Kyle Rittenhouse is unwilling "to provide or contribute to our family," according to his sister.

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.”

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      487·
      6 days ago

      Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?

      The problem is, we will never know now.

      • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
        439·
        6 days ago

        the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters

        Literally a lie, lol.

        There is video, you cretins, stop making claims directly contradicted by the evidence.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          135·
          6 days ago

          How do you know it is “literally a lie?” Because all the footage I’ve seen starts with him already being chased.

          Let’s see this video of what he was doing directly before the chase started.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  134·
                  6 days ago

                  I’m telling you no such thing. You claim there’s video. Where is the video?

                  Also, I did not say he pointed his weapon at peaceful protesters. This is what I said:

                  Or was he trying to keep the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters from shooting them?

                  The problem is, we will never know now.

                  Which you claimed was “literally a lie” and then claimed there was video.

                  So where’s the video?

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    322·
                    6 days ago

                    Which you claimed was “literally a lie” and then claimed there was video.

                    I did not claim there was video of Rittenhouse NOT doing something, lmao.

                    I replied to you saying you saw no footage that didn’t start with him already running away, by pointing out the obvious fact that there is. One little example, from a CNN article, under a heading that literally contains the words “before the shooting”, lmao:

                    In another clip from an on-camera video with Richie McGinniss, the chief video director of the Daily Caller, Rittenhouse says he was there to protect a business and “to also help people.” “If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself obviously, but I also have my med kit,” Rittenhouse says in the video. McGinniss points to other armed men around Rittenhouse and asks what they are doing. Rittenhouse responds, “Their job is to protect me.”

                    “We’re running medical and we’re going in and we’re getting people,” Rittenhouse says in the video

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    320·
                    6 days ago

                    the kid pointing the rifle at the peaceful protesters

                    Burden of proof is yours. This is your original claim.

                    Back it up, or concede you can’t. Anything else is evasion.

    • dactylotheca@suppo.fiEnglish
      446·
      6 days ago

      “That guy” being Rittenhouse who specifically went there with a firearm with the intention to stir up shit? He was absolutely hoping he’d get to murder someone, and surprise surpise – he did exactly that

        • SphereofWreckening@ttrpg.network
          381·
          6 days ago

          The little fascist went to a counter protest with a rifle as an agitator. He was looking for a reason to use that gun, and definitely manufactured the exact thing he was looking for. Don’t be such an utter dipshit.

              • BassaForte@lemmy.worldEnglish
                5·
                6 days ago

                FWIW I think it depends on intent. You could be showing up with a rifle in support of the protestors (which has happened, especially in 2020).

              • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
                42·
                6 days ago

                I think the ‘left’ should also step up their game and open carry, if they want to be taken more seriously by:

                Some of those that work forces [1] Are the same that burn crosses

                …but… we must not forget what may follow if they do, planning is also really important as well as having legal counsel and video footage of all interactions:

                !bpp@lemmy.world

                [1] Killing in the Name - Rage Against the Machine

                • bamboo@lemm.ee
                  3·
                  6 days ago

                  I think if leftists started open carrying at protests we would either see way less harassment by police or literal civil war.

                  • jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world
                    21·
                    6 days ago

                    Being a bit more forceful and agressive, in showing open carry, so that we may have a better chance of changing our systematicly broken system, will not be an easy feat to accomplish.

                    Great point, you are correct, the Black Panther Party also ran into that problem, where they had shoot outs with the police.

                    It would need a bit of planning, knowledge of the local laws, and live filming/documenting interactions with any law enforcement/groups/people.

                    In life, all good things come hard, but wisdom is the hardest to come by. – Lucille Ball

                    Nobody is gonna hit as hard as life, but it ain’t how hard you can hit. It’s how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. It’s how much you can take and keep moving forward. That’s how winning is done. – Rocky Balboa

                    Don’t pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one. – Bruce Lee

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                423·
                6 days ago

                Wrong. It’s an open carry state, there was nothing strange about it.

                If it was such a “provocation”, then why did nobody give a shit when he showed up, even though it was super obvious he was armed with a long rifle? How come he walked around for hours doing his thing (handing out water bottles, giving basic medical care to whoever asked (at least 8 people according to evidence and trial testimony), etc.), and literally nobody gave a shit, while he had that rifle on him the whole time?

                Rosenbaum literally screamed “I’m going to kill you” at Rittenhouse, and for what? Because he put out Rosenbaum’s dumpster fire.

                Get real.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    321·
                    6 days ago

                    Correcting false statements with known facts (it’s so extra absurd because there is SO MUCH hard evidence!) is not fascism. It’s not even political at all.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  113·
                  6 days ago

                  Sorry… are you under the bizarre impression that because it’s legal to carry a gun, you can’t provoke someone with it?

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    414·
                    6 days ago

                    No, I’m contradicting the ridiculous argument that existing in public while armed, in an open carry state, is somehow, in and of itself, provocation.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    422·
                    6 days ago

                    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.

              • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                218·
                6 days ago

                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.

                • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
                  112·
                  6 days ago

                  Ahh… we’re doing the copypasta now?

                  Okay:

                  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.

                  • ObjectivityIncarnate@lemmy.world
                    215·
                    6 days ago

                    ‘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

                • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                  53·
                  6 days ago

                  I’m sorry you’re getting downvoted. I wish our side (I’m a full on leftie and I don’t like conservatives) did a better job of countering arguments instead of using emotionally charged language in debates and spreading misinformation. The whole trial is recorded and all the transcripts are available.

                  I wish Kyle had not shown up with a rifle to a charged and tense event, especially after what happened in Minneapolis in the prior weeks. There really isn’t an excuse for a 17 year old to show up with an AR-15 to such a situation, even if it was perfectly legal. Yes, he bad better trigger impulse control than 99% of police officers, but a 17 year old should never be allowed in the first place. My argument is not a legal one, but an ethical one.

                  To me the fault lies in our society:

                  1. We encourage proliferation of gun ownership.
                  2. We allow 17 year olds to open carry.

                  I could keep going but I’ll stop.

                  Just to reiterate for Lemmy user base: I’m not on team Kyle; I’m on team facts and stop gun proliferation.