- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.”
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.