145
Kyle Rittenhouse reverses course on not endorsing Trump after online pile-on
(www.theguardian.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 03 Aug 2024
145 points (78.7% liked)
News
23448 readers
423 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
partially because he got into legal hassles for using an AR-15 to defend himself against people who wanted to harm him.
My guy, he crossed state lines with a firearm that wasn't his, to go to a protest where the only people injured and killed were by his trigger finger because he put himself that situation. That's not defending yourself. He's functionally a home invader crying over the dead body of the homeowner he killed because the homeowner brandished a skateboard.
No, no, his friend bought him the gun because he couldn't buy it himself. But somehow that wasn't a straw purchase.
poor analogy.
Home invaders want to rob and those in the homes are innocent victims, and it was a glock, not a skateboard.
I have little tolerance for looters and vandals, some of whom might be wp:agent provocateurs.
I have little tolerance for dumbasses and idiots, some of whom may be trolls.
The first 2 can be a bit humourous, as well as your reply. 😁
Dude, we get it, just go back to stormfront already…
Citation needed ya weirdo
He's referencing Gaige Grosskreutz who had a Glock. Anthony Huber was the one who attempted to use a skateboard as a bludgeon. Joseph Rosenbaum attempted to take Rittenhouse's rifle after he had tried to distance himself.
https://youtu.be/GrVKqTCdM-A
Grosskreutz was hit in the arm and testified to aiming his pistol at Rittenhouse during the televised trial.
And he wanted to kill protestors.
I don't know why I'm bothering to feed a troll. But he literally travelled there in order to put himself in a situation where he might have to defend himself because he wanted to fucking shoot someone. He purposefully created the opportunity to shoot someone without having to "technically" be the attacker.
and you're probably right, and the rioters and looters (assuming they are rioters and looters) accommodated him.
It’s illegal to kill a looter and a rioter.
you know I was just looking for a place to put my downvote
I hope you make a sincere attempt to understand why your comment is being downvoted so much and I truly hope you use this as an opportunity to grow as a compassionate human being
It is not possible for a conservative to experience compassion. Empathy is simply not a conservative trait.
I'm being downvoted because I'm taking a rightist position in a forum of leftists, some who are quite thoughtful, others aren't and are reactive.
You're being downvoted because you're objectively wrong, factually and morally. The kid went out with the intention to kill someone, brought the tools to do it, and did it. It was absolutely premeditated. He killed people trying to disarm him. He did not act in self defense, he murdered 2 people in cold blood.
He was allowed to get away with it because the republican party and their allies want to encourage more vigilantes to be killing leftists and minorities.
Psst. To someone on the extreme right, everyone is leftist. It's just a cruel and rare viewpoint.
The jury came to that same conclusion. It definitely isn't a fringe belief.
Rightist vs right.
That's why.
Makes you think it might just be some objectively incorrect take huh?
I could be wrong as I've yet to read the Wikipedia article.
Who did he kill: a few guys who were guilty of nothing, but their blackness made them targets of a bigot; or were they engaged in criminal activity and then threatened him when he showed up. If it's the former, then he's a criminal who should be prosecuted. If it's the latter, I feel a bit freer to indulge in moral relativism.
I'd say the swathes of downvotes and removal of your comments by mods would make you go read about it before jumping to his defence.
The removal of a comment by mods on lemmy makes me more likely to think he's got a point, actually. I haven't checked the modlog though, maybe it was bullshit.
Haven't checked the actual mod logs but there's a glitch w/ Boost that lets you read removed comments. One was a statement on how many down votes a comment had at a particular time.
Another called people who downvoted him ideologues and compared them to redditors. Which I can see being a violation of rule 1, although it wasn't targeted at any single person and the worst insult thrown was him calling people redditors.
That's an odd take. His replies are basically just basking in the downvotes and admitting that he doesn't actually have knowledge of the incident.
I just don't trust lemmy mods at all.
The important question here, is: could he have run away? And the answer is, he already ran full-on into a known risky situation he had absolutely no business being near. So yes. In leaving his home, lethally armed and looking to exert authority with his weapon, he definitely chose not to escape to or stay where he was safe. And thus no self-defense claim should be heard.
We don't blame the volcano if some idiot dives in; and that's the level of stupid and risky and ultimately murderous logic he displayed here.
I always downvote those who complain about downvotes.
I get what you're TRYING to say, but you're failing.
He crossed state lines, and attempted to intimidate folks who were protesting while being non-white. How dare they! (/S...)
He was happily intimidating people by larping as an operator, and then he started getting moved on, (by the people who were growing less intimidated by him), tried to remove him, and especially, remove his weapon. He didn't need to be there.
Because he brought a fucking rifle to a protest where people are GONNA disagree, he turned a conflict into a tragedy. In his mind, he was just having fun intimidating minorities, but then shit got real, and he "had to defend himself". Instead of leaving, his only option was lethal force right??? Of course he couldn't have moved back about 100 yards to be surrounded by very sympathetic cops...
Sure, he probably did have a flash of fear when folks tried to take his gun, and decided to defend himself. (In the sense that if you are holding a lethal weapon, you CANNOT allow someone to take it from you. Even though he shouldn't have had it at all...as his having it predicated the entire engagement) But the whole way he got there, the whole motivation to be there was to intimidate people, hoping that holding a gun would make him untouchable.
He is a murderer, he either premeditated killing, or at least premeditated being OK with killing. At a protest. Where there were already police. At the very minimum he showed up to use his race, his weapon, and his political alignment to intimidate, and that's fucked up all on its own.
You're talking about Kyle Rittenhouse, the murderer?
He also refuses to talk to his family anymore now that he's raking in the speaking fee money.
His family reads like more of the same, though. Somehow it's his fault they can't pay rent or something, when they could simply say "yah I don't know that guy".
I know a guy named Manson and Chuck copes really well when people go "huh-huh" like they just discovered something.
Fuck off. He went out of his way to Cross state lines just to shoot someone. Then, he murdered someone in cold blood. Pathetic that people like you are still sucking his Dick..
Hawk tuah!
Jokes on you, he's a swallower, clearly.
Just another stupid fucking Republican cultist that embraces filth like kyle because DeMuHcRaTs BaD, TrEmP gOoD111!one
Interesting take