• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t like the guy, he is an idiot who shouldn’t have been there and he’s proven since then that he’s just a piece of shit.

    The difference between you and me is that I am able, at least in this case, to put my opinion of someone and my political beliefs aside and objectively look at the facts.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      “Don’t be so open minded your brain falls out of your head.”

      Yes, he managed to engineer a situation in which everyone involved could kill the other person and claim self defense. While it gave him a legal defense for shooting someone, that doesn’t change the fact that he went there in the first place to shoot someone.

      I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to “prove” in court.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to “prove” in court.

        Of course you are free to your opinion. But I was responding to someone who is surprised that anyone could consider him not a murderer. You are admitting that it might even be impossible to prove in a court of law, and he was acquitted, so I would think you might also agree how someone might believe he is not a murderer.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          And I was responding to someone who seemed to believe they were above other people in their ability to “put their political beliefs aside,” and seems to believe it’s impossible for someone to look at the facts presented and condemn Rittenhouse without it being political.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re confusing my attack of an childish meme with an attack on coming to different conclusions based on the facts.

            Although, lets me clear, you’ve not provided any facts that indicate he went there to kill someone.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to “protect property” he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to “protect property”. How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Have you never heard “an armed society is a polite one?” Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Have you never heard “an armed society is a polite one?

                  Case in point:

                  https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-will-personally-pluck-out-her-eyes-man-who-threatened-to-light-kamala-harris-on-fire-is-baffled-feds-were-at-his-door-over-a-comment-complaint-alleges/

                  A Winchester, Virginia, man who vowed to light Vice President Kamala Harris on fire and “personally pluck out her eyes” reacted with surprise when investigators showed up at his door “over a comment,” a federal complaint alleges.

                  Investigators said that Carillo in one post said Harris doesn’t “have a snowballs chance in hell which is exactly where you’re going and soon,” adding “I will cut your eyes out of your F—ING head” and “will make sure you suffer a slow agonizing death[.]” ** In another post, he allegedly said he would “personally” set Harris on fire “if no one else does[.]” In a third post, Carillo allegedly said Harris is “going to regret ever trying to become president because if that ever happened I will personally pluck out her eyes with a pair of pliers but first I will shoot and kill everyone that gets in my way that is a f** promise.”**

                  Carillo allegedly said he owned a pistol and an AR-15 and made remarks of surprise about the reason for the law enforcement visit.

                  This armed man was so polite he was confused about why agents would show up at his door over a simple “comment”

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Again, whether it’s true makes no difference because we’re discussing intent to go shoot someone, so if he believes it to be true (or any of the others I listed) then your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one

                  American society is armed. Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.

                  Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it?

                  You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed. When people take a security job they expect they will be using force at some point.

                  I challenge you to find me someone who works security that doesn’t expect to ever use force. The difference is someone who works security is 1) trained, and 2) in situations where they are there as a precaution, not as an expectation. When there is an expectation of violence the police are involved.

                  Speaking of, if Rittenhouse is concerned about “protecting property” why doesn’t he work for the police? I thought vigilantism was illegal.

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.

                    Remember, we’re talking about intent here. Whether you believe it’s true has zero bearing, it’s whether he may.

                    You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed.

                    Well, sure. But that’s like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I’m not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we’re talking about.

                    If your argument is that he’s guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I’m guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.

      • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        He obviously went there looking for trouble. What Rittenhouse did in response to other people’s unlawful actions was deemed lawful by a court. There’s not much more to it besides the cases hyper politicisation. For some reason (riots) it became left vs right. If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation - then some other idiots attacked him, one even had a gun pointed at him, this is worse than Rittenhouse simply carrying a gun. It seemed like a dumb case for the left to get behind - nearly nothing about Rittenhouse’s attackers were discussed in the media. It was solely focused on Rittenhouse and his stupidity. Not what whether or not his attackers also did something wrong. Which they did according to a court.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation

          Yes. I’m not calling him a murderer because Republicans have rallied around him, or because of what the protest was about.

          Remove the politics and I’m still calling him a murderer because he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent of shooting people in order to protect property that wasn’t even his, because it is appropriate to take lives to protect property. It is not appropriate to damage property to protect lives.

          • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yes but Rittenhouse couldn’t have shot someone unless he felt in fear for his life. This isn’t like a cop putting 20 bullets in someone cause he thought his comb was a gun. He literally had a gun pointed at him. If this didn’t happen he would be a murderer. It did happen and the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation. It’s like people can’t comprehend there are shades of grey.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation.

              Who said they weren’t both fucking idiots? No one is parading the one that got shot around like they’re some kind of hero.

              Still doesn’t change the fact that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people and is an unrepentant piece of shit.