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.”

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard! The other guy literally just had a bag (lol dumbass).

      See this is what’s so great. Circumstances don’t actually matter, you can go looking for blood equipped with a weapons meant to kill as many people as fast as possible, and as long as someone flinches, you can just murder them! It’s completely legal. I fucking love america.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard!

        Yeah, try to minimize this after you let someone whack you on the head full swing with a skateboard–that is, if you survive. They weigh over 10 pounds on average, did you know that? Very literally a potentially lethal weapon. Also, he actually WAS hit by a full swing of said skateboard, on the head, before he shot at that guy, who was clearly trying to kill him by doing so.

        you can go looking for blood

        Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.

        and as long as someone flinches

        Trying to kill someone is not a “flinch”. This is some absurd fantasizing you’re doing.

        Everyone shot by Rittenhouse was actively in the act of attempting to kill him at the moment they were shot. The first LITERALLY screamed “I’m going to kill you”, and after chasing him down, tried to wrestle his rifle out of his hands (gee, wonder what he might want to do with it if he got a hold of it?). The second tried to cave his skull in with a heavy, blunt object. And the third was only shot after he pointed his handgun at him–luckily, Rittenhouse was able to react fast enough to stop him.

        • meathorse@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          In not familiar with exactly what happened that night but just an uneducated guess:

          All of the threats that Kyle encountered was in response to the fact that he was playing Timmy Toughguy and actively strolling around with a gun

          If he was just wandering around being an unarmed cunt then the chance of being swung at is still not zero but pretty damn close to it.

          If at any point he ran - and kept running, or dropped the gun and ran, fully retreating from the crowd I doubt he would have been chased too far and the need to shoot would have been eliminated

          In the same way he (correctly) saw others as a threat, the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle that was a 50x larger threat well before they threatened him. Even if he intended to do nothing with it, he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it and he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat - of course they would try and disarm him at a bare minimum.

          The threat to Kyle at this point was genuinely high because most adults in the US - or anywhere - instantly recognise what a random civilian in public with an assault rifle means - mass shooting. This is exactly the message Kyle intended to send in order to scare rioters off. If he wasn’t there just to scare people off then he was there to actively murder people. At this point I could put it down to a dumb kid making a really stupid mistake. Maybe worth a few years in jail for gun charges or inciting violence?

          But he didn’t retreat as he was being threatened - a fraction of what he was threatening others. He chose to attack instead and it’s at this point he deserves to spend the rest of his days rotting in jail. He tried to send a message, that message wasn’t received so he murdered those who were fearing for, and attempting to protect their own lives.

          Kyle choose to be the aggressor - and much greater threat to anyone there - from the start. He wasn’t protecting his own family, house or neighbourhood, he crossed state lines to be an aggressor. Kyle continued to act as the aggressor at every stage of the encounter.

          Fuck Kyle.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is a lot of words to say that you don’t understand that nobody freaks out about someone open carrying in a state where open carry is legal.

            No one felt threatened by his presence. No one reacted to him showing up. No one had any problem with him walking around doing his thing for hours, while the rifle was strapped to him the whole time. If him merely existing with a rifle on him was such a threat, why is that? How come no one gave a shit about him except for a crazy guy who set a fire that Kyle put out?

            Funny how this question never gets an answer, because there’s no way to answer it honestly without piercing a massive hole in your argument.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Pfft , so if he didn’t kill everyone that night, obviously the people he victimized were the only ones who had any issues with him open carrying. Looks like someone is projecting massive argument holes.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle

                This is simply objectively bullshit, and you obviously don’t live in an open carry state. Nobody gave a shit about his rifle. There is video of him walking around, rifle in plain view, and nobody is even giving him a second glance.

                he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it

                More bullshit–even if he was trying to ‘send a threatening message’, he clearly failed, see referenced video above

                he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat

                Another lie. NOBODY “responded” to him being armed. He was attacked by a maniac for putting out the dumpster fire said maniac set. Had literally nothing to do with his rifle. And that attack is what caused the two other idiots to try to kill Rittenhouse, and in turn reap the consequences.

                Your delusion that he was this menacing, threatening presence just by existing in Kenosha while having a rifle strapped to him is pure fantasy, period.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You’ve established pretty unambiguously that you don’t care what the facts are. You’ve got your narrative, and you’re gonna cling to it with both hands, inconvenient truths be damned.

                    That’s not a virtue, you know. But defending the truth against lies, even if they are lies about your enemy, is. You should consider it.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn’t have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn’t have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don’t think he was “looking for blood.”

        That being said, the guy didn’t just “have a skateboard” we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just “flinched.” They were both clearly aggressors.

        Was he justified in shooting them? I’m not so sure. I tend to lean towards “no.” But the fact that you’re grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn’t feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Never understood the absolutely twisted psychology of people who defend this gutter sludge of a human.

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I agree that Kyle is a bad person, but the misinformation around the event only makes our side look like imbeciles. There is plenty of video footage and witness testimony. The whole trial was recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the points being brought up in this thread. Kyle was a dumb 17 year old that should never have been there with a rifle.

        Remember: the whole Kenosha riots started because of misinformation. The victim turned out to be a guy wielding a knife and running away in a car with two kids he was in the process of kidnapping. But, because of all the other events going on in the country, the narrative got twisted really fast.

        There is plenty to criticize Kyle for. Idiot 17 year old at the wrong place and wrong time with a rifle. Repeating misinformation helps no one. I know social media is one big game of telephone and we can believe whatever we want since we all live in our own epistemic bubbles now but we gotta do better.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The person I responded to is a defender of conservatives in general. I’m not sure why you’re lecturing me about spreading misinformation, as I did nothing like that.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Lemmy in general I’ve noticed has a disregard for facts and really likes the overt sense of virtue signaling. Sure, Kyle is an awful human being, but there has to be a way to analyze the facts of the matter without resorting to using so much emotionally charged language. It comes off as really hollow and meaningless.

            There is plenty of misinformation on the left in general surrounding the actions of that day. I noticed you are exclusively concerned with the ethical analysis of the situation while the person you are arguing with is clearly discussing the legal justification under American law. This type of game leads to a continuous back and forth in which wrong facts keep bubbling to the top. The Kenosha riots themselves were started because of the false assumption that another innocent black man was being targeted by law enforcement just off the tail of massive protests in MPLS a few weeks earlier.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Okay. There’s nothing unfactual about saying no one should be defending Rittenhouse.

              Again, I never made any comment except that defending Kyle Rittenhouse means the commenter is shitty. Because he is. I’m not diving into the details because 1) I don’t need to 2) I don’t really care about the details of the case – I heard enough about them years ago.

              • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                There has to be a way to discuss whether an action is justified regardless of who the perpetrator is. Context matters. If we just go on these endless tirades attacking people nothing of substance is being accomplished except perhaps trying to score feel good points, and if that’s your goal then you do you. I personally find it’s more effective to counter their arguments with stronger counter arguments rather than calling conservatives “pathetic for being victims” or using ad-homs non stop.

                So what if they’re defending Hitler? Were on Lemmy, we have mountains of facts and arguments for why Kyle was in the wrong. Let’s analyze those arguments and show a better way. I’m sorry if I come off as tone policing. I’m just tired of this inability to form strong counter points even though we know Kyle was not justified in being there with an AR-15 on that day.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You’re still acting like I was engaging in spreading misinformation. Seems you cannot read.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        You’re projecting–it’s people like you who are the armchair psychologists convinced of your assumptions of his motives, even when the facts directly contradict them.

        All I’m doing is stating the facts. If they contradict your narrative, that’s because the narrative is wrong. Period.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’ve proven beyond a doubt in this thread that your ability to ascertain motives is severely impaired.

            Example: if you think my motive is to do anything but correct misinformation, you’re wrong (again).

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              And yet I’ve tagged you for supporting other conservatives specifically in the past… must have been total coincidence lol

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Sounds like conservatives are more likely to get lied about around here, lol.

                The fact that you tag people for reasons like that just tells me that you’re just another of the people who cares more about “supporting” a political team, than you are about finding and defending what’s actually true, regardless of which ‘team’ that truth may make look good or bad.

                When you find me spreading the kind of easily-debunked falsehoods I’m correcting here, you might have an argument that holds some water. Don’t hold your breath, though.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  It tells me that you defend conservatives habitually. Because, like a lot of things conservatives want to make complicated, it’s not

                  Stopped reading at the first sentence.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    It tells me that you defend conservatives habitually.

                    If I do, it’s because people here lie about them habitually. I defend the truth from lies, wherever I see it happening. The political ‘alignment’ of the one being lied about means nothing to me; no matter how desperate you are to project your partisan tribalism onto me, I’m not like you.