Kyle Rittenhouse’s 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 “brother’s unwillingness to provide or contribute to our family.”

  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    72
    ·
    4 months ago

    If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state

    She didn’t do that.

    It’s really sad how many people are still so completely ignorant of even the simplest facts of that case. Whatever your ideology declared was the truth, you just swallowed, facts and truth be damned.

    Pitiful.

    P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      P.S. Self-defense isn’t murder.

      What Kyle did wasn’t self defense. I don’t give a damn what the court said, he went looking for trouble with a gun in his hand.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        50
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?

        That’s not how it works, goofball.

        • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          41
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing. I wouldn’t have a lot of sympathy for the KKK guys, because fuck them, but it’s pretty obvious at that point that the guy is playing vigilante.

          It’s also worth noting that the first two people he shot were unarmed, and everyone who was in the vicinity thought he was an active shooter.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            39
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            If the guy went armed into a KKK meeting, it’s pretty obvious what he’s doing.

            Nope, this analogy fails, by implying that Rittenhouse was armed in a place where being armed is an unusual thing (ironically, one of his attackers was in possession of an illegal handgun, while Rittenhouse was perfectly allowed to be in possession of the rifle he had).

            Kenosha is in an open carry state. There is a reason that although Rittenhouse was obviously and visibly armed with a long rifle, nobody reacted negatively to him arriving at the protest ‘area’. He walked around with that big rifle on his person for literal hours with nobody giving a shit.

            It’s obvious you either don’t live in an open carry state, and/nor do you have the empathy to understand why it was no big deal for him to be there while visibly armed. His mere presence there while armed means nothing.

            Again, the first person to react negatively to him at all was a psycho who literally screamed death threats and then tried to make good on them, in response to Rittenhouse extinguishing the flaming dumpster he was trying to wheel into a gas station (wanna take a few guesses why Rosenbaum was trying to move a large flaming object to such a specific place?).

            You wanna argue that putting out a fire is provocation? lmao

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s not bear season, and a hunter doesn’t 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 he’d have an excuse to shoot her?

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            30
            ·
            4 months ago

            The fact that no one gave the slightest shit about Rittenhouse’s arrival or presence (regardless of the fact that he was visibly and obviously armed) until Rosenbaum freaked out on him for putting out Rosenbaum’s 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 “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.

            • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Your argument is literally identical, logically, to “she was asking for it by being dressed so provocatively”.

              It’s literally identical, logically, to “She 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.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.

              Look, I want to be clear: I’m not saying he deserved to get attacked. But I also don’t believe for a second that he traveled that far, to a protest where any logical person could have guessed they’d be seen as an aggressor, and walked around for as long as he did, and wasn’t hoping he’d draw some aggression so he could “defend himself”. It’s 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 he’s been riding out his celebrity status among the far right since then, I feel, supports that theory.

              He can be “not guilty” and still be a piece of shit.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                24
                ·
                4 months ago

                “She 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.” In which case I’d be making the same argument.

                I like how you subtly modified the obviously implied rape attempt to “come onto her”, lol.

                You also left out running away at the first sign of aggression, and then only shooting after she’s chased down and has nowhere else to go, and the attacker, who screamed “I’m going to kill you” moments before, is now trying to wrestle the gun out of her hands.

                Zero chance you’d be making the same argument in an actually equivalent situation, lmao, who do you think you’re kidding?

                • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Man, you’re missing the whole point. I said it in pretty plain text before but I’ll say it again: I don’t 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 you’re quoting, clearly the person attempting to rape the woman in question would not be justified in doing so, and she’d be justified in shooting him.

                  What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d 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 soldier’s 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 doesn’t make them any less deplorable for doing it.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    17
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    What matters, though, is intent. In that hypothetical, the woman put herself into that situation intentionally hoping she’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone. I firmly believe Rittenhouse did the exact same.

                    But the point is that there is literally no reason to believe that, if you’re 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 “medic! friendly!”), and put out fires. He did nothing that any reasonable, objective person would conclude contributed the slightest bit toward ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

                    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 attempt…looking at all the evidence and in hindsight, I think it’s reasonable that Rosenbaum was actually trying to get himself killed in a manner similar to ‘murder by cop’, but I digress).

                    Secondly, if he was hoping to get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone, why didn’t he shoot Rosenbaum right when he started chasing him down? This was already after Rosenbaum had literally been screaming “I’m going to kill you”, so it’d 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 ‘hoping he’d get attacked because he wanted to shoot someone’.

                    He also didn’t 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 didn’t.

                    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 similar–no aggression from him, and when he encountered aggression toward him, he didn’t ‘take advantage of the opportunity to shoot someone’–instead, 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 ‘hoping he’d get attacked because she wanted to shoot someone’ simply does not hold water.

    • forrgott@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      Putting yourself in harms way hardly justifies “self defense”.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        45
        ·
        4 months ago

        If a black guy knowingly strolled through a KKK meeting, without saying or doing anything other than walking, and defended himself if one of them attacked him, would you argue he gave up the right to defend himself?

        That’s not how it works, goofball.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            35
            ·
            4 months ago

            If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle

            I didn’t say he was armed, but fine, let’s have this hypothetical happen in an open carry state, same as the state where the Rittenhouse stuff happened. Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.

            and sat there provoking the KKK members

            Rittenhouse provoked no one (the irony of implying he did is that he literally spent a good amount of time walking around shouting “medic! friendly!” while he was offering basic first aid to whoever wanted it, lol…pretty much the literal opposite of provocation), so your analogy becomes a false analogy, here.

            • I didn’t say he was armed

              Rittenhouse was, so that’s what my analogy is using too.

              Meaning that, just like in Rittenhouse’s case, the fact that someone is openly armed is mundane and not a cause for concern in and of itself, at all.

              Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all. If it’s police it’s a minor cause for concern, if it’s an untrained civilian who looks underage, it’s much greater cause for concern. If he’s walking around at a protest to supposedly “protect businesses”, he’s a clear and direct danger. What the law says doesn’t change what he can do with a weapon like that, and thus what threat he poses.

              Rittenhouse provoked no one

              You’re unaware of the basic facts of the case. Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly. This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him. After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense. He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).

              You can’t expect to go to a protest, heavily armed, pointing your gun at people and expect people to be all okiedokie about that. It’s a clear provocation.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Someone walking around openly armed is absolutely not mundane at all.

                In Wisconsin (because it’s legal), and particularly on that day, in that area, it is demonstrably/provably so that it was considered mundane, evidenced by the fact that although Rittenhouse was openly and visibly armed with that long rifle the entire time he was there, he received nary a second glance from anyone, much less an overtly negative response, neither when he showed up, nor when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.

                Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.

                Ironically, even his ATTACKERS didn’t give a shit, and charged at and chased him despite being, literally, SEVERELY outgunned.

                Drone video clearly showed Rittenhouse pointing his weapon at people, repeatedly.

                Link the full video (so fullest possible context can be seen), with timestamp(s)

                This direct threat to others is what eventually provoked Rosenbaum into trying to take his gun off him.

                Oh, please, this is nonsense (and frankly digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure, considering all we know about him both on that day, and prior to it):

                "Ryan Balch, one of the armed men patrolling the streets of downtown Kenosha along with Rittenhouse, told the court that 36-year-old Joseph Rosenbaum had appeared “aggravated” that evening and had been seen shouting “fuck you” to various protesters in the crowd.

                “Every time I encountered Joseph Rosenbaum, he was hyper-aggressive and acting out in a violent manner,” Balch testified. “He was always having to be restrained by someone.”

                Another witness, Richie McGinniss, testified Thursday that Rosenbaum had chased Rittenhouse into the parking lot of a car dealership and lunged for Rittenhouse’s AR-15 rifle before the teenager opened fire.

                Though both Balch and McGinniss had been called to testify by the prosecution, they each emphasized that Rosenbaum had appeared to pose a threat to Rittenhouse.

                But Balch said that at one point that evening, prior to the shooting, Rosenbaum had clearly grown enraged with Balch, Rittenhouse, and a third armed member of their group.

                Balch testified that the other member of his group had at one point prevented Rosenbaum from lighting something on fire. Rosenbaum then began shouting at Balch and Rittenhouse when Balch tried to calm him down, according to Balch.

                “When I turned around, Rosenbaum was right there in front of my face, yelling and screaming,” Balch said. “I said, ‘Back up, chill, I don’t know what your problem is.’ He goes, ‘I catch any of you guys alone tonight, I’m going to fucking kill you.’”

                When Binger asked Balch to clarify that Rosenbaum’s remarks were directed at both Balch and Rittenhouse, Balch responded, “The defendant was there, so yes.”


                After Rittenhouse neutralised him by shooting his pelvis, he then decided to execute him on the spot, which was well beyond self-defense.

                Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off, and then enough time passes such that it would even be possible for Rittenhouse to think ‘hm, he’s not a threat anymore, but you know what, I’ve decided I want to kill him’ and THEN shot him dead.

                What a pathetic straw grasp. Laughably absurd.

                He then shot two others who believed him to be an active shooter (and he demonstrated he was by killing one of them).

                I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse with his illegally-possessed (unlike Kyle’s rifle, ironic considering how many people still accuse him of having possessed it illegally) handgun, which was literally pointed at Rittenhouse’s head when Kyle pulled the trigger and shot his arm. The fact that Kyle’s reaction time was faster is the only reason Grosskreutz didn’t succeed in his attempted murder.

                Very interesting that you happened to omit every single fact that contradicts the narrative you’re trying so desperately to construct.

                Unfortunately for you and your precious narrative, I’m familiar with the facts, and see right through you.

                • when he was walking around the crowd offering water and medical assistance, for hours.

                  And he needed a rifle for that, did he? His stated purpose for being there was vigilantism. He literally said as such during the trial. He stated he was there to “protect property” and he brought a rifle to do so. Unless that was a water pistol, he was there intending to use lethal force.

                  Nobody gave a shit. You can’t look at all that video and act like he was this intimidating scary presence because he was armed, when it’s obvious ZERO people freaked out over it that day.

                  Yeah, except for the people that evidently did. And obviously you don’t need to immediately freak out if you see something not considered “mundane”.

                  digusting that you’re trying to turn Rosenbaum of all people, into this heroic figure

                  I’m literally not. Don’t put words into other people’s mouths. As stated by Rittenhouse himself, he came to Kenosha, armed, in order to at the very least intimidate the protestors/rioters (whatever tickles your fancy) there. Rosenbaum, who is not exactly a stable person, was not intimidated by these attempts. In a previous encounter, Rosenbaum threatened someone Rittenhouse was with at the time.

                  Instead of deescalating and leaving the scene, which Rittenhouse could have easily done, he decides to risk a confrontation and sticks around. When he runs into Rosenbaum again, something triggers Rosenbaum to chase him.

                  Oh, he decided that, did he? You know that forensics confirmed Rosenbaum had his hand on the barrel when these shots were fired, don’t you? As if Rittenhouse shot once, hit Rosenbaum in the groin, and Rosenbaum INSTANTLY stopped attacking him and backed off

                  Well the tooth fairy didn’t decide for him. I don’t need forensics to see on the video used in the trial that after being shot once, Rosenbaum falls over and graps the barrel briefly, after which Rittenhouse shoots and kills him. Oh, and this is after Rittenhouse decided to stop running, turn around and shoot him.

                  I like how you left out that the first of the two only got shot AFTER nailing Rittenhouse in the head with a full swing of his skateboard, and that the third only got shot after HE tried to shoot Rittenhouse

                  Some would call them heroic after they saw Rittenhouse kill someone and tried to neutralize the shooter.

                  The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going on his vigilante-stint. He could have gone unarmed if he was only going to provide water and medical assistance, but that wasn’t why he went there. While the legality of his actions can be disputed, the morality of his actions is clear: what he did was deeply wrong, and he’s responsible for two people dead.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Oh look, you completely ignored being pressed to support your ridiculous ‘he was pointing his gun at people for no reason repeatedly, before anyone attacked him’ claim. You prove you’re just another narrative-clinging ideologue who will throw as much bullshit at the wall as possible, hoping something sticks or isn’t challenged.

                    You’re a waste of time.

                    The point is that Rittenhouse was uniquely able to prevent 2 deaths by simply not going

                    Victim blaming 101, I sleep.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            23
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            It was to steelman the other person’s argument, actually. My analogy involved a situation where it was MUCH more clear that the victim was deliberately entering known ‘hostile territory’ (black guy into a KKK meeting), than the Kenosha situation was (fact is, if it wasn’t for Rosenbaum going nuts and starting the domino effect, Rittenhouse would have gone home that day conflict-free–after all, he was there for hours BEFORE Rosenbaum freaked on him, with no incident at all). Race itself is not really a factor–‘person existing in a dangerous place’ is all I’m conveying. I didn’t “bring in race”.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s amazing how you can convince some people that you aren’t responsible for your actions when you totally were.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen. He put himself in a situation where deadly force would just be on be on the line of justifed.

      Duty to retreat includes duty to not show up. It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did. We are creating a last man standing justice system.

      A provokes B. They fight. B is murdered. A claims self-defense

      provokes B. They fight. A is murdered. B claims self-defense

      What does it say that the argument works both ways? No other crime operates this way.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        It says so much that had the people he murdered not died and instead killed him they would be able to use the same defense he did.

        LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.

        He showed up to a riot with a gun, he knew what was going to happen.

        ‘She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’

        Victim blaming. Wisconsin is an open carry state.

        What does it say that the argument works both ways?

        Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          LMAO no they wouldn’t! They chased Rittenhouse down as he fled! No jury on Earth would consider what they did self-defense, you’re completely out of your mind.

          Personal attacks. And of course they chased down the guy waving a gun around.

          She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.’

          False analogy. Rape is never justified, stopping a gunman is.

          Wisconsin is an open carry state.

          What might technically be lawful is not always sensible.

          Loaded question; it DOESN’T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.

          Showing up to a riot with a gun is aggressive by its nature. Just like if I stood with a gun in front of your house at all hours.

          • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago
            • He didn’t “wave a gun around”
            • attacking someone unprovoked just because they are armed, especially when legally so, is ALSO never justified
            • existing while armed is not intrinsically aggressive/provocative, no matter how much you insist it is. Rittenhouse did literally nothing that even remotely merited the murder attempted on him thrice that day.
            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I saw the video. He waved a gun around.

              Waving a gun around is always provoking.

              Waving a gun around is intrinsically aggressive and provocative, no matter how much you insist that it isn’t. Rittenhouse did literally everything wrong that merited the disarming attempt on him thrice that day.

        • Fedizen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          it should be noted that afaik, nobody has died from BLM protestors so a “fear of dying” in the encounter should indicate a deeply troubled mind. So a competent prosecuter could probably have convinced a jury that Kyle’s fears were largely irrational and could have probably stuck manslaughter charges on him.

          After all, if you start marching around with a gun in front of your neighbor’s house then shoot him when he approaches you yelling to get off his sidewalk or whatever, its a bit insane, if not premeditated.