Kyle Rittenhouse is Bad Ass

[Melki]

Good for you I guess. It didn't help you to understand statistics unfortunately.


How is it not a reason for its safety? As I've pointed out previously, any state that is highly white and has little % of blacks is among the safest us states regardless of which party they vote. Feel free to prove me wrong. I keep repeating myself because you are unable to understand. Are you really all that intelligent? : - )


In other words you're trying to explain their safety by how they vote. I've already demonstrated why it doesn't work. I'm not only saying there's no cause and effect relationship between the two, even a basic correlation isn't there.
And yes, it seems I was correct when I said you want to connect safety with democrat votes.
South dakota is red and has the lowest homocide rate of all states. Again I have to repeat myself.

I was anticipating your insults by the way, it's so typical of you. I'm surprised you could hold yourself back this long. Now be the hyper intelligent guy you claim yourself to be and admit your were incorrect about connecting safety(or lack of it) to republican votes.





I don't see any statistical evidence that republican voters are more prone to homicide and other types of violence, can you post any? I see more evidence of democrat voters being more prone to homicide, not direct evidence but when you connect the dots it's plausible (more so than your idea anyway)


k, next.

-1/ I never meant to insult you...at best, it was just irony. If you took my last message as a personal insult, then I'm getting insulted 50 times a day on this forum, and in much more aggressive ways...

-2/ As I told you in a previous message, I don't deny that most criminals are Afro-American and Hispanic. It doesn't help when some cops are racist, though.

-3/ Yes, states like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont are overwhelmingly white, but a city like Boston is multicultural as fuck. And still, Massachusetts is one of the safest and happiest American states. Whites living there have on average higher incomes, higher level of education, a higher life expectancy. They don't feel insecure, as a result, their vote is blue.

-4/ Your point is that most of the firearm violence in Republican mountain states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah etc...Maybe. But then the right question you should ask yourself is how these states could be so unhappy if they are predominantly white and ruled by Republicans. It means Republicans are unable to understand the poor whites.

5/ I already demonstrated that the most violent states are governed by Republicans, you answered that it was due to their non-white population.
Then I ask you, if non-white are causing so much harm, why are Republican governors so ineffective in stopping crime? OK, most of the big cities are ruled by Democratic mayors, but it doesn't explain why violence occur everywhere in the state.

-6/ You claimed that criminals and convicts vote for the Democrats. I told you how absurd it was. Delinquents are social misfits who don't vote, even if it's a civil right they own.

-7/ Your observation about the bone structure of the blacks is suspicious. I won't let you lure me into your racialist trap, establishing a connection between race and potential criminal activity.

[Universe]

-1/ I never meant to insult you...at best, it was just irony. If you took my last message as a personal insult, then I'm getting insulted 50 times a day on this forum, and in much more aggressive ways...

-2/ As I told you in a previous message, I don't deny that most criminals are Afro-American and Hispanic. It doesn't help when some cops are racist, though.

-3/ Yes, states like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont are overwhelmingly white, but a city like Boston is multicultural as fuck. And still, Massachusetts is one of the safest and happiest American states. Whites living there have on average higher incomes, higher level of education, a higher life expectancy. They don't feel insecure, as a result, their vote is blue.

-4/ Your point is that most of the firearm violence in Republican mountain states like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah etc...Maybe. But then the right question you should ask yourself is how these states could be so unhappy if they are predominantly white and ruled by Republicans. It means Republicans are unable to understand the poor whites.

5/ I already demonstrated that the most violent states are governed by Republicans, you answered that it was due to their non-white population.
Then I ask you, if non-white are causing so much harm, why are Republican governors so ineffective in stopping crime? OK, most of the big cities are ruled by Democratic mayors, but it doesn't explain why violence occur everywhere in the state.

-6/ You claimed that criminals and convicts vote for the Democrats. I told you how absurd it was. Delinquents are social misfits who don't vote, even if it's a civil right they own.

-7/ Your observation about the bone structure of the blacks is suspicious. I won't let you lure me into your racialist trap, establishing a connection between race and potential criminal activity.

'Maybe'? The statistics are there, anyone can check them out. Yes, western mountain states are safe.
The safest states of USA are states that are the whitest and the least black ones, regardless of which party they vote. It may be a 'racist' or whatever statement, but it's true anyway.

Dixie states are among the most violent states, yes. However these states are also percentually the blackest states in the country. However Illinois, New Mexico and Maryland are also among the most violent states and they're blue.
In the red states the most violent places are cities that have blue mayors elected by the democrat voter residents.

Now you may say these blue cities are still influenced by red policies because they are located in red states and you might be correct on that. I won't comment on it because I don't know how these local governments interact with each other and I don't know how much red influence those cities really have.

However the thing is there are multiple highly violent cities which are blue cities located in blue states.
Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit, Oakland, Washington DC. All of these cities are blue cities located in blue states and all of them have higher homicide rate than almighty Alabama.

Baltimore's homicide rate is more than three times as high as that of Alabama and other dixie states. So are those red states really all that violent?
Baltimore is located in Maryland, both Baltimore and Maryland have been blue for decades. I hope that sinks in.


District of Columbia has by far the highest 'gun homicide rate' and 90% of its population votes blue every election.

Milwaukee is in Wisconsin and Wisconsin is currently red, but prior to 2016 it had been blue for 25 years. Detroit is in Michigan and Michigan turned red in 2016 but before that it had been blue since '92. In 2015 they had the same or similar homicide rates so in this discussion both Michigan and Wisconsin can be used as examples of blue states, their more violent cities are blue either way though.

I'm not saying republicans are perfect and I'm not here to prove republican party is necessarily the better choice between the two. I started to quote you because you implied violence inversely correlate with democrat votes and I disagreed with that. To be honest I still don't see the correlation you claimed.

[Melki]

'Maybe'? The statistics are there, anyone can check them out. Yes, western mountain states are safe.
The safest states of USA are states that are the whitest and the least black ones, regardless of which party they vote. It may be a 'racist' or whatever statement, but it's true anyway.

Dixie states are among the most violent states, yes. However these states are also percentually the blackest states in the country. However Illinois, New Mexico and Maryland are also among the most violent states and they're blue.
In the red states the most violent places are cities that have blue mayors elected by the democrat voter residents.

Now you may say these blue cities are still influenced by red policies because they are located in red states and you might be correct on that. I won't comment on it because I don't know how these local governments interact with each other and I don't know how much red influence those cities really have.

However the thing is there are multiple highly violent cities which are blue cities located in blue states.
Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, Detroit, Oakland, Washington DC. All of these cities are blue cities located in blue states and all of them have higher homicide rate than almighty Alabama.

Baltimore's homicide rate is more than three times as high as that of Alabama and other dixie states. So are those red states really all that violent?
Baltimore is located in Maryland, both Baltimore and Maryland have been blue for decades. I hope that sinks in.


District of Columbia has by far the highest 'gun homicide rate' and 90% of its population votes blue every election.

Milwaukee is in Wisconsin and Wisconsin is currently red, but prior to 2016 it had been blue for 25 years. Detroit is in Michigan and Michigan turned red in 2016 but before that it had been blue since '92. In 2015 they had the same or similar homicide rates so in this discussion both Michigan and Wisconsin can be used as examples of blue states, their more violent cities are blue either way though.

I'm not saying republicans are perfect and I'm not here to prove republican party is necessarily the better choice between the two. I started to quote you because you implied violence inversely correlate with democrat votes and I disagreed with that. To be honest I still don't see the correlation you claimed.

To sum up, you're claiming that the US most violent cities are so violent because their inhabitants elect a blue mayor?

Then you're wrong.

This myth has been debunked in a recent press article from June 2020. The source is a mainstream newspaper, the most popular one in the USA, although not as serious as the New York Times or the Washington Post.
But whenever I quote one of these newspapers, a bigot will come and observe that these mediums are "Jewish owned".

Here we go,

Fact check: Big cities have crime and more Democrats, but it's a stretch to link them

ERIC LITKE | USA TODAY | 1:20 pm EDT June 24, 2020

Claim: America’s most violent cities are that way because of their Democratic politics
Are areas populated by Democrats more violent?

That’s the fundamental claim in a viral Facebook post connecting murder rates and partisan leanings in America’s largest cities.

The June 16 post lists “America’s deadliest cities” — including St. Louis; New Orleans; Milwaukee; and West Palm Beach, Florida — citing FBI crime data. It then labels each as having a “Democrat majority” before concluding, “We don’t need gun control, we need Democrat control!”

The claim raises two questions on the accuracy of the “deadliest” label and the partisan leanings. But the third — bigger — question is whether it’s reasonable to connect the two.

Let’s dive in.

Cities list is outdated
The graphic’s “deadliest” label is attributed to the FBI Uniform Crime Report. We’ll take that to refer to the “murder and non-negligent manslaughter” data the FBI compiles annually for every city in the US.

There are a few issues here.

First, the varied demographic and cultural factors at play in each city make comparing raw data like this a questionable exercise. The FBI explicitly warns against this type of ranking:

A claim on social media lists St. Louis as being the deadliest city in America, and ties that to its Democratic leadership. We find this claim to be partly false.
A claim on social media lists St. Louis as being the deadliest city in America, and ties that to its Democratic leadership. We find this claim to be partly false.


"These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, tribal area, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction."

In addition, the ranking compiled here is out of date.

Eight of the cities listed in the graphic — including Atlanta; Cincinnati; and Oakland, California — are no longer among the 25 with the highest per capita rates of murder and manslaughter, based on the 2018 FBI crime data, which is the latest available.

Party affiliation is hard to pin down
The second element of the claim, the party affiliation, is trickier to pin down.

We’re taking this claim to refer to the politics of the city as a whole, rather than the leadership, since the “majority” reference and the adaptation of the gun control phrase both seem to refer to a general group more than those in authority.

We would typically use a recent national election such as the 2016 presidential race to compare communities around the country. But election results are traditionally reported at state and county levels, not the city level.

We did find an analysis that looked at Metropolitan Statistical Areas around cities. But these areas include surrounding counties that are more suburban (and Republican), so it wouldn’t be reasonable to compare voting data from that larger area to crime data from within city limits.


Baltimore is ranked as the nation's deadliest city in a viral Facebook post that falsely relates violence to political affiliation.


But suffice it to say, urban areas vote Democratic.

The New York Times broke down 2016 results at the precinct level, and the maps show a clear pattern across the country of concentrated Democratic voting in densely populated urban centers, with increasing Republican support in the outlying areas.

The pattern applies for cities throughout the list in the Facebook post: St. Louis, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Chicago, and even smaller cities like Dayton, Ohio.

Elected leadership skews heavily Democratic in these cities as well. Among the 25 cities with the highest murder/manslaughter rate in 2018, three had Republican mayors, according to Ballotpedia and our research. (But again, the FBI discourages ranking cities in this way.) Some of those cities, like Milwaukee, are led by a Democrat even if the office is officially nonpartisan.

All of which brings us to the core question: Is it reasonable to connect the violence and partisanship?

In short, no.

“I don’t think there’s any data that would allow us to draw a causal conclusion here,” said David Weisburd, executive director of the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University. “Somehow arguing that Democrats cause crime or something of that sort just doesn’t fit the history of crime prevention in the U.S.”

If you interpret the claim as referring to Democratic leadership, Weisburd notes that President Bill Clinton had one of the strongest recent administrations in terms of funding the criminal justice system.

But more broadly, linking crime and votes simply doesn’t reflect how crime works. Studies have repeatedly found that urban crime is not a widespread phenomenon — like voting is — but a product of small groups of people in small areas.

One 2015 study examined crime networks in Chicago and found 70% of nonfatal gun injuries occur within networks that contain just 6% of the city’s population.
.

Another study that year found crime across a number of cities was concentrated in “microgeographic hot spots.”

Weisburd said his research revealed a “law of crime concentration”: Across an array of large cities, 1% of city streets account for about 25% of the crime, and 5% of streets account for about 50% of the crime.

An array of local socioeconomic and cultural factors plays a role in which areas yield that concentrated crime. But it’s a lot more than politics.

A 2018 study from Boston University found racial segregation is a key risk factor for firearm homicide. Other local factors skew homicide rates and make a raw ranking a poor tool for understanding what’s happening, said David Kennedy, director of the National Network for Safe Communities at John Jay College of Criminal Justice told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for a 2019 series on homicides.

“You get a number. It’s completely accurate. And it’s deeply unrepresentative of what’s going on,” Kennedy told the Journal Sentinel. “Many American cities are the product of a long, long historical reality of white supremacy and racial violence and disproportionate action by the criminal justice system.”

Our ruling: Partly false
We rate this claim PARTLY FALSE based on our research. The information cited has some fundamental issues, notably that it uses out-of-date FBI data and ranks cities by crime rate when the FBI specifically warns against doing so. This glosses over the array of intensely local factors that influence crime. Violent crime, in particular, stems from a limited group of people in a limited area, so assuming that segment has a particular political bent based on the city at large — and that their violence stems from those politics — is a stretch at best.

It is true that large cities do have more crime. And they do have more Democrats — both in terms of general voting and local leadership. But it’s a classic example of correlation without evidence of causality.

END OF QUOTE

Instead of blaming the Democrats and their politics for all the insecurity in their cities, you should rather question the problem of racial segregation, a cancer infecting America.

[Faklon]

That was a good one. I laughed so hard I'm still wiping away my tears...

Do you really believe that criminals vote? SERIOUSLY?
Try to imagine a mass murderer, or a Black Disciple, quietly standing in line, doing his civic duty, ready to drop his vote into the ballot-box, while thinking all the time: "yahh homie, that Joe Biden is mah nigga".

Meh, the dramatization.

Like the average ghetto drug-dealer or pickpocketer is Harris' Hannibal. They see the chance to gain benefits and take advantang of it, Obama is known for granting clemency like no other president.

List of people granted executive clemency by Barack Obama


Cocaine
Cocaine
Theft
Heroin
Cocaine
Fraud
Bank robbery
Cocaine

[Kamal900]

No just an Alpine

Yeah, like me and my brothers.

[Universe]

To sum up, you're claiming that the US most violent cities are so violent because their inhabitants elect a blue mayor?

Then you're wrong.

No, I am not claiming that. I didn't claim it's more than a correlation. Enough with the mumbo jumbo. If what you claimed was correct ('Northeast is safe because they vote democrat') then places like Baltimore would be safe too and South Dakota wouldn't have the lowest homicide rate of all states. District of columbia (another blue place) also has the most gun homicides. What you claimed was incorrect, just get over it.

[Melki]

No, I am not claiming that. I didn't claim it's more than a correlation. Enough with the mumbo jumbo. If what you claimed was correct ('Northeast is safe because they vote democrat') then places like Baltimore would be safe too and South Dakota wouldn't have the lowest homicide rate of all states. District of columbia (another blue place) also has the most gun homicides. What you claimed was incorrect, just get over it.

What mumbo jumbo? I already made it clear in my last post that correlation between criminality and cities with a Democratic leadership is biased, even quoting my source
But instead of admitting your defeat, you're still looking for lice on a bald head, pointing out a flaw in my rhetoric in order to get out with your head held high.

I don't know if New England is safe because locals elect Democratic leaders or, on the contrary, if voters elect Democrats because they live in safe places. Most likely the second, but to me it's a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem.

The facts remain that blue states, no matter if predominantly white or multiethnic, are happier than the red ones.

Besides, you also pointed out the fact that Blacks and Latinos in Democratic states are more likely to purchase guns. But who encourages permitting systems to purchase firearms and form gun rights groups?
-The Republicans, of course. Democrats usually advocate gun control.

One last thing, you didn't tell me why you mention the difference in physiology between the Blacks and the Whites? What did you try to prove?

Please, read this article, even though I know in advance what you gonna say: The New York Times is not reliable, full of liberal crap, Jewish-owned and corrupted by Goldman Sachs blah blah blah...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...s-doctors.html

[lei.talk]

MEDIA COMPLETELY MISSED THE MARK
ON KYLE RITTENHOUSE

I’ve had it with the media demonizing gun owners. Kyle Rittenhouse’s story provides the perfect example of a prejudiced press twisting the facts to put self-defense in the worst possible light, and we shouldn’t tolerate it for a minute.

While not all of the facts are fully known, the evidence currently available seems to tell an abundantly clear story: Kyle was serving his community when angry mobs attacked him, and he stopped the threat.

Now, reporters could have said exactly that.

But those facts just don’t cut it for a media that is rabidly eager to destroy the concept of a gun being used for good. No way could that be the story of the day. So they got . . . creative.

Did anyone else hear that he “crossed state lines” to travel to Kenosha? I heard that, too. Technically, this is true, although it paints a totally different picture than reality. The words that the press chose to use made it seem like he’d traveled hundreds of miles, far from where he lived. In reality though, his hometown of Antioch, IL is only about 20 miles from Kenosha, WI. Kyle worked in Kenosha as a lifeguard. It is truly his community.

The media then told us that this teenager was firing indiscriminately into a crowd. They labeled him the “shooter” in headlines that told us that he “open fired”.

That sure isn’t what I saw on the videos. I saw a teen who had his wits about him even as he was being chased by a crazy mob. He had an AR-15, which means he had the ability to shoot his attackers. But he held his fire until he tripped, at which point he had absolutely no other escape. And even then, he shot only the ones who were actually attacking him and threatening his life.

Online articles dedicate paragraph after paragraph to discussing the “peaceful” protestors and how fearful they were when they saw someone wearing a backwards baseball cap and a gun—that would be Kyle.

Reporters lead with Biden’s words which link Rittenhouse to “white supremacists and white nationalists and Neo-Nazis and the KKK.” Although they are forced to admit that there is absolutely no evidence to connect Rittenhouse with these violent and horrible groups, it’s easy to skip over the disclaimers, which are sandwiched in between repeated Biden quotes.

These same articles barely event attempt to reference the statements from Kyle’s attorneys — his own representatives who are telling the story from his perspective.

But who expects the press to actually care about the facts that make a gun owner look good? There may be exceptions, but in general, mainstream media has about the same amount of unbiased characterization of gun owners as Elizabeth Warren has Indian blood. It just ain’t so, y’all.

This is the media that painted burglars as the victims when an Austin homeowner shot back to defend his “castle” earlier this year. From the headlines and the style in which the story was reported, readers just skimming the story could have gotten the impression that two poor, unfortunate innocents were needlessly murdered.

This is the same media that regularly identifies standard semiautomatic guns “weapons of war” despite the fact that hundreds — possibly thousands — of Americans every single day use guns, including semiautomatics, to successfully to defend their lives and escape attackers. It’s not uncommon for these self-defenders to use AR-15 rifles just like Kyle did.

I’ll be candid: I don’t know all the facts of what happened in Kenosha. I reserve the right to change my opinion based on evidence that may come out in the future. But I can tell you that, so far, the evidence that has come out after the fact points even more solidly to a self-defense case.

Even the 9th Circuit Court—notorious for its anti-gun decisions on appeal from California—stated recently that “an average of 657 Americans — and perhaps up to 6,849 Americans — use guns to defend themselves every single day of the year.” The same opinion points out that minorities, women, and other population segments are often targets for increased violence, and often the only way for them to stay safe is for them to arm themselves—yes, with a gun.

Couldn’t the press to take a cue and at least acknowledge this truth?

I won’t hold my breath.

[Universe]

What mumbo jumbo? I already made it clear in my last post that correlation between criminality and cities with a Democratic leadership is biased, even quoting my source
But instead of admitting your defeat, you're still looking for lice on a bald head, pointing out a flaw in my rhetoric in order to get out with your head held high.

Lol! Really? How was I defeated?
Yes, most violent places in USA are certain blue cities. I never claimed they're dangerous because they vote blue. I only pointed out there's a correlation. This is the second time I stress this.

So what if I point out a 'flaw in your rhetoric'? Why shouldn't I do it? It wasn't just a flaw in rhetoric - it was more than that. You made a strong statement that should be easy to back up with data. Democrat votes don't correlate with safety. Safety correlates with racial demographics far more than with how people vote(you claimed the opposite). Any sensible person can realize that when he looks at the statistics. But for you it's more convinient to blame the 'bad republican white man' because you wanna show how 'anti-racist' you are.

I don't know if New England is safe because locals elect Democratic leaders or, on the contrary, if voters elect Democrats because they live in safe places. Most likely the second, but to me it's a chicken-or-the-egg kind of problem.

So why doesn't South Dakota - the safest state of USA - elect the democrat party? It's not the only republican state with low homicide rate. Using this logic, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana etc should all vote blue, but they don't. Nice hypthesis you got there.

The facts remain that blue states, no matter if predominantly white or multiethnic, are happier than the red ones.

Changing the topic, nice. I didn't claim they republican voting places are happier. I claimed they're not more dangerous than the blue voting ones, I was correct.

Besides, you also pointed out the fact that Blacks and Latinos in Democratic states are more likely to purchase guns. But who encourages permitting systems to purchase firearms and form gun rights groups?-The Republicans, of course. Democrats usually advocate gun control.

But do you have data to prove republican votes correlate with violence? If not, then stop replying to me. We've been over the statistics.

One last thing, you didn't tell me why you mention the difference in physiology between the Blacks and the Whites? What did you try to prove?

I demonstrated the lack of equality.

Please, read this article, even though I know in advance what you gonna say: The New York Times is not reliable, full of liberal crap, Jewish-owned and corrupted by Goldman Sachs blah blah blah...

Making strawman argument again? I thought you can do better. Can you show one post of mine where I said anything negative about Jews? Good luck with that.
What does the article have to do with anything I said? You wanna say the scientific findings about bone qualities of black and white persons and the statistics about their rate of bone fracture are incorrect because someone 200 years ago made an incorrect assumption about black people's lungs?

[lei.talk]

Kyle Rittenhouse Bailed Out Of Kenosha Jail
After Attorneys Post $2 Million

Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old accused of fatally shooting two people and injuring a third during anti-racism protests in Wisconsin, posted $2 million bail and was released from jail Friday, authorities announced.

“Kyle Rittenhouse’s bond was posted this afternoon at about 2 p.m., which was set up through his attorney,” Kenosha County Sheriff’s Sgt. David Wright said in a statement. “He is no longer in custody at the Kenosha County Jail.”

Wisconsin Circuit Court Commissioner set Rittenhouse’s bail in a Nov. 3 hearing, saying he posed a flight risk.

Rittenhouse’s defense attorney, Mark Richards, had asked for bail to be set at $750,000, arguing his client had no prior criminal record and had surrendered himself to the authorities.

Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Ill., was arrested in September and indicted as an adult on charges of being a fugitive from justice, first-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide. He’s accused of killing Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, with an AR-15-style rifle near the Civic Center Park where demonstrators had congregated to protest the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Graphic video of the shooting captured on a cellphone shows Rittenhouse running down the street after having allegedly shot Rosenbaum as people ran after him. While fleeing, Rittenhouse falls, at which point Huber attempts to yank the rifle from the teenager who shoots him. Huber takes a few steps before collapsing to the street.

Rittenhouse’s lawyer said his client shot the three protesters in self-defense.