Kyle Rittenhouseās 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 ābrotherās unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.ā
Kyle Rittenhouseās 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 ābrotherās unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.ā
I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to ācome onto herā, lol.
You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after sheās chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed āIām going to kill youā moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.
Zero chance youād be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think youāre kidding?
Man, youāre missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but Iāll say it again: I donāt 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 youāre quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and sheād be justified in shooting him.
What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping sheād 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 soldierās 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 doesnāt make them any less deplorable for doing it.
But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if youāre 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 āmedic! friendly!ā), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward āhoping heād get attacked because he wanted to shoot someoneā.
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 attemptā¦looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think itās reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to āmurder by copā, but I digress).
Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didnāt he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming āIām going to kill youā, so itād 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 āhoping heād get attacked because he wanted to shoot someoneā.
He also didnāt 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 didnāt.
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 similarāno aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didnāt ātake advantage of the opportunity to shoot someoneāāinstead, 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 āhoping heād get attacked because she wanted to shoot someoneā simply does not hold water.
First off, I want to be clear that Iām not the one down-voting you; I havenāt voted (up or down) anywhere in this thread, but it always makes me self-conscious when Iām having a disagreement with someone and the posts Iām replying to consistently have 1 downvote at the time Iām 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, wouldnāt bring a gun to a Trump rally while publicizing that I was there to keep the peace and enforce local noise ordinances. Thatād just be asking to get attacked. To be put in a situation where Iād need to use that gun.
Of course, if I was going to go to that rally, and I was hoping Iād have to shoot someone, Iād make damn sure I made it look like I had only the best possible intentions.
Itās not me, youāre literally the only one Iām actually having some sort of actual dialogue with.
Not trueāWisconsin state law allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as theyāre not short-barreled.
And yet, he didnāt do a single second of counter-protesting, nor did he act to inhibit the protesters in any wayāin 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 themāI guess it is, technically, butā¦I mean, come on. No way my conscience would let me fault someone for undoing riotersā damage.
He is on record stating he supports BLM, for what itās worth.
Because itās his community, so it makes perfect sense heās more compelled to take action in his own neighborhood. He has friends in Kenosha, his father lives there, he worked as a lifeguard there, etcā¦ 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 WASNāT the one in Kenosha, thatās what would look potentially suspicious, imo.
Seems pretty obvious that is the reasonāheās even on video while at the protest saying exactly that, āfor my protectionā.
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.
And if one isnāt 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.
Well, owners of the Car Source denied accepting Kyle and Dominick Blackās 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.
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. Itās no surprise he became amicable with the only people who werenāt doing that. Wouldnāt be nearly the first time such a thing has happened, sadly.
Still, this is beside the pointāit doesnāt matter to me if he became, or always was, or whatever, someone with shitty views. All Iām talking about is what I know about, and thatās the facts of this case, and what we know (or should know, given how many people still get very basic, known facts wrong)āas far as notorious legal cases go, there are few with more hard evidence easily accessible to the public, so even a ārandomā 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 donāt agree with, and drawing conclusions that make zero sense in the face of said facts.
Thatās all there is to it.
Maybe Iām mis-remembering the details of the case, as this isnāt really something Iāve paid much attention to in the past, I donāt know, 3 years, but Iām fairly certain the person who obtained the gun for him was charged and convicted with some crime; is it a crime to give a gun to a minor but not for the minor to possess one? That doesnāt make a lot of sense. Is it that itās illegal in Illinois to possess one, but not in Wisconsin? My understanding was that the gun charges against Rittenhouse were dismissed basically on a technicality using language that was written to apply to hunting rifles and was being applied to a rifle clearly not intended for that purpose. Maybe thatās the short-barreled clause? Iām not sure of the specifics.
I donāt know what the local culture is like in Wisconsin, so some of my view might stem from trying to view it through the lens of my local community, but I know I, for one, am immediately on edge when I see someone walking around open-carrying a firearm in a public place. It doesnāt happen frequently, so maybe thatās part of it, but if I attended a protest or demonstration, particularly one that the police are antagonistic to, anyone - no matter what theyāre doing - who is carrying a gun like that is, in my mind, making the situation worse just by their presence. If theyāre a protester themselves, theyāre just inviting police violence and if theyāre not a protester, my perception would be that theyāre doing it with the intent to intimidate. Maybe thatās an incorrect perception and I am willing to accept that, but I canāt imagine that there werenāt plenty of people there who share that perception.
What it really comes down to (again, in my mind) is that his decision to go there, into the middle of what was already basically a powder keg, carrying an AR-15 was, at the very least, incredibly poor judgement. Even if 90% of protesters saw him as helpful, all itād take is one who didnāt to cause a problem.
There were people at these protests (speaking nationwide, I canāt speak to the one in Kenosha specifically) who were there just to cause trouble - looting, vandalizing, trying to paint the peaceful protesters in a poor light.
Maybe āa long wayā was poor wording but the point I was trying to get at is that he doesnāt live there; itās not like this was happening in his town.
I was only aware of the first part of this - that they denied knowing or wanting him there, so if the rest of this is true, I will concede this point.
Itās relevant (to me) because he holds views (and did before the protest, as far as I recall) that put him at odds with a lot of the protesters there. Iām not calling him a white supremacist (nor am I calling him not a white supremacist, I really donāt know what his views are on that topic, nor do I really care), and Iām certainly not calling him a serial killer. I think itās pretty clear from the trial that he isnāt legally guilty. However, I do think heās morally guilty because he put himself in a situation where, in my view, a reasonable person should have been able to foresee that something like this might happen. Then, afterwards, rather than condemning the glorification of it, he just went along with it, hook, line and sinker.
Honestly, if it hadnāt been for that last bit, Iād probably hold a different view, andā¦
Maybe youāre right, and heās a product of the circumstances, but he didnāt, and doesnāt (based on his behavior after the fact) seem particularly remorseful for what happened there. Heās going along with (at the very least) the glorification of his actions, and I cannot see him as anything but in the wrong as a result.
I will say that you make some compelling points and maybe my initial stance was too severe - that is to say, maybe he wasnāt literally looking for trouble, but he certainly wasnāt taking what I see as some very basic steps to avoid trouble.
The basic facts of the case were pretty widely misrepresented, by news outlets, never mind keyboard warriors on Twitter and Reddit; I donāt think itās surprising at all that everyoneās perception of the details differ so greatly. The ACLU made a statement basically condemning him post-verdict, for one, and that was pretty widely reported on.
I myself also would be very nervous around someone being armed like that in public. But I donāt live in an open carry state, either, so it would be very out of place for me, as well.
That said, you donāt have to imagine. Just look at the facts of the matter:
Given those facts, it is clear that Rittenhouse was not armed to an extent that those around him found more than mundane.
Generally speaking, if someone goes to a dangerous place to try and improve the situation there to the best of their ability, despite the potential risks to their own safety, one would consider that courageous and admirable, not foolish. Iād say itās very arguable that only pre-existing bias is preventing Rittenhouse from being perceived similarly, given that every single action heās known to have taken in Kenosha that day was either morally neutral (I consider defending your life to be human nature, and not a moral or immoral act), or morally good (cleaning graffiti, extinguishing fires, handing out water bottles on request, giving basic medical aid to the extent he could from his lifeguard training).
Being as objective as possible, and going by the facts, what can one realistically argue that he did that was immoral on that day? This is a genuine questionāI canāt find a single actual act that merits criticism, and Iāve found consistently that everyone criticizing his actions either straight-up gets facts about what he literally did incorrect, and bases their conclusion on that, or colors his decision to be there as malicious in and of itself (though, again, though obviously we canāt read his mind that day, the actions he took that day simply do not support that assumed malicious intent at all, quite the contrary in fact).
But thatās not even all of itāhis most ardent supporters on the extreme right are getting it wrong ALSO, and do ridiculous things like claiming his shooting of people we later discovered were actually pretty shitty people was itself a morally good act, and completely ignore the things he did that day that actually WERE objectively morally good (graffiti cleaning et al, as mentioned above). This is ridiculous, and focusing completely in the wrong placeāhe didnāt ādo the right thingā by shooting people, he protected his life against a few crazy and violent individuals, and thatās obviously neither āgoodā or ābadā.
Although I will say, that one video did demonstrate that Rittenhouseās trigger discipline is admirable (immediately after shooting Grosskreutz, his finger was off the trigger and around the guard, as he carefully got back up to his feet, and overall, he didnāt fire a single shot that struck anyone other than his intended target, no spray and pray, no wild shots, he used his weapon to the absolute minimal extent necessary to neutralize each of the people who tried to kill him)āif every copās in the US was as good as his, weād probably have a lot fewer police scandals in this country.
But again, he had family and friends thereāwhile he may not have lived there, Iād say itās very fair to categorize Kenosha as part of āhis communityā, considering how many ties he has to it, and how he regularly spent time there.
I donāt really find that relevant though. Suppose we knew for a fact that he was a straight-up racist and/or adherent to all sorts of extreme right-wing political views. Letās say he was literally the far-right stereotype.
The facts of the matter are still what they areāhe took not a single action in Kenosha could be fairly/objectively described as an expression of such viewsāhe did nothing that you could look at and say āoh, itās because of view far-right political stance X that he decided to do this action Yā. Heās on video at one point saying he was there "to protect this business, and part of my job is thereās somebody hurt, Iām running into harmās way.ā
Hypothetically, if someone goes their whole life hating a certain race of people, but throughout their life, never actually mistreats anyone of that race, then the end result, as far as real-world consequences, is the same as if that person did not have those views.
Frankly, I donāt really care what his views are. I care about what he did.
I donāt think he should feel remorse. Remorse is for having done things wrong. I donāt think he could have handled the situations Rosenbaum et al put him in any better than he did. I literally canāt think of a course of action from the moment Rosenbaum began to charge at him thatās different from what he did, and also inarguably better/smarter.
But regret? He clearly regrets that things went down the way they did. The crying he did as he relived those events during the trial, that left-wing ideologues love to mock him for, and callously claim are crocodile tears, instead of a 17 year-old coming to grips with the kind of dayās events that would traumatize ANYONE for life, are a clear show of that. Frankly, just talking about this particular bit makes me feel disgusted all over again, at all of the things I saw and read around that time, on Reddit. People who pretend to be champions for mental health instantly abandon their supposed virtues because theyāve dehumanized Rittenhouse to such an extreme degree that they canāt even fathom that he is a normal human being who just might be traumatized by having to look death in the face not once, but THREE times in a day. Itās sickeningā¦but I digress.
Now, after the fact, he has on at least one occasion I know of, poked fun at himself with that same infamous image of him weeping. But humor is a common coping mechanism, especially for young males in this country, who are scarcely allowed to deal with trauma in any other way without being criticized for it (see above). I would not look at things like that and conclude āoh, he actually just didnāt give a shitā or anything like that. We also donāt know what things are like for him when heās not in public view. Hell, he likely still has nightmares about that dayā¦
Thatās for sureāeven post-verdict I saw Redditors claiming āRittenhouseās victimsā were all black, and that it was a racially-motivated crime.
Maybe not surprising, but itās all the more reason that itās important to push back against misinformation, especially when itās ideologically-driven. It deserves nothing less than relentless calling out, in my opinion.
I genuinely appreciate that youāve actually been reading what Iām writingāmuch better than āfuck off fascist loserā and the like, which you will find in this thread, not too far from this comment chain.
I havenāt read this statement, Iām going to look it up real quick and quote bits I find āinterestingā:
Character limit, continued -->
Not trying to dredge this all up again or restart this conversation, but I thought you might like to knowā¦ I went and watched some of the videos and read some of the accounts youāve referenced (none of which Iād seen previously), and I can safely say that youāve at least in part changed my view on this insofar as it applies to his intentions that day. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it.
Not a problem, glad I indirectly convinced at least one person to examine the facts objectively. š
Okay, just going to finish up skimming the ACLU statement, which has already demonstrated itself to be shamelessly dishonest, and call it a night:
Oh, I guess there wasnāt that much more about Rittenhouse in there. Oh well, donāt feel like randomly truncating bits here and there in my previous comment to fit this in, so second comment it stays.
Thanks again for actually being open to new information, and actual discussion. An admirable and increasingly-rare trait these days.
not reading this (fully) so ignore me if you already mentioned this, but the during the rittenhouse trial both charges against rittenhouse and the person that sold him the gun were dropped, rittenhouse i think specifically because of a loophole that made it ātechnically legal to ownā and the person that sold him the gun, because reasons, i guess, i donāt remember.
More than likely persecution was focusing on the other charges and didnt want to spend time on these charges as they seemed rather inconsequential, as well as the fact that the other kid was out of state, and so iirc that was a separate case entirely.
regardless he shouldāve been charged with at the very least, reckless endangerment. The fact that he wasnāt hit with that charge is an absolute fluke of legal work.
real