Destiny Discovers Cenk's Rittenhouse Stance Before Their Debate...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Destiny finds out The Young Turk Cenk's take on Rittenhouse before their debate...
Date: 4 June, 2023
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►TWITTER - / theomniliberal
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#destiny
#politics
#debate
Destiny Uses Shapiro For Cenk Debate Prep
►th-cam.com/video/IS4d6vziGlk/w-d-xo.html
Vaush vs Destiny Debate - Morality of Kyle Rittenhouse
►th-cam.com/video/h_0R_aiPb-s/w-d-xo.html
Rittenhouse didn't shoot the first guy because he heard a gun shot, The man chased rittenhouse into a parking lot and GRABBED THE GUN. Rittenhouse shot him while he was trying to take the gun away from rittenhouse. This was proven in court. There is also footage of the man saying he was going to kill rittenhouse some hours earlier while rittenhouse was using a fire extinguisher on the dumpster they set of fire. VERY IMPORTANT fact to debate this issue! @destiny
This dishonest tactic by Cenk is now common and disgusting. Claiming he was not proven guilty, not innocent, is immensely ignorant and dishonest.
Nobody is every proven innocent BECAUSE you're presumed innocent till PROVEN guilty. If KR was not found guilty he is innocent.
I simply cannot fathom the ignorance it takes to diminish the threat of a skateboard. You see a crowbar and think "they better not swing that at me." You see a baseball bat and think "they better not swing that at me." You see a skateboard and think "I could take it."
I feel like all the people acting like getting hit with a skateboard isn’t a big deal wouldn’t like if very much if someone actually tried to hit them with a skateboard. The real issue is the people who think like that are all unathletic dorks who have never held a skateboard and have no clue how much weight is in that thing.
Ya it would hurt. But it’s a skateboard vs a gun, right?
@@JusticeIsALie It's the context. This isn't your friend hitting you with a skateboard once as a joke, this is someone chasing after you trying to incapacitate you with a skateboard. You have no idea what their ultimate intention is, whether they'll stop once you're disarmed, or if they'll bash your skull into the pavement.
Bro... these same people are just throwing trash out their mouth... if they're so confident that a skateboard can't do no harm we can test that in them VERY easily.
I bash the US in many areas... but in self defense you guys are exceptional... in my country if I see someone destroying what's mine I can't touch him... just the police... and if I'm attacked and attack back in some instances I can be charged and found guilty... Kile did nothing but defend property and himself from vandals...
It’s all just which side on you’re on..
If you’re on the right, you wanted Kyle to be found not guilty.
And if you’re a pedophile anti criminal who fauns over violence, you wanted him to be found guilty.
So I think it’s just who’s side you’re on…
There’s a lot of dead horses. But this one’s my favorite.
Horses you say?
@@frostyham Horse c***, no?
Forsen has entered the chat
I'm a destiny mega fan but this is one take Ive never truly understood. Prolly cos I'm a bonger.
@@henryburton6529 It’s not difficult. He had every right to defend himself from a physical attack.
To the skateboard thing, in the Bay Area there was a skateboarder that hit a security guard in the head during a fight. The case ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury but the security guards head was left permanently caved in because of the skateboard. He has permanent brain damage and requires “lifelong medical care and treatment,” so you can absolutely do serious damage.
Yeah my reply to all the people acting like a skateboard is a literal feather for some reason is, “Alright let me hit you in the head with a skateboard then” and no one seems very interested. You could easily kill someone with a skateboard especially if they are in a vulnerable, pinned position where they can be hit repeatedly.
Yeah it’s a plank of wood with metal shit at the end with a good hand hold. Maybe not as bad as a baseball bat or something but close
"Not a deadly weapon broooooo, it's just a skateboard maaaaaan. No big deeaeeaaaaallll." - California probably.
@@stakahz4513 Bro easy 2 hit kill with a skateboard. It's why I try to be a people pleaser at the skate park. Especially in my area. It's literally a heavy sheet of ply wood.
@@spikedmo Nah dude just as if not more deadly than a bat. The shape of it makes it sharper than a bat doing deeper damage.
I know a guy who was arrested once for drinking underage, and the state had to drop the charges on an 'age technicality.' The technicality that he got off on was that he was over 21..
Officer: "Excuse me there young man, you must be at least 21"
Guy: "But I am 26. Do you need to see my state ID?"
Officer: "Last time I checked, 26 divided by 2 is 13, which means your breaking the law"
...
But in all seriousness, I am really curious how that happened. Did your friend forget his ID at home?
@@TapDat52K
Im just sarcastically making fun of John's idiotic statement about Rittenhouse getting off on a 'barrel length technicality.' I don't actually know anyone who has been arrested for that..
@@falseprophet1024 The "technicality" was that it was a standard 16" barrel and not an SBR
Alternatively, didn’t have their ID and caught drinking?
@Lordie Bevan
Naw. He had his ID. The cops and prosecutor just didnt know 22 was a bigger number than 21. It was totally an honest mistake and not a malicious prosecution..
Your stance on Rittenhouse is the ultimate indicator as to whether you should be taken seriously or not. It's such an easy thing to get right if you aren't some insane Ideologue.
It’s the perfect litmus to test a person’s objectivity.
He had the right to defend himself but should he bear no responsibility for going to the protests?
EDIT: Since you mongoloids couldn't understand my comment, I didn't mean Rittenhouse should bear legal responsibility, but his retardation of being there and the circumstances during the scenario (ex: It's understandable that people would be worried that a guy is carrying a big fucking gun at a protest) should be discussed and criticized along while acknowledging his legal innocence and right to defend himself.
@@yolkthosenutsthat’s not how the law works
@@yolkthosenuts he had a right to go to the protest as well
@@yolkthosenuts No more than any other person who went to the riots. If everyone was wrong then no one was wrong.
"Why did the cops assume that just by Jacob Blake being there he was the one committing a crime?" she asked.
Meanwhile on the 911 call "Jacob Blake the man who raped me, and I have a restraining order on, and he doesn't have custody of the kids, has shown up and he's causing fights and he's about to kidnap the kids! please stop him"
Rittenhouse didn't shoot the first guy because he heard a gun shot, The man chased rittenhouse into a parking lot and GRABBED THE GUN. Rittenhouse shot him while he was trying to take the gun away from rittenhouse. This was proven in court. There is also footage of the man saying he was going to kill rittenhouse some hours earlier while rittenhouse was using a fire extinguisher on the dumpster they set of fire. VERY IMPORTANT fact to debate this issue! @destiny
the gun shot supposedly prompted him to turn around, The issue about the gun shot is that it was from the man who just moments before Rosenbaum attacked him from behind, The man who had that gun was the one who set Rittenhouse up to get attacked and was also threatening to kill him while holding onto the gun in the waist of his pants, I'm sure Rittenhouse thought that gunshot was significant because it was literally damn near right next to them on the other side of some cars just out of the parking lot.
@@giantmess4335 Yes but the gun shot is not why or when Rittenhouse fired. Rittenhouse didn't fire his gun until Rosenbaum had grabbed the shaft of the rifle. There seems to be confusion with this detail.
@@Chris-ht1vv As far as I knew from the trial. Rosenbaum was right behind him the entire time I didn't say he shot because of the gun shot but if you turn around because of it because you think someone nearby is taking shots at you and some idiot reaches for your gun. No the death didn't happen because of the shot but I think after having just been threatened with a gun then attacked from behind and chased. Then yeah the gunshot had an minor effect on the timing. It was literally milliseconds after that when Rosenbaum met his end and even Rittenhouse admitted that startled the shit out of him because it happened just outside the parking lot.
The idea that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum because he heard a gunshot in the distance is laughable. The actual reason is because Rosenbaum was a violent psycho who threatened to murder Rittenhouse multiple times, chased him multiple blocks, cornered him, and tried to grab his firearm away from him.
It's literally all of video.
Hey look man Rittenhouse put out a literal dumpster on fire that Rosenbaum and other were wheeling to a gas station. So Rittenhouse had it coming how dare he get in the way of his catastrophic arson.
@@emailsuxor Good point, I mean it was his job, right? He totally didn't use lethal force as a vigilante.
@@HRRRRRDRRRRR True, he only used lethal force in self defence, not to do whatever else he was trying to do that was perfectly legal, like putting out a fire or running away from a mob. If no one had tried to attack him maybe more fires would have been put out and no one would have been shot.
I dont think "putting out a dumpster fire and removing graffiti makes you a vigilante" is convincing, if he had shot at people trying to start fires that would have made him a vigilante.
define multiple blocks, was that parking lot that big? Also, the gun in the distance was literally just off the parking lot they were in, the same gun, from the same man who with his wife stopped Rittenhouse who just came into the parking lot, threatened him tried to get others to jump him as well and then allowed Rosenbaum who hid behind vehicles just moments before Rittenhouse showed up to then attack him from behind.
@Giant mess He started following Rittenhouse after he became enraged when Rittenhouse tried to stop him from pushing a literal flaming dumpster into a gas station a couple blocks away.
Kyle Rittenhouse: "AHH, DANGER, RUN AWAY UNTIL I PHYSICALLY CAN'T RUN ANYMORE AND MY BACK IS AGAINST A WALL!"
The mob: "HEY, LOOK, KYLE RITTENHOUSE, THE DANGER, LET'S CHASE HIM"
Guess which one is viewed as the vigilante.
The guy who showed up to a riot armed to fight the big bad criminals in spite of the police asking people not to? Then only tried to flee the scene of a crime after shooting an unarmed man in the head with grossly disproportional force? And probably not the people attempting a citizens arrest of the armed vigilante wanna-be cop that just shot someone in front of them?
While I agree it was legally self defense, I also think it was insanely stupid of him to be there.
If it's legal to open carry, it's not stupid. What is stupid is to physically attack someone who has a gun. That's darwinism at its finest.
@@firefly9838 I think that's the most rational take to have. I wonder if the people that call him a murderer are only doing so in response to people calling Kyle a "hero".
@@firefly9838 He wouldn’t have been there if they weren’t burning down minority owned businesses.
*Calling the Kenosha riots "Mostly Peaceful Protests" is like calling the Titanic's maiden voyage a "Mostly Iceberg-free Trip".*
Disanalogous because the titanic voyage WAS mostly iceberg free. The difference is they were talking about the protests being mostly peaceful, not riots. It is however the worst possible thing to say while standing there with burning buildings in the background 😂
That’s because you mostly see what the media shows which is riots. The vast majority of protesters were non violent. Im not going to brush off all violence as righteous indignation but we see this stuff when a soccer team loses and that never made me wanna go out with an ar15 and “mow down protesters” or “pick them off as they run out” like destiny or kyle like to say.
@@mood1676 Dude, I grew up in Kenosha my entire life, over 20 years there, my family still lives there. It was very violent. People were driving their cars up north because black rioters were smashing windows and burning cars. It was not mostly peaceful.
@mood1676 Continued riots with minimal police intervention will incite response.
Simple evidence for this? Very few people showed up go the first night of the riots. It was only after it continued.
What's perplexing to me is that many of these rioters damage black owned businesses... with wanton disregard. A couple of black men died.
The amount of police killings of unarmed black men that didn't validly fear for their life is a tiny number. The destruction for extremist left-wing rioters during these protests was possibly worse than the cause and devastating to many more lives.
There's a ton of eye witness testimony and interviews of impacted people online. There's a summer of love death list of people who died. There are people who couldn't get emergency services... and let's be honest the vast majority of these were virtue signaling leftists.
@@mood1676 I would have been more dismissive of the rioting if they targeted government facilities only. I will never understand what burning down a family owned furniture store or torching a car lot have to with police brutality. If the police are the problem then attack the police, attacking private citizens is literally terrorism.
I can't wait till they make a Rittenhouse virtual reality reenactment simulator so people can actually relive what happened because they don't seem understand what actually went down
They'll just close their eyes and cover their ears and yell "lalala" like they're doing rn
leave the house, everything doesn't have to be a video game.
@@user-dy2op9fi9k the military has used games for over a decade to get people used to high stress situations. Times have changed virtually reality can be a tool like a screen can .someone watching surveillance cameras isn't the same as going to the movie theaters .
They'd just allow the Rosenbaum guy to cave their heads in without even the slightest protest. It the right thing to do 👍
The whole event was over the course of 2 minutes, and Rittenhouse fired 9 shots total.
He's either the worst mass shooter in the history of mass shooters, or he was merely defending himself. I'm going with Occam's Razor on this one.
There was a black man that killed a cop in self defense, that was found not guilty at the same time as rittenhouse. it was in the news for literally 3 mins.
The news is propaganda, not news. I wish people would figure this out.
Doesn't fit a narrative they are trying to paint.
He was black though
@@La0bouchere The narrative being that if someone was black they would be guilty no matter the evidence.
If you're taking about Coffee, he didn't kill a cop. He opened fire on them, but didn't kill any of them.
I like how the young turk dude kept saying that the legal system should take more into account than just the event itself. Like things said by the defendant no matter when they were, etc. Like bro, that's literally called prejudice and it's SPECIFICALLY kept out of the court system because what someone did on a Tuesday 5 weeks ago has nothing to do with an in the moment self defense case caught on camera.
And the judge did say that it could be used if there was good enough testimony to make it relevant.
Cenk has got to be the most illiterate person on legal matters. And he's a lawyer.
That Huber comment was wild. You're right Cenk, the jury found that it's perfectly legal to just shoot someone that gets close to you. Did they even watch the trial?
"Oh you committed a crime before that should be evidence aginst you for any future criminal charges " - TYT but only for their enemies
Exactly.
And even if he was a psychotic vigilante out looking to murder BLM protestors, that fact would be negated by the fact that he was running full speed in the opposite direction of his attacker before he ever fired a shot in self-defense.
It's arguably the clearest case of civilian DGU ever captured on video.
I like how he claims that Rittenhouse's mom is the the worst mother in the world. Meanwhile they applaude parents that put children on puberty blockers.
"I don't care about your boos, I've seen what makes you cheer!"a
I love the fact that they never bring up, Rosenbaum threatened to kill him twice that night, and chased him through a parking lot and was only shot because Rittenhouse fell down and Rosenbaum was essentially on top of him when he was shot. Thats some how is the same as "he was standing to close to him"
He literally had gun powder residue on his hands because of how close his hands were to his rifle
rittenhouse didn't fall during the rosenbaum situation, but rosenbaum was close enough two Rittenhouse to take his gun. And someone threatening to kill you and then try to take your gun from you was the reason he got shot. Rittenhouse did fall but it was because of the three people that attacked him later.
You expect Cenk to give you truth?
He swiped at the gun and said f' you according to the witness.
Maybe he was just giving him a hug?
At least He died doing what He loved; chasing a minor.
IIRC,
1) Rittenhouse picked up the gun at the home of his friend (?) not driven by his mother "across state lines!!" - 20 minute drive,
2) The first guy he killed chased him and cornered him, a guy who had just got out of a mental hosiptal and convicted of child sex assault, a guy who said he was going to kill him whilst another guy shot his gun in the air. First guy tried to grab his gun and he shot him.
3) Ritten then starts running with a mob after him.
4) Skateboard guy attacks Ritten and gets shot and dies.
5) Armed guy then approaches Ritten and gets shot in the arm
At no point did Ritten shoot anyone not attacking him.
Cenks take "You can just shoot anyone now without cause" when the 3 casualties attacked Ritten first. TYT's take doesn't match the evidence presented and they either lie about, or omit, the facts.
Cenk is so brain dead on this issue I’m not convinced he watched a minute of the trial.
One guy started attacking and gave up as Rittenhouse aimed at him so he didn't shoot him he was very restrained
The collectively REEEEEing from the far left after Rittenhouse was acquitted will forever be a moment of cathartic music that replays over in my head during my darkest moment.
I lost all faith in talking to the far left after the George Floyd, crt, rittenhouse and trans issues. They are too far gone
I love how he leaves out the guy he first shot was reaching for his weapon after screaming f' you and threatening him earlier that night.
This is outright dishonesty... because there's no way he knows all this information but doesn't know that?
I don't even know if it's real dishonesty or just a complete unwillingness to look into the actual facts of the case. They also repeated the claim that his mom drove him there with the gun, but it had been known since before the trial that he drove himself and that the gun was always in Wisconsin. It's genuinely like their reporting on the case is just stuff they heard on social media.
@@JustAThrowAwayName Perhaps I'm prescribing malintent where it's just ignorance.
But I see little difference between malintent and willful ignorance from a culpability perspective when it comes to irresponsible reporting.
John Iadarola is for sure low IQ. The rest are a bit above average but are also captured by ideology.
@@Straitjacket346 You could be right. In my estimation though, they're what H.G. Frankfurt would call 'Bullshit Artists'. I don't think they actually respect the truth enough to be lying. They say something that sounds good and is a popular narrative among their audience, and I doubt that it being true or false ever really matters to them.
I say all that, but I don't think we're that far off on our opinions about them.
@@Straitjacket346 Yeah I'd say a certain level of ignorance IS malintent. It's fine to be wrong from time to time but in the case of Rittenhouse they were wrong on multiple things and reported on it in a manner that implied they were 100% confident in what they were saying.
They are pretending that Rittenhouse just heard a gunshot and started shooting, purposely leaving out that he was being attacked and trying to evade the attacker.
true but it isnt like that gun shot wasnt significant if you realize how he got set up to be attacked. The gun shot didnt start the shooting but RIttenhouse said he found it startling , the issue is that one with the gun was literally a few feet a way. The same man who just moments before Rittenhouse was attacked from behind, that man was holding a gun that was in the waist of his pants also threatening to kill him.
The "he was carrying a gun" argument is the left wing version of the "she was wearing little to no clothes"
Did you just compare a scantily clad woman inviting herself to be groped versus a crowd of people going after an active shooter who just shot and killed a person?
@@vh9network yes he did, this is logic to conservatives
@@vh9network The "active shooter" was actively running the entire time and only shot when cornered. I mean the conflict started because he put out a literal dumpster fire then when he tried to leave the individual who started the dumpster fire followed him threatening to kill him before eventually trying to grab his gun. This is all on video I don't understand what's gained by saying he's an active shooter?
@@jeremyb3991 he didn't just start a dumpster fire he was pushing it towards a gas station only good thing would have come from that 😂
@@vh9network
Why is this comparison wrong? Let us use a gun and a miniskirt, a guy and a girl, a protest and a frat party, just to keep this as close as we can.
The arguments for condemning the victim in either case is the same, down to the wording.
He/she went there looking for trouble
He/she brought/wore that legal gun/miniskirt
He/she should have stayed home, they shouldn’t have been there
He/she was underage and were being provocative, they were asking for it
In these arguments, the arguer ignores the actions of the assailant/grapist in order to place the blame on the victim for doing something which is totally legal to do. It’s legal for an underage girl to attend a frat party and not expect sexual assault. It’s legal to open carry a long barrel rifle at seventeen in Wisconsin and not expect to get assaulted for it.
I’m both arguments, the blame is placed on the victim of assault and the assailant is ignored, because the arguer is arguing from a “morally superior” position where the very act of leaving your home wearing the legal gear you own was the very sin which trumps all else. People can “safely” ignore the real issue by focusing solely on the victims actions which they deem to be “dumb” or “wrong”.
why don't people understand that he wasn't let off the weapons charge on a 'technicality'? the law just says (in an admittedly odd way) that 16 and 17 year olds can't have tax stamp weapons like short barreled rifles/shotguns, which adults need to jump through hoops to buy anyway. He didn't just happen to buy a gun of the right barrel length, because you don't just accidentally buy a tax stamp gun unless your friend sawed off the barrel or modified it to make it automatic or something
As you said, the law is very poorly worded. I was of the opinion the under-age weapon charge was the only thing he was guilty of until just after the trial started, when someone went through the statutes with me and explained how it related to Kyle's situation. Gun enthusiasts had been saying it since the start, to their credit. Even the lawyers were a bit shaky about it.
But unclear laws are a problem for a prosecution, not the defence. If a reasonable person takes the law to mean one thing, and the prosecution argues it means another, that's their burden of proof, and it usually results in "we should probably fix this law to make sense so this doesn't happen again."
Yeah the argument doesn't really make much sense unless you think Rittenhouse just happened to buy a gun that passed through the loophole.
He wasn’t in possession of a short barrel rifle or full auto or any tax stamped firearm. It was a regular 16” ar-15. The law states that a minor can possess a firearm while accompanied by an adult. A minor cannot purchase one by law.
That's not what the law says AT ALL and Kyle's rifle WAS NOT an SBR.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor The law states, in essence (I have listed the statutes):
//You have to be at least 18 to carry a gun [*948.60 (2) (a)*], but this law only applies if that gun is short barrelled [*948.60 (3) (c)*]. Additionally, it does not apply if you are between 12-16 [*29.603*], as long as you have a hunting license [*29.593*]//
The second part means nobody under 16 can carry any gun unless they are hunting with a license. A quick google searches proves that Wisconsin will give 12-16yo a hunting license, so clearly my interpretation is correct. But as Kyle was 17 and not hunting, its irrelevant. Which leaves the important part:
//You have to be at least 18 to carry a gun [*948.60 (2) (a)*], but this law only applies if that gun is short barrelled [*948.60 (3) (c)*], provided the carrier is above 16 [as per above]//
So the law eventually reads that a 14-16yo can have a gun for hunting, a 16-18yo can have a long barrelled gun, and an 18+yo can have any gun they like, short or long.
It is poorly worded, but the judge agreed that when its laid out, the gun was legal.
"We are living through chaos" probably didn't say shit about the riots
Bro you can crack someones head open if you hit them with the trucks on a board. These people are so delusional.
Gun vs skateboard, skateboard wins?
@@Covenant347 Why ask this?
@@NINEx7x rittenhouse had a gun, he was being charged by a guy with a skateboard after shooting someone. Whose the bigger threat in that moment?
@@Covenant347 The person doing the charging of course.
@@NINEx7x definitely not the person who just shot and killed someone, gotcha
The Rittenhouse case is the ultimate NPC test for left-wingers like Ukraine is for Right-Wingers.
Bingo
Damn true
What is the Ukraine test for right wingers
My problem as someone who lives too close to ukraine for comfort is that cases like rittenhouse give right wing crazies so much fuel to attack mainstream media. Amount of bs spread by the media in this case was crazy.
@@LordIceifyNot even a little bit
Destiny I started watching you because of your Rittenhouse coverage, I am very right leaning (Ben Shapiro fan), and I was blown away by how bad faith most left leaning persons takes on this situation are. Thank you for being honest
It's not bad faith. Stop attempting to use buzzwords.
@@usucdik what do you think bad faith means?
@@deji1216 I'm surprised you didn't immediately troll him... good on you. I'ma take my seething rage elsewhere.
@@usucdikDestiny made the exact same point in the video, lol. If you have to declare one "side" of a happening to be good or evil before the facts are out, ignore the facts that are immediately obvious, introduce as much context and sophistry as possible to muddy the situation, and engage in rampant sophistry just because you have to defend your political football team, you are probably in bad faith.
Rittenhouse is a great litmus test for bad faith.
@@usucdik if it’s not bad faith it’s utter stupidity.
Imagine thinking it's self defense to chase someone down the street
Please elaborate on this? I don’t want to assume that you mean this the way it comes off.
@@jordans5674 nothing to elaborate, just turn on your brain
@@domerame5913 I mean elaborate if you’re referring to Rittenhouse or Michael Reinoehl?
@@jordans5674
Cenk argues that Huber and Grosskruitz were enacting self defense by chasing Kyle down for several minutes while the kid did nothing but run from them, forcing him to the ground and attempting to end his life as Kyle tried everything to escape them.
The point here is that if you have to chase the attacker to put yourself into harms way, it’s no longer self defense and instead is treated as assault. If the other party is fleeing you and you pursue, you aren’t defending yourself at this point, you are actively assaulting them.
@@sereksusvictar7888 ahhhh, gotcha. TYT made the claim for the longest time that Kyle was chasing Rosenbaum before he shot him. And a lot of people still think that to this day somehow.
Destiny's take here is spot on. But one thing I don't ever hear about is how unhinged Rosenbaum was prior to this. If you've spent anytime watching riot videos from the months prior, he shows up multiple times trying to bait people into attacking him and just being generally pretty aggressive, it was literally a matter of time before that guy got seriously hurt.
Maybe he changed his ways in the months since 🤷♂
@@mdaddy775 what bro? Rosenbaum is dead
@@constantineofamerica1555 Just because he did weird stuff in the months before Kenosha doesn't justify his death months later.
@@mdaddy775 Its been three years since Rosenbaum last comitted any criminal offense !
Rehabilitation worked !
@@mdaddy775 he was literally threatening people the day of his death. Actually mentioned in Destiny's video.
I just can't believe how much they blame him for being there with a legal firearm. the same people who would s*** all over you if you said a woman was asking for. what did she think was going to happen being drunk walking down a dark alley at 3 in the morning with that dress on all by herself. That's victim-blaming because she had every right to be there and not expect to be assaulted Rittenhouse on the other hand didn't have every right to be there and should have expected that he was going to be assaulted😂
I said the EXACT same thing about Kyle when it was happening. they kept saying it’s not his hometown but it IS. His dad lives there and his parents are divorced…. It’s 20 min from his moms house in another town. The amount of misinformation they were saying in the media was insane.
Yes and its also perfectly legal for him to open carry so what is their argument exactly? You can't 'provoke' someone by doing something completely legal
how are those anything alike.
Kyle said he wished he had his gun, while watching looters, and joined up with a right wing group LARPing as a military squad. Then set out to defend busted up buildings, in a contained riot zone, while proclaiming he will defend these buildings with deadly force if he must.
Do women do or say anything like that before getting raped?
@@gloriouspurpose_ yes they say things like I should be able to get drunk by my self in a room full of men dressed in as little as I please and not have to worry about shit put in my drink or dudes assaulting me in a Aly. And you know what there right. Just like Kyle should be able to open carry down a city street with out being attacked for simply doing what he is legally allowed to do. Both things are not wise but perfectly leagal. to blame Kyle or the tipsy girl at th frat party for what others do to them is exactly the same. Your holding Kyle responsible for others actions against him. Your saying he shouldn't have been there he shouldn't have been dresses like that with the things he had. When every thing he was doing he had every right to do. You dug deep in to his past looking for a reason to make it his fault. This is something you wouldn't do if it was a woman who shot 4 drunk guys attacking her in a shity nabourhood at 3 in the morning. Would you be like what she thank was going to happen why would she have condoms in her purse if she didn't want it. She was clearly asking for it all night this is her fault if she hadn't led them guys on they never would have attacked her. She once said she'd kill a guy who tried to rape her and then she did so that proves she wanted to kill. Your being biased
20 minutes in, they keep saying "you can kill someone if you hear a shot" completely removing added context that the guy chasing him had already threatened to kill him.
Now im im hearing about his mum driving him across statelines with a gun, lie, didn't happen, gun was in the state already, they clearly knew the bare minimum about this case before going off on this self asured rant.
If TYT are snails context is salt
TYT is the main reason why I hate revisiting this topic. I just know I’m in for atleast 10 minutes of correcting them in my head. Every minute just thinking “I could do this shit”
In a world of lies and misleading, when there is a discussion and you know the other party has an agenda; I really like how Destiny tries to research their point of view and verify what they are in fact saying is sound and from good judgement. We lack this do diligence from any other source of legacy media.
Only reason I watch him, find 50% of his takes pretty cringe in ways but can't fault the logic behind it moreoften than not
I'd love to debate him on animal sentience
It's due diligence,but totally agree
Yeah we lack this Daz Dillinger in a lot of legacy media
oh yes, the Doot doola doot doo diligence. We certainly lack it.
@@danilvoiko954 nardwaur before a debate.
I hate that description "Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag and someone shot a gun nearby."
Like he wasn't chasing him and going in to tackle him, and wasn't shot with his hand on the barrel of the gun.
Destiny is debating Cenk? When? On what? Why?
This afternoon I think
it looks like 9pm EST. If i'm wrong let me know.
He is a demon reincarnated, haunting that family for their past crimes.
@victor It is going to be today 9pm est
Why is a good question. This is the first person I actually wish destiny wasn't giving a platform. Lol. Cenk is evil incarnate.
The kid that pulled a pistol on Rittenhouse was on parole. He wasn’t supposed to have a firearm period.
Grosskreutz was 26 at the time. Not a "kid".
Didn't he also feign surrender right before pulling it out? I swear I remember him running up, putting both hands up to act innocent the first time Rittenhouse pointed the rifle at him, and then pulling his pistol out the second Rittenhouse aimed elsewhere (probably initially assuming he meant no harm).
@@FallenMerick yep.
@@laurendearnley9595 he was on parole meaning having any firearm on your person is a violation and he is exempt from owning a firearm as he is a criminal.
@@laurendearnley9595 My question is, how did Grosskreutz avoid getting prosecuted? He was a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, concealed said firearm without a permit, and attempted to murder Rittenhouse with said firearm before getting shot himself. Pretty sure he also lied on the stand during the trial multiple times, so let's go ahead and add perjury to that list.
That guy needs to be in prison.
I feel like thats what happened with a lot of this. There were a lot of on the fence cases early on like the Trayvon Martin cases that people tried drumming up drama on. Neither side cares about what actually happened or who is at fault but they care about which team they are on. Must frame this as disingenuous as possible to fit a moral code. Like people don't understand they are literally being emotionally manipulated by this stuff. That take on Rittenhouse though oh my. If you replace rittenhouse with someone who was r**** he is literally asking the equivalent of, well what was she wearing, or why was she in that part of town.
But-but- look at the rifle he carried! He was begging for some nut to try to chase him while he has it CLEAR fir all to see. It's weird how open carry is treated with this scenario, like a rifle isn't a 'Don't attack me i'm armed' signal at its base.
That’s not really an equivalent to this
It’s more like asking a woman what she was wearing and why she was in that part of town if there was evidence she was intentionally dressing provocatively in a rough part of town specifically so she could kill someone who tried to rape her
This isn’t a rittenhouse take i’m just pointing out how that analogy doesn’t work
@@reddillon8425 That is only if you attribute intent to it. Which is the same issue they have with the rittenhouse take. They can't take intent out of the equation. But even if I gave that scenario to you, are you saying they are still in the wrong for killing someone instead of being assaulted?
There are still people to this day that believe Michael brown was shot and killed because he was black and that he did nothing wrong. I mean, Obama even pushed this message in this case and in the Trayvon martin cases. He stirred the racial pot quite a bit in his second term and it really had a negative effect. Now every mainstream media outlet is doing the same thing and yes it is dementing people
@@blankiepoo Their argument would actually have to be "If you walk around dressing provocatively looking to tempt potential r*pists, you deserve to be sexually assaulted".
He was a sk8er boi, kyle said see you later boi.
Lol, holy shit, dude
“Why did rittenhouse have to be there” well why did rosenbaum have to be there?
It’s almost like they how forgot police had completely pulled back in many cities and were letting the crazies loot, riot and burn buildings to the ground .. I mean, at what point do citizens step up and stop the insanity? I wish more rittenhouses would have stood up
I've found 3 people who have been killed by skateboards. Bernhard Bertain, Kenyon Graham, and Ozro Lee were all killed when they were hit by skateboards.
It wasn’t about hearing a gunshot. The man was chasing the kid and was reaching for Rittenhouse weapon and if I’m not mistaken he threatened Rittenhouse earlier in the evening.
Rittenhouse threatened people too earlier that night
@@mood1676
Do you have evidence of him threatening others earlier that night?
@@mood1676 No he didn't he was threatened when he was extinguishing the dumpster they set on fire. There is 0 evidence, testimony, or footage of your claim. You either made this up or heard this from someone who made it up.
@@Chris-ht1vv he was confronted about pointing his gun at a car full of people and he denied it. The witness was never called but there is video of the interaction after the fact.
@@mood1676 So this normally peaceful angry mob setting stuff on fire, shitting in the streets, breaking windows, doing graffiti, claimed he did this, there is 0 evidence of it happening in real time, there is only evidence of rittenhouse cleaning graffiti, putting out fires, and pointing his weapon at people who grabbed his gun, pointed a gun at his face, and attacked him with a skateboard.....and you're instinct is to believe the mob with no evidence? Thats a very irresponsible and biased take
"Why would you bring a gun if you wouldn't want to use it?"
For the exact same reason you put on a seatbelt. You put it on IN CASE something happens. Just because you're putting on your seatbelt doesn't mean that you're expecting an accident to happen.
Only a deranged lunatic would chase and attack a guy who's holding a rifle.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Most of the rioters are soyfolk who've never been punched for being the blights on society they are. The lunatic probably had no concept of justifiable consequences 😂
5:30 TYT was horrible on this. They didn't even realize Rosenbaum was chasing or grabbed Kyle's gun, they thought it was opposite, that Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum.... They spent a whole year moralizing without knowing 1 fact.
You can see Kyle in the video running from the first guy screaming friendly
yea I'll just assume the guy with the Resist Fist tattoo'd on to his neck is absolutely NOT a radical activist even though he just shot a man, lol.
I literally cant watch this. It makes my blood boil.
"So anytime you hear a noise nearby, you can just shoot someone!" 12:36
🙄yea dude, thats what that means🙄
I love how chat got frozen at one point with one person saying “that is so obviously not what happened. What is he talking about?” And I kept thinking that it was a new chat bc it was still applicable like every 5 seconds 😂
Yes you could argue the State is saying it's ok , but it's only saying that in the circumstances as it pertains to Rittenhouse. That's why we have trials.
Killing a person isn't necessarily a crime.
He killed a pedophile, so I don't see it as a loss. I bet the kid who got molested sure feels better that the perpetrator isn't breathing.
Getting hit by a two handed skateboard swing and getting clocked with the trucks is like being smashed with a hammer.
Wasn't there a story a few years ago about a guy that got just skull caved in by being hit by the trucks?
@@EL-Nope there are at least two cases of skateboard killings
Not to mention you go down you get head stomped Reginald Denny style.
People act like being hit with wood is nothing while forgetting that the first ever murder was probably Grug hitting Ug with a stick.
@@grahamsell3863most trucks are metal
@@grahamsell3863 "Wood" - its simplification. Skateboards are tough and heavy. It's not like they are a stick or a plank that will break on hit and you will get a little bruise. They can cause a heavy damage very, very easilly like a baseball.
It seems NO ONE UNDERSTANDS OPEN CARRY. They seem to think that carrying (your right) is a provocation, and that open carry IS THE WORST or scary... Well you need to learn. Open carry IS THE SAFE OPTION, conceal carry is more dangerous. And that is why kids can only open carry not conceal carry.
So everyone has this backwards. Open carry is the law for kids, and having a self defense tool displayed does not mean you should attack that person. Duh.
I don't even agree with US gun laws but I would never go to a state in America where there's open carry laws and attack someone with a gun without expecting him to use it.
I wouldn't think saying seeing the gun provoked me into attacking him would be a viable defence it would just be stupid.
If Cenk gave you a good-faith debate, Destiny would mop the floor with him. None of these TYT positions are grounded in reality.
Name is a girls Destiny.
I'm pretty sure recess is over, how about you go back to finger painting.
@@stepfaniehawkins205 u typed this comment and thought it was fire 😂
The ultimate Rittenhouse question: If KR was a 17 yr old girl with a rifle, could she defend herself from an attempted rape? Should she have to endure that rape because she “shouldn’t have been there with a gun?”
Lol, what? Please stop talking.
@@sonpidio D:
Submit to the mob young lady 😈 - in a video game
@@sonpidio Sure, just as soon as you answer my very simple question.
@@sonpidio How would you feel, when you would have had breakfast Yesterday?
A prior convicted white child rapist yelling the N word multiple times and saying he is going to kill somebody chases somebody with a firearm down solely for having the gun and tries to take it from him. Imagine saying you aren’t justified in shooting that person. “Well rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there”. Yeah the child rapist shouldn’t have been there either or attacked somebody with a firearm. And it’s funny how TYT want to use the term “vigilante” when that’s exactly the type of people that chased down Rittenhouse after the first man was shot. They chased with 0 information.
it's funny how they were talking about only paying attention to the 4 seconds before the shooting, when that whole riot was going on because the media cut out all the fighting and the 2 times jacob was hit with a tazer without going down before getting away from the cops then going around to the drivers side door of his van saying he was getting a knife. also forget to mention he had 2 kidnapped kids in the back seat
Gotta love how Cenk conveniently leaves out some key details of the first shooting. He makes it sound like Rittenhouse heard a gunshot, turned, saw Rosenbaum throw a bag at him, then Kyle shot him.
Not what happened at all. He kept running away and only turned to face Rosenbaum when he was cornered in between a bunch of cars and had no way out.
I’m a red pilled out MAGA living sob but I enjoy watching you Destiny even if we don’t agree on everything you definitely give a better point of view than modern day leftist.
Cenk gets his “debate bearings” from traditional media. You get a lot of slack for rhetoric and performance, but in long form he and Seder come off like stammering dads at the dinner table.
I actually think seder does pretty good even in long form hes just a little long winded.
@@Tabularasa1996 Seder doesn't debate competent people that's the problem. I disagree with destiny 75% of the time but I still have respect for him because he isn't afraid to debate smart people
The Brianna Taylor story still makes my stomach churn and makes me incredibly sad the poor lady.
? why
@B Nezzy lady was killed for no good reason, cops served a no knock warrant (which should either be illegal or be so strict criteria that it almost never happens) based on her ex who wasn't living there nor there and ended up shooting her to death, she was a nurse which is a job that pretty purely does good for the world. Her then boyfriend was returning fire, which is what you do when people break into your house, officers were shooting from outside the house completely blind could have hit anyone and everyone with no care for what the result was just a tragedy and wrong in innumerable ways.
@@nikwaggoner2480she didn’t deserve to die but I don’t think she deserves so much sympathy either.
Contrary to mainstream media she was not shot in her sleep or on her bed.
Her ex boyfriend was a drug dealer who was recorded in jail phone calls telling someone to pick up his money from Breonna, and a dead body was found in a car rented in her name. Likely her boyfriends doing. Her being a nurse doesn’t mean she wasn’t living a sketchy life.
But again, it is unfortunate she died
@@nikwaggoner2480 no knock warrants are very important I agree they should make triple sure they got the right info but not having no knock warrants is insane
@Gio Valladares didn't say she was in bed and having been with a sketchy dude doesn't mean you r sketch, I mean they were not together possibly because he was a sketchy dude
Edit; also having someone's money also doesn't mean your involved in anything sketchy, example ex shows up slaps money down says hold onto this for me I'm about to go to prison and need it either when I get out or for commissary and even if she says no he walks away and she is now in possession of the money does she toss it? Keep it for her self screwing over someone at the very least she used to care for or reluctantly hold it to be rid of it at soonest convenience? I'm not suggesting these are the specific case but there is a lot of ways it could've happened either way and we can't know so positing in either direction seems foolish
The inability of the left to understand that YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE COMPETING CLAIMS TO SELF DEFENSE is astounding.
Every claim of self defense is entirely independent and non contradictory
You look at every claim separately
Evaluate every claim separately
Every single person can be legally in the right to use self defense and that doesn’t take away from any other persons legal right
It drives me insane when they cry WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS TO SELF DEFENSE
Man, I'm glad Anna has sort of relaxed but... DUDE TYT helps me radicalize rightward so much.
Breonna Taylor was tragic, but if you associate with criminals isn't it reasonable that you could be in some fucky situations??
Cenk is so disingenuous about Rittenhouse, like his argument HAVE to be anecdotal because every fact goes against it
I wonder if Cenk knows a person can die just by being hit with a fist and falling to the ground. You’d think this is something everyone could kind of know at least to some degree. But sometime I hear people say thing and I just get the impression they think reality operates on action movie rules. Like, someone with a skateboard could easily beat someone to death a skateboard; and if you’re being chased by a mob, once they get you on the ground (and one good hit from a skateboard could do that) that could just be the end of you.
The Internet seemed to be full of hot takes on fighting around the time the whole Rittenhouse thing was happening from people that I can only guess haven’t been in a fight at all in their life, or haven’t been in a fight since they had the strength of a five year old.
"they think reality operates on action movie rules" - thats most people. Every time somebody says "why didn't the cop just shoot them in the leg?" I honestly think most people, when watching these events on their phone or computer, can't actually understand that these are real things that actually happened with real human life at stake. Its all basically a video game unless its happening physically in front of you/to you.
Even if we all agree a skateboard can't kill you (and we dont, Cenk), they can still hurt you badly.
Why should he have to submit to a beating, even if said beating wouldn't kill him?
Was gonna mention action films before I read more lol. Like Eddie Murphy falling through panes of glass unscathed (48 Hours?)
@@laurendearnley9595 The crazy thing is you can easily just look it up. Like I’m sure Cenk is just coming from a dishonest place to try and make a point. I mean a skateboard is, after all, a piece of wood with metal tracks screwed into it. But lets say he honestly doesn’t think you could really be hurt by being hit with a skateboard. He thinks people are just out here taking skateboard hits without getting taken to the ground where someone could easily beat a person to death. Even if you don’t think a skateboard could kill someone, it’s easy to just look up on Google to see if people are getting killed by getting hit with skateboards. If you Google it you’ll find many articles about different people being killed with skateboards.
Yeah if Cenk's so cure he should sign a contract allowing someone to hit him with a skateboard. We all know he won't do that. Because one good hit and the guy will never be spewing his talking points ever again. It's such a slimy dishonest thing to pretend a skateboard isn't akin to a bat or axe-like deadly weapon, especially when swung at full force.
“No sane mother would take their 17 year old across State lines with an AR15”
I served alongside folks that enlisted at 17/18, and they gave us more than an AR15. What a dope.
Plus she didn't. She had no idea he was there, he was staying with a friend, and I believe they drove the friends car.
Terrific point... swapping "mothers" with "they", and "kid" with "the enlisted", but other than those major changes it is basically the same thing!
@@usucdik Doesn’t matter regardless because his mother didn’t even bring him and that gun was never in another state.
@@usucdik “mothers” and “fathers” would be the they. You know, those people who have to be informed if their child enlists?
@@megiohgaming it does matter because you failed to grasp the point this dude was making, instead talking about your own thing you wanted to bring up. Do better, duder.
Antifa's just an idea, Right Destiny?? 😂😂😂😂😂💀
they called all those riots "mostly peaceful" protests lol the one with the car on fire in the background is hilarious
Leftists have no platform that isn't rooted in hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.
Didn't they chase Kyle? Wouldn't that take away self defense since they were seeking him out instead of disengage from the situation which they had ample time to do?
I don’t think you’re required to retreat if you think the guy is a mass shooter and know he just killed someone Im pretty sure you can pursue them even if they’re running away.
I might be wrong but it seems like both rittenhouse and the mob (besides the first guy killed) would have valid self defense claims which makes it weird like I think if someone would’ve shot rittenhouse after he shot the first guy they wouldn’t have been convicted
@@JayD73 from my uneducated perspective, the first guy to attack did not have a claim to self defense as he hadn’t been attacked, and Rittenhouse simply holding a rifle does not present an impending threat. But there is an argument, not saying it’s strong or weak, but an argument exists that once Rittenhouse fired he could be reasonable mistaken for a mass shooter and thus defended against
@J.D I agree with your second statement. On the first however (atleast what I believe from my states laws) that actively engaging in hunt for a suspected killer would rule under vigilante justice but I have not looked into it and will try to do research when not preoccupied and reply.
@@JayD73 well they didn’t know he was a mass shooter since he only shot one person and that person wasn’t even dead yet. So even if they’re not required to retreat they also didn’t have any justification for seeking him out. As a matter of fact Groskreutz was live streaming and he asks Kyle what happened and Kyle told him he had just shot someone as he’s running towards police past Groskreutz on his own livestream. Which is being recorded from the same phone in the photo of him lifting his phone and gun in the air to show Kyle he isn’t a threat before directly aiming his weapon at Kyle. So there’s even evidence to prove the rioters had evidence to the contrary of the claim of Kyle being a “mass shooter”
@@Bluefire-em3hq my thought process for my first statement is that since the shooting had just happened it’s still an active situation with the shooter still in the immediate area and you could possibly be trying to prevent him from relocating to do more damage. I would think if it was already a secure area by police for example and then the group decided to go hunt for Kyle that would be vigilante. But again I’m not a legal expert so I’m not sure
Im a conservative. Destiny seems like the first liberal ive seen that has common sense
Let's be honest, if Rittenhouse was a BLM supporter at a Trump rally and the exact same sequence of events happened, we wouldn't be debating this at all. In fact, I doubt he would've been charged in the first place.
The 1st guy Kyle shot was lunging towards Kyle and reaching for Kyle's rifle. The 2nd guy he shot slammed a skateboard into Kyle's head, knocking Kyle to the ground. People have died from being attacked with a skateboard. The third guy aimed a pistol at Kyle, so Kyle shot him in the arm. Every bullet Kyle fired was justified, and Cenk isn't presenting all of the facts.
He views things differently.
You know what the solution is, right?
To properly and reasonably regulate firearms.
Theres no valid reason for anyone, let alone a teenager, to be able to legally run down the street with weapon of war. Or any gun really.
@@JimBob-jr5up There is a valid reason for open carry, his rifle is not a weapon of war, and a "weapon of war" is not a valid reason for banning a specific weapon. The solution: Don't burn down cities while protesting, don't try to grab someone's gun if he's not harming or threatening anyone, don't hit people in the head with a skateboard, and don't aim a pistol at someone who is turning himself in to the police.
@@TwentyPercentDash it is a weapon of war, thats what it was designed as. It being a barely modified civilian version does not change this.
And yes, being weapons of war is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable standard for banning. As we once did in America I might add.
Theres no valid reason to open carry aside from actively hunting. But all the men i hunt or have hunted with would laugh and tell you to go play call of duty if you brough an AR hunting.
Cool solutions btw. I noticed you left out a mass shooting every day in America. And you also left out Firearms being the number one cause of death for minors. What is your solution for those two things? And tell me what exactly is your issue with proper regulations? We know for a fact they were because they work globally and we've had them in America before if they worked. So what exactly is your issue?
@@JimBob-jr5up No, the AR-15 Kyle had is the semi-auto version of the M-16, which is fully automatic. There's a massive difference between semi-auto and fully-auto. It's not "barely modified." - Secondly, if we need to ban all weapons of war, then you'd have to ban pistols, because those are used by soldiers. It's a bad standard. - "As we once did in America": No, the old legal standard is for civilians to have the same weapons as the military, actually. American civilians could have cannons. If you're basing your stance on old precedent, then you'd be arguing for less regulation, not more. - There is a valid reason to open carry: If you know an angry mob is coming to burn down your house, you would be completely justified to stand in your doorway while holding a rifle. - No, I didn't "leave out" anything. We're already discussing 15 different points, but you want to keep adding more? Why? I'm not interested in typing massive paragraphs back and forth for days. Pick a topic and stick to it. No one likes people who gish-gallop. I'm happy to chat, but trim this down. Let's discuss one point at once, please.
@@TwentyPercentDash yall gotta stop with these nonsense arguments where you try to ignore the reality of the weapon. And if you dont want long responses, actually know what youre talking about and i would not have to correct..... correct, not give a differing opinion but correct basically every sentence and point you write.
The gun itself was designed to be as effective and efficient as possible for moderately skilled shooters. The entire research and development and point of the was to create a grading curve, to turn a C+ shooter into an A- shooter. The gun being semi auto does not change this...... i dont get how you people dont understand this. Billions of dollars was spent on the best engineering possible to achieve this, and they did, its the reason as to why they are so popular and widely used by police and militaries world wide.
Your little full auto/semi auto is not even a good argument given the many mods you can do with ARs to make them nearly fully auto. Its not even a good argument gi en that every experienced shooter knows youre more accurate with a semi..... and yes, the difference between military issued and civilian ARs is minimal. There are no core changes between the two.
Your second response/point is once again, not even a point. Its just a terrible attempt at semantics. Its the argument people make when they have nothing real.
You know exactly what is being referenced, so stop this bullshit where you pretend the phrase being used is something more than a generalized term being used by a citizen in a random conversation to quickly define something that any moderately intelligent person can understand... even youve demonstrated understanding this by attempting to falsely add to the defined pool.
You know its not and dont treat it as, an official term that youre exposing for being poorly defined. And btw, i already addressed why a pistol would not fit. Stop this intentional ignoring of info provided.
Third, you clearly have no understanding of firearm history in America.... or wait, let me rephrase that.
You might have a great understanding of firearms history in America but for sime reason.... "some reason", youve decided to ignore basically half of the 19th century and most of the 20th, part of the 21st..... odd.... i wonder why youre doing that.
This stance youre taking, the idea that the 2nd amendment means citizens can own and carry anything is a fairly new position, between 12-15 years old.
Most of what you probably think is based on... probably mostly old westerns.
But in most cities and towns it was illegal to keep a firearm on you or someplace other than your home or business.
Thats why the OK Corral happened, because people hid and lied about having guns and did not turn them into the local sheriff.
Fourth.
Why didnt you, nor Destiny btw, he did this same nonsense, give me an example of a valid reason to open carry?
In your house or private property has nothing to do with open or conceal laws. Those are castle laws.
As for you not understanding me highlighting what you avoided talking about.... i mean.... did you forget the point you attempted to make?
Lets try an ounce of critical thinking. You go back and look at what you said and then tell me why i responded with what i did.... this is super simple.
But you know... i get it now.
You cant think on your own. The points you made are points destiny makes and just like him, they were horrifically bad, full of fundamental mistakes and mostly avoided the point or reality. You avoided anytging that required your own thought process.
Im a former TYT fanboy.. not so much anymore. Im soooooo excited to see this debate
What got you off the train? Just curious. I had been a fan myself since 2009 but stopped in 2020 since they had countless videos about right wingers dying of covid which seemed sleazy to me
What got you ON that crazy train?
I was a fan back in 2012 when I had an extremely rudimentary understanding of how the world works. I was young so I can't say I was TOO embarrassed of that phase.
@@thebatman4279 that's fair, at the same time I watched just about every video Tim Pool made -- basically the Right Wing equivalent.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor You think Tim Pool was Right Wing in 2012? He was Bernie supporter.
Antifa describes a loose collection of paramilitary organisations. But despite being in groups using that name, most "members" use the terms antifa and antifascist interchangeably while downplaying any form of organising. One tactic of antifa groups since the 30s is to describe anyone as antifa if they are antifascist as a way of obfuscating who they are.
Anti-Fascist (Antifa) in the 1930s?
You're saying the victims wouldn't have gotten charged for attacking with a skateboard but they chased him down the street actively trying to harm him which is not self defense.
"They had gotten some sort of length techincality that got rid of a weapons charge"
Man I just hate it when legal technicalities end up getting in the state's way to restrict our constitutional rights
"Lengthy technicality" also known as "law" 😂
It wasn't even a technicality. Just confirmation that his rifle was not a short barreled rifle which would require a tax stamp.
Damn these pesky conservatives and getting away with a crime due to ... *checks notes* ... literally not committing a crime.
He was only 17 & had to get an adult to buy the gun for him, there was also an open carry issue, which was breaking multiple laws, but the judge was bias & he dropped those charges. He was being chased (because he was an active shooter) but that was why it was deemed self defence as he feared for his life, which is so messed up headfkkk crazy anywhere else in the world except America. Why bother having laws at all over there?
@@heidithesausage man I'm so glad that a random TH-cam comment guy knows everything better
This woman makes some great points.
Easy on the eyes too
@@theprophet9428hair could be a bit bluer
Don't you ever talk that way about his daughter. She's better than all of us. Oh wait...
I'm amazed at how she can juggle two jobs at the same time.
"They had gotten some sort of length techincality that got rid of a weapons charge"
WHAT TECHNICALITY?!?!
He literally said in court that he bought the rifle instead of a pistol (which he stated he would have preferred to be carrying) because of the legal restrictions regarding pistols. Following the laws as they were intended isn't a loophole/technicality. It's literally just following the law.
Wow you absolutely know nothing about the case. He didn’t buy it, his friend did. It was a strawman purchase through and through but the judge threw it out because of a bogus ambiguity clause. His self defense wouldn’t had any traction if he was there illegally with an illegal gun with illegal Intentions but that was all thrown out. Honestly looking at the laws I was sure he was going to get self defense even though I didn’t think it was right morally, but it was an actual shock to me that no gun charges stuck. That was a terrible court decision.
@@mood1676
Why? The law states that he could carry the rifle. The judge even allowed the prosecution a chance to measure the barrel in the courtroom. And the original poster is correct, and you are as well. Kyle picked out the rifle that he gave Black the money for. Kyle was aware of the laws prohibiting his use of the handgun, which he indeed did prefer. It’s legal to buy a gun and hold onto the gun for a minor who becomes of age. Fathers do this all the time with their sons. There was nothing strange about the gun charge being tossed, the prosecution had every chance to prove the rifle was illegal but could not because it was not.
@@mood1676 1. Straw Purchase, not strawman purchase.
2. It wasn't a straw purchase. He bought it with his friend, kept it at his friend's place, and shot it with his friend.
@@sereksusvictar7888 that was for a felony charge of having an sbr/sbs. You still would get a misdemeanor for being a minor “in possession” of a dangerous weapon. The judge ruled the law too confusing to follow, which was bogus and a huge upset to anyone following the case closely.
@@viero13 yes and he was technically not “in possession” of it when he killed people with it which is ridiculous
On the 1st shooting they seem to ignore how it was proven in the trial that the guy grabbed the end of Kyles gun. That's what motivated the 1st shooting.
Idk about touching but he certainly reached for it. Wasnt the mcguinness quote "He said 'fuck you' and reached for the gun"?
@TheGoldenPepper there was an expert witness that testified about gunpowder on his hand meaning he was close enough to touch it and grab it. That's what caused the 1st shooting the guy didn't back off he chased Kyle and got close enough to grab his gun.
@@leightonp8496 well shit there ya go
@TheGoldenPepper if he didn't have his hands literally on the gun when Kyle fired, a seconds delay would ensure he would.
The guy had already threatened to kill him as well.
The yong Turks are just flat out making things up in this whole thing it's quite insane.
Guy 1 threatened to kill Rittenhouse if he ever caught him then later chased him down attempted to grab his gun. He didn't just throw a bag at him.
Guy 2 hit him over the head with a skateboard, can easily kill someone doing that and it was very reasonable for riton to fear his life was in danger. The 3rd guy literally pointed a gun at him. If riton didn't shoot the other guy would have.
Also the mum never drove riten with a gun either another flat out lie
If you are openly carrying a firearm and someone attacks you with nearly anything, the danger is astronomically higher than if you are not carrying. In that circumstance your weapon may be taken and used against you.
They keep saying Rosenbaum was "unarmed" as if that means "not a threat", and ignoring the fact he was a second away from taking Kyle's gun. Then he WOULDNT be unarmed. They never ever acknowledge what might have happened if Kyle had waited another few seconds to squeeze the trigger.
@@laurendearnley9595
The kicker here is that they condemn Babbitt as being necessary to kill despite her also not having any weapons, and she wasn’t even near the cop that shot her. She was climbing through a window with friendly police right behind her. It’s not about being unarmed, that should be clear. It’s about which political side you chose to align with. The serial pedophile was one of their own, Babbitt was not.
@@laurendearnley9595 Exactly
Cenk's position is that Rittenhouse is a right winger. Therefore, he is guilty.
Its hard to believe that Rittenhouse was so accurate under all that pressure. Dude hit every shot
They were not even 5 feet away
@Jim Bob you're missing the point. He hit everyone he was intending to hit, and didn't hit anyone he didn't mean to. When you're in a life or death situation that's an incredible thing
@@HumbleHonkingEnthusiast no, i got it. Its not a very complex statement.
My statement still stands. They are so close that the only aiming he needed to do was pointing in their general direction.
@@JimBob-jr5up have you ever been in a life or death situation involving a firearm?
@@HumbleHonkingEnthusiast what would it matter?
Its funny you said im missing the point but its you who seems to have that issue.
People miss and hit unintended targets due to some equation of experience, ability to cope and calm in stressful situations and..... distance of targets.
Any one of these can overwhelm and overrule the others.
An experienced gunman who can stay calm, can easily hit a target 200 yards away. Distance effectively removed.
Just like exp and calm can be taken out when the target is so close a literal blind man would not miss.
If it was 20 feet away, id agree.
Hell, even 15.
But it wasnt, dude was so close the barrel was almost touching him. Sorry, even with no exp and panicking, i dont find that notably impressive.
For the life of me, I never understood why people used Jacob Blake as the guy to be mad about when he was literally go against his restrain order and resisting arrest
And trying to kidnap children.
Lmao he didn't shoot people based on a feeling he was literally being chased by a mob
Proving self defense would have been reasonably simple in this case - the attack on him was filmed
Isn’t there a video clip of rittenhouse before the incident saying he wanted to shoot people who were looting? Pretty sure I read that, and the judge somehow didn’t think it was related to the case
@@Adriipht6969it was irrelevant to the point: The men clearly attacked him first, making it self defense.
@@Adriipht6969 it’s irrelevant because there were zero facts in common, and the judge recognized that some kid larping by saying “man, if I had a gun all those looters and criminals would go BLAM” vs a kid getting chased by an angry violent mob
Can't the rioters attacking Rittenhouse also claim self defense? If you see someone walking around with an AR15 in the middle of a riot (especially in a country where mass shootings happen every day), can you blame people thinking Rittenhouse was a potential mass shooter?
@@christiannovak5340 It's absolutely relevant because it spoke to Rittenhouse's intentions and whether he attended the protests (riot) to actually keep peace or find reasons to shoot "looters".
A lot of people think of the Rittenhouse scenario as an isolated incident t and try to write it off as a dead horse, but I think of the Rittenhouse situation as a litmus test on how objective of a thinker you are.
If you try to argue against Rittenhouse in any way other than arguably being an idiot for being there in the first place, I know not to take you seriously.
That's fair but only if you agree everyone was stupid for being there in the first place, including protestors and rioters. They were riotuing and burning down kenosha over Jacob Blake.
Do you call women who wear short skirts to frat parties “idiots”?
@@sereksusvictar7888 That's not exactly analogous because people arguing against Kyle consider just the presence of a gun as antagonistic.
It would be more like that woman in a dress at a frat flashing her ass to everyone.
@@theax40
Some on the left and the right feel that the presence of the gun is provocation.
Some on the left and the right believe that the presence of the miniskirt is provocation.
In Wisconsin, the state this happened in, it’s totally legal for a seventeen year old to open carry a long barrel rifle, despite some people feeling it’s provocation. In Wisconsin, the state this happened in, it’s totally legal for a seventeen year old to wear a short skirt, despite some people feeling it’s provocation.
This seems to be more analogous than you care to admit. Even the arguments are worded the same.
He/she was asking for it
He/she brought/wore that gun/ miniskirt
He/she went there willingly
He/she provoked the assault with their actions and apparel
What kind of mother would allow their son/daughter to go to that protest/frat party
In each of these, the assailant is ignored and the blame is placed on the victim for their legal choices and actions.
@@sereksusvictar7888 no, but I would *definitely* call a meek girl scantily clad choosing to walk the sketchiest parts of metropolis area alone in the middle of the night an idiot, I would also *definitely* call a vulnerable girl who willingly gets blackout wasted at a sketchy frat an idiot. It’s not Rittenhouse’s fault that he was attacked and he had the right to defend himself *regardless* of putting himself in that scenario. Likewise, a scantily-clad woman at a sus frat’s party I would consider to be an idiot, even though them possibly being assaulted is no fault of their own. Willingly putting yourself in a dangerous situation is stupid. Doesn’t mean you forfeit the right to defend yourself and your assaulters are absolved of any and all accountability. Why is this such a difficult concept for *anybody* to grasp? Millennial Buzzfeed culture destroyed young peoples’ ability to thoughtfully explore situations/scenarios, I stg.
yes, destiny. it's happen before where the cops executed a no knock warrant without announcing themselves, and the people in the house armed themselves and killed cops because the person shooting at the cops reasonably believed that they were under attack from some unknown persons that had guns, then claimed self-defense because of that circumstance and were acquitted of the charges.
TYT goes like "great point, let me agree" ...... "OK, I agree with you on that even more and let me tell you why I agree with you" .... "Yes, yes, I fully agree with my co-host" ... "Great point, and allow me to add to that" .... then, upon confirming that all the presenters are, in fact, in absolute agreement with each other and are perfectly aligned Cenk looks directly into the camera and says "OK, so we all agree, and let me explain to you at home why we are correct and that you also agree with us".
TYT has managed to smash their intellectual aloofness right through any potential glass ceiling and out into the thermosphere and beyond
The police standing down through most of the protests that summer is a massive factor as to why Kyle felt the need to be there that night.
It's funny that he claims vigilantes are emboldened bc "you do not have to fear legal consequences"... when that's exactly what's happening w/ criminality in America.
The exact opposite is what's true
Democrat orgs are removing consequences in areas like California and Oregon. As someone who lives in a rural California I can't imagine living in the cities, when I visit its absolute nightmare.
For me it's just disappointing that people think it's a normal thing to be able to bring an AR 15 to a protest that you disagree with.
Can you give some evidence for this claim without just saying look at California. I’m willing to hear you out but most of the people make this claim from a purely emotional perspective
@@jackeagleeye3453 if someone comes and destroys your house... i might figure you disgree with that, and might want to, at the very least, show a willingness to violence which would show them off...
@@JayD73 so your saying you don't think the major cities are light on crime and everything's fine there?
I used to kinda despise you when you were a 'far-left" debate bro type guy, but I thought most of it is probably a persona. But I agreed, even back then with quite a lot of points, just hard differ on some. It seems you've come around and realised how insane these type of people are, how extremely bias and manipulative they are around certain topics, I've been catching up with a ton of your videos from the last year.
Mostly because I've been seeing your wonderful takes (seriously) on Aba&preach. You're honestly doing a wonderful job highlighting absolutely unhinged takes and when debating them are very well spoken in your arguments (man that sounds whack to say "well spoken"), and what I noticed aswell was the thing that your 'opponents' do when they focus in on something, then you engage in the minutiae, they will suddenly broaden it and when you then engage in that, they once again focus in on things.
Kee doing what you're doing man, even if we disagree on some points, you're doing great.
Put yourself in Rittenhouse's place.
1. Rosenbaum. You are chased by someone trying to take your gun. Do you let him have your gun or do you defend yourself?
2. Huber. You have someone swinging a skateboard at you. Do you let him beat you to death with it or do you defend yourself?
3. Grosskreutz. You have someone with a gun moving to point the gun at you. Do you defend yourself or do you defend yourself?
In all situations, they were chasing Rittenhouse. What do you think they were going to do if they caught him?
know what is vigilante justice? Burning a city down because someone was killed by the police *sips tea*
It's not. But nice try with the false equivalence.
Vigilante justice would be hearing a gunshot, looking around to find a kid with a rifle running away, and immediately assume he is a murderer and then physically chase the kid and force him to the ground as you and a mob of others beat him senseless while chanting “cranium him”.
Mob justice is a form of vigilante justice.
@@usucdik it is, but nice try with the lack of comprehension.
@@TruckerLuci sorry, it still isn't, despite you proclaiming it is. Not sure how you thought that would work.
@@usucdik sorry it still is despite you claiming it isnt, not sure why you are actively trying to ruin your own credibility. If i have to spell it out for you, perhaps you are in the wrong reading level. I will however, get out my red crayon and try and make it simple... for you. Man dies at the hands of the police... people come from far and wide to burn down the police station and anything that gets in their way because they want what? Justice. They took that justice into their own hands which makes them what? Vigilantes. does that work or do I need to get out the Lincoln logs and build you a rudimentary diagram ?
Both sides of mainstream media is hate porn. I feel bad for anyone who watches either side and gets this righteous feeling of agreement every time they say "the other side bad". Hate is a lack of understanding, and that feeling you get from this is demonstrably bad for your mental health and ability to be reasonable or critical with your world view.
"Hate is a lack of understanding" this is a a bit of a "feel good" statement. If somebody murdered your family, I don't think feelings of hate come from a "lack of understanding". So clearly there are things that cause such emotions that aren't from a lack of empathy. I think in some cases fully understanding somebody can CAUSE you to hate them.
@@roymarshall_ I think this is a good point but in this type of situation it's a lot more different. Obviously if you asked a pedophile for his point of view on why he should be allowed to do what he pleases, you would come out incredibly disgusted with him. With a situation like this, and most talking points between the right and left its a lot more complex. While obviously i agree rittenhouse wasn't wrong for what he did, what i think wisdom andy is trying to say here is that it's important to understand WHY the other side feels the way instead of attacking each other and treating it as a dunk on the other side.
@@roymarshall_ You could argue that the feeling of hate towards someone who killed your family *is* a lack of understanding. How could you, someone who loves your family, understand someone who would kill them in cold blood?
Chunk conveniently leaves out the fact that Rosenbaum was actively attempting to take Kyles rifle away from him when Kyle shot him. Chunk said multiple times Kyle shot Rosenbaum because he heard a gun shot. Did he not watch the actual footage of Kyle being chased? Did he not see the trial where it was proven Rosembaum was in the process of attempting to take Kyles rifle when he was shot? If he precented that information and still had the same opinion, I could at least respect that was his position. But his refusal to frame the situation with the facts of the case is devious. He also must be betting on his audience not knowing the basic facts of the case or that they are not interested in them. Chunk can't get a grip on the most basic facts of this case and because of that has a melt down talking nonsense with his panel. He embarrassed himself on this one.
God it's so irritating how the left views this. "It's self defense if you hear a gunshot, you can turn around and shoot someone."
They either didn't watch the video, or they're intentionally ignoring the part where Rosembaum chased after a fleeing gunman who did not fire until his gun was grabbed by Rosenbaum. Desperately trying to portray him like a trigger happy snowflake. I'm sure Rosenbaum wanted to tell him a joke???
TYT is definitely the most emotional and dishonest coverage of the news you'll ever find on the internet. It has definitely some entertainment value, but anyone taking those clown seriously are disqualifying themselves from any serious convo with me.
I would love to peer into the alternate universe where KR is a black man, and see what all these people say about it. surely they would be consistent right
Or a 17 yr old girl.
Or a democrat being chased down by republicans
It happened, I dont remember the exact details but a guy shot a cop not realising it was a cop, and he was found not guilty the same day Kyle was. Perfect poetic timing from the universe.
@@laurendearnley9595 Andrew Coffee IV
"Well, you see, he's not REALLY black, he's motivated by internalized racism and huwhite supremacy."
I still don’t understand how Vice wasn’t held liable for aiding abetting an admitted murderer.
bless the young turks, they are trying so hard
Yes,
for a man like Cenk getting out of bed could be the hardest thing he does all day.
God bless Cenk, but he’s worse than Lance in a debate setting.
@@redacted5035 Lance is the only person to lose a debate to his own reflection
Lol it’s a tough one but serfs is on another level of bad
@@jameeyg87 C'mon its not tough at all, Lance has this one in the bag all day long. No one has come close in years
@@jascu4251 you’re right. Cenk is nuts and dumb but it’s prob not close
@@IWearShaqs Thats a pretty big "other than" though!
In some ways I give him credit for putting himself through the Tim Pool experience, something I wouldn't wish on anyone. But if you're going to go and do that, you can't afford giant slip ups like that, its irresponsible