Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
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."
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-family-plea-money-after-being-evicted-1915618Open linkView original on lemmy.world666
Comments433
Huh. Have any of them considered a job? If the mom was capable of driving her child to another state to murder some people, I bet she could drive for uber or something. Or be a getaway driver for other criminals, idk.
There's a certain type of person who thinks work is beneath them. That's who the Rittenhouse family is.
...what? What are you basing this on?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/05/kyle-rittenhouse-american-vigilante
Gotta love a conservative family that votes to undermine all the social services they’d need in situations like this. But they seem to be able to afford guns…
In fairness guns are way more affordable than healthcare is America. Sports cars are more affordable than healthcare in America.
Yeah, exactly. Fuck them all.
A CNA does not earn money, it's pretty much a minimum wage job. This person did not have the necessary intelligence or drive to attain their bachelors and become a full nurse--it's as simple as that.
My sister in law, bless her, is really one of the angriest persons you will ever meet. She hates everything out there and the world is bad, blah blah blah. I asked her why she became a phlebotomist. She told me she wanted to be a nurse but could not pass English 101. Seriously.
Kyle's mom? She's the same.
I hate to defend Kyle's mom, but man, shouldn't a CNA or a phlebotomist be able to afford to survive in the area they work? In their case, I guess you reap what you sow.
Yea being a cna is tough and underpaid. My ex is one, takes a couple months of study and passing a test. I, with a highschool degree made 6 dollars more than her when her job was 3 times tougher. It's criminal. She worked harder and longer hours in a dangerous place with people who could and would harras and harm her. The harrasment was mental, verbal, physical and sexual as well. Fuck boomers.
You remember businesses calling everyone who worked a low appreciation job heroes? CNAs got the shittiest end of the stick on that I think.
Giant banners calling you heroes greet you as you drive on the lot of the nursing home, and you look at them knowing you're going to get physically shit on by the patients, and proverbially shit on by the higher level nurses, the administration that now works remote, the family of the patients, and of course the patients again as well. For $12/hr. And you're extra short staffed because anyone that could find travel work did. Brutal shit for them.
Holy hell if you aren't right. I recall her getting all of those things at her work too and a measly 40 cent raise lul. All those banners and pins and lanyards and little gift bags if tiny hand sanetizers and candy. I think she made like 16 here in cali at the time, I recall hearing there's a laaw that was gonna be passed or already passed to get them up to like 20 or 21 at the minimum. Crazy to think that's what mcDonald's employees earn here now while plenty of cnas in other parts of the state earn less still.
On the Dollop podcast if you've ever heard of it, one of the hosts is named Gareth. Gareth points out in an episode that in American culture we only ever call "heroes" the people we deem 'expendable'. I have been unable to find a counterexample to that claim ever since I heard it.
I mean, I'd bet the majority of people on here would say anyone working a legit full time job should be able to afford to survive.
Depends on whether you mean Lemmy or .world
It's no different than public school teachers, I suppose. It's not a field you get into unless it calls you for some reason--you're certainly not in it for the money.
We really need to reprioritize how we fund things around the world.
That very much comes off sounding ableist
My son was making $30/hr as a CNA.
That’s not a well paying job. I’m sorry that you think it is.
I never said "well paying". You said CNA makes minimum wage. $30 > minimum wage.
K
That's $62,000 annually. The median personal income in the US as of 2022 was $40,480, which means that's about 50% above the median.
Not sure what you're on that you don't think that's a pretty decent individual income.
According to the article his sister has been hospitalized and both her and their mother have a hard time getting work because of being associated with Kyle Rittenhouse. BTW the mother did not drive him that's a fallacy
Ok then I retract the part about driving. But I have a hard time feeling sympathy for her being unable to get a job. She's repeatedly defended him and said she stands by him, and she allowed her 17 year old to buy a gun he couldn't legally have and to drive without a license. Being associated with him is her doing. I have a family member who was a teenage white supremacist piece of shit (who was thankfully stopped by the FBI before he killed anyone), and you can bet nobody thinks I'm associated with him because I make it very clear where I stand. If I said he was a good person and I'll always support him, I wouldn't be shocked if employers said nah.
Sure, but she's also his mother, not a random family member. I'm not going to fault a mother for standing by their child, no matter what he did.
She didn't let him buy anything, but she couldn't make him get rid of it because it wasn't in her house. It was locked up at a friend's house in a different town.
She was also ill, poor, dyslexic, and a single parent dealing with a difficult child. She doesn't seem to have much in her life but her children, I'm not going to condemn her for not banishing him from her life. It's not an easy thing for a mother to do.
If that’s the case, it’s sad then that he apparently doesn’t seem willing to return the good will and unconditional support, if he’s refusing to help them with rent. Abandoning the one person who would always have your back…
Sad and entirely predictable; we already knew he was a shitbag
You can stand by your child by always having room in your home for them. You can still condemn their action and say they might not know any better or something like that.
Yeah absolutely fuck Kyle Rittenhouse but Kyle lied to his mom that night about what he was up to, and the mom clearly had no intention of being a willing accomplice to murder.
Nah but she was totally down for taking him drinking with the Proud Boys.
This is mental gymnastics
His mom was with him at a bar and he was photographed throwing white power hand signs.
So maybe he drove them there but she was sure was okay with him being a piece of shit then.
Smear? Just pointing out she raised a piece of shit, encouraged shitty behavior, and she doesn’t deserve sympathy that her piece of shit son isn’t supporting his piece of shit mom.
Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. She's the reason he owned the gun.
Dude I really, really don't like or support this dude but that's not true. He didn't keep it at her (his) house because he specifically knew she would not permit him to have it. She literally tried to parent, and he snuck around her by keeping it at a friend's house.
No she literally isn't. It was bought for him by somebody else in another city, where it was kept.
Fallacy is a fault in logic, not a falsehood.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it therefore because of it) is a fallacy. Or an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacy
You're thinking specifically of logical fallacies.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Kyle lied to her about everything he was doing that night.
He did. The gun was never in her home, she couldn't do anything about it. It was locked up at his friend's house because his mother wouldn't have permitted him to have it.
Yeah, but she's related to him and loves him because he is her son, and we hate him, so obviously she should suffer too. Justice and empathy? Fuck that. We're outraged and out for some suffering.
No, she should have social supports, education, a safety net, retirement and security. The exact things people like her piece of shit brother actively try to deny others all the time. Society tried to help this person.
Now on an individual level before I would ever help her, I’d want to know if she ever saw a cent of Kyle’s blood money.
Says the person simping for a murderer
I don't think you read that right tbh
You are spreading misinformation: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-255510715179
The spreading of that, along with medical issues, is why they are having troubles.
Did you read the rest of the thread? I already acknowledged that I was wrong about that part, but they're saying they can't get work because of him while still refusing to condemn him. The GoFundMe says he was "involved in a tragic shooting incident," which is a pretty weasely way to say he killed people.
I also question that it really has anything to do with him. He's certainly not having any issues making money, and there are a concerning number of people who consider him a hero, or at the very least aren't bothered by what he did (see the comments on this post for a whole lot of evidence). Surely some of them are hiring.
So, here's the thing.
He shouldn't have gone there. Being there, being armed, there to protect property, was taken to be provocative by the people that were protesting cops shooting an unarmed man.
But the narrative that we got in the news wasn't how things actually went down. The first person confronted him and tried to grab his rifle when he wasn't threatening anyone. The second person that was shot had just chased Rittenhouse down and struck him with a skateboard. The third person was pointing a pistol at Rittenhouse when he was shot in the arm. Source.
Given that he was not directly threatening anyone there, it was a clear-cut case of self-defense. Yeah, I don't like it that a shitty person walks away, but he walked because he wasn't guilty of a crime in defending himself. Is he still a right-wing shitstain that's supposedly too dumb to get into the military? Yeah. But self-defense is a right for everyone.
If Kyle has money (he does, from dumbass rubes), he should help his family. Fuck this shitty little selfish murderer.
She didn’t drive him there. It’s been factually proven. Dudes a fucking murderer for sure, but his mom didn’t drive him to kill people. He did that shit on his own.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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".
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.
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?
Putting yourself in harms way hardly justifies "self defense".
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.
If a black guy went to a KKK meeting with a rifle and sat there provoking the KKK members, I'd argue he probably went there to stir up a fight. Not that I have any sympathy for KKK members or their actions.
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.
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.
Rittenhouse was, so that's what my analogy is using too.
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.
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.
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.
Link the full video (so fullest possible context can be seen), with timestamp(s)
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):
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.
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.
Why did you just bring in race? That was unnecessary.
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".
It's amazing how you can convince some people that you aren't responsible for your actions when you totally were.
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.
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.
'She was walking around with a skimpy outfit, she knew what was going to happen.'
Victim blaming. Wisconsin is an open carry state.
Loaded question; it DOESN'T work both ways, especially not when there is only one aggressor.
Personal attacks. And of course they chased down the guy waving a gun around.
False analogy. Rape is never justified, stopping a gunman is.
What might technically be lawful is not always sensible.
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.
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.
Timestamped link, please.
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.
Is it possible that maybe he's a piece of shit?
I mean, maybe? But other than wild speculation, is there any evidence?
Fucking /s because those of you that don't get it are dumb enough to think The Boys got all anti-you all of a sudden too.
Dude, you absolutely need the /s on this one. There are people who authentically say this. And they read your comment thinking you and the upvoters all support that same belief too
Done.
Ty
Personally I can't believe he's crying about 4 downvotes. lol
No evidence whatsoever. None.
He did drive up to Ohio to shoot people.
I wish I didn't know people who would say that shit entirely unironically.
Not defending him, but it was Wisconsin, in a city less than 30 minutes from where he lived, barely across state lines.
This case is fucked in so many ways, and it's even worse because nobody remembers any of the details right.
lmao you don't even have the state right.
Yeah, that's why he showed up and did zero non-benevolent things for hours, and then when a maniac literally screamed a death threat at him (in response to Rittenhouse putting out a dumpster fire he started), his immediate reaction was to run away.
Literally the only people shot by Rittenhouse that day were people who tried to kill him, and then DIDN'T LET HIM run away when he tried to flee, which was his consistent first reaction to all aggression directed at him. Everyone who got shot CHASED him when he fled, cornered him, and then tried to murder him, forcing him to use his weapon to save his own life.
Those are the facts.
I'm glad I don't know anyone dumb enough to unironically claim he intended to shoot people. There is so much publicly available evidence, it's frankly secondhand embarrassing to see, even online.
Unless everyone after the first shooting had all that context, they were just standing their ground against a murdering fuck stick
Yes they would have been justified if their impression was right, but it wasn't
According to you and Kyle anyway.
and the jury
Literally the opposite of the truth, lmao. They didn't "stand their ground", they CHASED Kyle as he ran away! And that was after they accosted him while he was running TOWARD the police line, to report what happened with the first attacker.
Only alternative facts
No no, see he shot a registered sex offender (which he couldn't have possibly known at the time)!
And even if he did know it, vigilante justice is not a route society should go down.
Well you see, that guy was trying to kill him
Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?
The problem is, we will never know now.
Literally a lie, lol.
There is video, you cretins, stop making claims directly contradicted by the evidence.
How do you know it is "literally a lie?" Because all the footage I've seen starts with him already being chased.
Let's see this video of what he was doing directly before the chase started.
Look harder.
Sorry, I'm not here to prove you right. That's your job.
"That guy" being Rittenhouse who specifically went there with a firearm with the intention to stir up shit? He was absolutely hoping he'd get to murder someone, and surprise surpise – he did exactly that
The little fascist went to a counter protest with a rifle as an agitator. He was looking for a reason to use that gun, and definitely manufactured the exact thing he was looking for. Don't be such an utter dipshit.
You do know that going to a protest with a rifle is a provocation, right?
Dude READ THIS and delete your dumb shit.
But he wasn’t.
I think you might be onto something there.
The piece of shit is being a total piece of shit? shocked pikachu
While shitty, what does him helping them financially have to do with anything? He shouldn't be responsible for them. There are many people in the US in worse situations, and they don't get special treatment because, I guess, they aren't family with a famous murderer.
well yeah, but like, if you get free money from people for shooting some guy at a protest, the least you could do is share some of that money with your family.
What makes you think this bastard comprehends the concept of empathy?
Aaaaand now we're back at the piece of shit acting like a piece of shit.
Bro djd you not see how torn up he was at the trial? He's , like, the most empathetic person on earth.
Share it wider: "it takes a village to raise a vigilante" or at least to look the other way.
It takes a vigilante to raze a village? That other way?
I’m imagining the family from Million Dollar Baby walking in from Disney World going “What do you mean you ain’t got any more of that shootin’ people money??”
Most of us struggle month to month, most of us dont attempt to leech blood money to unburden our struggle. Most of us don't run to the media to cry about how our murderthing fascist familial connection isn't letting us leech their blood money.
If I was Kyle Rittenhouse, I wouldn't give a single dime to the people who created Kyle Rittenhouse. They created an unlovable twerp, they shouldn't profit from that.
In this case (according to the donation page), he is part of the reason they are in this mess, as his mom is unable to find employment since everyone thinks she drove him to the protest where he shot those people.
Although that sucks, I can’t blame people for naturally putting some fault on her even for the wrong reasons.
I don’t think she should struggle but she did raise him. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime but imo parents should take responsibility of raising shitty kids.
Sounds like the town knows something we don't or are they just punking this woman on a trust me bro.
Funny how society will act like this here but then we have Cathlic pedos living in the community and nothing happens.
People as a community have some weird sense of morals
I don't think I would want anything to do with her either. It's not fully rational or fair but it's the way it is. Her position as his mom means she pretty much has to defend her son's multiple murder and there are 8 billion people on earth, I don't have to spend a minute with someone who would do that.
Plus if I was going to hire her I would wonder how much crap this is going to cost me. It's not a heavily populated area and the name is rare enough. At best she is going to be neutral at worst she is going to attract the kind of people I don't want around or infuriate other people.
I am a parent myself. If you don't like my kids I don't like you.
How do you feel about people who feel neutral about your kids?
Umm what does that even mean? How can anyone feel neutral to another human being? All I am picturing is you know someone exists but any amount of pain or pleasure they feel doesn't impact you. Like if you could push a magic button to make them happy you wouldn't bother since that would require effort and you are neutral.
I don't know any people who are wired this way.
I just meant indifferent really.
There are a lot of people that currently exist and are in pain but it has little to no impact on me even though providing help would require nothing more than some more time and manpower.
This, I think provides for an interesting thought-experiment. Do we know how long it takes to press a button? Is the button-press speed limited by the latency of the circuitry it's connected to? Exactly how many people are currently in pain? It's obviously lots but can we come up with a relatively specific number? With what frequency does the number of suffering people change?
Then there are also some questions with more relative ethical implications that might also be: How many hours a week should a person spend pressing this button? How many people should press this button? If all previously suffering people are getting their buttons pressed then how will we know when someone is happy and flourishing? Isn't suffering an implied opposite of flourishing? What other implications of the anti-suffering button are there?
I don't know the answer to these questions, but you have certainly given me lot's to ponder.
[edit][post] On further research I guess this sounds kind of like Negative Ultilitarianism which appears to be a subset of Utilitarianism.
they're trying to get libs who hate kyle to help
Most people who aren't conservative psychopaths actually like their families and want to help them when they can.
Agreed.
And look at the struggles his sister is going through. Profound tone-deafness is a real wipepo problem, a syndrome second only to affluenza in terms of collateral damage and suffering.
She needs help! Hit up your friends; especially the strong ones who like pizza and beer. Dig deep for those truck keys and clear the calendars for next weekend so you can help ... move.
It's his mom, Jesus dude.
Yeah, and we shouldn't pity them because they have an asshole son. Sure, it'd be the right thing for him to do if he were a good person, but him not taking financial responsibility for them doesn't mean anyone else should be either. I'd much rather them help someone else.
It's his mom. What is wrong with you people? Me and my mom have a shit relationship but if I crippled her ability to work or she was going to be out on the street I would send her cash. Me and my wife send her parents money each month. It is a very small price to pay for giving me my partner.
They're asking for money from other people. Yes, he should give them money. He is profiting off of murder. He's an asshole. Why should anyone else give them money though? I don't pity them. The mom raised an asshole murderer. Maybe it's not her fault, but she has to have some responsibility in it.
Tbf, maybe we shouldn't vilify them because of the actions of their son/brother so bad that they can't be employed. I don't hire people but the only reason not to would be the negative publicity from hiring them from people like those in this thread, I doubt if you gave his mom a job she'll show up and shoot someone every morning.
Kyle Rittenhouse learning that his family is struggling.
That's actually him learning that one of the people he shot at survived. Just a reminder, this shithead crossed state lines to dump gas on the fire of a protest and riot caused by disgusting, racially motivated circumstances.
He wanted to kill some people that night, so he brought a big gun. His success resulted in a lot of free money from the folks that want everyone else struggling to survive without violating a ten commandment to go hungry.
The "crossed state lines" thing really irks me because does nobody know that maps exist? I'm thinking about crossing state lines today because I need to get more baby wipes. Shithead went to the next town over, which just so happened to be in a different state.
But let's also not forget he went and partied with KKK members immediately after posting his crowdfunded bail, just in case there's any questions on how much of a shithead he is
The straw purchase of the murder weapon the judge shrugged and tossed on a whim is something that can land you in jail for 10 years.
There was a parallel case to Rittenhouse: Andrew Coffee IV. He was acquitted in his case but the charge of his weapon possession is what got him 10 years.
But Rittenhouse's judge figured hey, NBD, and everybody clapped.
I've lived in the edge of a state before. It's really hard to miss what side of the populated area is one state or another, and the fact that there are laws about crossing. I knew if I went shooting in CA I needed to keep my ammunition and firearm in seperate compartments, unloaded, and that I couldn't have friends buy me a gun to take across if I couldn't legally buy it myself. And I was just shooting clay pigeons, not my racially hated neighbors.
I sure as hell know which side of the state border my town is on is the one where I don't want to be caught with weed in my car.
He's a prick but everyone he shot was the same race as him.
I'm sure that disappointed him deeply, the blatant racism isn't erased by this. He's publicly linked himself to well known racists, he's not shy about it, also he clearly went in the hopes of killing black people, pretty sure he said as much before he left.
I'm not arguing that he isn't racist. Just wanted to make sure you understood the situation properly so as not to spread misinformation.
Also I don't know if you know this, but most white supremacist would be more inclined to kill ''race traitors'' before killing other races in many situations.
I'm not saying he killed who he intended to kill. I'm saying my plan was to shoot clay pigeons. His plan was to shoot BLM protestors.
you think they don't covet their neighbors wives, take the lord's name in vain, worship false idols/put other gods before "him" and don't steal?
But who actually cares? Stop talking about this useless waste of life.
Another "family values" type doesn't seem to give a shit about his own family. Bet he has strong opinions on abortion though.
I don't think he ever said anything about family values
Isn't the right all about "family values?" Being "good" christians and whatnot? It goes with the territory.
You're just mindlessly pigeonholing. You may be right, but it's childish black and white thinking.
what? there are plenty of right-wing atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc
So, you a bot? You replied twice and neither make sense if you read my comment...
Yeah you a bot.
There are plenty of right wing atheists...
So much down votes but zero rebuttal...
It seems facts hurt some people around here. Really wouldn't want them getting in the way of a good circle jerk.
Kyle Murderhouse is a far right pos. The far right constantly cries about family values.
reply said, "I don't think" as in they don't actually know. Something like a cited source might help and receive actual conversation or else it's just fluff much like your conjecture. It's easy to assume his "family values" from the rightwing conservative aspect and being a member of the "Proud boys" and all. But please, continue the inner circle jerk you've started.
Thanks, champ!
This summarized the entire thread lol
what. you're asking me to give a source for a negative. do you expect me to chronicle every word he's ever said to show he never said the words family values. will you do the same to confirm what I said?
this statement is untrue and I do have a source for it, or as best as you can get for proving a negative.
Everyone's favorite game show: Child, Senior, or Foreign Agent?
You really posted a nexstar/Mission Media article as a source to defend a right wing ignoramus. It's like poetry. Get a shred of media literacy, please.
The author of the article really doesn't matter when the quote is true...
The author of the article really doesn't matter when the quote is true...
Supply Side Jesus says they should just lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
Wow it's almost like Kyle Rittenhouse might be a piece of shit.
No problem. Just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.
What does the lesbian chick in the photo have to do with this Kyle guy or his family?
Haha. You’re my people. For real.
Their complaint is that he isn't sharing his murder tour money.
Well what exactly did they do for him? Maybe next time they'll be a little more hands on with the murdering so they get their fair share!
I genuinely hate that this is accurate... This is 2024, everyone. Please vote against Trump by selecting "Biden" this November. You don't have to like Biden, you just have to understand that if we don't, our country is fucked.
Welfare republicans.
That's redundant
Have they tried getting a job?
Work across state lines murkin folks is slow now maybe if trump wins again.
Yeah. Riiiight. He's a giver.
Lmao!!
Fucking on point for a republican.
He has truly made it.
Don't they know if he gives them a handout it will create a dependency /s.
Gonna be tough, Russia is financially strapped with the war they started and are losing.
Edit: spelled like a former president
Lol, thank you, have a great day.
Huh. It's almost like he's a really shitty person or something. They can't possibly be surprised.
they need to cross state lines to kill more unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
https://youtu.be/Bv21bE9PWtE?t=10366
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard! The other guy literally just had a bag (lol dumbass).
See this is what's so great. Circumstances don't actually matter, you can go looking for blood equipped with a weapons meant to kill as many people as fast as possible, and as long as someone flinches, you can just murder them! It's completely legal. I fucking love america.
Let me preface this with: Rittenhouse is a shithead and his politics are shit. But: have you watched the videos? If you've got a gun and someone tries to grapple with you, that is now a life or death situation. If you let them take your gun, you could very well be dead. It's not a surprise that the jury acquitted him. Both shootings were demonstrably self-defense. I'm sick of us lefties falling for the same type of knee-jerk propagandistic nonsense the right always falls for.
He's a shithead and he shouldn't have been there but you're right. People are angry because he was there with a gun and that's valid, but technically he was within the law in doing so.
Rittenhouse is an idiot who shouldn't have crossed state lines to go play police officer in another state. I have no problem that his life has been ruined, and if he had been convicted, I wouldn't have shed a tear. Not to mention he is a fucking twat (if what the sister says is true) for not helping them out considering it was his stupidity that put this crosshair on their back. So make no mistake about where I stand on this. The guy is an idiot, but I don't think he was "looking for blood."
That being said, the guy didn't just "have a skateboard" we have a video of him chasing a fleeing rittenhouse and attacking him with the skateboard and trying to grab the gun. The other guy is seen chasing a fleeing Rittenhouse when he turns and shoots. Neither of these people just "flinched." They were both clearly aggressors.
Was he justified in shooting them? I'm not so sure. I tend to lean towards "no." But the fact that you're grossly misinterpreting what actually happened leads me to believe that you are not so sure either. One who is confident that the facts support claim doesn't feel the need to grossly misrepresent the facts.
Except that there's a recording of him saying he wanted to shoot people
Typical librul carin bout facts
Why was he doing that? Because I still haven't heard why. Was he just out for blood and decided to attack a random teenager?
My guess is he was pointing the rifle at people like a moron.
Anyone can guess anything happened in the holes of our knowledge that confirms what we want to believe is true. How is your guess any better than the guess of some conservative who believes he was being attacked by criminals and had the right to defend himself?
Actually we have a pretty clear course of events from earlier in the night that helps paint a picture of why it started, though with Rosenbaum dead we can never "know," we at least have some clues. Kyle was dressed similarly to another dude who put out Rosenbaum's dumpster fire at the gas station from the "Shoot me N-word" video (the difference being that dude had a plate carrier while kyle did not). Rosenbaum and his friend Ziminski continued to start fires throughout the night, and at one point Kyle runs by alone. Rosenbaum then steps from behind the car he was hiding behind (as seen on the FBI drone footage) and initiates the chase screaming "I'm going to kill you." Kyle gets cornered as Rosenbaum grabs for it, shoots Rosenbaum, hears "get him" and starts running towards police, gets hit with a rock and downed, misses jump kick man, gets hit with a skateboard and Huber tries to take his gun and gets shot, then Grosskreutz's fake surrender.
Seems to indicate to me that it was started by Rosenbaum mistaking his identity and thinking he was the guy with the fire extinguisher from earlier.
The most prominent explanation being that he was stopping an active shooter. But even if we accept that story, it completely undercuts the effective argument of "but he just had a skateboard and flinched!"
I think everyone in this situation thought they were doing the noble thing. It's just easier to process if we assume one person is a bad guy, and the other person was acting nobly and rationally in pursuit of some higher purpose, rather than accepting the messy truth.
Except you are suggesting that the person with the skateboard was in the wrong. If he was stopping what he thought was someone about to kill people, which is not the most unfair assumption to make of a kid with a rifle who is obviously not approving of what he's seeing, how was he in the wrong? Isn't that the sort of person the news usually presents to us as the hero?
No I'm not. I said what I said: he was not some person just holding a skate board who flinched, as painted, but an aggressor. Or are you arguing that charging someone and then hitting them with a skateboard is not aggressive?
Again, I did not say he was in the wrong. I just explicitly said I think he believes he was acting nobly.
If you try to Defend yourself from a Random Person with a Gun you DESERVE TO DIE!
No one alleged that Rittenhouse pointed the gun at anyone before he was charged. You need to reexamine your priors on this one.
Who said anything about anyone deserving to die? Certainly not me.
"Defend yourself" by chasing a fleeing guy?
Hate to break it to you bud but that doesn't fit the legal definition of self defense anywhere in America.
In some states you aren't required to retreat yourself if you have the legal right to be where you are when you're attacked (this is called "stand your ground" laws). However if the attacker starts fleeing and you pursue you are not allowed to chase them and finish the job. Even if they break into your house, if you surprise them and they run out before they get shot you aren't allowed to wing shots wildly at them down the street. If you see someone murder someone and run away, it is illegal for you to chase and kill them, you're required to let the police take over from there.
Rittenhouse however did attempt to retreat from Rosenbaum who was chasing him and threatening to kill him, until he was cornered and had to shoot Rosenbaum when he reached for the gun. After that, the crowd shouted "he just shot that dude, get him" and surprise, he started running away from the mob of people. Then the dude with a rock took him down, he rolled over, missed jump kick man, then Huber hit him with the trucks and tried to take his gun, which Rittenhouse defended again, then Grosskreutz came and faked surrender before pulling out a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have and Rittenhouse defended again.
At every point, Rittenhouse attempted retreat from those who were attacking him. Vigilante mob justice is super cool or whatever but it is illegal, the crowd had no legal right to "chase a fleeing felon" just as CCW holders don't have that right. Thankfully.
Yeah, try to minimize this after you let someone whack you on the head full swing with a skateboard--that is, if you survive. They weigh over 10 pounds on average, did you know that? Very literally a potentially lethal weapon. Also, he actually WAS hit by a full swing of said skateboard, on the head, before he shot at that guy, who was clearly trying to kill him by doing so.
Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.
Trying to kill someone is not a "flinch". This is some absurd fantasizing you're doing.
Everyone shot by Rittenhouse was actively in the act of attempting to kill him at the moment they were shot. The first LITERALLY screamed "I'm going to kill you", and after chasing him down, tried to wrestle his rifle out of his hands (gee, wonder what he might want to do with it if he got a hold of it?). The second tried to cave his skull in with a heavy, blunt object. And the third was only shot after he pointed his handgun at him--luckily, Rittenhouse was able to react fast enough to stop him.
No. Rittenhouse is a fucking fool who should be ashamed that his decision to bring a rifle to “assist as a medic” caused this entire scenario. Wandering alone, caused this scenario. He only walked on the charges because he was juuust within the law, not because he was a hero
Like yes, when he was filmed extinguishing a dumpster on fire, and walking around asking people if they need help, that’s admirable. But just as we rightfully criticize cops who let situations escalate and are ‘forced’ into using lethal force, so too with Kyle. He's the idiot who inserted a rifle into the scene and went wayyy away from friendlies off on his own
Is that the story now? I thought he was protecting businesses that never asked for his help.
He had gloves and a med bag that was completely insufficient for anything remotely traumatic. Like, yknow gunfire
Oh so "wandering alone" is it? You gonna tell a lady that "wandering alone" is what caused her rape?
Fortunately, people aren't legally justified in attacking "alone" people for being alone.
Never said Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz were justified. The court ruled correctly that in that microcosm of each shooting, Kyle acted lawfully. He didn’t magdump, or shoot at the crowd +20 yards away, he didn’t threaten others.
But if you can’t see why him roaming alone in a riot situation with a rifle caused this scenario? Bruh.
If he left the rifle at home, he wouldn’t have gotten into a wrestling match over it with Rosenbaum. If he had stayed with the group, Rosenbaum wouldnt have had the chance to fight him. If he hadn’t violated the curfew in place to go be a wannabe hero, none of this would have happened
Ah so he should not have been out alone at night in that short skirt, I understand now, he was asking for it! He actually liked it anyway, I could tell, walking around alone like a slut like that just begging to get his gun taken, how could Rosenbaum resist?
Objectively untrue. The 'scenario' was instigated by a maniac going into a literal homicidal rage over having a dumpster fire he set, extinguished. It had literally nothing to do with the fact that the person who put out that fire was armed.
P.S. Well, actually, it may have, but not for the reason most think--I have a 'pet theory' that Rosenbaum freaked out on Rittenhouse because he wanted to get shot and killed. This is based on a few things: the fact that Rosenbaum was suicidal--in fact, he was let out of a mental health facility's 3 day hold FOR a suicide attempt literally THAT DAY. Secondly, simply the fact that the way he reacted makes literally no sense, completely over the top, and would be arguably comically exaggerated if it happened in fiction. And reason 2.5 is that he, unarmed, screamed death threats at and then chased down and attacked a clearly armed person, which is something only someone who was completely out of their mind, and who had no sense of self-preservation, would do.
We can play the blame game all the way back to Chauvin, gutting of mental health facilities, slavery, etc but Kyle decided to insert a rifle into a situation that neither he, nor the rifle, was invited to. He went looking for problems to solve, strayed far from the group he was seen with/the police/safety/etc and naively went towards the rioters and protesters.
Regardless of morality or the law, that decision has ruined his life and caused the death and injury of multiple others. They were turbo dumb for chasing him, but Kyle was astoundingly stupid to drive from his home and come to Kenosha. He was looking for trouble to solve, got in too deep and like the untrained and dangerous fool he was, shot his way out of it.
He had orders of magnitude more justification in being there than any of the three who attacked him. His father lives there, for crying out loud--it's part of his community. Also, those three came from further away, and have zero ties to Kenosha. They fucked around, they found out. If they had left Rittenhouse alone, he would have continued with his graffiti cleaning, fire extinguishing, water bottle dispensing, and basic medical aid giving, until the end of the day, and gone home. That's literally all he was doing until a maniac went into a literal homicidal rage in response to a fire he set being extinguished.
On the contrary, the way he handled the threats to his life was admirable and respectable, and I honestly don't know how he could have handled it better than he did:
If every cop in the US was as disciplined in their firearm usage as Rittenhouse was that day, we'd have way fewer police shooting scandals in this country.
Don't forget in the dumpster fire video (which btw, Kyle wasn't even the dude who put out the fire, but they were both wearing OD green shirts and jeans. The dude who put out the fire had a plate carrier and a different face, but close enough that I think Rosenbaum mistook Kyle for that guy). After that Kyle lookalike puts out his fire Rosenbaum gets in his face screaming "shoot me N-word" (I censored it, Rosenbaum had a pass I guess because nobody cares he said it.)
In not familiar with exactly what happened that night but just an uneducated guess:
All of the threats that Kyle encountered was in response to the fact that he was playing Timmy Toughguy and actively strolling around with a gun...
If he was just wandering around being an unarmed cunt then the chance of being swung at is still not zero but pretty damn close to it.
If at any point he ran - and kept running, or dropped the gun and ran, fully retreating from the crowd I doubt he would have been chased too far and the need to shoot would have been eliminated
In the same way he (correctly) saw others as a threat, the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle that was a 50x larger threat well before they threatened him. Even if he intended to do nothing with it, he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it and he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat - of course they would try and disarm him at a bare minimum.
The threat to Kyle at this point was genuinely high because most adults in the US - or anywhere - instantly recognise what a random civilian in public with an assault rifle means - mass shooting. This is exactly the message Kyle intended to send in order to scare rioters off. If he wasn't there just to scare people off then he was there to actively murder people. At this point I could put it down to a dumb kid making a really stupid mistake. Maybe worth a few years in jail for gun charges or inciting violence?
But he didn't retreat as he was being threatened - a fraction of what he was threatening others. He chose to attack instead and it's at this point he deserves to spend the rest of his days rotting in jail. He tried to send a message, that message wasn't received so he murdered those who were fearing for, and attempting to protect their own lives.
Kyle choose to be the aggressor - and much greater threat to anyone there - from the start. He wasn't protecting his own family, house or neighbourhood, he crossed state lines to be an aggressor. Kyle continued to act as the aggressor at every stage of the encounter.
Fuck Kyle.
No one could watch the videos and come away with this take you've constructed. He obviously is retreating in both videos. And carrying a gun in the open is not a provocation to violence. Not is it illegal in Wisconsin.
I hope that, rather than knee-jerk down vote, people will go watch both videos. We can do better than shitheads on the Donald.
People don't care what is legal. Bring guns to this shit is what the issue and no mount it is legal going to change anyones opniom or would make them want to be around this shit stain or anyone else bringing weapons around like that.
People don't like guns around legal or not.
And I don't like Taylor Swift but there's not shit I can do except not listen to the radio. Can't attack everyone who plays "she wears short skirts."
People have a legal right to do legal things whether or not you like it and trying to stop them using physical violence makes you the aggressor both legally and morally.
The problem comes in with
Perhaps this may surprise you, but you are not legally justified in trying to kill someone just because they have a gun. Also not allowed to kill someone who has just legally defended themselves in a deadly force encounter, that is for the court system to decide. It is legal to get involved in third party encounters, however you best be sure you're not helping the side that will later be declared the aggressor in court and so it is generally seen as very risky to do.
Ok at this point it may behoove you to actually look at at least the videos of the incident if not the whole trial which was streamed. He did run. He walked by a car, Rosenbaum popped out screaming "I'm going to kill you," Kyle runs, chase ensues, Kyle gets cornered and turns around to find Rosenbaum reaching for the gun, Kyle shoots Rosenbaum 4x, makes a phone call, the crowd yells "he just shot that dude, get him," Kyle starts running again, unknown man hits him with a rock in the back of the head which downs Kyle, Kyle rolls over and misses Jump Kick Man, then another dude walks up but surrenders when Kyle points his rifle (but didn't fire), then Huber hits him with a skateboard and gets shot attempting to take Kyle's rifle, then Grosskreutz feigns surrender and pulls out a gun he wasn't legally allowed to own pointing it at Kyle, Kyle shoots, Gabe backs off, Kyle gets up and goes to the line of police cars right up the road who give him a bottle of water and tell him to go home, he turns himself in the next day.
Again, you can't "disarm someone" who is legally carrying a gun, that is illegal to do and constitutes a deadly threat, and if he shoots you for trying he will get off.
But he did, at every opportunity and by all definitions he retreated until he was cornered and then again until he was downed by a rock to the back of his head.
"The aggressor" isn't whoever you decide, it's the guy screaming "I'm going to fucking kill you" while chasing you through a parking lot.
If you're not familiar, why don't you inform yourself? There's plenty of video footage of the night. There's plenty of witness testimony. We all hate Kyle, myself included, but it doesn't help to go around spreading misinformation. It makes our side look like imbeciles living up to the memes.
Kyle wasn't the only person there with a rifle.
Also if you're not familiar with what happened that night, why are you commenting? Everybody makes assumptions based on the outcome of the incident, but nobody seems to have watched the videos which paint things differently and more clearly.
If everyone would shut the fuck up about this incident there wouldn't be so much misinformation around it, and better yet we'd stop seeing this fuckface in the news.
This is a lot of words to say that you don't understand that nobody freaks out about someone open carrying in a state where open carry is legal.
No one felt threatened by his presence. No one reacted to him showing up. No one had any problem with him walking around doing his thing for hours, while the rifle was strapped to him the whole time. If him merely existing with a rifle on him was such a threat, why is that? How come no one gave a shit about him except for a crazy guy who set a fire that Kyle put out?
Funny how this question never gets an answer, because there's no way to answer it honestly without piercing a massive hole in your argument.
Pfft , so if he didn't kill everyone that night, obviously the people he victimized were the only ones who had any issues with him open carrying. Looks like someone is projecting massive argument holes.
This is simply objectively bullshit, and you obviously don't live in an open carry state. Nobody gave a shit about his rifle. There is video of him walking around, rifle in plain view, and nobody is even giving him a second glance.
More bullshit--even if he was trying to 'send a threatening message', he clearly failed, see referenced video above
Another lie. NOBODY "responded" to him being armed. He was attacked by a maniac for putting out the dumpster fire said maniac set. Had literally nothing to do with his rifle. And that attack is what caused the two other idiots to try to kill Rittenhouse, and in turn reap the consequences.
Your delusion that he was this menacing, threatening presence just by existing in Kenosha while having a rifle strapped to him is pure fantasy, period.
So, like, a club. A mace. A melee weapon against a semi-auto 5.56 broomstick with enough rounds to kill 30 people in as many seconds (with aiming) before requiring a reload.
Phew. Lucky he was there to be the timely victim; otherwise, who would that guy NOT SHOOT and the skateboard guy NOT HIT? It could've been anyone not injured at all from those people.
Heads up, clubs, maces, and melee weapons are all classified as deadly weapons by the US gov because it is easy to kill people with them. Take a CCW class (you're not obligated to actually go through with getting the permit by just taking the class), it teaches you the laws regarding self defense in your area, including things like "blunt objects, knives, and significant disparity of force (like say 3 v 1), are all considered "deadly threats" and you're allowed to defend yourself with equal opposing force (which is to say "deadly force.")"
Wrong. Not against anything, because Kyle was literally trying to flee when he was struck.
But both are lethal weapons, so it's absolutely reasonable and justifiable to use either of them to prevent being killed by someone attacking you with the other.
Rittenhouse was 100% in the right to shoot that guy, who was trying to kill him, and had already landed blow that could have succeeded in doing so.
he didnt kill that guy
Never understood the absolutely twisted psychology of people who defend this gutter sludge of a human.
I agree that Kyle is a bad person, but the misinformation around the event only makes our side look like imbeciles. There is plenty of video footage and witness testimony. The whole trial was recorded. There is absolutely no excuse for some of the points being brought up in this thread. Kyle was a dumb 17 year old that should never have been there with a rifle.
Remember: the whole Kenosha riots started because of misinformation. The victim turned out to be a guy wielding a knife and running away in a car with two kids he was in the process of kidnapping. But, because of all the other events going on in the country, the narrative got twisted really fast.
There is plenty to criticize Kyle for. Idiot 17 year old at the wrong place and wrong time with a rifle. Repeating misinformation helps no one. I know social media is one big game of telephone and we can believe whatever we want since we all live in our own epistemic bubbles now but we gotta do better.
The person I responded to is a defender of conservatives in general. I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about spreading misinformation, as I did nothing like that.
Lemmy in general I've noticed has a disregard for facts and really likes the overt sense of virtue signaling. Sure, Kyle is an awful human being, but there has to be a way to analyze the facts of the matter without resorting to using so much emotionally charged language. It comes off as really hollow and meaningless.
There is plenty of misinformation on the left in general surrounding the actions of that day. I noticed you are exclusively concerned with the ethical analysis of the situation while the person you are arguing with is clearly discussing the legal justification under American law. This type of game leads to a continuous back and forth in which wrong facts keep bubbling to the top. The Kenosha riots themselves were started because of the false assumption that another innocent black man was being targeted by law enforcement just off the tail of massive protests in MPLS a few weeks earlier.
Okay. There's nothing unfactual about saying no one should be defending Rittenhouse.
Again, I never made any comment except that defending Kyle Rittenhouse means the commenter is shitty. Because he is. I'm not diving into the details because 1) I don't need to 2) I don't really care about the details of the case -- I heard enough about them years ago.
There has to be a way to discuss whether an action is justified regardless of who the perpetrator is. Context matters. If we just go on these endless tirades attacking people nothing of substance is being accomplished except perhaps trying to score feel good points, and if that's your goal then you do you. I personally find it's more effective to counter their arguments with stronger counter arguments rather than calling conservatives "pathetic for being victims" or using ad-homs non stop.
So what if they're defending Hitler? Were on Lemmy, we have mountains of facts and arguments for why Kyle was in the wrong. Let's analyze those arguments and show a better way. I'm sorry if I come off as tone policing. I'm just tired of this inability to form strong counter points even though we know Kyle was not justified in being there with an AR-15 on that day.
You're projecting--it's people like you who are the armchair psychologists convinced of your assumptions of his motives, even when the facts directly contradict them.
All I'm doing is stating the facts. If they contradict your narrative, that's because the narrative is wrong. Period.
Your motivations aren't hard to ascertain.
You've proven beyond a doubt in this thread that your ability to ascertain motives is severely impaired.
Example: if you think my motive is to do anything but correct misinformation, you're wrong (again).
And yet I've tagged you for supporting other conservatives specifically in the past.. must have been total coincidence lol
Sounds like conservatives are more likely to get lied about around here, lol.
The fact that you tag people for reasons like that just tells me that you're just another of the people who cares more about "supporting" a political team, than you are about finding and defending what's actually true, regardless of which 'team' that truth may make look good or bad.
When you find me spreading the kind of easily-debunked falsehoods I'm correcting here, you might have an argument that holds some water. Don't hold your breath, though.
LMAO nice username jackass
Why would anyone donate to them or why would he?
This is just putting family drama on online lol
Clowns all around
Virtue signaling, mostly. Saying you care but evil stupid leftists don't, because you're sending money to
professional griftersa bunch of innocent victims.Typical Republicans, always looking for a handout.
Hell doesn't charge rent, go there!
Welfare queens I'll tell ya waht.
Something something pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.
Well, I’ll be damned. Piece of shit turns out to be a piece of shit. Color me surprised!
Let me take out my microscope real quick and observe my sentiment on the matter at hand
^🎻^
Couldn't just leave you hanging. ;)
Sigh... if they're gonna photoshop a tardigrade playing a violin, can't they at least do it right? Not only is he holding it like a cello, he's trying to bow the strings on the wrong side of the bridge.
Incompetent tardigrade violinists, SMH
🤣🤣
It could be a trombone and a Ryker.
Where's flying squid when you need him?
Time for some person responsibility from them on taking care of their home.
Welfare queens cry, more at 11
Charity != welfare, but I don't a liberal to know the difference.
why does this kid look like a toilet seat
Hasn't he raised enough money through charity to support his family? Isn't he currently filming an actual movie for Ben Shapiro's company? Was he not paid for that?
The grift never ends with right wingers. If you have given them money once, they know you are a target to be bled dry, so they will just keep coming back for me.
They're like raccoons !
Get fucked
He's got such a punchable face
Shit Apples, Randy.
Tabloid News. Who gives a damn about this guys family?
Now, THIS is delicious schadenfreude.
The fundraiser has now received $5,214 out of the $3,000 requested, likely thanks to the exposure from the article (it was sitting at $1,920 at publishing time).
Schadenfreude, meet Streisand Effect.
Source?
Sorry broke the link somehow, edited and fixed.
Thanks!
https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-family-plea-money-after-being-evicted-1915618
I would bet their not great people. There is probably a reason he grew into the awful person that he is. I would wager those are the same reasons he doesn't want to help them financially.
Lol. Lmao.
rofl even
Y'all got any guns for sale in Minecraft
I feel for the family here. Kyle is a dick.
Something about apples and trees.
Who the fuck is he that so many comments are here?
How much did his rifle cost?
Maybe they should learn about maintaining savings instead of making impulse purchases.
I'm honestly shocked that they aren't rolling in cash. I'd have thought that a whole lot of money got sent to Kyle directly after he became famous.
He took it all.
That, somehow, is unsurprising.
Their complaint is that he isn't sharing it.
Dang, it's what happens when you read between emails. I missed the part that he wasn't sharing.
Let them eat coffee.
I can't tell you how happy this makes me. I hope the whole family of human-shaped rodents spend the rest of their lives unhomed and living in refrigerator boxes.
compassionate left
No tolerance to racist murderers and their supporters.
I disagree, even mass serial killers should be tolerated, they shouldn't be executed. Even the people I most strongly disagree are still human.
Also, how is Rittenhouse racist?
I disagree, even mass serial killers should be tolerated, they shouldn't be executed. Even the people I most strongly disagree are still human.
What a beautiful boy!