There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

frickineh ,

Huh. Have any of them considered a job? If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state to murder some people, I bet she could drive for uber or something. Or be a getaway driver for other criminals, idk.

negativenull ,
@negativenull@lemmy.world avatar

https://i.imgflip.com/1shkgm.jpg

Hikermick ,

According to the article his sister has been hospitalized and both her and their mother have a hard time getting work because of being associated with Kyle Rittenhouse. BTW the mother did not drive him that’s a fallacy

frickineh ,

Ok then I retract the part about driving. But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her being unable to get a job. She’s repeatedly defended him and said she stands by him, and she allowed her 17 year old to buy a gun he couldn’t legally have and to drive without a license. Being associated with him is her doing. I have a family member who was a teenage white supremacist piece of shit (who was thankfully stopped by the FBI before he killed anyone), and you can bet nobody thinks I’m associated with him because I make it very clear where I stand. If I said he was a good person and I’ll always support him, I wouldn’t be shocked if employers said nah.

deweydecibel ,

Sure, but she’s also his mother, not a random family member. I’m not going to fault a mother for standing by their child, no matter what he did.

She didn’t let him buy anything, but she couldn’t make him get rid of it because it wasn’t in her house. It was locked up at a friend’s house in a different town.

She was also ill, poor, dyslexic, and a single parent dealing with a difficult child. She doesn’t seem to have much in her life but her children, I’m not going to condemn her for not banishing him from her life. It’s not an easy thing for a mother to do.

Carnelian ,

If that’s the case, it’s sad then that he apparently doesn’t seem willing to return the good will and unconditional support, if he’s refusing to help them with rent. Abandoning the one person who would always have your back…

Revan343 ,

Sad and entirely predictable; we already knew he was a shitbag

Grandwolf319 ,

I’m not going to fault a mother for standing by their child, no matter what he did.

You can stand by your child by always having room in your home for them. You can still condemn their action and say they might not know any better or something like that.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah absolutely fuck Kyle Rittenhouse but Kyle lied to his mom that night about what he was up to, and the mom clearly had no intention of being a willing accomplice to murder.

pearsaltchocolatebar ,

Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. She’s the reason he owned the gun.

deweydecibel ,

No she literally isn’t. It was bought for him by somebody else in another city, where it was kept.

GBU_28 ,

Dude I really, really don’t like or support this dude but that’s not true. He didn’t keep it at her (his) house because he specifically knew she would not permit him to have it. She literally tried to parent, and he snuck around her by keeping it at a friend’s house.

KillerTofu ,

Nah but she was totally down for taking him drinking with the Proud Boys.

sunzu ,

This is mental gymnastics

KillerTofu ,

His mom was with him at a bar and he was photographed throwing white power hand signs.

So maybe he drove them there but she was sure was okay with him being a piece of shit then.

sunzu ,

Not sure what you are doing here but this shit is borderline metally ill behavior.

Attributing some weird "intent" in order smear her?

KillerTofu ,

Smear? Just pointing out she raised a piece of shit, encouraged shitty behavior, and she doesn’t deserve sympathy that her piece of shit son isn’t supporting his piece of shit mom.

sunzu ,

Brain dead mob spotted lol

KillerTofu ,

lol you personally attack me in each response, really showing your colors. Why you simping for white supremacists?

sunzu ,

ohh u hurt?

KillerTofu ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    brygphilomena ,

    Fallacy is a fault in logic, not a falsehood.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it therefore because of it) is a fallacy. Or an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

    null ,

    www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy

    a false or mistaken idea

    You’re thinking specifically of logical fallacies.

    ghostdoggtv ,

    There’s a certain type of person who thinks work is beneath them. That’s who the Rittenhouse family is.

    deweydecibel ,

    …what? What are you basing this on?

    When the children were small, Wendy and Mike worked various jobs, including machine operator, housekeeper, and cashier.

    …

    Wendy had become a certified nursing assistant, but she continued to struggle financially. The family was repeatedly evicted.

    …

    In 2018, shortly after another eviction, Wendy filed for bankruptcy. She developed a gastrointestinal bleed that required hospitalization, and Faith was also hospitalized, after an attempted overdose involving over-the-counter painkillers

    newyorker.com/…/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilan…

    RememberTheApollo_ ,

    Gotta love a conservative family that votes to undermine all the social services they’d need in situations like this. But they seem to be able to afford guns…

    irreticent , (edited )
    @irreticent@lemmy.world avatar

    See also: schadenfreude

    “enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others”

    I think it’s an apt term for watching leopards eating the faces of their allies.

    Edit: for those unfamiliar with the reference, here’s a rundown of The Leopards Eating Faces Party.

    • Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party

    “Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party refers to a parody of regretful voters who vote for cruel and unjust policies (and politicians) and are then surprised when their own lives become worse as a result. It has been commonly used to parody regretful Brexit and Trump voters.”

    StaticFalconar ,

    In fairness guns are way more affordable than healthcare is America. Sports cars are more affordable than healthcare in America.

    guacupado ,

    Yeah, exactly. Fuck them all.

    stoly ,

    A CNA does not earn money, it’s pretty much a minimum wage job. This person did not have the necessary intelligence or drive to attain their bachelors and become a full nurse–it’s as simple as that.

    My sister in law, bless her, is really one of the angriest persons you will ever meet. She hates everything out there and the world is bad, blah blah blah. I asked her why she became a phlebotomist. She told me she wanted to be a nurse but could not pass English 101. Seriously.

    Kyle’s mom? She’s the same.

    GrundlButter ,

    I hate to defend Kyle’s mom, but man, shouldn’t a CNA or a phlebotomist be able to afford to survive in the area they work? In their case, I guess you reap what you sow.

    Riven ,
    @Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Yea being a cna is tough and underpaid. My ex is one, takes a couple months of study and passing a test. I, with a highschool degree made 6 dollars more than her when her job was 3 times tougher. It’s criminal. She worked harder and longer hours in a dangerous place with people who could and would harras and harm her. The harrasment was mental, verbal, physical and sexual as well. Fuck boomers.

    GrundlButter ,

    You remember businesses calling everyone who worked a low appreciation job heroes? CNAs got the shittiest end of the stick on that I think.

    Giant banners calling you heroes greet you as you drive on the lot of the nursing home, and you look at them knowing you’re going to get physically shit on by the patients, and proverbially shit on by the higher level nurses, the administration that now works remote, the family of the patients, and of course the patients again as well. For $12/hr. And you’re extra short staffed because anyone that could find travel work did. Brutal shit for them.

    Riven ,
    @Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Holy hell if you aren’t right. I recall her getting all of those things at her work too and a measly 40 cent raise lul. All those banners and pins and lanyards and little gift bags if tiny hand sanetizers and candy. I think she made like 16 here in cali at the time, I recall hearing there’s a laaw that was gonna be passed or already passed to get them up to like 20 or 21 at the minimum. Crazy to think that’s what mcDonald’s employees earn here now while plenty of cnas in other parts of the state earn less still.

    NauticalNoodle ,

    On the Dollop podcast if you’ve ever heard of it, one of the hosts is named Gareth. Gareth points out in an episode that in American culture we only ever call “heroes” the people we deem ‘expendable’. I have been unable to find a counterexample to that claim ever since I heard it.

    stoly ,

    It’s no different than public school teachers, I suppose. It’s not a field you get into unless it calls you for some reason–you’re certainly not in it for the money.

    We really need to reprioritize how we fund things around the world.

    meco03211 ,

    I mean, I’d bet the majority of people on here would say anyone working a legit full time job should be able to afford to survive.

    DragonTypeWyvern ,

    Depends on whether you mean Lemmy or .world

    bitchkat ,

    My son was making $30/hr as a CNA.

    stoly ,

    That’s not a well paying job. I’m sorry that you think it is.

    bitchkat ,

    I never said “well paying”. You said CNA makes minimum wage. $30 > minimum wage.

    stoly ,

    K

    HelixDab2 ,

    That’s $62,000 annually. The median personal income in the US as of 2022 was $40,480, which means that’s about 50% above the median.

    Not sure what you’re on that you don’t think that’s a pretty decent individual income.

    NauticalNoodle , (edited )

    That very much comes off sounding ableist

    lennybird ,
    @lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

    Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Kyle lied to her about everything he was doing that night.

    deweydecibel ,

    He did. The gun was never in her home, she couldn’t do anything about it. It was locked up at his friend’s house because his mother wouldn’t have permitted him to have it.

    EatATaco ,

    Yeah, but she’s related to him and loves him because he is her son, and we hate him, so obviously she should suffer too. Justice and empathy? Fuck that. We’re outraged and out for some suffering.

    TrickDacy ,

    Says the person simping for a murderer

    sunzu ,

    I don't think you read that right tbh

    rebelsimile ,

    No, she should have social supports, education, a safety net, retirement and security. The exact things people like her piece of shit brother actively try to deny others all the time. Society tried to help this person.

    Now on an individual level before I would ever help her, I’d want to know if she ever saw a cent of Kyle’s blood money.

    damnedfurry ,

    If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state

    She didn’t do that.

    It’s really sad how many people are still so completely ignorant of even the simplest facts of that case. Whatever your ideology declared was the truth, you just swallowed, facts and truth be damned.

    Pitiful.

    P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.

    ImADifferentBird ,
    @ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.

    What Kyle did wasn’t self defense. I don’t give a damn what the court said, he went looking for trouble with a gun in his hand.

    damnedfurry ,

    If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?

    That’s not how it works, goofball.

    ImADifferentBird ,
    @ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing. I wouldn’t have a lot of sympathy for the KKK guys, because fuck them, but it’s pretty obvious at that point that the guy is playing vigilante.

    It’s also worth noting that the first two people he shot were unarmed, and everyone who was in the vicinity thought he was an active shooter.

    damnedfurry ,

    If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing.

    Nope, this analogy fails, by implying that Rittenhouse was armed in a place where being armed is an unusual thing (ironically, one of his attackers was in possession of an illegal handgun, while Rittenhouse was perfectly allowed to be in possession of the rifle he had).

    Kenosha is in an open carry state. There is a reason that although Rittenhouse was obviously and visibly armed with a long rifle, nobody reacted negatively to him arriving at the protest ‘area’. He walked around with that big rifle on his person for literal hours with nobody giving a shit.

    It’s obvious you either don’t live in an open carry state, and/nor do you have the empathy to understand why it was no big deal for him to be there while visibly armed. His mere presence there while armed means nothing.

    Again, the first person to react negatively to him at all was a psycho who literally screamed death threats and then tried to make good on them, in response to Rittenhouse extinguishing the flaming dumpster he was trying to wheel into a gas station (wanna take a few guesses why Rosenbaum was trying to move a large flaming object to such a specific place?).

    You wanna argue that putting out a fire is provocation? lmao

    KoboldCoterie ,
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    It’s not bear season, and a hunter doesn’t have a hunting license. He takes his gun and drives out to bear country, and starts walking around bear dens waiting for a mother bear to attack him, then he shoots her and claims self defense.

    Was he justified, or did he intentionally set up a scenario where the bear was likely to feel threatened and attack him, so he’d have an excuse to shoot her?

    damnedfurry ,

    The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouse’s arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaum’s dumpster fire, makes that not really the best analogy, lol.

    He did literally nothing that merited the aggression upon him. Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.

    KoboldCoterie , (edited )
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.

    It’s literally identical, logically, to “She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.

    Look, I want to be clear: I’m not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also don’t believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed they’d be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasn’t hoping he’d draw some aggression so he could “defend himself”. It’s unfortunate that it happened, and I do believe he was defending himself, but I also fully believe that it went down exactly like he was hoping it would.

    The fact that he’s been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.

    He can be “not guilty” and still be a piece of shit.

    damnedfurry ,

    “She dressed provocatively, but was carrying a revolver, and walked into a bad part of town waiting for someone to come onto her so she could shoot them.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.

    I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to “come onto her”, lol.

    You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after she’s chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed “I’m going to kill you” moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.

    Zero chance you’d be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think you’re kidding?

    KoboldCoterie ,
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    Man, you’re missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but I’ll say it again: I don’t believe he deserved to get attacked, and I believe he was defending himself. Clearly the person who attacked him were not justified in doing so. In the analogy you’re quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and she’d be justified in shooting him.

    What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.

    Do you also defend Westborough Baptist Church? Remember them? Group who would protest at soldier’s funerals, shout some really inflammatory shit with the intent of baiting the funeral-goers to attack them, then act like innocent victims and sue their attackers? Legally, they were in the right, too, but that doesn’t make them any less deplorable for doing it.

    damnedfurry ,

    What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.

    But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if you’re actually being objective, and looking at the facts of the matter. He cleaned graffiti off a high school, then he showed up, he handed out water bottles, gave basic medical attention on request (literally walking around yelling “medic! friendly!”), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

    Firstly, everything started going south because of an event nobody could have predicted: a guy who set a fire earlier had it put out by Rittenhouse, and his response to that is literal homicidal rage (?!) (later, we learned that he had literally been released from a mental health facility for a suicide attempt…looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think it’s reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to ‘murder by cop’, but I digress).

    Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didn’t he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming “I’m going to kill you”, so it’d be a very strong self-defense argument to put him down right there as he charged at Rittenhouse. But instead, he ran away, and continued to run away as Rosenbaum chased him. This course of action makes NO SENSE for someone who is ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

    He also didn’t shoot when he got cornered and was no longer able to flee. At that point, Rosenbaum had not only threatened his life, but had chased him down, leaving NO question he was intending to make good on his threat. Rittenhouse could have very justifiably shot him dead then as well. But he didn’t.

    Rittenhouse only fired when Rosenbaum had COMPLETELY closed the distance between them, and was LITERALLY trying to wrestle the gun of someone he had just threatened to kill, out of his arms. Objectively speaking, he did everything he could to keep the situation from escalating to the point of using his weapon.

    His actions toward his other two attackers was similar–no aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didn’t ‘take advantage of the opportunity to shoot someone’–instead, he fled. Consistently. Every single person he shot had literally put him in a position where he had to choose to either protect his life, or forfeit it. And he never used his weapon a moment before he was in that position, all three times.

    The argument that Rittenhouse was ‘hoping he’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone’ simply does not hold water.

    KoboldCoterie , (edited )
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    First off, I want to be clear that I’m not the one down-voting you; I haven’t voted (up or down) anywhere in this thread, but it always makes me self-conscious when I’m having a disagreement with someone and the posts I’m replying to consistently have 1 downvote at the time I’m replying.

    • Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.
    • He claims he went to the protest “to protect businesses” if I recall, which seems reasonable on the surface, except that:
      • He was a staunch supporter of the ‘blue lives matter’ movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and…
      • He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.
      • I’m not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to “protect businesses” at? Where was he during any non-politically-polarized national tragedy where his services could have been used?
      • Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place?
        • You could argue that it’s “just in case” - which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way to a very specific protest with a very specific population that had already become very heated. If he felt he needed a gun “just in case”, a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.
      • He (to my knowledge) didn’t have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.
        • This is like me going down to the local Walmart with a gun to protect it against people protesting big box stores.
    • Since the incident, he’s used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity, and he’s really milked that celebrity status:
      • His likeness has been used to sell memorabilia, including guns.
      • He’s been a guest of honor (or equivalent, I’m not sure what the term is) at GOP rallies.
      • He’s got at least some kind of association with the Proud Boys (though I’m not sure what the nature of that association is.)
    • If he was truly an innocent good Samaritan who was caught up in something unfortunate and regretted what happened, wouldn’t he be speaking out against any of this, rather than letting them hold him in high regard because of it?
      • He’s basically earned celebrity status because he shot people. And I realize it’s not his fault that people are doing that, but he’s playing right into it. Profiting off of it, even. That is not something a remorseful person does.

    The result of all of this, in my eyes, is that he went to an awful lot of trouble to put himself in a situation where I feel a reasonable person would have believed they would end up in an altercation, and he made sure he had a rifle with him at the time. I will accept that he could have used it sooner than he did, but I, as someone who actively does not want to have to shoot someone, wouldn’t bring a gun to a Trump rally while publicizing that I was there to keep the peace and enforce local noise ordinances. That’d just be asking to get attacked. To be put in a situation where I’d need to use that gun.

    Of course, if I was going to go to that rally, and I was hoping I’d have to shoot someone, I’d make damn sure I made it look like I had only the best possible intentions.

    damnedfurry ,

    It’s not me, you’re literally the only one I’m actually having some sort of actual dialogue with.

    Rittenhouse was already breaking the law by having a firearm; he was 17 at the time and not legally old enough to possess one.

    Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

    He was a staunch supporter of the ‘blue lives matter’ movement, a rally-attending Trump supporter, and otherwise very openly far-right leaning, and… He was attending a protest populated primarily by far left-leaning individuals.

    And yet, he didn’t do a single second of counter-protesting, nor did he act to inhibit the protesters in any way–in fact, it was primarily protesters who received his handed out bottles of water and basic medical aid.

    The only real argument you can make that he was antagonistic is if you argue that cleaning up after and putting out the fires of rioters (those not protesting, but just running around creating havoc and destruction) is antagonistic toward them–I guess it is, technically, but…I mean, come on. No way my conscience would let me fault someone for undoing rioters’ damage.

    He is on record stating he supports BLM, for what it’s worth.

    I’m not aware of him attending any other protests, since or prior, under this premise; if he was the good Samaritan he tries to make himself out to be, why did he choose this, and only this, protest to “protect businesses” at?

    Because it’s his community, so it makes perfect sense he’s more compelled to take action in his own neighborhood. He has friends in Kenosha, his father lives there, he worked as a lifeguard there, etc… He had spent lots of time over the course of his life in that area, and had ties to it. If he had gone to one protest, and it deliberately WASN’T the one in Kenosha, that’s what would look potentially suspicious, imo.

    Why did he feel the need to bring a gun in the first place? You could argue that it’s “just in case”

    Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.

    • which may make sense, except that he drove an awfully long way

    Not really a long way at all (20 miles), especially not unusually long for him, who had made that exact trip countless times before. This was literally his regular commute to his lifeguard job, and spending time with his father, etc.

    a reasonable conclusion could be that he expected things to go south, and chose to go anyway.

    And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.

    He (to my knowledge) didn’t have any personal affiliation with any of the businesses there.

    Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.

    Since the incident, he’s used the fact that he went to a leftist protest and shot people and was acquitted to become a bit of a far-right celebrity,

    All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that. Wouldn’t be nearly the first time such a thing has happened, sadly.

    Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views. All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.

    I speak from a position of knowing the facts, and being frustrated that, even though the facts are so readily available, there are still so many people saying things the facts don’t agree with, and drawing conclusions that make zero sense in the face of said facts.

    That’s all there is to it.

    KoboldCoterie ,
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    Not true–Wisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

    Maybe I’m mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isn’t really something I’ve paid much attention to in the past, I don’t know, 3 years, but I’m fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is it that it’s illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe that’s the short-barreled clause? I’m not sure of the specifics.

    Seems pretty obvious that is the reason–he’s even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, “for my protection”.

    And if one isn’t starting out trying to find fault and looks at his actions objectively in hindsight, one could easily argue that the decision to deliberately put himself at potential risk in order to undo some of the damage and maybe prevent some damage, and help people, is selflessly altruistic.

    I don’t know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesn’t happen frequently, so maybe that’s part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what they’re doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If they’re a protester themselves, they’re just inviting police violence and if they’re not a protester, my perception would be that they’re doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe that’s an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.

    What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.

    There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.

    Not really a long way at all (20 miles),

    Maybe ‘a long way’ was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.

    Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Black’s offer to help protect their business, and one of them denied even knowing who Kyle was, and then text exchange between them, with Kyle offering to help out, surfaced, and the other owner literally had his picture taken with Kyle and the rest of his group, in front of the dealership. Kyle was obviously not randomly taking the liberty upon himself to spend time defending that place, nor was he unwanted there.

    I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.

    Still, this is beside the point–it doesn’t matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views.

    It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. I’m not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really don’t know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and I’m certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think it’s pretty clear from the trial that he isn’t legally guilty. However, I do think he’s morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.

    Honestly, if it hadn’t been for that last bit, I’d probably hold a different view, and…

    All the left did was call him a white supremacist serial killer (as you can see, this continues to this day), even after all the facts came out. It’s no surprise he became amicable with the only people who weren’t doing that.

    Maybe you’re right, and he’s a product of the circumstances, but he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. He’s going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.

    I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasn’t literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasn’t taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.

    All I’m talking about is what I know about, and that’s the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)–as far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ‘random’ civilian can have 100% of the facts anyone else does.

    The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.

    KillingTimeItself ,

    not reading this (fully) so ignore me if you already mentioned this, but the during the rittenhouse trial both charges against rittenhouse and the person that sold him the gun were dropped, rittenhouse i think specifically because of a loophole that made it “technically legal to own” and the person that sold him the gun, because reasons, i guess, i don’t remember.

    More than likely persecution was focusing on the other charges and didnt want to spend time on these charges as they seemed rather inconsequential, as well as the fact that the other kid was out of state, and so iirc that was a separate case entirely.

    regardless he should’ve been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasn’t hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.

    CoffeeJunkie ,

    https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/85c101b5-d03d-4238-b1ec-b35f87bf76f9.jpeg

    KillingTimeItself ,

    real

    damnedfurry ,

    I can’t imagine that there weren’t plenty of people there who share that perception.

    I myself also would be very nervous around someone being armed like that in public. But I don’t live in an open carry state, either, so it would be very out of place for me, as well.

    That said, you don’t have to imagine. Just look at the facts of the matter:

    • He was obviously and visibly armed from the moment he showed up
    • There was no freakout over his arrival, nor over the extended period of time he was walking around doing things, obviously and visibly armed the entire time. There is plenty of video of him there while armed, and it’s clear he is not drawing any more attention than the average person in any of the footage up to the point where Rosenbaum put himself and Rittenhouse at the center of attention with his mad raving.

    Given those facts, it is clear that Rittenhouse was not armed to an extent that those around him found more than mundane.

    What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all it’d take is one who didn’t to cause a problem.

    There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I can’t speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.

    Generally speaking, if someone goes to a dangerous place to try and improve the situation there to the best of their ability, despite the potential risks to their own safety, one would consider that courageous and admirable, not foolish. I’d say it’s very arguable that only pre-existing bias is preventing Rittenhouse from being perceived similarly, given that every single action he’s known to have taken in Kenosha that day was either morally neutral (I consider defending your life to be human nature, and not a moral or immoral act), or morally good (cleaning graffiti, extinguishing fires, handing out water bottles on request, giving basic medical aid to the extent he could from his lifeguard training).

    Being as objective as possible, and going by the facts, what can one realistically argue that he did that was immoral on that day? This is a genuine question–I can’t find a single actual act that merits criticism, and I’ve found consistently that everyone criticizing his actions either straight-up gets facts about what he literally did incorrect, and bases their conclusion on that, or colors his decision to be there as malicious in and of itself (though, again, though obviously we can’t read his mind that day, the actions he took that day simply do not support that assumed malicious intent at all, quite the contrary in fact).

    But that’s not even all of it–his most ardent supporters on the extreme right are getting it wrong ALSO, and do ridiculous things like claiming his shooting of people we later discovered were actually pretty shitty people was itself a morally good act, and completely ignore the things he did that day that actually WERE objectively morally good (graffiti cleaning et al, as mentioned above). This is ridiculous, and focusing completely in the wrong place–he didn’t ‘do the right thing’ by shooting people, he protected his life against a few crazy and violent individuals, and that’s obviously neither ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

    Although I will say, that one video did demonstrate that Rittenhouse’s trigger discipline is admirable (immediately after shooting Grosskreutz, his finger was off the trigger and around the guard, as he carefully got back up to his feet, and overall, he didn’t fire a single shot that struck anyone other than his intended target, no spray and pray, no wild shots, he used his weapon to the absolute minimal extent necessary to neutralize each of the people who tried to kill him)–if every cop’s in the US was as good as his, we’d probably have a lot fewer police scandals in this country.

    the point I was trying to get at is that he doesn’t live there; it’s not like this was happening in his town.

    But again, he had family and friends there–while he may not have lived there, I’d say it’s very fair to categorize Kenosha as part of ‘his community’, considering how many ties he has to it, and how he regularly spent time there.

    It’s relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there.

    I don’t really find that relevant though. Suppose we knew for a fact that he was a straight-up racist and/or adherent to all sorts of extreme right-wing political views. Let’s say he was literally the far-right stereotype.

    The facts of the matter are still what they are–he took not a single action in Kenosha could be fairly/objectively described as an expression of such views–he did nothing that you could look at and say ‘oh, it’s because of view far-right political stance X that he decided to do this action Y’. He’s on video at one point saying he was there "to protect this business, and part of my job is there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way.”

    Hypothetically, if someone goes their whole life hating a certain race of people, but throughout their life, never actually mistreats anyone of that race, then the end result, as far as real-world consequences, is the same as if that person did not have those views.

    Frankly, I don’t really care what his views are. I care about what he did.

    he didn’t, and doesn’t (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there.

    I don’t think he should feel remorse. Remorse is for having done things wrong. I don’t think he could have handled the situations Rosenbaum et al put him in any better than he did. I literally can’t think of a course of action from the moment Rosenbaum began to charge at him that’s different from what he did, and also inarguably better/smarter.

    But regret? He clearly regrets that things went down the way they did. The crying he did as he relived those events during the trial, that left-wing ideologues love to mock him for, and callously claim are crocodile tears, instead of a 17 year-old coming to grips with the kind of day’s events that would traumatize ANYONE for life, are a clear show of that. Frankly, just talking about this particular bit makes me feel disgusted all over again, at all of the things I saw and read around that time, on Reddit. People who pretend to be champions for mental health instantly abandon their supposed virtues because they’ve dehumanized Rittenhouse to such an extreme degree that they can’t even fathom that he is a normal human being who just might be traumatized by having to look death in the face not once, but THREE times in a day. It’s sickening…but I digress.

    Now, after the fact, he has on at least one occasion I know of, poked fun at himself with that same infamous image of him weeping. But humor is a common coping mechanism, especially for young males in this country, who are scarcely allowed to deal with trauma in any other way without being criticized for it (see above). I would not look at things like that and conclude ‘oh, he actually just didn’t give a shit’ or anything like that. We also don’t know what things are like for him when he’s not in public view. Hell, he likely still has nightmares about that day…

    The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit;

    That’s for sure–even post-verdict I saw Redditors claiming “Rittenhouse’s victims” were all black, and that it was a racially-motivated crime.

    I don’t think it’s surprising at all that everyone’s perception of the details differ so greatly.

    Maybe not surprising, but it’s all the more reason that it’s important to push back against misinformation, especially when it’s ideologically-driven. It deserves nothing less than relentless calling out, in my opinion.

    I genuinely appreciate that you’ve actually been reading what I’m writing–much better than “fuck off fascist loser” and the like, which you will find in this thread, not too far from this comment chain.

    The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.

    I haven’t read this statement, I’m going to look it up real quick and quote bits I find ‘interesting’:

    • Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police <-- Oh, there’s a lie in the very first sentence, lol. At the very least, it’s confirmed that Rosenbaum was NOT protesting. He’d just been released that very day from a hospital after a suicide attempt, went to his 'girlfriend’s house, where he was turned away due to a restraining order against him (yeah…), and basically ended up in the mix in Kenosha by apparent coincidence. Witness testimony described him as “extremely aggressive”–one quick example before moving on.
    • Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two. These are the simple, tragic facts. <-- Holy shit, lol. “Vigilante mission” is pure assumption, not a fact, the police allowed EVERYONE to “roam the streets”, so that’s meaningless to point out, and “ended up shooting three people and killing two” is technically a fact, but is a MASSIVE lie of omission to just say he “ended up” doing that, it completely ignores all of the other relevant events before, during, and after. The ACLU clearly had a narrative they went to great lengths to push, and were more than happy to ignore any inconvenient truth that might get in the way of that narrative.

    Character limit, continued -->

    KoboldCoterie ,
    @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social avatar

    Not trying to dredge this all up again or restart this conversation, but I thought you might like to know… I went and watched some of the videos and read some of the accounts you’ve referenced (none of which I’d seen previously), and I can safely say that you’ve at least in part changed my view on this insofar as it applies to his intentions that day. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.

    damnedfurry ,

    Not a problem, glad I indirectly convinced at least one person to examine the facts objectively. 👍

    damnedfurry ,

    Okay, just going to finish up skimming the ACLU statement, which has already demonstrated itself to be shamelessly dishonest, and call it a night:

    • the protests that Rittenhouse took it upon himself to confront <-- Rittenhouse did zero counter-protesting, and did not inhibit any protester’s protesting in any way–ironically, the primary recipients of the water bottles and basic medical aid he dispensed were protesters. To frame him going to Kenosha as him deciding to ‘confront the protest’ is a shameless lie.

    Oh, I guess there wasn’t that much more about Rittenhouse in there. Oh well, don’t feel like randomly truncating bits here and there in my previous comment to fit this in, so second comment it stays.

    Thanks again for actually being open to new information, and actual discussion. An admirable and increasingly-rare trait these days.

    forrgott ,

    Putting yourself in harms way hardly justifies “self defense”.

    damnedfurry ,

    If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?

    That’s not how it works, goofball.

    ChairmanMeow ,
    @ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

    If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle and sat there provoking the KKK members, I’d argue he probably went there to stir up a fight. Not that I have any sympathy for KKK members or their actions.

    damnedfurry ,

    If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle

    I didn’t say he was armed, but fine, let’s have this hypothetical happen in an open carry state, same as the state where the Rittenhouse stuff happened. Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.

    and sat there provoking the KKK members

    Rittenhouse provoked no one (the irony of implying he did is that he literally spent a good amount of time walking around shouting “medic! friendly!” while he was offering basic first aid to whoever wanted it, lol…pretty much the literal opposite of provocation), so your analogy becomes a false analogy, here.

    ChairmanMeow ,
    @ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

    I didn’t say he was armed

    Rittenhouse was, so that’s what my analogy is using too.

    Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.

    Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all. If it’s police it’s a minor cause for concern, if it’s an untrained civilian who looks underage, it’s much greater cause for concern. If he’s walking around at a protest to supposedly “protect businesses”, he’s a clear and direct danger. What the law says doesn’t change what he can do with a weapon like that, and thus what threat he poses.

    Rittenhouse provoked no one

    You’re unaware of the basic facts of the case. Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly. This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him. After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense. He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).

    You can’t expect to go to a protest, heavily armed, pointing your gun at people and expect people to be all okiedokie about that. It’s a clear provocation.

    damnedfurry ,

    Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all.

    In Wisconsin (because it’s legal), and particularly on that day, in that area, it is demonstrably/provably so that it was considered mundane, evidenced by the fact that although Rittenhouse was openly and visibly armed with that long rifle the entire time he was there, he received nary a second glance from anyone, much less an overtly negative response, neither when he showed up, nor when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.

    Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.

    Ironically, even his ATTACKERS didn’t give a shit, and charged at and chased him despite being, literally, SEVERELY outgunned.

    Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly.

    Link the full video (so fullest possible context can be seen), with timestamp(s)

    This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him.

    Oh, please, this is nonsense (and frankly digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure, considering all we know about him both on that day, and prior to it):

    "Ryan Balch, one of the armed men patrolling the streets of downtown Kenosha along with Rittenhouse, told the court that 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum had appeared “aggravated” that evening and had been seen shouting “fuck you” to various protesters in the crowd.

    “Every time I encountered Joseph Rosenbaum, he was hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” Balch testified. “He was always having to be restrained by someone.”

    Another witness, Richie McGinniss, testified Thursday that Rosenbaum had chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot of a car dealership and lunged for Rittenhouse’s AR-15 rifle before the teenager opened fire.

    Though both Balch and McGinniss had been called to testify by the prosecution, they each emphasized that Rosenbaum had appeared to pose a threat to Rittenhouse.

    But Balch said that at one point that evening, prior to the shooting, Rosenbaum had clearly grown enraged with Balch, Rittenhouse, and a third armed member of their group.

    Balch testified that the other member of his group had at one point prevented Rosenbaum from lighting something on fire. Rosenbaum then began shouting at Balch and Rittenhouse when Balch tried to calm him down, according to Balch.

    “When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming,” Balch said. “I said, ‘Back up, chill, I don’t know what your problem is.’ He goes, ‘I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to fucking kill you.’”

    When Binger asked Balch to clarify that Rosenbaum’s remarks were directed at both Balch and Rittenhouse, Balch responded, “The defendant was there, so yes.”

    After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense.

    Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off, and then enough time passes such that it would even be possible for Rittenhouse to think ‘hm, he’s not a threat anymore, but you know what, I’ve decided I want to kill him’ and THEN shot him dead.

    What a pathetic straw grasp. Laughably absurd.

    He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).

    I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse with his illegally-possessed (unlike Kyle’s rifle, ironic considering how many people still accuse him of having possessed it illegally) handgun, which was literally pointed at Rittenhouse’s head when Kyle pulled the trigger and shot his arm. The fact that Kyle’s reaction time was faster is the only reason Grosskreutz didn’t succeed in his attempted murder.

    Very interesting that you happened to omit every single fact that contradicts the narrative you’re trying so desperately to construct.

    Unfortunately for you and your precious narrative, I’m familiar with the facts, and see right through you.

    ChairmanMeow ,
    @ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

    when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.

    And he needed a rifle for that, did he? His stated purpose for being there was vigilantism. He literally said as such during the trial. He stated he was there to “protect property” and he brought a rifle to do so. Unless that was a water pistol, he was there intending to use lethal force.

    Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.

    Yeah, except for the people that evidently did. And obviously you don’t need to immediately freak out if you see something not considered “mundane”.

    digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure

    I’m literally not. Don’t put words into other people’s mouths. As stated by Rittenhouse himself, he came to Kenosha, armed, in order to at the very least intimidate the protestors/rioters (whatever tickles your fancy) there. Rosenbaum, who is not exactly a stable person, was not intimidated by these attempts. In a previous encounter, Rosenbaum threatened someone Rittenhouse was with at the time.

    Instead of deescalating and leaving the scene, which Rittenhouse could have easily done, he decides to risk a confrontation and sticks around. When he runs into Rosenbaum again, something triggers Rosenbaum to chase him.

    Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off

    Well the tooth fairy didn’t decide for him. I don’t need forensics to see on the video used in the trial that after being shot once, Rosenbaum falls over and graps the barrel briefly, after which Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. Oh, and this is after Rittenhouse decided to stop running, turn around and shoot him.

    I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse

    Some would call them heroic after they saw Rittenhouse kill someone and tried to neutralize the shooter.

    The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going on his vigilante-stint. He could have gone unarmed if he was only going to provide water and medical assistance, but that wasn’t why he went there. While the legality of his actions can be disputed, the morality of his actions is clear: what he did was deeply wrong, and he’s responsible for two people dead.

    damnedfurry ,

    Oh look, you completely ignored being pressed to support your ridiculous ‘he was pointing his gun at people for no reason repeatedly, before anyone attacked him’ claim. You prove you’re just another narrative-clinging ideologue who will throw as much bullshit at the wall as possible, hoping something sticks or isn’t challenged.

    You’re a waste of time.

    The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going

    Victim blaming 101, I sleep.

    stoly ,

    Why did you just bring in race? That was unnecessary.

    damnedfurry , (edited )

    It was to steelman the other person’s argument, actually. My analogy involved a situation where it was MUCH more clear that the victim was deliberately entering known ‘hostile territory’ (black guy into a KKK meeting), than the Kenosha situation was (fact is, if it wasn’t for Rosenbaum going nuts and starting the domino effect, Rittenhouse would have gone home that day conflict-free–after all, he was there for hours BEFORE Rosenbaum freaked on him, with no incident at all). Race itself is not really a factor–‘person existing in a dangerous place’ is all I’m conveying. I didn’t “bring in race”.

    stoly ,

    It’s amazing how you can convince some people that you aren’t responsible for your actions when you totally were.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen. He put himself in a situation where deadly force would just be on be on the line of justifed.

    Duty to retreat includes duty to not show up. It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did. We are creating a last man standing justice system.

    A provokes B. They fight. B is murdered. A claims self-defense

    provokes B. They fight. A is murdered. B claims self-defense

    What does it say that the argument works both ways? No other crime operates this way.

    damnedfurry ,

    It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did.

    LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.

    He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen.

    ‘She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’

    Victim blaming. Wisconsin is an open carry state.

    What does it say that the argument works both ways?

    Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.

    Personal attacks. And of course they chased down the guy waving a gun around.

    She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’

    False analogy. Rape is never justified, stopping a gunman is.

    Wisconsin is an open carry state.

    What might technically be lawful is not always sensible.

    Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.

    Showing up to a riot with a gun is aggressive by its nature. Just like if I stood with a gun in front of your house at all hours.

    damnedfurry ,
    • He didn’t "wave a gun around"
    • attacking someone unprovoked just because they are armed, especially when legally so, is ALSO never justified
    • existing while armed is not intrinsically aggressive/provocative, no matter how much you insist it is. Rittenhouse did literally nothing that even remotely merited the murder attempted on him thrice that day.
    afraid_of_zombies ,

    I saw the video. He waved a gun around.

    Waving a gun around is always provoking.

    Waving a gun around is intrinsically aggressive and provocative, no matter how much you insist that it isn’t. Rittenhouse did literally everything wrong that merited the disarming attempt on him thrice that day.

    damnedfurry ,

    I saw the video. He waved a gun around.

    Timestamped link, please.

    Fedizen ,

    it should be noted that afaik, nobody has died from BLM protestors so a “fear of dying” in the encounter should indicate a deeply troubled mind. So a competent prosecuter could probably have convinced a jury that Kyle’s fears were largely irrational and could have probably stuck manslaughter charges on him.

    After all, if you start marching around with a gun in front of your neighbor’s house then shoot him when he approaches you yelling to get off his sidewalk or whatever, its a bit insane, if not premeditated.

    fmstrat ,

    You are spreading misinformation: apnews.com/article/fact-checking-255510715179

    The spreading of that, along with medical issues, is why they are having troubles.

    frickineh ,

    Did you read the rest of the thread? I already acknowledged that I was wrong about that part, but they’re saying they can’t get work because of him while still refusing to condemn him. The GoFundMe says he was “involved in a tragic shooting incident,” which is a pretty weasely way to say he killed people.

    I also question that it really has anything to do with him. He’s certainly not having any issues making money, and there are a concerning number of people who consider him a hero, or at the very least aren’t bothered by what he did (see the comments on this post for a whole lot of evidence). Surely some of them are hiring.

    HelixDab2 ,

    So, here’s the thing.

    He shouldn’t have gone there. Being there, being armed, there to protect property, was taken to be provocative by the people that were protesting cops shooting an unarmed man.

    But the narrative that we got in the news wasn’t how things actually went down. The first person confronted him and tried to grab his rifle when he wasn’t threatening anyone. The second person that was shot had just chased Rittenhouse down and struck him with a skateboard. The third person was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm. Source.

    Given that he was not directly threatening anyone there, it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. Yeah, I don’t like it that a shitty person walks away, but he walked because he wasn’t guilty of a crime in defending himself. Is he still a right-wing shitstain that’s supposedly too dumb to get into the military? Yeah. But self-defense is a right for everyone.

    Lucidlethargy ,

    If Kyle has money (he does, from dumbass rubes), he should help his family. Fuck this shitty little selfish murderer.

    JimSamtanko ,

    She didn’t drive him there. It’s been factually proven. Dudes a fucking murderer for sure, but his mom didn’t drive him to kill people. He did that shit on his own.

    MummifiedClient5000 ,

    Is it possible that maybe he’s a piece of shit?

    ZagamTheVile , (edited )

    I mean, maybe? But other than wild speculation, is there any evidence?

    Fucking /s because those of you that don’t get it are dumb enough to think The Boys got all anti-you all of a sudden too.

    PythagreousTitties ,

    No evidence whatsoever. None.

    thefartographer ,

    Only alternative facts

    Glowstick ,

    Dude, you absolutely need the /s on this one. There are people who authentically say this. And they read your comment thinking you and the upvoters all support that same belief too

    ZagamTheVile ,

    Done.

    Glowstick ,

    Ty

    CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

    Personally I can’t believe he’s crying about 4 downvotes. lol

    UnderpantsWeevil ,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    But other than wild speculation, is there any evidence?

    He did drive up to Ohio to shoot people.

    those of you that don’t get it are dumb

    I wish I didn’t know people who would say that shit entirely unironically.

    damnedfurry ,

    lmao you don’t even have the state right.

    He went there to shoot people

    Yeah, that’s why he showed up and did zero non-benevolent things for hours, and then when a maniac literally screamed a death threat at him (in response to Rittenhouse putting out a dumpster fire he started), his immediate reaction was to run away.

    Literally the only people shot by Rittenhouse that day were people who tried to kill him, and then DIDN’T LET HIM run away when he tried to flee, which was his consistent first reaction to all aggression directed at him. Everyone who got shot CHASED him when he fled, cornered him, and then tried to murder him, forcing him to use his weapon to save his own life.

    Those are the facts.

    I’m glad I don’t know anyone dumb enough to unironically claim he intended to shoot people. There is so much publicly available evidence, it’s frankly secondhand embarrassing to see, even online.

    AbidanYre ,

    Unless everyone after the first shooting had all that context, they were just standing their ground against a murdering fuck stick

    damnedfurry ,

    they were just standing their ground

    Literally the opposite of the truth, lmao. They didn’t “stand their ground”, they CHASED Kyle as he ran away! And that was after they accosted him while he was running TOWARD the police line, to report what happened with the first attacker.

    aidan ,

    Yes they would have been justified if their impression was right, but it wasn’t

    AbidanYre ,

    According to you and Kyle anyway.

    aidan ,

    and the jury

    BassaForte ,
    @BassaForte@lemmy.world avatar

    Not defending him, but it was Wisconsin, in a city less than 30 minutes from where he lived, barely across state lines.

    This case is fucked in so many ways, and it’s even worse because nobody remembers any of the details right.

    state_electrician ,

    I think you might be onto something there.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    No no, see he shot a registered sex offender (which he couldn’t have possibly known at the time)!

    Kaboom ,

    Well you see, that guy was trying to kill him

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?

    The problem is, we will never know now.

    damnedfurry ,

    the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters

    Literally a lie, lol.

    There is video, you cretins, stop making claims directly contradicted by the evidence.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    How do you know it is “literally a lie?” Because all the footage I’ve seen starts with him already being chased.

    Let’s see this video of what he was doing directly before the chase started.

    damnedfurry ,

    all the footage I’ve seen starts with him already being chased.

    Look harder.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Sorry, I’m not here to prove you right. That’s your job.

    damnedfurry ,

    You’re the one telling me to prove the negative, lol.

    Prove he pointed his weapon at peaceful protesters.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m telling you no such thing. You claim there’s video. Where is the video?

    Also, I did not say he pointed his weapon at peaceful protesters. This is what I said:

    Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?

    The problem is, we will never know now.

    Which you claimed was “literally a lie” and then claimed there was video.

    So where’s the video?

    damnedfurry ,

    the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters

    Burden of proof is yours. This is your original claim.

    Back it up, or concede you can’t. Anything else is evasion.

    damnedfurry ,

    Which you claimed was “literally a lie” and then claimed there was video.

    I did not claim there was video of Rittenhouse NOT doing something, lmao.

    I replied to you saying you saw no footage that didn’t start with him already running away, by pointing out the obvious fact that there is. One little example, from a CNN article, under a heading that , lmao:

    In another clip from an on-camera video with Richie McGinniss, the chief video director of the Daily Caller, Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business and “to also help people.” “If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself obviously, but I also have my med kit,” Rittenhouse says in the video. McGinniss points to other armed men around Rittenhouse and asks what they are doing. Rittenhouse responds, “Their job is to protect me.”

    “We’re running medical and we’re going in and we’re getting people,” Rittenhouse says in the video

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t think you actually watched the video on that page, because it doesn’t show what happened before the shooting.

    And it’s hilarious that you think anyone here would find anyone from the Daily Caller credible.

    damnedfurry ,

    So you think CNN was lying in Kyle’s defense? That’s a new one.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I don’t remember saying anything about CNN and whether or not they told the truth. Can you quote me or did you reply to the wrong person?

    dactylotheca , (edited )
    @dactylotheca@suppo.fi avatar

    “That guy” being Rittenhouse who specifically went there with a firearm with the intention to stir up shit? He was absolutely hoping he’d get to murder someone, and surprise surpise – he did exactly that

    Kaboom ,

    He worked there, you fucking dweeb. And furthermore, it was a public place, he doesnt need your permission to be there

    SphereofWreckening ,

    The little fascist went to a counter protest with a rifle as an agitator. He was looking for a reason to use that gun, and definitely manufactured the exact thing he was looking for. Don’t be such an utter dipshit.

    damnedfurry ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    You do know that going to a protest with a rifle is a provocation, right?

    damnedfurry ,

    Wrong. It’s an open carry state, there was nothing strange about it.

    If it was such a “provocation”, then why did nobody give a shit when he showed up, even though it was super obvious he was armed with a long rifle? How come he walked around for hours doing his thing (handing out water bottles, giving basic medical care to whoever asked (at least 8 people according to evidence and trial testimony), etc.), and literally nobody gave a shit, while he had that rifle on him the whole time?

    Rosenbaum literally screamed “I’m going to kill you” at Rittenhouse, and for what? Because he put out Rosenbaum’s dumpster fire.

    Get real.

    SphereofWreckening ,

    Fuck off fascist

    damnedfurry ,

    Correcting false statements with known facts (it’s so extra absurd because there is SO MUCH hard evidence!) is not fascism. It’s not even political at all.

    SphereofWreckening ,

    You’re such a fascist defending loser.

    damnedfurry ,

    It says a lot about you that caring about the truth makes someone a loser in your eyes.

    I’ll defend anyone against what I know to be lies about them. Their politics are completely irrelevant.

    It’s called having principles, and valuing them, instead of the narrative of an ideology that prioritizes its propagation over what’s actually true.

    JimSamtanko ,

    Hey bud… how about you read this .

    damnedfurry ,

    Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are a teen talking big to his friends.

    The fact is, nothing he did in Kenosha supports the claim that he wanted to kill anyone, period, and everything he did directly contradicts it. He showed zero aggression toward anyone, and his first response to aggression toward him was to RUN AWAY, every single time. Bottom line, none of the people who got shot would have gotten shot if they had let him run away.

    JimSamtanko ,

    ROFL…. “locker room talk” right? You apologists are fucking hilarious. Where I come from (America) this is called “Premeditated Murder.” And in any courtroom with an unbiased judge, he’d have been convicted on that alone.

    damnedfurry ,

    ‘You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he never showed aggression toward anyone, and his first response to unprovoked aggression toward him, all three times, was to run away’

    lol

    JimSamtanko ,

    You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he said this:

    “Bro, I wish I had my f—ing AR. I’d start shooting rounds at them."

    lol indeed.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I like how they’re saying he never showed aggression to anyone despite showing up with a fucking rifle.

    JimSamtanko ,

    Right? The mental gymnastics are impressive to say the least.

    damnedfurry ,

    Actions speak louder than words. He was around tons of looters (that’s what the people he was talking about were doing, when he said that) that day. Why didn’t he ‘shoot rounds’ at any of them, if that was his plan? He had all the opportunity in the world.

    That’s the question people making this argument can’t answer honestly, because the only honest answer is that what he did directly contradicts what he said.

    Arguing that he planned to do something that he literally didn’t do, despite myriad opportunities, is just silly.

    Actions speak louder.

    JimSamtanko ,

    Again… you apologists are fucking hilarious. Dude wanted to kill people. He killed people. No amount of hand waiving and excuses from you will change that.

    It’s a fact. And it is easily proven via reality.

    TheFonz ,

    Yes, ok. But you’re not providing a counterargument. These are all just feelings. It’s possible he was there to kill people. It’s also possible he saw what happened in Minneapolis when rioters set entire storefronts on fire a few weeks prior and was concerned about his community.

    If he really wanted just to kill people he had lots more opportunities before he was being chased. The person you’re responding too is just countering your arguments but all you have very charged feelings about the case which is understandable.

    Kyle is a bad person who did something really stupid but it doesn’t help to fight every person on details which have been disproven in court. The whole trial is available to watch online. Our side needs to do better and stay grounded in facts otherwise we just lose all credibility.

    JimSamtanko ,

    It’s not feelings. It’s facts. He was on video saying he wanted to kill people. And it’s also well documented that the judge in the case was incredibly biased. He didn’t allow damning evidence against the murderer that any other judge would have allowed.

    Look it up.

    TheFonz ,

    Yes, I never said that wasn’t true.

    Please follow closely because it’s getting lost in the sauce and I know there’s a lot of charged feelings involved in this conversation.

    He may have said he wanted to genocide all people on earth and stomp on puppies prior to the event. He still has the right to self defense which is the crux of the whole argument.

    In the US bad people have a right to self defence (In America open carry is legal and I’m grateful I moved out of the US).

    I can tell you feel very passionate about the topic. My recommendation is that you go and watch the trial (the whole trial was recorded) or at the least download the transcripts and follow the evidence.

    Just to repeat: I agree Kyle is a bad person. But we have to ground our discourse in facts. It doesn’t help to create false mythos around bad people because it only emboldens the other side.

    JimSamtanko ,

    He’s a murderer. It was premeditated. And he had a biased judge.

    Case closed.

    TheFonz ,

    Sigh. This type of epistemic analysis leads to monological thinking and is why the Kenosha riots had no grounding to begin with. More people will die if we just dilute every fact to dismiss narratives we don’t like and it will lead to more violence and hate.

    I don’t like conservatives either but we have to ground discourse in facts not feelings.

    • He’s a murderer
    • Judge was biased
    • It was premeditated

    None of this was proven but we can just handwave it like nothing else matters. After a while we are all going to start living in parallel epistemic bubbles.

    JimSamtanko ,

    He was not asked to be there- had no business there. And was on tape saying he wanted to kill people.

    A court only determines guilt or innocence from a legal standpoint. It doesn’t change the events retroactively to make them not happen.

    He’s a murderer. By definition.

    Following your logic, OJ was also innocent, right?

    TheFonz ,

    If you want to have a discussion on the moral ethics of his actions: that’s fine; Plenty to criticize.

    If you want to have a discussion on the legal merits of the case, that’s fine too, but you need to be at least somewhat aware of the facts beyond verbal statements that preceded the shooting. OJ (although a cherry picked data point does not prove a point) is a fine example of the judicial system working as intended even though the defendent was guilty.

    To summarize: These are two separate conversations (legal vs moral). I’ve noticed that whenever Kyle is brought up, as lefties we tend to hop back and forth between the two (sort of in the way you are doing --I can’t tell if it’s intentional–) to muddy the discussion or get some type of gotcha. It’s not productive.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Sorry… are you under the bizarre impression that because it’s legal to carry a gun, you can’t provoke someone with it?

    damnedfurry ,

    No, I’m contradicting the ridiculous argument that existing in public while armed, in an open carry state, is somehow, in and of itself, provocation.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    No one is making that argument.

    TheFonz ,

    :/

    I agree that Kyle is a bad person, Flying, but there is a lot of misinformation being spread around that makes our side look bad. I know it’s an emotionally charged topic.

    If Hitler rescues a dog he’s still a bad person. But it doesn’t help to mythologize characters through false narratives because it empowers them even further. Just my opinion. I’m not on team Kyle and I’m not a fascist (sad I have to state this last tag on Lemmy in case I get misconstrued).

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    And yet no one was making that argument.

    TheFonz ,

    Everyone is talking past each other in this thread. I understand, it’s an emotionally charged topic.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Well, the guy I replied to who said:

    I’m contradicting the ridiculous argument that existing in public while armed, in an open carry state, is somehow, in and of itself, provocation.

    is certainly talking past everyone else since literally no one made that argument.

    And then for some reason you criticized me for telling them that no one made that argument, despite that being a fact.

    TheFonz ,

    Yeah I think you’re saying that --correct me if I’m wrong-- him

    bringing the AR to the protests is an act of provocation

    while the person you’re arguing with said

    open carry is not uncommon and no one felt provoked

    At least that’s how I read it. Maybe I’m wrong. I can see how both statements could be true to some extent. Many protesters were from out of state and possibly not familiar with the open carry laws in WI so it’s possible they felt threatened immediately. I’m no longer living in the US, and I never lived in an open carry state, so the sight of an AR strapped to a kid would make me uncomfortable in that situation. However, I’ve also lived in the middle east were the sight of soldiers walking around not in uniform carrying semi automatic rifles was very common and that did not make me uncomfortable. So context is important.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    This is Kenosha, not Fallujah. If you think people walking around with ARs is a common or non-worrying sight there, you really know nothing about this subject.

    TheFonz ,

    I don’t understand this response. There are several states in the US where open carry is quite common. There’s a whole subreddit dedicated to pictures of dudes walking around like para militias. What’s your point in comparing it to Fallujah after I already conceded that it likely made many protesters uncomfortable. No need to go all agro on me man, I’m just pointing out the two perspectives that’s all.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Sorry… you’re taking anecdotal pictures from a subreddit to argue that people walking around Kenosha with ARs is a common sight?

    I live in an open carry state. I drove through Wisconsin in March. I didn’t see a single person walking around with an AR then and I never see them here either.

    TheFonz ,

    You took my position:

    open carry is not uncommon in Wi

    and transformed it into

    people walking around Kenosha with AR’s is a common sight

    These are two completely different statements. Is the opposite of uncommon by default common? Even after I conceded that it would still alarm some people. I don’t get it. Is there a different way I should explain myself? I’m so lost :( What am I doing wrong? Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word uncommon. There has to be a better word. Maybe surprising?

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Okay, if it is not a common sight to see people carrying ARs in Kenosha, then it makes sense that people at a protest would take that as a threat and act accordingly. I really don’t know what you’re saying here other than doing some ridiculous “both sidesing” when only one side committed murder.

    TheFonz ,

    I don’t really remember any more because I had to translate my position through several iterations since it kept getting twisted. I have to figure out how to make my points more direct and succinct. It seems no matter how much preamble and explanation I offer, my position gets twisted one way or another.

    All I’m trying to say is that when we argue with the other side (in this case conservatives that defend Rittenhouse) we should be mindful if we are addressing the ethical argument or the legal argument. Typically, conservatives will overstate the legal argument and dismiss the ethical argument.

    If I had an elevator pitch it would be this:

    >> It’s helpful to steelman the opposition to be able to refute it better. <<

    That’s all. I need to go walk my dog now.

    BassaForte ,
    @BassaForte@lemmy.world avatar

    FWIW I think it depends on intent. You could be showing up with a rifle in support of the protestors (which has happened, especially in 2020).

    jimmydoreisalefty ,
    @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world avatar

    I think the ‘left’ should also step up their game and open carry, if they want to be taken more seriously by:

    Some of those that work forces [1] Are the same that burn crosses

    …but… we must not forget what may follow if they do, planning is also really important as well as having legal counsel and video footage of all interactions:

    !bpp

    [1] Killing in the Name - Rage Against the Machine

    bamboo ,

    I think if leftists started open carrying at protests we would either see way less harassment by police or literal civil war.

    jimmydoreisalefty ,
    @jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world avatar

    Being a bit more forceful and agressive, in showing open carry, so that we may have a better chance of changing our systematicly broken system, will not be an easy feat to accomplish.

    Great point, you are correct, the Black Panther Party also ran into that problem, where they had shoot outs with the police.

    It would need a bit of planning, knowledge of the local laws, and live filming/documenting interactions with any law enforcement/groups/people.

    In life, all good things come hard, but wisdom is the hardest to come by. – Lucille Ball

    Nobody is gonna hit as hard as life, but it ain’t how hard you can hit. It’s how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. It’s how much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. – Rocky Balboa

    Don’t pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. – Bruce Lee

    catloaf ,

    We’d see gun control.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

    JimSamtanko ,

    Dude READ THIS and delete your dumb shit.

    damnedfurry ,

    Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are a teen talking big to his friends.

    The fact is, nothing he did in Kenosha supports the claim that he wanted to kill anyone, period, and everything he did directly contradicts it. He showed zero aggression toward anyone, and his first response to aggression toward him was to RUN AWAY, every single time. Bottom line, none of the people who got shot would have gotten shot if they had let him run away.

    JimSamtanko ,

    Ahh… we’re doing the copypasta now?

    Okay:

    ROFL…. “locker room talk” right? You apologists are fucking hilarious. Where I come from- (America) this is called “Premeditated Murder.” And in any courtroom with an unbiased judge, he’d have been convicted on that alone.

    damnedfurry ,

    ‘You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he never showed aggression toward anyone, and his first response to unprovoked aggression toward him, all three times, was to run away’

    lol

    JimSamtanko ,

    Again with the copypasta?

    TheFonz ,

    Did Kyle run away or not every time he was chased?

    JimSamtanko ,

    That’s entirely irrelevant to the fact that he brought a gun with the intent to kill people after he said that was exactly what he was going to do.

    I get what you’re trying to do, but… Some rings don’t need a voice of reason.

    Dude is a murderer. End of story.

    damnedfurry ,

    the fact that he brought a gun with the intent to kill people

    Literally not a fact. Even as just a hypothesis that that was his motive, every single bit of evidence (all the facts we have about what he did in Kenosha that day) contradicts the notion that he wanted to/intended to/planned to kill anyone. He literally did everything he could to avoid using his weapon, short of literally forfeiting his life to homicidal maniacs.

    That’s the reality.

    JimSamtanko ,

    ROFL…. I’m not going through this again with you.

    damnedfurry ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    JimSamtanko ,

    Whatever you say, apologist.

    TheFonz ,

    I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted. I wish our side (I’m a full on leftie and I don’t like conservatives) did a better job of countering arguments instead of using emotionally charged language in debates and spreading misinformation. The whole trial is recorded and all the transcripts are available.

    I wish Kyle had not shown up with a rifle to a charged and tense event, especially after what happened in Minneapolis in the prior weeks. There really isn’t an excuse for a 17 year old to show up with an AR-15 to such a situation, even if it was perfectly legal. Yes, he bad better trigger impulse control than 99% of police officers, but a 17 year old should never be allowed in the first place. My argument is not a legal one, but an ethical one.

    To me the fault lies in our society:

    1. We encourage proliferation of gun ownership.
    2. We allow 17 year olds to open carry.

    I could keep going but I’ll stop.

    Just to reiterate for Lemmy user base: I’m not on team Kyle; I’m on team facts and stop gun proliferation.

    damnedfurry ,

    deleted_by_moderator

    •
    JimSamtanko ,

    But he wasn’t.

    AbidanYre ,

    And even if he did know it, vigilante justice is not a route society should go down.

    ssj2marx ,

    Conservative values at work. Make a boatload of cash doing the grift circuit after murdering somebody, then hoard it and refuse to help your family.

    Natanael ,

    He didn’t even make much cash, lol. After the initial attention everything died up and now he’s got a hard time getting normal jobs, lol

    PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

    gotta be honest, i wouldn’t hire him

    Serinus ,

    Just because of the whole murder thing? It was legal!

    Lianodel ,

    Typical leftist cancel culture. You commit just one white supremacist terror attack, and all of a sudden you’re a pariah!

    Socsa ,

    I will not hire anyone who so much as smells conservative.

    itsgoodtobeawake ,

    Eh, thats pretty lame.

    itsgoodtobeawake ,

    Holy shit some of you really suck if you dont understand how lame it is to not hire people who disagree with you. Im not conservative by any measure, but who wants to live in a world where you cant do a job if you slightly disagree with your coworker? Thats insane.

    Colonel_Panic_ ,

    Yeah, you might accidentally bump into him in the hallway and he would stand his ground and gun you down for the audacity.

    Grandwolf319 ,

    Yeah, I feel bad for his mom and sister struggling but he clearly fucked around and now he is finding out.

    kn0wmad1c ,
    @kn0wmad1c@programming.dev avatar

    Kyle Rittenhouse’s sister Faith is seeking $3,000 on a crowdfunding website in a bid to prevent the eviction of herself and her mother Wendy from their home, citing her “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”

    The piece of shit is being a total piece of shit? shocked pikachu

    Cethin ,

    While shitty, what does him helping them financially have to do with anything? He shouldn’t be responsible for them. There are many people in the US in worse situations, and they don’t get special treatment because, I guess, they aren’t family with a famous murderer.

    Decomaeker ,

    well yeah, but like, if you get free money from people for shooting some guy at a protest, the least you could do is share some of that money with your family.

    rebelsimile ,

    I’m imagining the family from Million Dollar Baby walking in from Disney World going “What do you mean you ain’t got any more of that shootin’ people money??”

    WamGams ,

    Most of us struggle month to month, most of us dont attempt to leech blood money to unburden our struggle. Most of us don’t run to the media to cry about how our murderthing fascist familial connection isn’t letting us leech their blood money.

    If I was Kyle Rittenhouse, I wouldn’t give a single dime to the people who created Kyle Rittenhouse. They created an unlovable twerp, they shouldn’t profit from that.

    corsicanguppy ,

    Share it wider: “it takes a village to raise a vigilante” or at least to look the other way.

    TrumpetX ,

    It takes a vigilante to raze a village? That other way?

    Etterra ,

    What makes you think this bastard comprehends the concept of empathy?

    dellish ,

    Aaaaand now we’re back at the piece of shit acting like a piece of shit.

    gmtom ,

    Bro djd you not see how torn up he was at the trial? He’s , like, the most empathetic person on earth.

    corsicanguppy ,

    Agreed.

    We know that we are not the only family struggling to rebuild after that fateful night

    And look at the struggles his sister is going through. Profound tone-deafness is a real wipepo problem, a syndrome second only to affluenza in terms of collateral damage and suffering.

    She needs help! Hit up your friends; especially the strong ones who like pizza and beer. Dig deep for those truck keys and clear the calendars for next weekend so you can help … move.

    Doom ,

    they’re trying to get libs who hate kyle to help

    fatalicus ,

    In this case (according to the donation page), he is part of the reason they are in this mess, as his mom is unable to find employment since everyone thinks she drove him to the protest where he shot those people.

    sunzu ,

    Sounds like the town knows something we don't or are they just punking this woman on a trust me bro.

    Funny how society will act like this here but then we have Cathlic pedos living in the community and nothing happens.

    People as a community have some weird sense of morals

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    I don’t think I would want anything to do with her either. It’s not fully rational or fair but it’s the way it is. Her position as his mom means she pretty much has to defend her son’s multiple murder and there are 8 billion people on earth, I don’t have to spend a minute with someone who would do that.

    Plus if I was going to hire her I would wonder how much crap this is going to cost me. It’s not a heavily populated area and the name is rare enough. At best she is going to be neutral at worst she is going to attract the kind of people I don’t want around or infuriate other people.

    I am a parent myself. If you don’t like my kids I don’t like you.

    NauticalNoodle ,

    How do you feel about people who feel neutral about your kids?

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    Umm what does that even mean? How can anyone feel neutral to another human being? All I am picturing is you know someone exists but any amount of pain or pleasure they feel doesn’t impact you. Like if you could push a magic button to make them happy you wouldn’t bother since that would require effort and you are neutral.

    I don’t know any people who are wired this way.

    NauticalNoodle , (edited )

    Umm what does that even mean? How can anyone feel neutral to another human being?

    I just meant indifferent really.

    All I am picturing is you know someone exists but any amount of pain or pleasure they feel doesn’t impact you.

    There are a lot of people that currently exist and are in pain but it has little to no impact on me even though providing help would require nothing more than some more time and manpower.

    Like if you could push a magic button to make them happy you wouldn’t bother since that would require effort and you are neutral.

    This, I think provides for an interesting thought-experiment. Do we know how long it takes to press a button? Is the button-press speed limited by the latency of the circuitry it’s connected to? Exactly how many people are currently in pain? It’s obviously lots but can we come up with a relatively specific number? With what frequency does the number of suffering people change?

    Then there are also some questions with more relative ethical implications that might also be: How many hours a week should a person spend pressing this button? How many people should press this button? If all previously suffering people are getting their buttons pressed then how will we know when someone is happy and flourishing? Isn’t suffering an implied opposite of flourishing? What other implications of the anti-suffering button are there?

    I don’t know the answer to these questions, but you have certainly given me lot’s to ponder.

    [edit][post] On further research I guess this sounds kind of like Negative Ultilitarianism which appears to be a subset of Utilitarianism.

    Grandwolf319 ,

    Although that sucks, I can’t blame people for naturally putting some fault on her even for the wrong reasons.

    I don’t think she should struggle but she did raise him. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime but imo parents should take responsibility of raising shitty kids.

    PoliticalAgitator ,

    Most people who aren’t conservative psychopaths actually like their families and want to help them when they can.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    It’s his mom, Jesus dude.

    Cethin ,

    Yeah, and we shouldn’t pity them because they have an asshole son. Sure, it’d be the right thing for him to do if he were a good person, but him not taking financial responsibility for them doesn’t mean anyone else should be either. I’d much rather them help someone else.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    It’s his mom. What is wrong with you people? Me and my mom have a shit relationship but if I crippled her ability to work or she was going to be out on the street I would send her cash. Me and my wife send her parents money each month. It is a very small price to pay for giving me my partner.

    Cethin ,

    They’re asking for money from other people. Yes, he should give them money. He is profiting off of murder. He’s an asshole. Why should anyone else give them money though? I don’t pity them. The mom raised an asshole murderer. Maybe it’s not her fault, but she has to have some responsibility in it.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Tbf, maybe we shouldn’t vilify them because of the actions of their son/brother so bad that they can’t be employed. I don’t hire people but the only reason not to would be the negative publicity from hiring them from people like those in this thread, I doubt if you gave his mom a job she’ll show up and shoot someone every morning.

    wildcardology ,

    Kyle Rittenhouse learning that his family is struggling.

    LOL

    Lucidlethargy ,

    That’s actually him learning that one of the people he shot at survived. Just a reminder, this shithead crossed state lines to dump gas on the fire of a protest and riot caused by disgusting, racially motivated circumstances.

    He wanted to kill some people that night, so he brought a big gun. His success resulted in a lot of free money from the folks that want everyone else struggling to survive without violating a ten commandment to go hungry.

    JudahBenHur ,

    you think they don’t covet their neighbors wives, take the lord’s name in vain, worship false idols/put other gods before “him” and don’t steal?

    Trainguyrom ,

    Just a reminder, this shithead crossed state lines to dump gas on the fire of a protest

    The “crossed state lines” thing really irks me because does nobody know that maps exist? I’m thinking about crossing state lines today because I need to get more baby wipes. Shithead went to the next town over, which just so happened to be in a different state.

    But let’s also not forget he went and partied with KKK members immediately after posting his crowdfunded bail, just in case there’s any questions on how much of a shithead he is

    Snowclone ,

    I’ve lived in the edge of a state before. It’s really hard to miss what side of the populated area is one state or another, and the fact that there are laws about crossing. I knew if I went shooting in CA I needed to keep my ammunition and firearm in seperate compartments, unloaded, and that I couldn’t have friends buy me a gun to take across if I couldn’t legally buy it myself. And I was just shooting clay pigeons, not my racially hated neighbors.

    lightnsfw ,

    He’s a prick but everyone he shot was the same race as him.

    Snowclone ,

    I’m sure that disappointed him deeply, the blatant racism isn’t erased by this. He’s publicly linked himself to well known racists, he’s not shy about it, also he clearly went in the hopes of killing black people, pretty sure he said as much before he left.

    lightnsfw ,

    I’m not arguing that he isn’t racist. Just wanted to make sure you understood the situation properly so as not to spread misinformation.

    Snowclone ,

    Also I don’t know if you know this, but most white supremacist would be more inclined to kill ‘‘race traitors’’ before killing other races in many situations.

    I’m not saying he killed who he intended to kill. I’m saying my plan was to shoot clay pigeons. His plan was to shoot BLM protestors.

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I sure as hell know which side of the state border my town is on is the one where I don’t want to be caught with weed in my car.

    ZombiFrancis ,

    The straw purchase of the murder weapon the judge shrugged and tossed on a whim is something that can land you in jail for 10 years.

    There was a parallel case to Rittenhouse: Andrew Coffee IV. He was acquitted in his case but the charge of his weapon possession is what got him 10 years.

    But Rittenhouse’s judge figured hey, NBD, and everybody clapped.

    notannpc ,

    But who actually cares? Stop talking about this useless waste of life.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    I care because I noticed that all the people defending him won’t talk about what happened afterwards meanwhile they never stop reminding us that the men he murdered had criminal records.

    It is inconsistent. If they can bring up the past I can bring up the future.

    Woht24 ,

    You should all just shut the fuck up and move on with your lives.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    When you bring back to life those two people he murdered I will.

    el_abuelo ,

    And didn’t he maim someone? Took the life that person could have had.

    Woht24 ,

    Nothing will bring them back, certainly not your whinging.

    afraid_of_zombies ,

    In that case I won’t stop mentioning it. You know my terms.

    Woht24 ,

    Lol

    mortemtyrannis ,

    What happened afterwards? I’m OOTL

    JackbyDev ,

    This article

    lolcatnip ,

    I’m really enjoying the schadenfreude.

    Default_Defect ,
    @Default_Defect@midwest.social avatar

    Another “family values” type doesn’t seem to give a shit about his own family. Bet he has strong opinions on abortion though.

    aidan ,

    I don’t think he ever said anything about family values

    sunzu ,

    So much down votes but zero rebuttal...

    It seems facts hurt some people around here. Really wouldn't want them getting in the way of a good circle jerk.

    Cataphract ,

    reply said, “I don’t think” as in they don’t actually know. Something like a cited source might help and receive actual conversation or else it’s just fluff much like your conjecture. It’s easy to assume his “family values” from the rightwing conservative aspect and being a member of the “Proud boys” and all. But please, continue the inner circle jerk you’ve started.

    aidan ,

    Something like a cited source might help and receive actual conversation

    what. you’re asking me to give a source for a negative. do you expect me to chronicle every word he’s ever said to show he never said the words family values. will you do the same to confirm what I said?

    being a member of the “Proud boys”

    this statement is untrue and I do have a source for it, or as best as you can get for proving a negative.

    homicidalrobot ,

    Everyone’s favorite game show: Child, Senior, or Foreign Agent?

    You really posted a nexstar/Mission Media article as a source to defend a right wing ignoramus. It’s like poetry. Get a shred of media literacy, please.

    aidan ,

    The author of the article really doesn’t matter when the quote is true…

    aidan ,

    The author of the article really doesn’t matter when the quote is true…

    sunzu ,

    It's easy to assume his "family values"

    Thanks, champ!

    This summarized the entire thread lol

    Draedron ,

    Kyle Murderhouse is a far right pos. The far right constantly cries about family values.

    InternetUser2012 ,

    Isn’t the right all about “family values?” Being “good” christians and whatnot? It goes with the territory.

    aidan ,

    what? there are plenty of right-wing atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc

    InternetUser2012 , (edited )

    So, you a bot? You replied twice and neither make sense if you read my comment…

    Yeah you a bot.

    aidan ,

    You claimed being right wing was limited to something unrelated to it. 2 responses because I didn’t know if one was uploaded because of crappy internet. But sure continue to believe a conspiracy about everyone who disagrees with you.

    aidan ,

    There are plenty of right wing atheists…

    lolcatnip ,

    All right wingers support the imposition of the right’s hypocritical version of Christianity regardless of their personal beliefs.

    aidan ,

    wdym?

    Jakeroxs ,

    Can you name a prominent right wing Atheist

    aidan ,
    1. Why do they have to be prominent?
    2. Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Hayek, and many more
    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I love how the only three names you could come up with were dead people.

    aidan ,

    Or maybe it’s just who I thought of? I think it’s fair to even say Trump is effectively agnostic even if he wouldn’t admit it

    FlyingSquid ,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Is it just who you thought of or is it that the modern right is completely in bed with the Christian theocrats? Whether or not you believe Trump is agnostic, he’s selling Bibles and making bank off of them.

    aidan ,

    Its who I thought of, because its (at least for Friedman, not Ayn Rand) who I align with more(somewhat) on the right. I am an agnostic and pretty right-wing(by my own definition)

    Jakeroxs ,
    1. So people know their actual views semi widely, wouldn’t matter at all if you said “I have friends” as we have no way to look into their beliefs.
    aidan ,

    I mean, feel free to check my own comments if you want

    Jakeroxs ,

    I was just answering your question, I think a majority of atheists do not end up skewing right/conservative generally because they don’t adhear to any of the outdated/harmful aspects of most mainstream religions.

    aidan ,

    Imo, religion having any correlation with being a bit more right wing is a historical coincidence, right wing economics was in the 18th and 19th century often tied to less religious people.

    HelixDab2 ,

    Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer.

    All prominent atheists, all decidedly right-wing. If you want to include dead atheists, then I’d also say Christopher Hitchens was decidedly right wing on a lot of issues.

    Jakeroxs ,

    Richard Dawkins is definitely NOT right wing lmao

    Sam Harris is NOT right wing

    I don’t know Michael Shermer, but he states he’s fiscal conservative but social liberal, I’m not sure I’d count that as “decidedly right wing” either.

    HelixDab2 ,

    …Have you been paying attention to Dawkins in the last decade? The dude is decidedly anti-trans, anti-woke. Harris has been on the side of Republican foreign policy for decades, even if he’s more socially permissive. Shermer is the same kind of anti-LGBTQ anti-woke as Dawkins.

    Jakeroxs ,

    No tbh, I was big into atheism back in the early 2010s, dogma debate, Atheist experience, thinking Atheist, rationally speaking, probably more podcasts I’m forgetting off-hand, fell off a bit around the mid there and got heavy into politics and conspiracy theory rebuttals instead (Knowledge Fight, QAnon Anonymous, behind the bastards, secular talk, breaking points more recently) definitely haven’t kept up so much with the old Atheism crews. That is definitely unfortunate though semi understandable, Dawkins is/was very science/data driven, and biologically speaking the majority of people fall into the duality of male/female, and how you identify/feel is a different matter in many people’s eyes. Then again, I think there’s still a lot for us to uncover about how our bodies and brains develop/function that likely play into people feeling like they ARE/should be the opposite gender. I will say the first tweet he made that I read didn’t specifically sound Trans-hating, it was very much a fair enough discussion question about how to handle situations like transsexual or transracial, though he went about it in a way that definitely comes across as demeaning.

    Idk overall, seems like he slid even more into platforming and agreeing with antitrans and TERFs like JK Rowling, so that’s certainly not great.

    But does that alone make him Right Wing now? I don’t think so specifically

    HelixDab2 ,

    “Gender critical” is a dogwhistle for anti-trans. Dawkins falls squarely into that camp, of questioning everything that trans people, and experts on the subject have to say. The problem with being anti-trans–or, one of the problems–is that by its nature it assumes that there’s some kind of sex role in society. E.g., women are A, B, C, and men are X, Y, Z, and you can’t move between them. That kind of gender-essentialism is fundamentally socially regressive. Dawkins is also quite significantly culturally Christian, and Islamophobic, e.g., he is entirely critical of Islam both as a religion and as what he perceives to be a culture, but doesn’t direct the same types of criticism towards the Anglican church that he grew up surrounded by.

    how you identify/feel is a different matter in many people’s eyes.

    The way I see it, it’s just not my business. The only time that someone else’s gender identity is going to matter to me is if I’m potentially interested in dating them. They’re not harming people, they’re not ‘taking’ anything away from cis-women (or cis-men, for that matter), so why should it be my business what they feel they need to do with their body in order to feel comfortable in their own skin? I came across this a few weeks back, and it really drove that home to me.

    But does that alone make him Right Wing now?

    It’s a spectrum, like all things. You can be pro-science, but also still have a very socially conservative view on the ‘right’ place for people in society, or still maintain false beliefs about the ‘rightness’ of capitalism, imperialism, and so on. And scientists are still human, and prone to the same cognitive biases as everyone else.

    Being right wing doesn’t necessarily mean being religious. Being left wing doesn’t necessarily mean being atheist. Yes, that’s more often true than not, but I think part of that is that the right in general uses an appeal to tradition–which includes religious practices–as part of their package. But, on the other hand, Jesus, as depicted in the 4 gospels and the early Christian church, would have been very comfortable to socialists, as would the teachings on tolerance.

    In re: podcasts, the only explicitly atheist one that I still listen to is The Friendly Atheist. I find Jess to be annoyingly hyperbolic most of the time, and she frequently makes wildly overbroad statements, but Hemant Mehta is pretty measured overall. Mostly I listen to politics (FiveThirtyEight), 2A podcasts (A Better Way 2A, the irregular Tiger Bloc Podcast, Guns Guide To Liberals, Practical Shooting After Dark), a couple of ex-Mormon podcasts (Mormon Stories is great if you love really, really long form interviews), You Are Not So Smart, sometimes BtB, Cool People Who Did Cool Things, a couple others.

    Dearth ,

    Yes there are. And most of them vote for conservative Democrats

    aidan ,

    Ok? Also, source?

    Dearth ,

    What atheist supports the theists in the far right Republican party?

    Famous atheists support Democrats.

    aidan ,

    Theism is not inherently right wing. I am agnostic, and consider myself fairly right wing

    Crashumbc ,

    Albinos exist also, what’s your point?

    The overwhelming majority of right wing nutters are christian cultists.

    aidan ,

    this seems to say 27% of non-religious people lean republican Not exactly as rare as albinos

    EatATaco ,

    You’re just mindlessly pigeonholing. You may be right, but it’s childish black and white thinking.

    Veraxus ,

    Supply Side Jesus says they should just lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Wow it’s almost like Kyle Rittenhouse might be a piece of shit.

    psycho_driver ,

    What does the lesbian chick in the photo have to do with this Kyle guy or his family?

    theangryseal ,

    Haha. You’re my people. For real.

    MushuChupacabra ,
    @MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world avatar

    No problem. Just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.

    Fapper_McFapper ,

    Can’t Kyle just go on another murder tour? That should raise them some money.

    snooggums ,
    @snooggums@midwest.social avatar

    Their complaint is that he isn’t sharing his murder tour money.

    Fapper_McFapper ,

    Oh, so the sister and the mother should go on a murder tour. Kyle provided a roadmap to follow and the justice system approved it.

    CarbonatedPastaSauce ,

    Well what exactly did they do for him? Maybe next time they’ll be a little more hands on with the murdering so they get their fair share!

    Lucidlethargy ,

    I genuinely hate that this is accurate… This is 2024, everyone. Please vote against Trump by selecting “Biden” this November. You don’t have to like Biden, you just have to understand that if we don’t, our country is fucked.

    555_1 ,

    Welfare republicans.

    Mobiuthuselah ,

    That’s redundant

    smaximov ,

    Have they tried getting a job?

    fah_Q ,

    Work across state lines murkin folks is slow now maybe if trump wins again.

    corsicanguppy ,

    Yeah. Riiiight. He’s a giver.

    fah_Q ,

    Funny your mom said the same thing last night between her gagging and moans.

    TransplantedSconie ,

    Lmao!!

    Fucking on point for a republican.

    tacosanonymous ,

    He has truly made it.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •