Kyle Rittenhouse criticized Donald Trump. So conservatives said he's transgender.
They posted graphics calling him a "biological female" before he caved. Rittenhouse backtracked his criticism not even 12 hours after the online hate from his fellow conservatives started.
You're viewing a single thread.
Last time I called Rittenhouse a murderer here, one of his inbred cult wanted to argue. Let's see if that happens again:
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer.
Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer.
Who is Kyle? Did you mean Kyla?
Sorry, I will show myself out.
Haha misgendering is so funny you’re so funny
“Kyla” sounds like “killer” (i.e., murderer); the only misgendering here is in your head.
If "Kyla" sounds like "killer" then "Kyle" sounds like "kill". Which it doesn't.
Live look at @TheFonz.
The fonz? Do you mean outspoken cuntservative who is "totally a leftist"?
This is what happens when undereducated knuckledraggers do a psyop.
The wiki article that covers the events of that night is a excellent resource.
Edit:
If we can't have a fact based conversation about anything then I don't know what the point is. As a leftie this type of rhetoric really saddens me. I thought we were better than the Maga crowd.
Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?
BTW, for the record I'm a leftie progressive. I'm not a conservative and I hate the Maga crowd. But the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.
This has been established through clear video footage and a lengthy trial with a jury of his peers.
Anyone who disagrees needs to establish they know the facts of the matter beyond news headlines or Twitter opinions.
The problem with this country today is rampant misinformation.
Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?
I summoned one. Again.
How disappointing.
Thanks for not repeating unverified social media talking points. I knew I could count on you for nuanced and intelligent discussion. You know, with misinformation being rampart it's good to know people like you are around to definitely not propagate false talking points.
Where would you have been if I hadn't called you?
I don't care any more. Let's just continue with the narratives we've established we like and not listen to anyone else. It's all good. You keep doing you.
The user laid out an argument, a reasoning and asked you a question. All you can do is "LA LA LA" doesn't fit my narrative and insult. Hmm reminds me of some people I know. At least tell them why you think what you think other than omg Rittenhouse bad.
And I am on rittenhouse's side on this one. Simply because he has gone up against a jury of his peers and been found innocent. If we stop obeying the rule of law then we are no better than terrorists. Want the law to change? Vote, don't insult your peers
Two.
I’m a mind reader, I have read your mind and know your response to this message.
It was self defense, which is a good kind of murder.
It was self defense, which is a good kind of murder.
There's no such thing as a good kind of murder.
Necessary, justified, other adjectives sure...but it's never good.
Even killing the worst scum so that they don't commit other horrible atrocities isn't good.
It all sucks. Murder just isn't good.
Murdering pedophiles and rapists is a universal good. Serial killers and animal abusers are damn close as well.
Serial killers
Who will do the good murdering if serial killing is punishable by death?
Are we really getting into the Batman v Dexter argument here? Serial murder is already a crime punishable by death in a lot of the country. If on death row there is two schools of thought, the first, shared blame, when there are multiple people at once so no one knows who really commited the murder, or the second, a state sanctioned executioner because it’s not a crime to execute a death row criminal. I know you are smarter than that comment so please have a real response.
animal abusers are damn close as well.
There's a point to be made that anyone who supports industrial farming is an animal abuser.
Do you think I deserve to die if I buy a burger from McDonald's?
Wow this is shockingly easy. Three.
Called it
Psst. Check the usernames.
I’m aware it’s someone different.
If we can't have a fact based conversation about anything then I don't know what the point is. As a leftie this type of rhetoric really saddens me. I thought we were better than the Maga crowd.
Nobody wants to have a conversation with you. It was just a check if people like you are still around. You confirmed. No more conversation is needed. Nobody is required to waste their breath on you.
Then don't position yourself as above the Maga crowd. You are all the same.
It's mostly just this place. You find this tribalist response on a lot of topics here. Other instances aren't as cultish. Good on you for arguing your case, but it falls on deaf ears. The discourse could use some improvements
Thanks. I have to adopt a different strategy. I even asked the people I was "debating" for advice on what I'm doing wrong and they still found reason to put me down. It could be the tone that's inferred in written communication. I have no idea.
Your original comment is passive-aggressive. You decry that people aren't doing their due dilligence but don't actually provide your perspective on the story or give any indication that you've put in any effort of your own. Unless you believe that legal definitions and jury trials are simply right, in which case, wow, you're such a leftist.
Maybe I'm just autistic, but IME tone is way easier to read in text than in person.
It depends. Some people have a hard time with it. I've met a few that always read the worst interpretation. It's true though, there is no prosody in text (at least not the same as in spoken).
r/AsABlackMan front page has your twitter post
I voted for Bernie in the 'primary, I voted for Biden and I'm voting for Kamala. Trump is a piece of shit insurrectionist that should not be on the ballot.
If every time someone on your side points a criticism you do this game, it's the exact same thing the Maga crowd does with labeling anti - trump Republicans as RINOS.
If all you care about is labels and how fast you can pin someone in a box so you don't have to engage with a conversation that says more about you.
People have engaged with your comments. The ardent defense of Rittenhouse does not match with progressivism.
Especially in context of Rittenhouse becoming a right wing hero and not regretting his actions.
This is another weird thing. Because I'm interested in the facts of the matter people assume by default that I'm interested in defending Kyle. I don't care for Kyle. I think hes a pos. But this weird response is always like the top comment I get. You're not A so you must be B. So we can't talk about the facts of something without the need to box someone in.
Just stop, you sound like a centrist who's trying to sound intellectual when they are not
I’m quoting you here:
“As a European that lived in America briefly (ten years) I was very shocked when I encountered the gun culture there.”
“I voted for Bernie in the 'primary, I voted for Biden and I'm voting for Kamala. Trump is a piece of shit insurrectionist that should not be on the ballot.“
How are these two things possible without you being a liar?
What part is hard to believe exactly? I moved to the US in 2012 from Italy. I lived there for ten years. While I was there the gun culture was something I never really got accustomed to. What part of this makes me a liar? I'm so confused.
Edit:
Guys. I have dual citizenship. My mother is a US expat. I can vote in both Italian and US elections.
The part where you said you voted in multiple elections. I added it to my original post because you missed the thread
Yes. I have dual citizenship. I can see how dual citizenship can be confusing.
I grew up in Italy but my mother is American. I travel back and forth to us with my family.
I have you tagged as [Conservative] so I don't mistake you for someone worth having a discussion with.
What extension did you use to do that, I want to have a look at it
No extensions, just a standard feature on boost
So as a person on the left I cannot fact check anything that gets repeated on our side? I don't understand this need to silence people so hard because they asked a question or have a disagreement with a position. It's truly bizarre. If it makes you feel better to label me something and that's the best you can do, go ahead.
our side
GTFO, nobody here is your kin by blood or morals.
The only thing you're to the left of is the authoritarian fuckwits you're fellating.
Why such an angry response? Really. What did I do that warrants this level of anger? Does your response seem normal to you?
Facts are important, but it’s not possible to come with only the ones you prefer. You need to make room for more.
That people are looking at all this and thinking it seems like premeditated murder that turned into a panicked self defense (except with a literal killing weapon on hand, which he brought!) is perfectly reasonable.
To be honest, debating it feels gross. It seems more sensible to just recognize that it makes sense people would feel this way, and move on. Regardless of what the courts say, this conclusion makes total sense.
If you want to have a fact based conversation, it would be nice if you came with facts instead of just claiming they exist.
If you want to discuss about what kind of killing is worth calling murder, it would be nice if you explained your position.
Your original comment is incredibly passive-aggressive.
Thanks. I want to get better so if the way I replied came across as passive aggressive then it's something I need to work on.
I've tried having a factual discussion on this instance about the topic in the past but I ended up spending the whole time arguing if I'm a conservative in disguise or not and honestly that's the most I can get out of this platform. If you have any tips on a better approach I'm all ears. I really want to get my messaging to a better place.
I guess the main thing is that if you're going to argue for something very unpopular, rather than arguing for the sake of your opponent as they are today, argue for the sake of uncommitted onlookers and for the sake of the opponent a week from now after they've had time to calm down and reprocess. Respond to their arguments, of course, but do it in a way that illustrates to less polarized people that you've got a point, rather than trying to convince your opponent or finding specific errors in the opponent's reasoning/self-justification.
When an issue is as polarized as this, people very rarely switch sides publicly (unless they're shilling and they didn't hold the original position to begin with), but people can cringe from the side making bad arguments, quietly distancing themselves, and a few months or years later show up on a different side.
If you want that side to be your side, it's nice to present a pipeline that does that. People who cringe from bottom-of-the-barrel leftist discourse can fall into alt-right pipelines, which you presumably don't want, so ideally you would want to have examples of (leftist) influencers whose takes you find reasonable, ideally on the case itself. For example, LegalEagle ("it is plausible that the jury was right that murder under Wisconsin law was not proven beyond reasonable doubt").
The hate is not really avoidable except by forgoing this venue or not arguing your point, but like with the hate thrown towards peaceful climate activists, it is not a sign that you're doing a bad job.
Thank you. I appreciate the thoughts. I understand the onlooker angle Vs trying to convince your opponent. There's a lot to mull over in your comment. Going to process and reflect. Thanks again.
going to process and reflect
LMAO that's rich
You seem very angry.
This is the "The Civil War was about State's Rights" argument and I need a meme of a duck saying "Why was Rittenhouse there in the first place?"
WHY WAS HE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Look just because he went there to shoot someone and the shot someone doesn't mean he meant to shoot someone. /s
OJ Simpson also wasn't convicted.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That's murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.
That's due to corrupt cops manipulating evidence. The judicial system acted accordingly when presented with the proof that the evidence could no longer be trusted.
Doesn't matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
OJ Simpson was different. The police borked that case to a mind blowing degree. Planting evidence, poor handling of evidence, police officers invoking the fifth on the witness stand, just so bad. The facts in Rittenhouse's case were pretty well established, and the way the law applied left him in the clear. Now maybe the law should be different to deter vigilantes like Rittenhouse, but it was always likely to be a successful case of self-defense.
Well, yes. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a situation he had zero business being in, with a weapon he was legally not allowed to have, and those actions put him in the danger that he then, legally speaking, defended himself from.
He's an idiot, a terrible person, and 100% at fault for what happened. But not a murderer since he was acquitted, and words mean things.
You idiots can downvote me until the end of time if doesn't make me less correct
So was Al Capone’s only crime tax evasion?
Yes, words mean things.
Murderer means someone who has committed murder.
Acquitted means that someone was tried for a crime but not convicted.
That could be because they're actually innocent
Or it could be because of insufficient evidence, loopholes, technicalities, and circumstances that the people who wrote the law didn't foresee, they were unable to adequately prove guilt. It could also be due to corruption or incompetence.
So you can commit a murder and still be acquitted of it. It doesn't mean you're not a murderer, it just means that you weren't convicted for the murder you committed.
It would also be crazy if statue of limitations would be used to argue that somebody isn't guilty when there's solid evidence just because a court can't legally find them guilty at that point
Just to nitpick, OJ was acquitted but still a murderer. The word means you killed someone in cold blood on purpose, not that you got a guilty verdict.
Not in cold blood. That refers to a degree of murder. Murder is any intentional killing of a person by another person. Homicide is any killing of a person by another regardless of intent (broader). Manslaughter is usually unintentional, but can also refer to the killing of another with a lesser intent (like the intent wasn't to kill specifically, but cause harm or something).
Thanks for the clarification. I meant "in cold blood" in the sense of "premeditated and intentional", but I'll remove it to be clear.
But not a murderer since he was acquitted, and words mean things.
TIL OJ Simpson isn't a murderer
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I'm a murderer whether or not I'm convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it's not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn't make him innocent though.
I'm a leftie progressive (...) But the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.
So you're not a willfully blind idiot for party political reasons. I wonder what convinced you then..
This has been established through clear video footage and a lengthy trial with a jury of his peers
Ah, an ignorant faith in the veracity of doctored or otherwise misleading out of context footage and the integrity of the US legal system 🤦
Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?
Dude brought an AR-15 to a word fight. In another state. After telling friends that he wanted to shoot BLM protesters. He then harassed peaceful protesters until some of them tried to stop him. He then murdered the people trying to stop him.
As someone who followed the trial closely, the evidence couldn't be more clear.
But if all you're going to do is handwave it away because of conspiracies that
Then I don't know what to discuss. This rhetoric identical with Maga republicans that claim the election was stolen and Hillary Clinton is harvesting the endocrine glands of children.
If we can't have a fact based conversation about anything then I don't know what the point is. As a leftie this type of rhetoric really saddens me. I thought we were better than the Maga crowd.
But if all you're going to do is handwave it away because of conspiracies
That's categorically not what I'm doing.
This rhetoric identical with Maga republicans that claim the election was stolen and Hillary Clinton is harvesting the endocrine glands of children.
Fuck off with that horseshoe theory bullshit. You're clearly lying about being a leftist progressive in order to lend your credulity a false veneer of impartiality.
If we can't have a fact based conversation about anything
Clearly we can't, but I'm not the one responsible for that.
As a leftie this type of rhetoric really saddens me. I thought we were better than the Maga crowd
Big Dean Browning vibes.
Big oof here. I see a lot of your comments and am surprised you're pulling the same us vs them behavior as the MAGA crowd.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and defends murderers like a duck, it's probably a Dean.
So let me get this right: we can't criticize any position that our side takes because that automatically brands us as posers, right? Who else plays this game? Do you see how close to the MAGA crowd we've circled back to? They do the exact same game to anyone that disagrees with their narrative (See RINO).
It's this odd knee-jerk reaction I see here on Lemmy anyone that disagrees with established narratives is automatically branded:
I MUST brand you as something. I can't engage with someone unless I put a label on them.
Your goal is not to disprove my points or engage with what I've said. It's to silence me by putting a label.
Notice how I never ascribed a label to you. I don't know if you're conservative, tankie, republican, or independent. I didn't call you names. I didn't accuse you of bad faith.
ALL I DID: I brought the facts of the matter and I described how similar your rhetoric is to the way elements of the far right manifest themselves. As a leftie all I want to do is combat misinformation. But just that was enough to get me all the downvotes and labels needed to put me in a box so we don't have to hear about it.
So let me get this right: we can't criticize any position that our side takes because that automatically brands us as posers, right
Nope, that's a ridiculous strawman. You're allowed to take any position you want. Just as I'm allowed to have my suspicions when you take positions that make no sense outside of credulity caused by far right gaslighting.
Who else plays this game? Do you see how close to the MAGA crowd we've circled back to? They do the exact same game to anyone that disagrees with their narrative (See RINO).
More horseshoe theory bullshit. Even if you WERE right about me (you're not), equating anything I've said with the utterly insane drivel of a literal fascist movement is the kind of thing disingenuous "moderates" and cosplaying Republicans do.
YOU said the video was doctored or taken out of context. But then you never backed that up.
I backed it up by providing the context that the video omits: that he traveled heavily armed across state lines to a peaceful protest in order to shoot protesters, deliberately provoked protesters until some of them tried to stop him and then murdered those protesters.
Those are actual facts that the biased judge ordered stricken from the record because they made it clear that it was all premeditated rather than spur of the moment self defense.
There is no evidence this case was rigged
Yeah there is, see above.
YOU said the integrity of the judicial system can't be trusted
Yeah, I tend not to trust a system where a biased judge who has no business presiding over a case can just arbitrarily throw out crucial evidence because it doesn't match his predetermined conclusion and nobody can do anything about it.
I'm kooky like that.
It's this odd knee-jerk reaction I see here on Lemmy anyone that disagrees with established narratives is automatically branded:
- Outsider / other
- Facts become irrelevant
This you?
I MUST brand you as something. I can't engage with someone unless I put a label on them
I didn't accuse you of bad faith
Not explicitly, no, but your opening comment accused EVERYONE not convinced about his innocence of bad faith, so excuse me if I don't celebrate your magnificently magnanimous restraint 🙄
I brought the facts of the matter
Nope. You brought your conclusion based on omitting key evidence.
described how similar your rhetoric is to the way elements of the far right manifest themselves
Which, again, is horseshoe theory bullshit. Especially when it's not even CLOSE to true like in this case.
As a leftie
Give it a rest, Dean. Nobody's buying it.
all I want to do is combat misinformation
Spreading it is an awfully peculiar way of going about that task..
But just that was enough to get me all the downvotes and labels needed to put me in a box so we don't have to hear about it.
Nah, you got that for lying and trying to distort reality in order to defend a murderer and then doubling down when corrected.
Actually. Scratch my last comment. I want your advice.
We've had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.
What is the appropriate way to express disagreement or question a mainstream narrative on this platform in such a way I don't get labeled something (ie the way you did when you called me zionist or Dean browning here). Give me some pointers. I want to get better.
Don't say vague stuff ( don't lie etc). Pretend I'm asking in good faith. Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.
We've had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.
That's usually a sign that you have a tendency to argue in bad faith and to pretend to be something other than what you self-label as.
Give me some pointers.
You want to learn how to argue in good faith? Take a course in rhetoric and one in ethics. While I'm able to argue in good faith, I'm neither inclined nor qualified to teach people foreign to the concept how to.
Pretend I'm asking in good faith.
There's suspension of disbelief, there's putting completely justified skepticism aside, and then there's this. I might as well pretend that you're the sultan of Brunei or my cat 🙄
Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.
I have this whole time. That I've called out your dishonesty and misconceptions while doing so doesn't in any way dehumanize you. Stop being such a Drama Dean.
But you go to the bad faith accusation right away. You waste no time. It's usually 1-2 comments in. As a person on the left, I can never disagree with any of the positions our side takes. It's absurd. Even here, I'm asking you for genuine advice. Sincerely. From one human being person to another, and the best you can do is "take a course on rhetoric". You never even gave me a chance.
I never called you out as bad faith. I never labeled you. I never accused you. You still put me down. Your tone is dismissive and derisive. Why? What did I say exactly that triggered this reaction? I"m genuinely curious.
It's not worth arguing with these people. They're so antigun that they'll defend the domestic abuser, the child molester and felon because they hate guns. Even though one of the people they defend had a firearm there illegally... they're also very very ignorant about the case. The last time this shit came up, there were people on here saying Rittenhouse killed 3 black people.... that's how fucking ignorant they are.
These people are the equivalent of the rightwing maga idiots. There is zero discussion you can have with someone who is willfully ignorant of facts.
I never ad hommed. I never labeled you. I never accused you of bad faith.
Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie? Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform? It's because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.
You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying, yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased, the trial was rigged or the video was doctored - all your claims. You provided some context. Neat.
I never ad hommed (...) I never accused you of bad faith
Categorically false.
Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie?
Because you introduced yourself as a leftie and proceeded to spew a bunch of horseshoe theory bullshit often deployed in an effort to dismiss the left as just another color of fascism.
Just like Dean Browning introduced himself as a gay black guy in order to attack a black guy and praise a homophobic party.
It's not exactly rocket science, dude..
Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform?
Yes, and I specifically addressed it: in order to coat your defense of Rittenhouse in a false veneer of impartiality.
It's because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.
Once again exactly what Republicans on Lemmy (and all other platforms that aren't explicitly fascist, for that matter) always say when their erroneous and transparently bad faith arguments are engaged with.
You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying
Because you were. And because of your absolutist claims based on said lies.
yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased
His actions did that for me. Want me to present evidence that Eileen Cannon isn't a Democrat too?
You provided some context. Neat.
Congratulations on sneaking in one true detail at the end of your rant of false accusations and bad faith whining. I promise not to tell your handler.
I vote left, and support a bunch of socialist policies... I also am a die hard pro2a supporter....you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn't like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga...never go full maga.
Deal with the fact that a large and growing portion of the left in this country is armed and continues to purchase arms.
An armed minority is harder to suppress.
you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn't like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga
Congratulations on combining three logical fallacies (strawman, third-cause fallacy, and ad hominem) in one sentence. You must be so proud of your excellence in illogic.
He planned to murder people. Then he murdered people. Then the judge overruled evidence proving that it was premeditated and thus disproving his self defense defense.
I don't disapprove because he used a gun to carry out his murders. I disapprove of murder and helping murderers be unjustly acquitted.
Though Republicans would have celebrated him less for it, I would disapprove just as much if he had used a knife like that other famously acquitted murderer. The one from the first Naked Gun movie.
An armed minority is harder to suppress
And an armed minority is also much more likely to use the gun on itself or have the gun used on itself by someone else than to successfully use it in self defense.
It's like one of my favorite dark jokes:
"My dad had a gun. He said he had to have a gun to protect his 5 kids. Of course, he later had to get rid of the gun to protect his 4 kids."
I don't know man. There's some barrier and I just can't reach you. I asked for help. Genuine effort. I don't know why it's so hard. If I ever ad-hommed you at any point I'm truly sorry. Do you have an example of me ad-homming you? Take this as a genuine apology. There is absolutely nothing I can say or do to discuss something without having to spend half the time why I'm not a zionist or a conservative. I asked for your advice in how I could improve my rhetoric, and you put me down again. It's so exhausting.
The only reason I included the mention that I'm on the left is the hope that I would be offered some charitability or grace. But even with that, I had to spend the rest of the conversation defending why I'm not Dean browning. You said the video was doctored. I took that to mean the video was doctored. You said the judge was impartial. I really read that as you saying there is evidence that the judge was impartial or something to support that the case was rigged. Maybe I misread. I really don't know. Thanks anyway.
You don’t inherit a home state, lol
If you have two seperste homes you have two seperate home states. Divorced parents can live across state lines.
He didn’t live with his father at this time, which is why he had to get a ride from out of state from his mom
What government agency or organization allows you to claim two different households as your main residency?
After the first guy everyone was trying to stop an active shooter.
That they chased down and atempted to beat, if you want to consider him an active shooter and they were still doing their civic duty it is still self defense according to the law.
Regarding victim number one. Bringing a gun to a protest and starting shit then shooting people doesn't constitute self defense because you normally can't provoke the situation you are defending yourself from. Also the only thing that made the situation deadly dangerous was literally the gun in his hand if not for that it would have been a fist fight at worst. More likely absent a weapon to give him courage he just wouldn't have started shit.
Regarding victims 2 and 3 they were trying to stop what they correctly perceived as an active shooter they did not pursue lethal force against him he could have surrendered the gun non-violently. You normally have a legal obligation to use the lease force possible.
The law being what it is guilt or innocence it a fight is often questionable and subject to state specific laws but morally speaking I don't understand why anyone would not hold him responsible for what happened. He is by all accounts a garbage human being and people are dead because he is a garbage human being.
Here is what one of the people who helped him win his legal case said
We invested significant effort to craft the image you witnessed during the trial. We outfitted him in new suits, arranged for his haircut every weekend during the trial, and dedicated over 200 hours to prepare him for direct and cross-examination. We employed the world's leading jury consultant and conducted extensive research through three mock trials to identify the ideal jurors and the most effective approach for his testimony.
Transforming a middle school dropout who was "angry at the world" with a history of violence and an unhealthy obsession with guns and killing into a respectable young man with a desire for higher education and a promising future was no easy feat.
It was a meticulously crafted facade, which we sincerely hoped he would grow into. Instead, he squandered a full scholarship to study any subject at any university in the country to become a divisive douchebag and antagonize black Americans on college campuses. Kyle failed to learn a single thing. He remains the same uneducated, arrogant, and antagonistic individual, incapable of telling the truth.
Now, he genuinely believes he is the show pony we created and has surrounded himself with sycophants who fuel his inflated ego because they prioritize their political agenda and Christian Nationalist worldview over his well-being.
Despite my efforts to guide him toward a better path in life, the allure of notoriety triumphed over the prospect of putting in the hard work of pursuing an education. I regret my role in shaping him into whatever he has become. If I had known what I know now about Kyle's History, I wouldn't have been involved.
He's also a moron. He obtained his high school diploma by cheating on online tests and then went to take the ASVAB and managed to score a 10, a typical average score for a high school graduate is 50, the minimum you can get into the military is 30. We are talking about questions like
If there are three quarts of gas in a gallon container, how full is the container? 50% 60% 75% 80%
I don't even know how its possible to score a 10
You're missing some context. I think I would agree with your take if not for the fact that:
the only thing that made the situation deadly dangerous was literally the gun in his hand
I can't recall if it was indv 1 or 3 but one of them brandishes a skateboard towards his head. A skateboard can easily be a lethal blow to the head.
a fist fight at worst
See above. Also 4v1.
anyone would not hold him responsible for what happened
I actually agree with this. He is culpable of fomenting the situation. A 17 year old with an AR 15 had no business being there.
He’s also a moron
Totally agree.
He was brandishing the skateboard because Rittshit had just blown someone away. There is zero reason to believe that he would be hit if he dropped the gun. When you kill someone there isn't a judge to decide if you ought to have done that you appear to be the villain you aren't owed a trial and a jury before they secure the present situation. They had every right to do so and he should have complied.
Intent: They drove like over an hour across state lines to Kenosha in hopes of finding somebody to kill then placed himself in harms way by wandering into a group of people.
The goal was always to kill people and thats what makes it murder.
the goal was always to kill people
This is the crux. This mens rea was not proven. And the fact that he waited long after he was chased and pinned to the ground before he started firing is critical to this injunction.
People on this board automatically assume that because I'm defending the non guilty verdict I'm automatically absolving Kyle Rittenhouse of all culpability. The kid was an idiot that made some very bad decisions that will likely haunt him the rest of his life. He was 17 and should have known better. He's not completely innocent in my book. I just love how nuanced and wonderfully fact-based Lemmy is when it comes to these charged topics. It's so refreshing.
Look, maybe the court/jury ruled correctly, but I think its also close minded to think that just because a court rules something that is reality. OJ was the best example of this, but I'm not going to argue with people who see how he tried turning having gunned down 2 people into a right wing celebrity career and think this guy is absolutely a little cretin to begin with.
Has it been proven that he was hoping to kill somebody when he drove across state lines?
Why else go to a riot zone with an AR?
Can you make sense of that?
No not really but that’s now how it works to prove intent.
You're asking others to "prove his murderous intent", as if kyle travelling to an active riot zone with a murder weapon is too deep of a fucking mystery for you to crack.
Is it possible for you to prove he only brought that AR to Waukesha for a fish fry? Didn't fucking think so.
I don’t understand why you think I’m trying to prove something or asking some random person to prove anything. I was asking what was proven in court.
You seem quite well versed on the matter.
You're not here to receive facts, you're here to push your narrative, Sisyphus.
Counter-protesting, and it is legal to bring a firearm in many cases if legally acquired.
His stated reason for going was not "Counter-protesting".
Nice caveat.
Was it legally acquired?
Rittenhouses? Yes.
He was 17
Womp womp
Can't own firearms (or travel across state lines with them) as a minor.
Sucks you can't see the truth we're feeding you
You don't seem to know a single honest fact about the case. Yet you voice your opinion very confidently. Why?
I don't think "teen vigilante car dealership security" is a real job, so we can confirm he wasn't there for that.
Well he wasn’t there to sell ice cream either.
But in a court of law, making a statement like “he went there to kill” is a statement that requires proof. And I’m simply asking if there has been any proof that he travelled there with intent to kill?
Bear in mind I’m not American, nor am I arguing about his guilt or innocence. Simply asking what proofs the attorneys brought to court.
There was a video from 15 days before the incident where he fantasized out loud about shooting some people he believed to be shoplifters. The prosecution tried to admit the video to evidence in order to demonstrate his mental state but was denied.
Kyle Rittenhouse showed up to a protest armed with an AR-15 intending to defend property that was not even his with lethal force, having been encouraged to do so by other militant conservative groups on social media. He then proceeded to shoot and kill two unarmed people who were attempting to disarm him and injured another who was armed with a pistol and who was also attempting to disarm him.
That video is incredibly damning. Do you know why it wasn’t allowed to be admitted?
Judge argued it wasn't relevant to the case. Obviously I disagree, and so did the prosecutors. The prosecution mentioned it during the trial anyway and was scolded by the judge, which was later used by the defense to try calling a mistrial.
Crooked justice by tainted judges.
Simple as
as a leftie
Real I'm a black gay guy vibes here.
Show us your leftie registration papers please.
Here's the thing: If I don't include that I'm a leftie I spend the whole time defending why i'm not a conservative and never actually discussing the topic.
If I mention that I'm a leftie that disagrees with the main take: I spend the whole time defending why im not a conservative and never discussing the topic.
NO ONE ENGAGES WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION
It's damned if I do damned if don't. This is cult behavior. If you disagree with my position, refute my position or provide an argument. There is no grace or charitability offered. Like, why?
So many people on this platform spend all their energy in labeling but never discussing the actual points.
spend the whole time defending
You're defending your braindead ideas, not 'which social group you're in'; it's irrelevant.
Let’s say a person doesn’t like certain other types of people (be it due to race, religion, political views, or whatever), and that person also glorifies violence against those types of people and they glorify gun violence in general.
Let’s also say this person knowingly and willingly (and possibly illegally) puts themselves in harm’s way, while carrying a gun, amongst those same certain types of people.
Then they get into a situation where they have to use “self defense” in order to escape harm from those people. Luckily they had that gun with them!
Was it legally “self defense?” Yes, apparently. Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes.
Did Rittenhouse successfully use a self defense plea to get away with murder? Some would argue that he did.
I agree with your take for the most part actually. This is the kindest response I've gotten on Lemmy in the past year since this topic gets brought up.
Could it be argued that it was also “hunting” disliked group of people, as if for sport? Yes
He was 17. This fact could easily be argued the other way. In the days preceding the Kenosha riots there were riots in Minneapolis were stores were looted and some buildings burned. About a 1bn in damage happened. Kenosha is a small town where Kyle worked. Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?
Also, just because he received a non-guilty verdict I will be the first to say that doesn't absolve him of culpability in developing a situation that led to harm. As a European that lived in America briefly (ten years) I was very shocked when I encountered the gun culture there. I understand it but I never got comfortable with it.
Thank you again for not resorting to labeling me or putting me down. Gives me a little hope for Lemmy.
Could it be he was also concerned about the place his father lived and where he worked?
Vigilantism is also illegal. It could be argued that had Kyle stayed home those people would still be alive
It could also be argued if the child molester hadn't chased and tried to attack Rittenhouse that he'd be alive....same with felon skateboard man....and domestic abuser with the handgun.
In that instance the “protesters” create their own bad luck by putting themselves in a situation where self defense rules apply. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Would you be saying that about Rittenhouse if he died due to putting himself in that situation?
Yes, you’re at a protest that had devolved into rioting and looting, whatever happens now is entitely on you.
To be clear: He didn't happen to find himself at a protest. He actively went to a protest that he did not agree with in order to "protect property". He purposely put himself in that situation.
Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?
By definition, murder is the unjustified killing of a human. This is why homicide is the preferred term, with murder, if it’s mentioned at all, is a particularly egregious form of homicide.
But the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.
Nope. He sought that conflict out. The verdict aside, the chain of events leading to that conflict lead to him being there, being in that confrontation, and willfully engaging in that confrontation.
Oh lookie here so called "leftist" that's really a right wing troll
They did NOT establish definitively that it was self defense.
The verdict established that the murders were not premeditated, which they weren’t.
For the charge of 1st degree murder the prosecution had to prove premeditation which they were unable to do, hence the not guilty.
For some inexplicable reason, the prosecution failed to also charge 2nd degree, which would have likely received a guilty verdict.
Please note the distinction: while the defense certainly argued self defense, the not guilty verdict does not prove the defense theory to be correct, it simply proves the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof regarding premeditation, nothing more.
In the US legal system, people are not proclaimed innocent, they are found to be guilty or not guilty. Not guilty of one particular charge does not mean that the defendant is innocent of all crimes.
I watched the entire trial.
Yes. thank you. I agree with your take for the most part.
I've spent the whole thread defending how left I am so I'm out of energy to offer a more complete response. I have some thoughts but maybe I'll come back later.
Thanks anyway.
Cheers.
I’ve spent the whole thread defending how left I am
Why? You should be spending the thread defending your argument. This is just an Ad Hominem fallacy with extra steps.
You're right. I don't really disagree with what you're saying. I spent a lot of my energy arguing with the wrong individuals in this thread and I've run out of steam. I'm feeling a bit demoralized by the whole thing in general tbh. I'm happy you were able to get a debate bro term in I guess...
Ad-hominem ftw!
"you're right, I agree with what you're saying, and now I'm going to try to throw in a random insult for no reason because I am arguing in good faith!"
You were so close to just having a reasonable reply, you just had to stop one sentence sooner.
Sorry I mentioned the Ad-hominem thing. 😕 I shouldn't have brought it up.
You shouldn't have entered the fucking comment thread and that didn't stop you.
Expecting a lot more braindead shit from you in the coming weeks. Not expecting anything from your account after November.
I'm really sorry my questions offended you. Seriously. I will mostly keep to myself going forward on this platform and just lurk after today. I think it's clear that discussion is not welcome here.
Again, really sorry for being here and asking questions or trying to discuss a topic - albeit a charged one.
If you had asked an NRA-affiliated self defense instructor in 2019 if what Rittenhouse did was self defense, they would have told you unequivocally no.
At what point do we allow for self-defense?
To be clear: he should never have been there in the first place.
This is why it isn't self defense. You can't go putting yourself in a situation and then cry about it later.
That's not how self defense works at all...
Yeah maybe August 2024 is when someone finally says something new on the topic... Jesus Christ. You know why it wasn't self defense. You don't agree, but you know why. So just stop.
"Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?"
That, alone, is super easy for anyone familiar with how self defense works.
Source: I have a permit to carry concealed in my state and passed an instructional course to be able to do so.
One of the very first things you learn about self defense is that you cannot initiate a conflict and then later claim self defense.
Rittenhouse was safe. He was in another state, 20 miles from the conflict, and chose to endanger himself by bringing a weapon into an area of unrest.
At that point, self defense should have been off the table. He chose to engage, that's not self defense.
Thank you. This is a reasonable take I can actually agree with to some extent and I think gives me a different perspective, albeit it goes beyond the legal framework. I've also heard this argument before and I'm torn on this.
I'm curious: what is your stance on the Korean rooftop shooters during the LA riots?
The Korean rooftop shooters during the riots were definitely self defense. They were protecting themselves and their places of business.
I actually heard a good interview with someone who, as a child, was working for her moms gas station during the riots, let me see if I can turn it up...
https://insideucr.ucr.edu/awards/2024/05/18/laist-includes-carol-park-new-podcast-inheriting
Part 1 is about 45 minutes:
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/22/1249394676/carol-the-los-angeles-uprising-part-1
Part 2 is a little shorter, under 40 minutes:
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/22/1249399705/inheriting-carol-park-losangelesuprising-parttwo
So I'm curious --and honest to god on my grandmother's grave-- what made Kyle's position not self defense? Because the argument I hear from conservatives is that was the place where he (and I believe his father too) worked.
Thanks for the links. I'm going through them now.
Because he went there looking for a fight. You can't do that then claim self defense.
He drove 20 miles out of his way, across state lines, to put himself in danger. That's not how self defense works.
The rebuttal to this I've heard is that it was his workplace and he had a right to defend it (or at least from his point of view) esp after witnessing what happened with the riots in mpls a few weeks prior. If he didn't work there, I'd say I'd agree with your assessment. Does it matter if he worked there and it was an area he considered somewhat part of his community?
And just to be clear. I agree: in my opinion this kid had no business being there with an AR 15.
First, he had no business with an AR-15 because he wasn't old enough, but no, it wasn't his business he was protecting, he was not and is not a business owner.
I agree. The way they struck that gun charge on the WI law technicality was garbage and he shouldn't have been near any guns.
On the business thing: I agree. As an outsider looking in, seeing an employee going to defend a place of work is odd. But then again, I didn't grow up in small town America so I'm not too familiar with the sense of community and kinship in those areas. I have no idea. All I can think of is where I live in small towns me have pretty close bonds and try to look out for each other.
I do think your take is reasonable and there isn't much for me to disagree with.
Yea, all 4 of them forced him to travel 20 miles so they could surround him.
Talk to a psychologist today. please.
Where did Kyle work? Where did his father live?
His employer and father weren't on trial for their MURDERS.
I've met a lot of dense motherfuckers before, they mostly couldn't help it. I feel bad for your family, bro.
Why are you such an angry person? What did I do do to you?
We got a sealion here...
Shoo, back into the muddy waters. Shoo!
Any time someone disagrees with me they are _______ (insert sealion or other term)
Can you demonstrate why it wasn’t self defense?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Sure, legally it was self defense. My read of the situation is that he clearly went looking for trouble with his shiny new AR, exactly as he'd expressed a desire to do.
He found the trouble he was looking for, and to his immense luck he not only managed to fight his way free of it, but managed to do so in a way that legally qualified as self defense, and also gave us this laughable performance to roll our eyes at.
Legally, self defense. In my opinion he went there to murder, he just didn't know who it would be or whether he'd get his chance.
Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?
No. Acts of self defense happen every day, and the vast majority do not have people calling them a murder.
This is an incredibly disingenuous statement that is ignoring the facts around this specific case of self defense.
BTW, for the record I'm a leftie progressive.
Irrelevant. Ad hominem. Whether or not you're a leftie has no effect on the strength of the argument you are presenting.
the events that led to the death of those people that day was due to self defense.
Rittenhouse did manage to engineer a situation in which everyone involved had a credible claim of self defense. I will point out however that one of "the events that led to the death of those people that day" was Rittenhouse deciding to go to a town he had no good reason to be with the stated goal of "protecting property".
If a criminal breaks into someone's house and the owner charges at them with a baseball bat the criminal is "acting on self defense" if they shoot the owner. The criminal still shouldn't have been there in the first place and the entire situation is the criminal's fault.
Now replace the criminal with someone who had a grudge against the owner, and broke in hoping this would be the outcome. The legal system would only find them guilty of breaking and entering, but that person is a murderer.
Anyone who disagrees needs to establish they know the facts
The fact of the matter is Rittenhouse's stated reason for being there with a gun in the first place was to "protect property" from people who were protesting the murder of George Floyd. Because in his mind it is acceptable to shoot people to protect property, it is not acceptable to damage property to protect lives.
Can you demonstrate why it wasn't self defense?
It's both.
Yes, legally Rittenhouse was acting in self defense. He is also a murder who went there with the hope of being able to insert himself into a situation where he could kill someone.
Does every act of self defense automatically classify someone as a murderer?
Depends on whether or not somebody was killed and whether or not you're using the word "murderer" in its technical legal sense.
BTW, for the record I'm a leftie progressive.
Why bring that up? Your argument should be able to stand on its own. Am I supposed to say, "Oh, I didn't agree with your argument before, but now that I know you're on the same team I'm on, I can see it in a completely different light now!" GTFO.