportedly around several blocks away from the area he previously claimed to be protecting with the other armed men.

Later on, Rittenhouse is filmed being chased by more people down a residential street. He is seen stumbling and falling to the ground.

One person appears to stomp on him on the ground, before the 17-year-old fires twice, hitting Huber in the stomach and another man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who was carrying a handgun, in the arm.

According to the criminal complaint, an eyewitness video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and throwing what was ultimately determined to be a plastic bag at the suspect, not an incendiary device.

"Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video," the document adds.

In response to Parkinson's tweet, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bosuie noted: "I have been seeing this everywhere on here. It is an explicit argument that if someone is trying to stop you after you killed someone, you can continue shooting and killing in 'self-defense.'

Parkinson added: "Why leave out during the 2nd shooting, after Rittenhouse trips, he was jumped by several men, including another armed protester, attacked by a skateboard—prior to firing more shots?"

The man holding the skateboard was Rittenberg's alleged second victim Huber, who died after being shot in the chest.

***You'll notice that even some of their videos were removed/banned***

I'm not saying the kid was in the right 100%. He definitely committed the crime of being under aged with a firearm. He shouldn't have listened to right wing calls to go defend property in a different state.

What we have is a kid who heard people shooting, got scared, a 'protester' threw what he thought was an incendiary device at him and he shot that person. He then tried to flee to the police line and you can read what else happened.

Here is the tweet that shows the survivor wishes he had just mag dumped his glock into the teen: https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563648

Gaige Grosskreutz, 26. Hes a member of the People’s Revolution Movement. He has numerous encounters with the police but I couldn't find a felony. This was his biggest charge: Go Armed with Firearm While Intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor, Wisconsin Statutes 941.20(1)(b).

Anthony Huber. https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html (for some reason it wont link, you can type his name in to see all, but here is one specific one https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2014CF000057&countyNo=39&index=0)
Online arrest records show Huber was arrested several times on battery, drugs and other charges. He also had a case from 2012 where he was convicted of domestic abuse strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, both felonies. Other charges – for second-degree recklessly endangering safety, battery, and disorderly conduct – were dismissed but read in.

Joseph Rosenbaum. https://twitter.com/musicandwhiskey/status/1298861484752035840/photo/1
https://www.rt.com/usa/499205-kenosha-shooting-victim-id/
https://www.bailbondshq.com/arizona/azdoc-inmate-JOSEPH/172556
https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556
Rosenbaum had an open criminal case on battery, disorderly conduct and domestic abuse charges, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court website. (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-kenosha-victims-identified-as-anthony-huber-joseph-rosenbaum-20200827-zvrsv7fpqfftlmjyrtjrmg5wwa-story.html
)

As far as right wing people showing up and pretending to be Antifa, I suppose anything is possible. But most of all these looting and rioting things have been going on since all this shit broke loose months ago. I doubt very much that all of these 'peaceful protestors' are RW loonies. Clearly the 3 that were shot in Kenosha weren't and they were all part of the groups rioting...I mean 'protesting.

There are more videos if you want to find them. Shoot me, N Rosenbaum is seen attacking and throwing something at Kyle. You can see a gun fired as well by someone else. Videos show them chasing a fleeing person, who at that point is being attacked by them. Skater boi was beating him prone with a skateboard. 'Medic' Grosskreutz was carrying a fully fucking loaded Glock 17 and grabbing Kyle's rifle.

You know I don't make up shit like Bob does. But I do look in multiple places to find out what I can before I say something. Like I said, the kid fucked up, but I 100% believe in his mind he was defending himself and trying to reach the police for help.

Man on Fire

If Comey was fired after the investigation was over, then nobody would have been upset. It is the timing that upsets people, and should upset those on the right too who want to put the Russian thing behind them.

There is clear evidence that Russia interfered with the election. Now does that mean, Trump, or people closely connected to him and his campaign, were directly involved? No. And most liberals would be okay if that was the end result of an independent investigation, so long as we found the means and methods of the interference and were able to learn actions to prevent further interference with future elections from any outside nation. However, the Republicans refuse to take the investigation into Russian interference seriously. The House investigation led by a guy who was on Trump's transition team, the Senate investigation seems more concerned about who leaked info about Trump than the fact a foreign threat to the security of the United States interfered with the election. They worry about leaks in a White House that looks at top secret information in a very public place, but the actions of a hostile state doesn't seem to concern them like it should.

Now we got Comey, who Trump and his people praised up and down during the campaign and soon after election, being fired right after he says he's going to devote more resources to the Russian investigation. We got a President who broke clear ethical rules (though perhaps no laws) in asking if he was under investigation, in a call which may have been about if he'd keep Comey on. Even the hint of Clinton being involved in even a far less serious offence made the right shout "lock her up", but for Trump the reaction seems to be "he's the greatest President ever, let me suck the chrome off his cock".

He, and the Republicans keep trying to distract the American people from the Russia investigation, which let's remind everyone, is mostly about the interference, and only possibly about his administration's complacency. It is more about the actions of a hostile state than him. It's almost as if they know the Russians interfered, and don't care because they won. If Democrats had won, thanks to the actions of an outside state, especially one as hostile to the US as the Russians, and there was even less proof that Clinton or her team may have been involved, the size of the committee and the depth of the investigation would be many times bigger than it is now. The outrage on the right would be larger than the outrage on the left as it stands now.

And, then right after the firing, Trump goes the extra step of letting only Russian official state media in on the meetings between him and Russian officials. He won't release visitor logs to the White House. He won't release visitor logs to the far more accessible Mar-a-logo, where he looks at top secret documents in the wide open. (Side note, he's cost the American tax payers about a 1/4 of what Obama's vacations cost in 8 years, in just 100 days, and all those people who bitched about Obama vacations, including Trump who complained about how much Obama played golf, are perfectly fine with what Trump has cost the American tax payers in his vacations.) So without those logs, and those of Trump Tower, we can't be sure there aren't more clandestine meetings like that blatant one in the White House. The refuse ANY degree of transparency. Again, if this was Clinton, the right would be demanding she be sent to Guantanamo Bay, and that's only a slight exaggeration, either way they'd demand she be locked up for the very things Trump is accused of.

Then there's his clear violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and the people who claim to be all about the Constitution, saying how the left have zero respect for it, who were in a furor over Clinton's possible violation of it with her foundation, don't care about Trump's violation of it. Suddenly, the Emoluments Clause, doesn't matter to the same people who cited it as a concern during Clinton's campaign.

Also, keep in mind, he made the decision to fire him, before the reasons why letters were penned, and were written to help defend it. Further, as pointed out, his own letter was about him, the guy is such a clear narcissist, he could have been like Sanders and I'd personally oppose him. Plus, Trump didn't have the guts to let Comey know in person, Comey had to find out on TV and think it was a practical joke. Again, if Clinton fired somebody like that, the right would be in arms, calling her chicken, and saying a real man would fire another person in person.

TLDR: If Trump fired Comey after the investigation into a hostile state's interference with the election, nobody would have cared, in fact he may have gotten mad props for letting the investigation go on without interference. It's the timing that is suspect.

no mistaken assumption my friend.
just looking at the bigger picture is all.

was the "company" really disgusted by this mans behavior?
or were they performing damage control?
i suspect the latter.

which is why i brought up the PC police and the inherent dangers within.i even referenced a case in canada which had gone too far.(in my opinion).

does the company have a right to fire him? short answer? yes.
but nobody is asking about this mans rights,and if they are honest with themselves it is because he is a grotesque example of a human being.

so you try to further your point by doing a thought experiment,and i hate thought experiments,but ok..lets play:
what if he was advocating the legalization of sex with prepubescent children?

ah my friend.
this is easy.
the answer is arrest and convict.
but why you may ask?

here is where i think you may be misunderstanding my argument and your thought experiment reveals this quite plainly.

to YOU.this example of child sex and our racist turdnugget here are the same.

they are not.

because advocating to legalize child sex is an "intent to harm".the adovcating will result in actual harm of actual children.see:child pornography.

while turdnugget here has actually harmed no one.
nobody was actually harmed.
maybe disgusted.
maybe a feeling or two.

lets try another thought experiment.
what if this man was filmed not being an ugly racist but rather smoking weed with some buddies.

should he be fired?

another one:what if he is filmed at a sanders rally (unlikely) and the president of the company is a die-hard trump supporter?

should he be fired?

look,it is easy to view this man losing his job as some kind of justice,but we need to be honest why we are ok with THIS man getting fired and that reason is simply that he is grotesque and offensive.

but he did not actually HARM anyone.he was just offensive and IS offensive to our sensibilities.

i agree that there is an irony in this situation.the man verbally attacks a perceived threat to his livelihood,and then loses that livelihood.

it may have a certain poetry to it,but is that justice?
no.

the larger argument is this:when is it considered normal or acceptable to hold people to a company standard when they are:
not working.
not in uniform.
not representing the company in ANY way.
are not getting paid for this off time.
are engaging in activities which are harming no one but may be viewed as contrary to company standards?


where is the line drawn?
and who draws that line?
who enforces it?

while the company has a right to fire you for any reason it wishes,does it have a right to impose behavior,activities,personal life choices when you are not on the clock?

with the PC police engaging in ever more draconian and bullying tactics to impose their own sense of morality upon others,based on what THEY feel is righteous and morally correct.i feel this will get out of hand very quickly,and the canadian example i used is only one of many.

here is one thing i do not understand.
how come when the religious right uses tactics very similar to this,we all stand up and shout "fuck you buddy",but when the PC police behave in an almost identical fashion....people applaud.

that is just NOT a morally consistent stance.
it is hypocritical.

so maybe in the short run we can view this ugly example of a human being and think to ourselves that some form of justice was served,but that is a lie.it may make us feel good and tickle our moral compass as somehow being a righteous outcome to a reprehensible piece of shit,but it is no way justice.

in the larger context and taken to its logical conclusion:this moral calculus could be a future metric to impose obedience and compliance from,not just turdnugget,but EVERYBODY...and that includes you.

and THAT is something that i find extremely disturbing.

the PC police are having a real impact,with real consequences and even though they may have the best of intentions,the real result is social control,obedience and compliance.

i would rather i keep my liberty and freedoms to do as i wish.the PC police can suck a bag of dicks.

Yeah, for that Chloe Grace Moretz fix ya dirty-old-man yas....

Looks like a re-hashed Man on Fire from the trailer-"Antoine Fuqua, meet Tony Scott."

Gambit: Another Useless X-Man Gets Fired has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Do people realize the whole "if a good guy owns a gun" goes both ways? I love this argument because it's so one sided and utterly blind. I'd like to call it the "dumbass argument".

Let's think for a moment: kids looking for friend suddenly have a man open fire on them, so they all pull out their firearms to protect themselves from the raving lunatic old man who opened fire on them first. Old man is dead, riddled with dozens of bullets. Good guys win. Oh . . . wait. That's not what happened. The good guys didn't have a gun. Or was the old man a good guy? I'm confused now. Who's the good guy?

We had something similar here in Florida where a man was going door to door to sell lobster. Homeowner shot him in the head as he walked away, kept shooting him, and went to reload while an officer was trying to arrest him.

The real issue is the fact this man, and the man in my example, simply thought owning a gun meant they could shoot and kill someone for almost a pathetic reason. Both were "defending my home" against the evils of lobsters and ice skating. I believe this is the movie line of "shoot first, ask questions later." This is what is referring to as the "gun culture."

Yeah, guns (unless it's a colt) don't kill people, people with guns kill people. But there's an old mentality (that's pretty much dead now) that using a gun was cheating. That using a gun wasn't personal, so they resorted to swords and fists. Now, it's so easy to kill a person that it's almost impersonal just to shoot at some brown kid who's "invading" your home by showing up in a car, knocking on the door politely, and asking "Dónde está Paul?"

So anyway, now that we're arguing on the internet . . . .

So Max Payne stole most of its plot from a sub-plot in "Man On Fire"? Sounds like a great game...

What do you think about Man on Fire ?
*Thats actually a spoiler if you do watch the movie *

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Teach a man to build a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"I am a man on fire."

Man on fire, indeed.

It was incredibly disturbing to see that one man on fire. He moved and indeed looked as though he was resigned to his death. If 56 died that day I would have to wager, sadly, that he was one of them, considering how much of him appeared aflame.

Sad stuff.

>> ^honkeytonk73:

Burn the oil. Vapors go in the air. Clouds gather. It rains. Oil falls.

Small kitchen fire gets a little out of control. BOOM!... FIRE, freaking, CANE!!
...okay maybe not but it can't be good

>> ^LarsaruS:

This makes me all warm inside...
Where can I buy a flame thrower?



just go pick up a super soaker and construct one for an additional five dollars.