666
Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
666 points (91.0% liked)
News
23409 readers
1924 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
Rittenhouse was, so that's what my analogy is using too.
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.
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.
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.
Link the full video (so fullest possible context can be seen), with timestamp(s)
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):
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".