Imagine if he is your nurse...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

coffeebythelake

I'm not a word-mincer
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
5,662
Reaction score
7,677

“I’m a college student studying nursing at Arizona State University,” Rittenhouse said on the witness stand early last month when he testified in his own defense. Rittenhouse was taking two online nursing classes at ASU that began in mid-October, but dropped out last month

So he is full of crap because he never actually enrolled as a nursing student but can you imagine?
 

“I’m a college student studying nursing at Arizona State University,” Rittenhouse said on the witness stand early last month when he testified in his own defense. Rittenhouse was taking two online nursing classes at ASU that began in mid-October, but dropped out last month

So he is full of crap because he never actually enrolled as a nursing student but can you imagine?

Depending on where you practice, having him on staff might be good for business.
 
He may be more efficient than most nurses at killing patients.
Nurses kill patients? Do your nurses know that they kill patients? Or is that sentiment something you reserve to anonymous posts on internet forums?
 
download.jpeg.jpg


Douche
 
Did the prosecution ever bring this up on cross examination? Whether he actually was in nursing school?
Would being in nursing school somehow imply credibility for his case? Given that nurses kill people, the prosecutor would best just let that one slide and let the jury come to their own conclusions.

Guessing the prosecution didn't check with you first...
 
Maybe. Theatrics. Trickery. Deception..... All part of the legal process. Also he was fighting for his life. How many of us have seen less candid speech at the negotiation table when far less was at stake?

BTW, I think that he is a douche.
Except it really wasn’t. His chances of going to jail for anything were lower than your chances of dying on the way to work on a modern vehicle following all the road rules with a police escort.
 
Would being in nursing school somehow imply credibility for his case? Given that nurses kill people, the prosecutor would best just let that one slide and let the jury come to their own conclusions.

Guessing the prosecution didn't check with you first...

No but it does go to credibility for truth telling. If he claims to be in nursing school and he isn't, shows he has no qualms about fibbing after being sworn in the court of law to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

The question you should ask if why somebody would falsely claim to be going to nursing school, a field that garners a good deal of public respect and traditionally associated with helping others, if not to gain some favor with an audience. This was chosen very deliberately. The truth is he was never admitted to nursing school, he took a couple online classes in nursing after the killings, he dropped out of those classes, and he still claimed to be a nursing student. Imagine if Rittenhouse said he was going to get a certificate in mortuary science. Or that his experience as a vigilante made him want to become a professional soldier.
 
Last edited:
I've always heard it as "What's the difference between a VA nurse and a revolver? A revolver can only kill six people and can be fired."

This VA CRNA actually killed with a gun. Crazy story. Apparently the perp and the victim were both CRNA’s.
 
Why are we even still talking about this? Far as I know, the kid has dropped off the map, smart decision on his part. The only reason it keeps coming is because everyone else is doing the talking.
 
Why are we even still talking about this? Far as I know, the kid has dropped off the map, smart decision on his part. The only reason it keeps coming is because everyone else is doing the talking.

He was on with right wing media recently talking **** about the prosecution and how he wanted to apply to law school now. Nursing school ambition was a stunt

 
Last edited:
Extending the self defense argument to its logical conclusion, Rittenhouse had a legitimate reason to use deadly force against the jury, judge, and Prosecutor. They were a threat to him.

I don't know... the judge has been criticized for being partial and the prosecution did a pretty **** job.
 
Did the prosecution ever bring this up on cross examination? Whether he actually was in nursing school?
LOL

How many times did the prosecution ask its own witnesses questions they didn't know the answer to? They didn't exactly cover themselves with glory. But the prosecution never had the barest hint of a shred of a case to begin with, so I don't know if I'd really fault them for presenting that turd of a case as opposed to a really well polished turd.

No but it does go to credibility for truth telling. If he claims to be in nursing school and he isn't, shows he has no qualms about fibbing after being sworn in the court of law to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"

The question you should ask if why somebody would falsely claim to be going to nursing school, a field that garners a good deal of public respect and traditionally associated with helping others, if not to gain some favor with an audience. This was chosen very deliberately. The truth is he was never admitted to nursing school, he took a couple online classes in nursing after the killings, he dropped out of those classes, and he still claimed to be a nursing student. Imagine if Rittenhouse said he was going to get a certificate in mortuary science. Or that his experience as a vigilante made him want to become a professional soldier.

He's a strange dude who seemed to have some noble/sheepdog/protector fantasies he wanted to act out. He wanted to be a hero defender of property. He had a first aid kit and fancied himself a medic.

I took an EMT course when I was an undergrad, to pad my med school application. Most of the people in the class finished up and got jobs with BLS transport services, a couple got jobs on actual ambulances, a couple were just going to go straight on to paramedic school. There was a weird dude in the class with us who, before the class was even over, started hanging around a carnival with a first aid kit, just in case someone fell off a ride. I think that's the kind of mentality we're dealing with here.

I can easily believe he really wanted to be a nurse and then dropped out after backlash from other students. Or maybe it was hard and he discovered he couldn't hack the classes. Taking online nursing classes seems consistent with who he was. Maybe it was cynical image-building and manipulation, maybe not.
 
Did the prosecution ever bring this up on cross examination? Whether he actually was in nursing school?
"Nursing school" at age 17/18=freshman, which could be taking required English, math, core classes, etc. As I recall, true nursing courses don't usually start before the junior year in a BSN program.
 
Nurses have been the most trusted profession for years, it's a shrewd move to make that claim for the sake of the trial
 
Why are we even still talking about this? Far as I know, the kid has dropped off the map, smart decision on his part. The only reason it keeps coming is because everyone else is doing the talking.

It’s almost as if he was a white supremacist who killed people without consequence. But who cares?
 
That whole story is awful. Those poor kids.
How does FB live work? someone could be watches the stream live but are they posting it as a pop up on all their friends page or do you have to go to their page to see it? I don't do FB so I am clueless? So the friend who saw it and reported it saw it live as he was getting ready to murder his ex wife? Cuz that is messed up.
 
How does FB live work? someone could be watches the stream live but are they posting it as a pop up on all their friends page or do you have to go to their page to see it? I don't do FB so I am clueless? So the friend who saw it and reported it saw it live as he was getting ready to murder his ex wife? Cuz that is messed up.
I don't use FB either but that's how I understand it. It's a Livestream and the recording stays up to be watched after the fact.
 
It’s almost as if he was a white supremacist who killed people without consequence. But who cares?

You are aware the three people he shot were white, yea?

Just curious, do you think this because you’re just parroting talking heads or the former VP? Or because of something you actually saw him say or do?
 
Last edited:
You are aware the three people he shot were white, yea?

Just curious, do you think this because you’re just parroting talking heads or the former VP? Or because of something you actually saw him say or do?
I don’t know Kyle Rittenhouse, so I cannot speak to what his motivations were when he went there or if he actually intended to shoot ANYONE. However, let’s not be fools about this. It is pretty clear who was EXPECTED to be at this rally, and it wasn’t a bunch of “good God-fearing white people“. We all know who the right was portraying as the primary instigators of this protest. In my opinion, the fact that he actually ended up shooting white people was incidental.
 
I don’t know Kyle Rittenhouse, so I cannot speak to what his motivations were when he went there or if he actually intended to shoot ANYONE. However, let’s not be fools about this. It is pretty clear who was EXPECTED to be at this rally, and it wasn’t a bunch of “good God-fearing white people“. We all know who the right was portraying as the primary instigators of this protest. In my opinion, the fact that he actually ended up shooting white people was incidental.

Well, you are correct that one can never know for sure someone else’s heart/mind, but through video evidence/interviews of Kyle before the shooting, he went to Kenosha to protect private property, give medical attention (however unqualified he might have been) and to clean up the area. We know he was cleaning graffiti prior to the infamous night. So from his words and actions prior to the shootings, we have a good idea of his intentions.

Had he gone to an actual protest event, like not the nightly rioting and burnings of private property, but where people were actually holding a planned and organized protest with signs and chanting, probably during daylight hours, and had stood there with his weapon trying to intimidate protestors, you may have a point. However, that certainly didn’t happen.

He went to an area where property was being destroyed with the intention to help people who were hurt and to prevent further property damage. I don’t think it mattered to him what color the people were who were doing the damage.

That being said, the majority of BLM inspired rioting that has taken place in this country has been done by overwhelmingly white rioters.


So yeah, even if the rioting came to pass in direct response to the Blake shooting, that doesn’t mean that it was all, or even a majority black group of people that Rittenhouse set out to protect property from.

Furthermore, even if it WAS an entirely black group of people burning a city and causing destruction, you can’t claim it’s white supremacy to try to stop that.

Bottom line is there’s about a total of zero evidence that this kid had racist motives…but when has that ever stopped the narrative in the past? Fact of the matter is that one side starts with the narrative and hopes they can find facts that can back it up. And even when those facts aren’t there, they have people like you who have already bought the narrative and frankly don’t seem to care about those pesky facts.

And let’s not be fools about this, the fact that three white people were shot was 100% intentional, secondary to the fact that it was three white people that were actually trying to physically harm him. There were certainly black people around Kyle that night; and don’t you think if his motives were racist he would’ve shot at least one black person?
 
Last edited:
Well, you are correct that one can never know for sure someone else’s heart/mind, but through video evidence/interviews of Kyle before the shooting, he went to Kenosha to protect private property, give medical attention (however unqualified he might have been) and to clean up the area. We know he was cleaning graffiti prior to the infamous night. So from his words and actions prior to the shootings, we have a good idea of his intentions.

Had he gone to an actual protest event, like not the nightly rioting and burnings of private property, but where people were actually holding a planned and organized protest with signs and chanting, probably during daylight hours, and had stood there with his weapon trying to intimidate protestors, you may have a point. However, that certainly didn’t happen.

He went to an area where property was being destroyed with the intention to help people who were hurt and to prevent further property damage. I don’t think it mattered to him what color the people were who were doing the damage.

That being said, the majority of BLM inspired rioting that has taken place in this country has been done by overwhelmingly white rioters.


So yeah, even if the rioting came to pass in direct response to the Blake shooting, that doesn’t mean that it was all, or even a majority black group of people that Rittenhouse set out to protect property from.

Furthermore, even if it WAS an entirely black group of people burning a city and causing destruction, you can’t claim it’s white supremacy to try to stop that.

Bottom line is there’s about a total of zero evidence that this kid had racist motives…but when has that ever stopped the narrative in the past? Fact of the matter is that one side starts with the narrative and hopes they can find facts that can back it up. And even when those facts aren’t there, they have people like you who have already bought the narrative and frankly don’t seem to care about those pesky facts.

And let’s not be fools about this, the fact that three white people were shot was 100% intentional, secondary to the fact that it was three white people that were actually trying to physically harm him. There were certainly black people around Kyle that night; and don’t you think if his motives were racist he would’ve shot at least one black person?


I think it was more about ideology than race. He went to pwn some libs by trying to intimidate them with his gun. Sadly he was attacked by a mentally ill man who should have stayed home (they both should have stayed home. ) and that set off a tragic chain of events.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t know Kyle Rittenhouse, so I cannot speak to what his motivations were when he went there or if he actually intended to shoot ANYONE. However, let’s not be fools about this. It is pretty clear who was EXPECTED to be at this rally, and it wasn’t a bunch of “good God-fearing white people“. We all know who the right was portraying as the primary instigators of this protest. In my opinion, the fact that he actually ended up shooting white people was incidental.

wtf...
 
I think it was more about ideology than race. He went to pwn some libs by trying to intimidate them with his gun.
What ideology are you referring to? I don't think any of the video evidence shows a 17 yr old trying to "pwn" anyone. You can say it was misguided to bring a weapon to a volatile situation, and that he wasn't qualified to be there pretending he was an EMT, but I think all that was shown of Rittenhouse during the trial showed a kid seemingly set on doing two things, giving help to anyone who may have been hurt, and stopping property from being destroyed. Those are both valiant motives. You never see him angry. You never see him shouting down protesters/rioters. You never see him being aggressive in anyway, until he is chased and attacked.

Unless you saw some footage that I didn't, I certainly didn't see any evidence of him trying to pwn or intimidate. I suppose you can say the fact that he has a large weapon is all you need to intimidate others, and I guess I could agree with you there probably to some degree. But there's a difference between a calm person holding a weapon as a deterrent to those trying to burn and destroy things, as well as a means of self protection, and an aggressive, angry person running around with a gun, getting up in peoples faces, threatening them and actually trying to scare people with the fact that you are holding a deadly weapon. Its the difference between an armed bank robber and a responsible adult open-carrying in public. Both have a weapon, both can be seen as a form of intimidation, but in very different ways.

I'm glad you at least don't think it was about racism somehow.
 
What ideology are you referring to? I don't think any of the video evidence shows a 17 yr old trying to "pwn" anyone. You can say it was misguided to bring a weapon to a volatile situation, and that he wasn't qualified to be there pretending he was an EMT, but I think all that was shown of Rittenhouse during the trial showed a kid seemingly set on doing two things, giving help to anyone who may have been hurt, and stopping property from being destroyed. Those are both valiant motives. You never see him angry. You never see him shouting down protesters/rioters. You never see him being aggressive in anyway, until he is chased and attacked.

Unless you saw some footage that I didn't, I certainly didn't see any evidence of him trying to pwn or intimidate. I suppose you can say the fact that he has a large weapon is all you need to intimidate others, and I guess I could agree with you there probably to some degree. But there's a difference between a calm person holding a weapon as a deterrent to those trying to burn and destroy things, as well as a means of self protection, and an aggressive, angry person running around with a gun, getting up in peoples faces, threatening them and actually trying to scare people with the fact that you are holding a deadly weapon. Its the difference between an armed bank robber and a responsible adult open-carrying in public. Both have a weapon, both can be seen as a form of intimidation, but in very different ways.

I'm glad you at least don't think it was about racism somehow.
How about the evidence not allowed at trial of him joking with his friends about shooting people a week before? He had a mentality that it was his side vs some bad actors. The judge just never allowed that evidence.
 
How about the evidence not allowed at trial of him joking with his friends about shooting people a week before? He had a mentality that it was his side vs some bad actors. The judge just never allowed that evidence.
Look man if you can’t understand why going armed with no practical experience or training in to a situation to play pretend mercenary soldier at the responsible adult age of 18 isn’t a valiant motive then I don’t know what to tell you. The fact that he killed people who were harming innocent used cars should have been awarded with honors not put on trial…
 
I blame the press.

Here is situation with no evidence that the kid was racist -

Yet if you are on the right, you are on his side. If you are on the left, you think justice was not done.

That is so strange.

I really hate most of the press.

I posted this article on my FB page - (I have plenty of right and left friends), and the left had such ridiculous things to say. It is very clear that the CNN, Obama, Hilary, the FBI - all completely lied and were horrible when it came to the whole Russiagate scandal. That is as clear as anything on this planet. That doesn't justify any of the horribleness of Trump in the least, but it should be VERY clear that the left leaning press were unbelievably irresponsible with that whole thing. Yet the left REFUSE to see it, and if they do, won't admit it. They spout out some crap about how FOX is just as bad. yeah it is, but that isn't even remotely close to a valid point. In fact, it MAKES my point.


My point is - the press is the problem. Kyle was an idiot - but not the idiot the press made him out to be.
 
Look man if you can’t understand why going armed with no practical experience or training in to a situation to play pretend mercenary soldier at the responsible adult age of 18 isn’t a valiant motive then I don’t know what to tell you. The fact that he killed people who were harming innocent used cars should have been awarded with honors not put on trial…
He didn’t kill anyone who was ‘harming innocent cars.’ He shot people guilty of attacking him physically; one of whom had promised to kill him earlier in the evening, one who was trying to knock him unconscious with a skateboard, and the other who pointed a pistol at his head. Your misrepresentation of the facts in your attempted satire is quite telling of your preconceived opinions about the whole ordeal.
 
How about the evidence not allowed at trial of him joking with his friends about shooting people a week before? He had a mentality that it was his side vs some bad actors. The judge just never allowed that evidence.
Link?
 
I blame the press.

Here is situation with no evidence that the kid was racist -

I didn't think the shootings were racially motivated nor did I think it was portrayed that way. I think his associations with the Proud Boys movement and taking pictures flashing the recently co-opted White power sign probably fueled some of that speculation though. As a minority plugged into different communities, I think the general consensus is ...no one cared. No one thought of this as racially motivated.

However, I think people have associated that sort of headline of a young man open carrying counter protestor with a certain image so that the knee-jerk reaction for some, people outside of the US or for people who don't closely follow the news, was that they didnt even know that he shot and killed White (I believe one was Jewish? not sure if practicing) people.
 
Yeah, that's interesting. Hadn't seen it before. Doesn't really prove anything though in regards to the night of the shooting, except that he was angered by looting. It's quite a stretch to link that video to some kind of evidence that he was in Kenosha that night to kill people. Seems like something a lot of people might say if they witnessed scumbags robbing a store...
 
Top