663
Kyle Rittenhouse's family plead for money as they face eviction
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
663 points (91.0% liked)
News
23360 readers
2279 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Actions speak louder than words, especially when those words are a teen talking big to his friends.
The fact is, nothing he did in Kenosha supports the claim that he wanted to kill anyone, period, and everything he did directly contradicts it. He showed zero aggression toward anyone, and his first response to aggression toward him was to RUN AWAY, every single time. Bottom line, none of the people who got shot would have gotten shot if they had let him run away.
ROFL…. “locker room talk” right? You apologists are fucking hilarious. Where I come from (America) this is called “Premeditated Murder.” And in any courtroom with an unbiased judge, he’d have been convicted on that alone.
'You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he never showed aggression toward anyone, and his first response to unprovoked aggression toward him, all three times, was to run away'
lol
You can tell he planned to kill someone by the fact that he said this:
lol indeed.
I like how they're saying he never showed aggression to anyone despite showing up with a fucking rifle.
Right? The mental gymnastics are impressive to say the least.
Actions speak louder than words. He was around tons of looters (that's what the people he was talking about were doing, when he said that) that day. Why didn't he 'shoot rounds' at any of them, if that was his plan? He had all the opportunity in the world.
That's the question people making this argument can't answer honestly, because the only honest answer is that what he did directly contradicts what he said.
Arguing that he planned to do something that he literally didn't do, despite myriad opportunities, is just silly.
Actions speak louder.
Again… you apologists are fucking hilarious. Dude wanted to kill people. He killed people. No amount of hand waiving and excuses from you will change that.
It’s a fact. And it is easily proven via reality.
Yes, ok. But you're not providing a counterargument. These are all just feelings. It's possible he was there to kill people. It's also possible he saw what happened in Minneapolis when rioters set entire storefronts on fire a few weeks prior and was concerned about his community.
If he really wanted just to kill people he had lots more opportunities before he was being chased. The person you're responding too is just countering your arguments but all you have very charged feelings about the case which is understandable.
Kyle is a bad person who did something really stupid but it doesn't help to fight every person on details which have been disproven in court. The whole trial is available to watch online. Our side needs to do better and stay grounded in facts otherwise we just lose all credibility.
It’s not feelings. It’s facts. He was on video saying he wanted to kill people. And it’s also well documented that the judge in the case was incredibly biased. He didn’t allow damning evidence against the murderer that any other judge would have allowed.
Look it up.
Yes, I never said that wasn't true.
Please follow closely because it's getting lost in the sauce and I know there's a lot of charged feelings involved in this conversation.
He may have said he wanted to genocide all people on earth and stomp on puppies prior to the event. He still has the right to self defense which is the crux of the whole argument.
In the US bad people have a right to self defence (In America open carry is legal and I'm grateful I moved out of the US).
I can tell you feel very passionate about the topic. My recommendation is that you go and watch the trial (the whole trial was recorded) or at the least download the transcripts and follow the evidence.
Just to repeat: I agree Kyle is a bad person. But we have to ground our discourse in facts. It doesn't help to create false mythos around bad people because it only emboldens the other side.
He’s a murderer. It was premeditated. And he had a biased judge.
Case closed.
Sigh. This type of epistemic analysis leads to monological thinking and is why the Kenosha riots had no grounding to begin with. More people will die if we just dilute every fact to dismiss narratives we don't like and it will lead to more violence and hate.
I don't like conservatives either but we have to ground discourse in facts not feelings.
None of this was proven but we can just handwave it like nothing else matters. After a while we are all going to start living in parallel epistemic bubbles.
He was not asked to be there- had no business there. And was on tape saying he wanted to kill people.
A court only determines guilt or innocence from a legal standpoint. It doesn’t change the events retroactively to make them not happen.
He’s a murderer. By definition.
Following your logic, OJ was also innocent, right?
If you want to have a discussion on the moral ethics of his actions: that's fine; Plenty to criticize.
If you want to have a discussion on the legal merits of the case, that's fine too, but you need to be at least somewhat aware of the facts beyond verbal statements that preceded the shooting. OJ (although a cherry picked data point does not prove a point) is a fine example of the judicial system working as intended even though the defendent was guilty.
To summarize: These are two separate conversations (legal vs moral). I've noticed that whenever Kyle is brought up, as lefties we tend to hop back and forth between the two (sort of in the way you are doing --I can't tell if it's intentional--) to muddy the discussion or get some type of gotcha. It's not productive.