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.”
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?
When the children were small, Wendy and Mike worked various jobs, including machine operator, housekeeper, and cashier.
…
Wendy had become a certified nursing assistant, but she continued to struggle financially. The family was repeatedly evicted.
…
In 2018, shortly after another eviction, Wendy filed for bankruptcy. She developed a gastrointestinal bleed that required hospitalization, and Faith was also hospitalized, after an attempted overdose involving over-the-counter painkillers
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.
See also: schadenfreude
I think it’s an apt term for watching leopards eating the faces of their allies.
Edit: for those unfamiliar with the reference, here’s a rundown of The Leopards Eating Faces Party.
- Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party
“Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party refers to a parody of regretful voters who vote for cruel and unjust policies (and politicians) and are then surprised when their own lives become worse as a result. It has been commonly used to parody regretful Brexit and Trump voters.”
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.
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
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
I saw the video. He waved a gun around.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
“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?
Conservative values at work. Make a boatload of cash doing the grift circuit after murdering somebody, then hoard it and refuse to help your family.
Kyle Rittenhouse learning that his family is struggling.
But who actually cares? Stop talking about this useless waste of life.
I care because I noticed that all the people defending him won’t talk about what happened afterwards meanwhile they never stop reminding us that the men he murdered had criminal records.
It is inconsistent. If they can bring up the past I can bring up the future.
You should all just shut the fuck up and move on with your lives.
When you bring back to life those two people he murdered I will.
And didn’t he maim someone? Took the life that person could have had.
Nothing will bring them back, certainly not your whinging.
In that case I won’t stop mentioning it. You know my terms.
Lol
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.
Supply Side Jesus says they should just lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
Welfare republicans.
No problem. Just pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.
Have they tried getting a job?
Don’t they know if he gives them a handout it will create a dependency /s.
they need to cross state lines to kill more unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
unarmed people protesting against authoritarianism
https://youtu.be/Bv21bE9PWtE?t=10366
“It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at [Rittenhouse] — advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” the defense said.
“Correct,” Grosskreutz replied.
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.
If you try to Defend yourself from a Random Person with a Gun you DESERVE TO DIE!
The guy is an idiot, but I don’t think he was “looking for blood.”
Except that there’s a recording of him saying he wanted to shoot people
And the guy he actually killed had a skateboard!
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.
you can go looking for blood
Every single action he took in Kenosha directly contradicts this, lol.
and as long as someone flinches
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the primary reason he was being threatened was because everyone else saw a random civilian with an assault rifle
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.
he knew he was sending a threatening message just being there with it
More bullshit–even if he was trying to ‘send a threatening message’, he clearly failed, see referenced video above
he then seemed shocked when people started responding to that threat
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.
he didnt kill that guy
LMAO nice username jackass
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.
Hell doesn’t charge rent, go there!
Typical Republicans, always looking for a handout.
why does this kid look like a toilet seat
He looks more like what goes inside a toilet to me.
water?
No, something more solid and brown and that comes out of an asshole (which would describe his mother).
Uhh… What’s brown and rhymes with snoop?
the answer is dr dre. this is a well-known dad joke that plays on the similarity between the names “snoop” and “dr dre”.
He looks like a bee sting.
deleted by creator
