this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1131 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6829 readers
589 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Wrong person survived that night
So you admit he was fighting for his life?
What a ridiculous thing to say. They didn't insinuate that in any way.
The other gun would disagree with the validity of that.
Why did he cross state lines with a weapon after threatening violence?
Because it's not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.
And what “shit” was he doing there?
Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.
It’s astonishing to me that you are simultaneously capable of forming full sentences and not seeing how useless and dumb that sentence sounds.
And yet it wasn't illegal. If it was he would have been found guilty. I said nothing of the intelligence of his plans, just what I remember of the facts. I remember he wasn't doing anything wrong, but was targeted by some shitstains who chased after an armed guy. That was ultimately the stupidest decision on the day. One of the shitstains was a felon with a gun, and the dead one was a sex offender. If I got some of the details wrong it's because I don't care enough to look it up because it's a decided case.
Sounds a lot like FAFO to me.
Do you not remember the very iconic picture of him in his blue gloves? At the very least he did have something. Usually when somebody is running from attackers they don't pick up the bucket of supplies they were using before running away.
You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.
Alright. Go ahead. Bring your evidence, because I saw the pictures and video.
17 year old in possession of a firearm. Misdemeanor. There. One simple charge and you are wrong. You clearly aren't interested in truth, just your opinion on it. Have a good one.
17 year olds are typically only restricted from handguns. Go ahead and point to the law that says he wasn't allowed to possess a long gun at that time. Maybe you should have been on the prosecution if you're so good.
Here's the picture everybody saw of him cleaning before the shooting. Obviously you have no memories of the actual situation.
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, "putting yourself" into a situation doesn't change that. If that were true, we'd be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that's absolutely not the case, it's not my fault if a car hits me while I'm legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I'm holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn't mean you're not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
Don't fuck around if you don't want to find out.
HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!
Why weren't you in the trial, out of curiosity? I'd have thought they'd be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering...
https://heavy.com/news/gaige-grosskreutz/
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
I didn't remember it perfectly, but certainly a lot that is ignored by those who hate Rittenhouse. I was mistaken when I said the guy with the handgun is a felon. He WAS a felon and seems like an all around piece of shit, but his felony was expunged so he was legally allowed to possess a firearm. He did have a loaded handgun in his hand when approaching Kyle though.
Dude. He was found not guilty. If there was evidence of him being there for no reason other than to kill somebody then I'm sure he would have been convicted. I remember fairly well that he retreated but got attacked by a guy trying to hit him in the head with a skateboard (weapon) and shooting the arm of a felon brandishing a handgun at him.
I'm sure Kyle is glad you're out here white-knighting for him.
Whatever you say bro.
The guy he shot was a pedo. - and a felon*?
Edit : Not sure about downvotes. Probably the few pedos on here saddened their numbers are thinning out. https://apnews.com/article/shootings-gun-politics-58c52e6d36475b5e7cd79ccaeffb5416
"If you don't agree with the extrajudicial execution of a person by an 18-year old dipshit, you're a pedophile"
Seriously, put some attempt in please. That is just fucking lazy
Not what I said. The things I said were two different statements. Don't come at me cause you've got small skeletons in your closet.
That's a joke.
You're right, what I meant was the guy deserves some sympathy because he's dead. The guy does not deserve sympathy based on his previous actions, AND he tried to kill some kid.
Kyle is objectively in the right here, but he shouldn't have been where he was, doing what he was doing. Fuck Kyle. I'm not condoning him.
You're trying to claim ^ that doesn't clearly imply that people who downvoted your comment were "probably pedos"?
Eh. Is this really worth the effort? For either of us?
I like forums. If you don't, then don't use them.
Especially don't use them if you don't have the moxy to stand behind your own words. Word's which you said. Which go like this:
You're trying to walk back the thing you now realise was pretty silly to wrote down. So youre trying to ignore your bs while still replying something.
You directly implied people who disagree with you are pedophiles. What an intellectual take.
Yea you said that part already cause it's what I said. By that logic if you are disagreeing that this isn't worth the time to keep going back and forth about youre probably a pedophile.
I like forums too 🙂. I also realIze what I said was fucking weird and back tracked a bit. If you let this go, I'm sure your experience here will be ever so slightly less negative. There's plenty of other things to be doing on Lemmy then arguing with someone who's joke didn't land for you specifically.
It would be entirely easier to call me a dick out loud, chuckle at how much better you are for thinking a different opinion and moving on.
"Let this go"?
I don't quite catch your meaning. You can just stop replying if you feel like it.
I'm just here pointing out you got buthurt over people disagreeing with you and started calling them pedos. Not too mature, is it?
I mean...youve got a point. I'm kinda enjoying this too.
You enjoy calling random people pedos for no reason?
See that's the more likely reason for your downvotes, rather than those people actually being pedophiles.
Doubt. They're probably pedos as well as Debby downers.
So that's a "yes" on you enjoying calling random people you don't know pedos for no reason.
That's harmful to the fight against pedophilia, which means you're helping pedophiles. Disgusting.
I am willing to bet kyle is one too.
Hey, Trump is both of those things too, per courts of law. You must be pretty broken up he survived the attempt, huh?
I'm voting for Harris...
Whether the person he shot was a convicted or suspected felon is absolutely irrelevant, vigilante justice is no justice at all, not to mention that he had no way of knowing anything about the people he shot.
That said, I absolutely believe all three were legitimate self-defense. The problem here isn't that he shot people in self-defense, but that he was a minor in possession of a firearm. Anyone who enabled him to bring that firearm to Kenosha should be held responsible (if they haven't already).
I agree with all of your points.
What is like to simp for a useless little rightwing murderer?
...I think he's saying he wished Rittenhouse was dead. Since he was the survivor.