- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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
Itās not bear season, and a hunter doesnāt 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 heād have an excuse to shoot her?
The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouseās arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaumās 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 āshe was asking for it by being dressed so provocativelyā.
Itās literally identical, logically, to āShe 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.ā In which case Iād be making the same argument.
Look, I want to be clear: Iām not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also donāt believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed theyād be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasnāt hoping heād draw some aggression so he could ādefend himselfā. Itās 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 heās been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.
He can be ānot guiltyā and still be a piece of shit.
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.