666
Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
666 points (91.0% liked)
News
23655 readers
2600 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You do know that going to a protest with a rifle is a provocation, right?
FWIW I think it depends on intent. You could be showing up with a rifle in support of the protestors (which has happened, especially in 2020).
I think the 'left' should also step up their game and open carry, if they want to be taken more seriously by:
...but... we must not forget what may follow if they do, planning is also really important as well as having legal counsel and video footage of all interactions:
!bpp@lemmy.world
[1] Killing in the Name - Rage Against the Machine
I think if leftists started open carrying at protests we would either see way less harassment by police or literal civil war.
We'd see gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Being a bit more forceful and agressive, in showing open carry, so that we may have a better chance of changing our systematicly broken system, will not be an easy feat to accomplish.
Great point, you are correct, the Black Panther Party also ran into that problem, where they had shoot outs with the police.
It would need a bit of planning, knowledge of the local laws, and live filming/documenting interactions with any law enforcement/groups/people.
Wrong. It's an open carry state, there was nothing strange about it.
If it was such a "provocation", then why did nobody give a shit when he showed up, even though it was super obvious he was armed with a long rifle? How come he walked around for hours doing his thing (handing out water bottles, giving basic medical care to whoever asked (at least 8 people according to evidence and trial testimony), etc.), and literally nobody gave a shit, while he had that rifle on him the whole time?
Rosenbaum literally screamed "I'm going to kill you" at Rittenhouse, and for what? Because he put out Rosenbaum's dumpster fire.
Get real.
Fuck off fascist
Correcting false statements with known facts (it's so extra absurd because there is SO MUCH hard evidence!) is not fascism. It's not even political at all.
You're such a fascist defending loser.
It says a lot about you that caring about the truth makes someone a loser in your eyes.
I'll defend anyone against what I know to be lies about them. Their politics are completely irrelevant.
It's called having principles, and valuing them, instead of the narrative of an ideology that prioritizes its propagation over what's actually true.
Sorry... are you under the bizarre impression that because it's legal to carry a gun, you can't provoke someone with it?
No, I'm contradicting the ridiculous argument that existing in public while armed, in an open carry state, is somehow, in and of itself, provocation.
No one is making that argument.
:/
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, Flying, but there is a lot of misinformation being spread around that makes our side look bad. I know it's an emotionally charged topic.
If Hitler rescues a dog he's still a bad person. But it doesn't help to mythologize characters through false narratives because it empowers them even further. Just my opinion. I'm not on team Kyle and I'm not a fascist (sad I have to state this last tag on Lemmy in case I get misconstrued).
And yet no one was making that argument.
Everyone is talking past each other in this thread. I understand, it's an emotionally charged topic.
Well, the guy I replied to who said:
is certainly talking past everyone else since literally no one made that argument.
And then for some reason you criticized me for telling them that no one made that argument, despite that being a fact.
Yeah I think you're saying that --correct me if I'm wrong-- him
bringing the AR to the protests is an act of provocation
while the person you're arguing with said
open carry is not uncommon and no one felt provoked
At least that's how I read it. Maybe I'm wrong. I can see how both statements could be true to some extent. Many protesters were from out of state and possibly not familiar with the open carry laws in WI so it's possible they felt threatened immediately. I'm no longer living in the US, and I never lived in an open carry state, so the sight of an AR strapped to a kid would make me uncomfortable in that situation. However, I've also lived in the middle east were the sight of soldiers walking around not in uniform carrying semi automatic rifles was very common and that did not make me uncomfortable. So context is important.
This is Kenosha, not Fallujah. If you think people walking around with ARs is a common or non-worrying sight there, you really know nothing about this subject.
I don't understand this response. There are several states in the US where open carry is quite common. There's a whole subreddit dedicated to pictures of dudes walking around like para militias. What's your point in comparing it to Fallujah after I already conceded that it likely made many protesters uncomfortable. No need to go all agro on me man, I'm just pointing out the two perspectives that's all.
Sorry... you're taking anecdotal pictures from a subreddit to argue that people walking around Kenosha with ARs is a common sight?
I live in an open carry state. I drove through Wisconsin in March. I didn't see a single person walking around with an AR then and I never see them here either.
You took my position:
open carry is not uncommon in Wi
and transformed it into
people walking around Kenosha with AR's is a common sight
These are two completely different statements. Is the opposite of uncommon by default common? Even after I conceded that it would still alarm some people. I don't get it. Is there a different way I should explain myself? I'm so lost :( What am I doing wrong? Maybe I shouldn't have used the word uncommon. There has to be a better word. Maybe surprising?
Okay, if it is not a common sight to see people carrying ARs in Kenosha, then it makes sense that people at a protest would take that as a threat and act accordingly. I really don't know what you're saying here other than doing some ridiculous "both sidesing" when only one side committed murder.
I don't really remember any more because I had to translate my position through several iterations since it kept getting twisted. I have to figure out how to make my points more direct and succinct. It seems no matter how much preamble and explanation I offer, my position gets twisted one way or another.
All I'm trying to say is that when we argue with the other side (in this case conservatives that defend Rittenhouse) we should be mindful if we are addressing the ethical argument or the legal argument. Typically, conservatives will overstate the legal argument and dismiss the ethical argument.
If I had an elevator pitch it would be this:
>> It's helpful to steelman the opposition to be able to refute it better. <<
That's all. I need to go walk my dog now.
Hey bud… how about you read this .
Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are a teen talking big to his friends.
The fact is, nothing he did in Kenosha supports the claim that he wanted to kill anyone, period, and everything he did directly contradicts it. He showed zero aggression toward anyone, and his first response to aggression toward him was to RUN AWAY, every single time. Bottom line, none of the people who got shot would have gotten shot if they had let him run away.
ROFL…. “locker room talk” right? You apologists are fucking hilarious. Where I come from (America) this is called “Premeditated Murder.” And in any courtroom with an unbiased judge, he’d have been convicted on that alone.
'You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he never showed aggression toward anyone, and his first response to unprovoked aggression toward him, all three times, was to run away'
lol
You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he said this:
lol indeed.
I like how they're saying he never showed aggression to anyone despite showing up with a fucking rifle.
Right? The mental gymnastics are impressive to say the least.
Actions speak louder than words. He was around tons of looters (that's what the people he was talking about were doing, when he said that) that day. Why didn't he 'shoot rounds' at any of them, if that was his plan? He had all the opportunity in the world.
That's the question people making this argument can't answer honestly, because the only honest answer is that what he did directly contradicts what he said.
Arguing that he planned to do something that he literally didn't do, despite myriad opportunities, is just silly.
Actions speak louder.
Again… you apologists are fucking hilarious. Dude wanted to kill people. He killed people. No amount of hand waiving and excuses from you will change that.
It’s a fact. And it is easily proven via reality.
Yes, ok. But you're not providing a counterargument. These are all just feelings. It's possible he was there to kill people. It's also possible he saw what happened in Minneapolis when rioters set entire storefronts on fire a few weeks prior and was concerned about his community.
If he really wanted just to kill people he had lots more opportunities before he was being chased. The person you're responding too is just countering your arguments but all you have very charged feelings about the case which is understandable.
Kyle is a bad person who did something really stupid but it doesn't help to fight every person on details which have been disproven in court. The whole trial is available to watch online. Our side needs to do better and stay grounded in facts otherwise we just lose all credibility.
It’s not feelings. It’s facts. He was on video saying he wanted to kill people. And it’s also well documented that the judge in the case was incredibly biased. He didn’t allow damning evidence against the murderer that any other judge would have allowed.
Look it up.
Yes, I never said that wasn't true.
Please follow closely because it's getting lost in the sauce and I know there's a lot of charged feelings involved in this conversation.
He may have said he wanted to genocide all people on earth and stomp on puppies prior to the event. He still has the right to self defense which is the crux of the whole argument.
In the US bad people have a right to self defence (In America open carry is legal and I'm grateful I moved out of the US).
I can tell you feel very passionate about the topic. My recommendation is that you go and watch the trial (the whole trial was recorded) or at the least download the transcripts and follow the evidence.
Just to repeat: I agree Kyle is a bad person. But we have to ground our discourse in facts. It doesn't help to create false mythos around bad people because it only emboldens the other side.
He’s a murderer. It was premeditated. And he had a biased judge.
Case closed.
Sigh. This type of epistemic analysis leads to monological thinking and is why the Kenosha riots had no grounding to begin with. More people will die if we just dilute every fact to dismiss narratives we don't like and it will lead to more violence and hate.
I don't like conservatives either but we have to ground discourse in facts not feelings.
None of this was proven but we can just handwave it like nothing else matters. After a while we are all going to start living in parallel epistemic bubbles.
He was not asked to be there- had no business there. And was on tape saying he wanted to kill people.
A court only determines guilt or innocence from a legal standpoint. It doesn’t change the events retroactively to make them not happen.
He’s a murderer. By definition.
Following your logic, OJ was also innocent, right?
If you want to have a discussion on the moral ethics of his actions: that's fine; Plenty to criticize.
If you want to have a discussion on the legal merits of the case, that's fine too, but you need to be at least somewhat aware of the facts beyond verbal statements that preceded the shooting. OJ (although a cherry picked data point does not prove a point) is a fine example of the judicial system working as intended even though the defendent was guilty.
To summarize: These are two separate conversations (legal vs moral). I've noticed that whenever Kyle is brought up, as lefties we tend to hop back and forth between the two (sort of in the way you are doing --I can't tell if it's intentional--) to muddy the discussion or get some type of gotcha. It's not productive.