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.”

  • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

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

      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.