211
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
211 points (94.1% liked)
Antifascism
289 readers
102 users here now
A community to post acts of antifascism and other left-wing activism. Please message a mod if you would like something posted and we can tag you in the post as well.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wow, sounds like he shouldn't have been there at all! What monster forcibly brought this 17 year old kid into that situation?
He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.
I have a legal right to go swimming in shark infested waters.
Probably not a great idea though, right?
Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol
Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.
Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.
Define guilt.
Wrongdoing, I guess?
There are two components, really: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legally, he definitely purchased and transported a firearm illegally, and then shot three people with said illegally-purchased firearm. Morally, you generally don’t bring a rifle somewhere unless you expect you may have to use it, and you don’t bring a rifle to a riot unless you expect you may have to use it against rioters.
In the best case, he grossly underestimated the probability that he would have to use it, which turned the small net benefit of his presence as a “medic” into a major detriment in that two people are now dead. He also failed to recognize that possessing, brandishing, and using a firearm at a riot would directly lead to being attacked (in 2 of the 3 shootings, IIRC). It should have been obvious that an angry crowd wouldn’t have all the facts, yet would know that the person who just fired an AR-15 is dangerous and attempt to subdue them.
In the worst case, he went there specifically because of the possibility he would get to shoot people, rather than in spite of the possibility. The fact that he went without his parents’ permission—which hopefully wouldn’t have been granted—, as well as that he brought an illegally-obtained firearm, lends credence to this argument. IIRC, the prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that this was his intention, but the possibility can never truly be ruled out, and his publicity and associations following the trial suggest hey may have possessed malicious intent. After all, for someone who supposedly didn’t want to see BLM protestors dead, he sure works for/with a lot of people who basically do.
Don't overcomplicate it. I'm not trying to systematically determine some deep truth here.
17 year olds should not grab guns and go to dangerous riots. Simple as.
You probably should be, if you care about it so much.
17 year olds should not grab guns and go to dangerous riots. Simple as.
Yes, and reducing that argument to
Is still not wrong, per se, but totally eliminates any mention of his illegal activity.
Thanks tips
No, he should have. Until maniacs started trying to kill him, he was cleaning graffiti, handing out water bottles, giving first aid, and putting out fires.
He was doing a lot more good there than any of the rioters, especially the ones who tried to kill him (and started the fires he was putting out--reminder that Grosskreutz initially threatened Rittenhouse in response to having his dumpster fire extinguished).
I wonder who he was giving water bottles and first aid to...
Was it other people who hurt themselves while cleaning up graffiti?
So weird that there were fires to put out and injuries to tend to at a graffiti clean-up, and then suddenly these maniacs showed up out of thin air!
Literally whoever asked. He spent a lot of time walking around yelling "medic" and "friendly", so that people nearby knew they could flag him down if they needed help.
He wasn't anti-protesting at any point. I believe during the trial it was confirmed that he administered first aid to a minimum of 8 people.
Why were so many people hurting themselves cleaning up graffiti? That's wild
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Most of the injured were rioters rioting and causing destruction and havoc to the town.
Sounds like the perfect place for a 17 year old kid.
It was courageous of him to go to a potentially dangerous place like that just to try and undo some of the rioters' damage. I'd rather a thousand of him be there, than any amount of the thugs who did things like burn down local businesses, and assault and injure people trying to stop them from doing so, even if it's an elderly employee in his 70s holding nothing but a fire extinguisher.
Also, given that friends and half his family lived there, he had more of a connection to the area than any of the violent, destructive scumbags rioting there. I can't blame him for wanting to protect his community, especially one that the police abandoned when rioting began.
It's not courageous to allow and encourage a 17 year old kid to be put in a dangerous situation where he may be killed to protect some property.
That's a garbage take.
It is literally courageous to do good when so means putting yourself at risk. And that's what he did. Since the moment he arrived at the area where rioting was going on, all of the evidence available shows him doing only good and altruistic things. He cleaned graffiti, he handed out water bottles, he gave first aid, he put out fires. He didn't attack anyone, or threaten anyone, or even counter-protest. This is why nobody reacted negatively to his presence, obviously/visibly armed and all. There's a reason no one freaked out when he showed up: because he was causing no trouble.
But after he'd been doing his thing for a while, he put out one particularly crazy individual's dumpster fire. In response, he had his life verbally threatened, and soon after, literally/physically threatened, by said crazy individual.
Did Rittenhouse escalate or push back against that aggression? No. He fled. But the maniac did not let him run away. He chases him, and eventually cornered him. Then he lunged for Rittenhouse's weapon. Three guesses what this man, who had literally screamed "I'm going to kill you" to Rittenhouse moments before, was planning on doing with that weapon, had he gotten a hold of it. Luckily, he was able to protect his own life from that maniac.
Then, he headed toward the police line to report what had happened. He said literally that when he was confronted and asked where he was going. In response, maniac 2 tried to kill him with his skateboard. He successfully struck him in the head, knocking Rittenhouse to the ground, but luckily was stopped before he could follow through with his second swing. Also luckily, the first strike didn't kill him; a skateboard is plenty hard and heavy enough to kill someone with a fool force swing to the head.
Then, a third maniac pointed his illegally-possessed handgun at Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse reacted quickly and pointed his weapon at him also. In response, the maniac lowered his weapon. But it was a fake surrender, and when he thought he'd caught Rittenhouse unaware, he brought the gun back up and pointed it at his head. Luckily, Rittenhouse's reaction time was fast enough to notice and fire first, injuring the maniac's arm and eliminating the threat to his life. Then he immediately removed his finger from the trigger and returned to his feet, and resumed going to the police line. He reached it, and told authorities what had happened.
None of the above is a "take" or my opinion, it's all established fact, in correct chronological order.
The only people remaining who think Rittenhouse did anything immoral or criminal on that day in Kenosha, are liars or the willfully ignorant. There is SO much evidence, up to and including video, that no other conclusion can be reasonably reached about said people.
Say it with me now: 17 year old kids should not attend deadly riots.
Thugs should not riot, and members of communities being attacked by rioters are perfectly justified in protecting and preserving their communities to the extent they're able and willing to, especially when the authorities they should be able to rely on to keep order, have completely abandoned that duty.
The rioters, and only the rioters, are the intruders. Blaming any member of that community for being present in their community while shitheads are wrecking up the place is absurd victim blaming and nothing more.
That's all there is to it.
And police shouldn't murder people -- how far back do you want to go?
You're advocating for arming children and sending them in to defend property. That's fucked, my guy.
The comparison of a child being armed and forcibly thrown into the fray of a riot is an especially ridiculous false analogy. Also, a lot of that "property" is small businesses which literally are people's livelihoods. They're not just random buildings. You don't have to kill someone to ruin their life, you know.
Let's not pretend we don't both know how blatantly obtuse you're being.
Kyle Rittenhouse made the decision to go and try to protect his community, on his own. No one forced him. He also chose to legally arm himself for his own protection, as a precaution (a decision that proved to be very prudent). Then he went into town and spent hours repairing rioters' property damage, and helped anyone in need who took him up on his offers of bottled water and basic medical aid.
He did literally nothing wrong that day.
You're so full of shit to act like he wasn't there to get into trouble and larp as medic.
You're right, he wasn't forced. So he should have stayed the fuck home.
Instead he entered a predicable situation, and predictably, it turned deadly.
Name one action he took while there that could reasonably be described as 'trying to get into trouble'.
And no, merely 'showing up' doesn't count. No one was bothered or even cared that he showed up, he was a completely mundane presence in Kenosha until Rosenbaum threatened to kill him for putting out a fire.
You're the one desperately grasping at straws. The facts simply do not support this assumption.
It's confirmed he helped at least 8 people medically. Even if he had zero medical training and had nothing but bandages with him to put on scratches (in fact, he had some training he got in his capacity working as a lifeguard), that's still 100% a positive thing to do.
The rioters should have stayed the fuck home. He had every right to protect his community, and infinitely more justification to be there, than any of the scumbags who did nothing but trash the place. Cope.
Are you saying he should have predicted that putting out a dumpster fire would cause his life to be threatened? Are you actually impaired?
Also, what kind of ridiculous logic is this? "Just let rioters destroy whatever they want, get out of their way." No. They fucked around, they found out what happens when you try to murder someone who's armed and knows how to use his weapon. The attackers are 100% at fault for how deadly it turned. They provoked. They aggressed. They chased when Kyle fled. They attacked.
And they were handed the consequences. They close to forfeit their lives by trying to take another's, because he extinguished a flaming dumpster that was trying to be used to blow up a gas station. Let's not forget THAT little detail--Kyle probably saved several lives by putting out that fire, in addition to his own when he protected it from violent criminal scum who are such garbage that they'll try to kill someone for stopping them from blowing up a gas station.
Grabbing his gun and showing up instead of staying the fuck home. Easy.
You can't have it both ways, either it was an innocuous graffiti clean up, or an armed line of defense. Stop trying to frame it both ways.
Nope, already explained why this isn't troublemaking. If it was, then how could it be that no one gave a shit about him when he showed up, even though he was obviously, unmistakably armed, with a long rifle? It's literally insane to describe 'existing while bothering nobody' as troublemaking. Wisconsin's an open carry state--there was, as evidenced by the non-reaction to his arrival, nothing strange about his existing in that place with a rifle on his person.
Are you actually, literally trying to argue "he was standing there, menacingly!"? (even though literally nobody was 'menaced' by him--in fact, in a way, it's kind of incredible to me just how willing Rosenbaum was to threaten his life and chase him down and try to kill him with his own gun, having no weapon of his own...although the fact is that THAT LITERAL DAY, Rosenbaum had just been released from a mental health facility after a suicide attempt, so I think there's a plausible argument to be made that he was actually trying to get himself killed (oh yeah, he also screamed "shoot me [hard r n-word]" multiple times))
I "can't have it both ways" by saying multiple factual things? Sorry, but multiple things can be true, especially when they don't contradict each other at all. These are all facts:
All you people always get reduced to the same ridiculous argument: "the mere fact that he was there constitutes aggressive behavior, therefore not self defense."
No. Not how it works. "Existing while armed" is not provocation/aggression/brandishing in a place where open carry is legal, ya dopes.
I wonder what he armed himself for protection from...
The mental gymnastics required to reconcile the notion that he wasn't putting himself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation, but that he still needed a fucking gun to protect himself is just astounding.
Anything. It's a precaution.
Nobody said that. He knew he was taking a risk and potentially putting himself in harm's way, but he made the decision to take that risk, to do what he felt was the right thing to do (i.e. go to Kenosha try to prevent some of the damage, and also use what limited medical training he had to help anyone who needed it).
That's courageous, not something to criticize somebody for. It's incredible to me that you're too dense to recognize the blatant victim blaming.