Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
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."
您正在查看单个对话串。
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.
There's a certain type of person who thinks work is beneath them. That's who the Rittenhouse family is.
...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
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante
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…
In fairness guns are way more affordable than healthcare is America. Sports cars are more affordable than healthcare in America.
See also: schadenfreude
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 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."
Yeah, exactly. Fuck them all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends on whether you mean Lemmy or .world
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.
That very much comes off sounding ableist
My son was making $30/hr as a CNA.
That’s not a well paying job. I’m sorry that you think it is.
I never said "well paying". You said CNA makes minimum wage. $30 > minimum wage.
K
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
Sad and entirely predictable; we already knew he was a shitbag
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.
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.
Nah but she was totally down for taking him drinking with the Proud Boys.
This is mental gymnastics
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.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. She's the reason he owned the gun.
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.
No she literally isn't. It was bought for him by somebody else in another city, where it was kept.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
a false or mistaken idea
You're thinking specifically of logical fallacies.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Kyle lied to her about everything he was doing that night.
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.
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.
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.
Says the person simping for a murderer
I don't think you read that right tbh
You are spreading misinformation: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-255510715179
The spreading of that, along with medical issues, is why they are having troubles.
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.
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.
If Kyle has money (he does, from dumbass rubes), he should help his family. Fuck this shitty little selfish murderer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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".
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Putting yourself in harms way hardly justifies "self defense".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why did you just bring in race? That was unnecessary.
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".
It's amazing how you can convince some people that you aren't responsible for your actions when you totally were.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I saw the video. He waved a gun around.
Timestamped link, please.
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.