Kyle Rittenhouse's mother

submitted by ImPiqued1111111 from self.GenderCritical

This is anecdotal, but on my social media I'm seeing a huge push to hold Kyle Rittenhouse's mother accountable as an accessory for the shootings perpetrated by Kyle.

Now, there may be valid reasons for this, I'm not a legal expert, and I don't understand the particulars enough to make that sort of assessment myself. But what I'm noticing is that this is very LOUD and vehement.

I just get the sense that, in light of the fact that the extreme majority of mass shooters are male, and people are increasingly drawing attention to this fact, this is pushback like "see! see! look at the woman responsible!".

Thoughts?

all 99 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]BrokenEarth 35 insightful - 2 fun35 insightful - 1 fun36 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

There's nothing she's legally responsible for. The concept of punishing the entire family for the actions of one of its members is a favorite tactic among the far left and was commonly done in the USSR.

The idea is basically that an apple reflects the tree it came from.

[–]Apricot_Ibex 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s hardly only the far left. People in cultures the world over blame the mother constantly for literally everything. Women were also blamed and even murdered for centuries for not producing male heirs, like THEIR body had “failed.”

Even today in the West, when a child gets hurt or gets into trouble, people scream “where was the mother?!“ and the father is hardly even mentioned. Granted, no responsible adult should be neglecting their small children, but dads get off the hook constantly.

Why are working mothers, divorced/single moms, and feminists such a boogeyman of the far right? So that they can blame mothers for every single social ill. I don’t think it’s a left-right issue in any way.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think part of the argument is that he's a minor? Again, I don't have a full understanding of the legalities. I'm more concerned with the public reaction, it sort of feels like people are foaming at the mouth to point the finger at a woman, like an overcompensation or something.

[–]denverkris 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, they want to try him as an adult though, right? I mean which is it.

The left is also in favor of allowing children to decide that they were "born in the wrong body".

So again, which is it? Children ARE responsible enough to make major decisions, or they aren't?

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good point!

[–]Daraincork 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bit of a reach to blame the extinct Soviet Union. Died 1989 - for the actions of this deranged Walter Mitty and his criminally negligent mother. Might be more to do with your country being awash with guns and your education system not functioning very well. Having said that , women are often held to a higher moral standard , which is obviously unfair. Perhaps his father wouldn't have faced this level of scrutiny had he driven the car.

[–]BrokenEarth 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I bring up the soviet union because many people I see talking about this still idolize it, its structure and practices.

Family members being guilty by association was common in the USSR, and although this mentality was not unique to the soviets, when people who support its ideology also support this familial guilt by association, its not hard to make a connection.

[–]FediNetizen 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (37 children)

I think the premise of your discussion, that the shootings were "perpetrated" by Rittenhouse, is not quite accurate.

I've spent a lot of time reviewing the Rittenhouse footage and reading the relevant laws, with findings detailed in this comment, and what it seems like so far is his actions were reasonable self-defense.

Specifically, Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry mob, one of whom had just pulled out a gun and fired it into the air. To Rittenhouse, this would be indistinguishable from one of the mob actually shooting at him. When you're being chased by an angry armed mob that isn't breaking off despite your attempts to flee, at that point it's reasonable to believe you are going to be gravely injured or killed, and the only way to prevent it is to shoot back.

The only things that could undermine his self-defense claim would be:

1) If the prosecution could show Rittenhouse did something to provoke the mob to attack him. I haven't found footage of what happened that caused the mob to start chasing Rittenhouse, so I can't say for sure that he didn't do something that would reasonably provoke them here he could use that as an excuse to shoot them.

However, based on some other information I would guess not. Specifically, the people chasing him that he shot all had notable criminal records (one was a convicted sex offender, another had been convicted on at least 2 separate counts of (serious) domestic abuse that included strangulation and false imprisonment, and the 3rd had been charged with felony burglary and a few other crimes, and at least one of them looked really agitated already when filmed earlier in the night confronting the militia Rittenhouse was a part of. It seems more likely that they were just aggressive men that started chasing him because he was separated from the group or something along those lines.

It could turn out I'm entirely wrong and Rittenhouse did do something to reasonably provoke them. Under Wisconsin state law, since he was fleeing he would have regained the privilege of self-defense, unless it can be shown that he provoked them with the intention of creating the situation where he could legally use lethal force.

2) The less likely reason his self-defense claim could be undermined is if the prosecution can convince a jury that either his belief that he was under the threat of serious bodily harm/death wasn't reasonable under the circumstances, or that his belief that lethal force was reasonably necessary to prevent the harm wasn't reasonable.

I don't see this one being the way they get him, because Rittenhouse was being chased by an angry mob, and right before the first shooting one of his pursuers pulled out a gun and fired it into the air, which to Rittenhouse wouldn't be distinguishable from being fired at.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

I read today that the first man he killed was shot in the back.

Also, I'm not really giving the benefit of the doubt that a man ideologically opposed to the protests showed up there with an assault weapon. Was he really there not looking to start some shit?

Lastly, I agree that the men who were shot were trash for the reasons you mentioned, but Rittenhouse had no way of knowing that about them.

All of that said, as I mentioned, my take on what actually took place isn't based on a detailed understanding. The point I'm getting at is the volume of blame directed at the mother.

[–]FediNetizen 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read today that the first man he killed was shot in the back.

Yes, as this is an emotionally charged incident, there are a lot of people on the internet spreading misinformation. The first man Rittenhouse shot (Rosenbaum, 36) had been chasing Rittenhouse, and was lunging at Rittenhouse when he was shot in the head. There's some decent-quality video of that here, where you can see Rittenhouse being chased and what's happening when he shoots, although if you have a weak stomach you should probably turn it off once the cameraman starts approaching Rosenbaum, as he does get close enough to where you can clearly see the head wound.

Rittenhouse fired four times in rapid succession, but it does look like Rosenbaum dropped from one of the first ones, so giving as much benefit of the doubt to your source it's possible he was shot "in the back" from one of the later rounds (you don't get a view of his back from the video after he's been shot), but it's not the "in the back" in the sense one would typically take that to mean.

Also, I'm not really giving the benefit of the doubt that a man ideologically opposed to the protests showed up there with an assault weapon. Was he really there not looking to start some shit?

While it was largely a protest, there was also a lot of looting and rioting going on at the time. Around the time Rittenhouse had showed up, about 20 buildings had been burned down, and many stores looted. Earlier in the day he had been cleaning graffiti off of a building. When he was chased down he was part of a militia group that was trying to protect a different building.

To be clear, what Rittenhouse did was still idiotic. He was a pudgy 5'3" 17-year-old that shouldn't have been part of that group.

If you want a more detailed rundown of what led to the shooting, I recommend this article. My one gripe is the author repeatedly claims Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle was illegal, but that claim is factually incorrect. The statute on minors possessing weapons makes specific exemptions for rifles and shotguns provided the minor is in compliance with other codes related to firearm possession. If Rittenhouse were 15 then the possession without a guardian present would have been illegal, but for those 16 and up it's legal. Even so, it's a good article overall.

[–]lefterfield 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

While it's true that Rittenhouse wouldn't know about the men's criminal records, the fact that they have records for violent offenses makes it more likely that they attacked without provocation. I believe that's what they were getting at, I don't know the details of the case myself.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I will say that it's fully depressing that the men on "both sides" are all violent males.

[–]Apricot_Ibex 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly, and what are the chances it would be four women doing that? Not at all impossible, but very unlikely in comparison.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it were four women it wouldn't make it any better.

[–]jelliknight 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Well if we're judging people based on their prior actions, being a racist showing up to oppose a protest with a loaded gun you aren't legally allowed to carry is pretty fucking damning. Far more than any crime committed months or longer before the incident.

[–]BrokenEarth 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you have evidence that he was racist I would like to see it. Also he was able to legally own and carry the gun he brought to the protest. The only person in this incident with a loaded gun they weren't legally allowed to carry was the convicted felon with a pistol who was shot in the arm.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can't find anything authoritative that confirms that Grosskreutz is really a felon. He was charged with felony burglary at some point, but there's no record of a felony conviction I can find, and charges get lowered during the court process all the time.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Um... I was only clarifying what someone else said about it, so maybe you want to respond to them instead? As it is, it sounds like previous protests had turned violent, which is the reason why they were bringing guns. I've said before that I don't think this kid should have been there, but the point of the criminal record of the people he shot is NOT "they were bad, they deserved it", but that there is a GREATER CHANCE they took aggressive actions.

[–]jelliknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

the point of the criminal record of the people he shot is NOT "they were bad, they deserved it", but that there is a GREATER CHANCE they took aggressive actions.

And I'm disagreeing with you. One person committed a crime at some point in the past, the other showed up to THIS particular even with a weapon. The latter is the one more likely to be instigating.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I have no idea how that follows.

[–]jelliknight 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think you're being deliberately obtuse.

One persons actions are long past. The others in in relation to and preparation for the current event under discussion.

Say we're talking about a bar fight. One person once got into a fight 3 years ago in very different circumstances, the other arrived at the bar wearing brass knuckles. Which of those two is more likely to be looking for a fight?

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And I think you're deliberately changing the facts to condemn someone you've decided is guilty. Say we're talking about two people. One has a proven history of violent assault. The other brings the most popular self-defense weapon with him to a situation with the potential to turn violent, given past incidents. The latter guy repeatedly tries to escape from the one with the history of violent assault, but is pursued and the violent-history person attempts to take his weapon away. We don't really need to know which of them initially came looking for a fight or who started the verbal argument - one was pursuing, one was chasing. The pursuer was looking for a fight. The ONLY relevance his history has on it is to provide CONTEXT for a situation that was already caused by him. His actions.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol being a 'racist' (hearsay - proof?) and 'showing up' to be a volunteer field medic at a violent riot after being asked is worse than being a repeat offender pedophile, rapist and wife beater? Maybe you shouldn't be on a feminist forum if you think this.

[–]zephyranthes 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't there to start shit. The looters were there to start shit. He was there to do his day job, then to clean looter graffiti, then to guard a business from looters.

After going to check on another business, he was then barred by cops from returning to safety and got attacked by a mob.

He killed one attacker, immediately called the cops to report the killing and went to them to surrender.

On the way to the cops, he got attacked by the mob again and thrown to the ground. He missed one attacker and killed another. A third one faked a surrender ("hands up don't shoot"), then drew a gun, at which point Kyle shot and wounded him in the arm with the gun. Kyle then stood up and walked on toward the cops.

The cops waved him on, so he went (presumably by car, it'd be a long walk) to his hometown just across the border and surrendered there.

The wounded man then allegedly regretted not murdering Kyle.

All three men are white and have lengthy rap sheets with sexual assaults, child rape, stalking, repeat domestic violence, strangulation, etc. Kyle only has a speeding violation.

Looters online are fantasizing about raping Kyle in jail and asking about his cell number.

Personally, I'm currently trying for a child and I was worried about how I'm going to raise a son if I end up having one. Now I know.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why is it only bad for Rittenhouse to show up with an "assault weapon"? You seem to have forgotten to address that two of the three justice recipients were also armed.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If you can't discern the difference between a white supremacist showing up to a BLM protest with a military style assault rifle and one of the three victims having a hangun, I don't know what to tell you.

[–]OrneryStruggle 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

source on him being a white supremacist?

not everyone here will be anti-gun. on the contrary many radical feminists are pro-gun. the child clearly saved his own life that day because he had a gun, instead of getting killed by misogynistic felons.

[–]FediNetizen 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I see a lot of parallels between your stubborn refusal to consider that you may be misinformed about the reality of the situation, and the stubborn refusal other lefties have with regards to the whole trans situation.

[–]OrneryStruggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

He was shot at the back as he fell - being shot in the front and side of his body first. The fatal bullet (and likely first bullet) was to the front of his groin. It shattered his pelvis and he bled out, according to the last coroner's report I saw. There are eyewitnesses including a reporter who was in the line of fire saying kyle only shot the attacker after he was cornered and the pedophile made not one but TWO attempts to grab his gun. There is no way a shot in the back was the first shot.

He showed up to a protest to act as a field medic, and had a weapon to protect himself since the national guard stood down and police were not preventing local buildings from being torched. He gave an interview maybe 5 minutes before the shooting saying so, in fact.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wait, was there not a headshot? I watched the video, it even looked like a headshot to me.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He did shoot the guy "in the head" first but missed/grazed him, which was probably the shot that flew past the reporter. The fatal shot which I think dropped him was the groin shot, then the shot in the back must have been after he started falling as you can see he rotates as he falls.

[–]goobandit 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The article fedinetizen posted says that his mom drove him to the protests. If that’s true and is the reason being cited, it makes more sense

[–]Shesstealthy 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I just don't understand how me shooting and killing a stranger who conveniently turned out to be a bad guy would make it OK.

[–]FediNetizen 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It doesn't make the shooting more justifiable. I brought that up to explain why, since I don't have direct footage of what started the pursuit and can only speculate, I was leaning towards Rittenhouse not having done anything that would have reasonably provoked them to go after him like that. I was pointing out that these were all guys with criminal histories that probably don't have the same kind of restraint that average people have.

[–]Shesstealthy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Walking round with a gun is fairly provoking.

[–]OrneryStruggle 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

no it's not. it's legal and he was doing it to protect himself while he rendered medical aid to protesters.

[–]Daraincork 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Me neither. Incredible contortions on display here. Reminiscent of the trans lobby in fact.

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it was self defense, which in many people's books makes it ok.

[–]OrneryStruggle 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1) If the prosecution could show Rittenhouse did something to provoke the mob to attack him. I haven't found footage of what happened that caused the mob to start chasing Rittenhouse, so I can't say for sure that he didn't do something that would reasonably provoke them here he could use that as an excuse to shoot them.

^ I have the answer to your question here. He brought a fire extinguisher to a fire they were trying to set at a gas station, and after the fire was put out the first attacker (pedophile in the red/orange shirt) became outraged and started shouting racist slurs and telling people to shoot him. he seems to have picked kyle out of the crowd later and gone after him specifically, but at first he indiscriminately attacks various members of the militia who put out the fire. that's the video where he's confronting the militia - it was moments after the fire he was trying to set was put out. he starts chasing kyle and grabbing his gun apparently immediately afterward.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I think that Rittenhouse was pushed to defend himself by three violent males operating in a male mob mentality. Disgraceful to refer to this as a mass shooting as if it were something like Columbine.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Mass shooting is defined as three or more.

He was not defending himself, come on.

[–]OrneryStruggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

he was and it's clear to see from the video.

[–]aldoushuxleyghost 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ya, he was. But you have to really do a deep dive and watch/read the analysis. Many youtubers have pieced together the time line of events. If you read the charges files against him, it's like a defense lawyers dream.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Really?! I'm genuinely curious, have you seen the raw cell phone footage? https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=C1Sjs_1598460586

[–]jkfinn 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only thing I've heard about his single mother is that she tried to take out an order of protection for Kyle because he was being bullied at his high school. I think the son just drifted into guns and law enforcement, identifying with local police and perhaps the military (not much difference any more) as a way of asserting himself. Whatever, I'm sure these attacks on the mother are typical misogynist bullshit (based in Freud & company)

[–]BEB 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Anyone who's raised kids knows that they don't always turn out as you'd like them to despite your best efforts.

I don't know anything about Rittenhouse or his mother, except that I read that she was a single mother, but she might actually have done her best, and her critics better be blaming his father too.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure there's evidence to back this up. Once kids become teens the crowd they hang out with has more influence than their parents.

[–]anonymale 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

in light of the fact that the extreme majority of mass shooters are male...

Looks at the males here hijacking a thread to defend a mass shooter.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, these are men, huh? Figures.

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't agree with the kid's actions in being there or bring a gun, but based on what I've seen of videos and analysis since you posted, I believe he acted in self defense. And I am female, and have been a member of GC here and on reddit for years.

[–]anonymale 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was just talking about the males.

[–]lefterfield 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ok, but still implies that those defending him are all men.

[–]anonymale 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mainly, parachuting in to give us the Not All Mass Shooters Are Like That treatment.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Snort.

[–]yishengqingwa666 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is it not blatantly obvious?

[–]OrneryStruggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

i'm defending the kid who defended himself against a pedophile rapist and wife beater and i'm a radical feminist woman.

i can't believe fucking RADFEMS are caping for literal VIOLENT SEX PREDATORS who attempted to murder a child who was running away.

[–]aldoushuxleyghost 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm a liberal who thought he was a mass-shooter nut job until I looked into it. There are so many lies in this case, mostly coming from the Left. It's kinda shocking.

Agreed, if you watch the actual timeline videos (there are many... the NYT also breaks it down) of his actions, its self defense. Even the possession of a rifle under 18, will probably not stick.

He's guilty perhaps of looking for trouble while open carrying, so no hero, definitely should be charged. From what I've read he is cooperating, and in our system he is innocent until proven guilty.

[–]OrneryStruggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm a liberal who thought he was a mass-shooter nut job until I looked into it. There are so many lies in this case, mostly coming from the Left. It's kinda shocking.

Unfortunately the group that now calls themselves the left often lies shockingly, to the point where it is no longer shocking to me. As soon as I heard there was a 17 year old 'mass shooter/white supremacist terrorist' in Kenosha (who killed 3 white men for some reason?) I immediately assumed something was up and went to find the actual unedited video footage because you can be about 99% sure the media is lying whenever a headline like this gets run these days. I was not at all shocked to find that the footage told a completely different story.

Jacob Blake was a serial rapist and was shot for resisting arrest at the scene of an ongoing rape (alleged) but the left is staying oddly silent on that as well in their rush to lionize him (and eulogize him since a lot of them appear not to have noticed he isn't dead). This is just another example of women and children being thrown under the bus and ignored if it's politically expedient, and I hate seeing radfems take the bait and join in.

[–]threefingersam 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I had a good look at the videos recorded at the time of the shooting and I also think Kyle was acting out of self-defense. Considering there's easily accessible evidence of the incident, I think it's worth looking at it before making conclusions.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

One would think.

[–]jelliknight 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Are people clamoring to hold his dad equally accountable?

There's your answer.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Newp.

[–]FediNetizen 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

By the way I just stumbled across (and posted) this article which gives a detailed breakdown of the chain of poor choices by the actors involved that led to the shooting. It's both informative and and entertaining read.

[–]lefterfield 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If that article is accurate, then Kyle is an idiot, but his actions after the argument escalated are understandable and likely legally justified.

[–]FediNetizen 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I mentioned it in a different comment, but the one thing this article gets wrong is the claim that his possession of the rifle was illegal. It was not. Under Wisconsin state law the code on "minors in possession of a weapon" section that the author thinks he violated would have only applied if Kyle were under 16. As Kyle was 17, his possession was legal.

Though to be clear, I still totally agree with you that the kid was an idiot for being there.

[–]lefterfield 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah, I saw that. He still shouldn't have been there, but legally, doesn't sound like he(or his mother) did anything wrong.

[–]OrneryStruggle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

why shouldn't he have been there?

if he were a black PRO-BLM field medic would you still be saying he shouldn't have been there?

[–]lefterfield 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yes. I don't think a 17 year old is emotionally mature enough to be in that situation, and I believe the presence of people with guns on both sides escalated the situation to a point where it didn't need to go.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

TBF the 30-40somethings there were clearly not emotionally mature enough to be in the situation, but he was. I've never been pro-gun but watching the video of the altercation was absolutely amazing as this child showed extreme restraint, calm and quick thinking in a situation that could have turned deadly for him. He avoided shooting at/injuring anyone who wasn't directly causing a threat to his life at the moment (apparently that reporter was in his line of fire behind his aggressor but didn't get hit) and immediately turned himself in to police after running away. That's a level of clearheadedness that you don't see from cops or army or people way older and better trained with weapons than he was.

I agree that in general children should be kept away from violent riots/protests but at the moment they are not, and it is common for people to bring even their small children to such events. I find it curious that this PARTICULAR child was apparently too young to be somewhere with a gun while the hundreds of other minors at riots (many with weapons) have been given a pass until now and people like myself saying it's inappropriate to bring small children to riots have been mocked as conservatives/puritans until now. Not saying you were one of those people, but I'm suddenly seeing this argument everywhere when I never saw it before.

He also had firefighting training, EMT training (he was there working as a medic) and a job as a lifeguard, so he had relevant skills he thought he could use at the protest.

[–]lefterfield 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree that this 17 year old showed far more emotional maturity and restraint than would be expected of anyone of that age(certainly more so than the adults that were there chasing him). Watching the videos, I can point to many things the people who were shot should have done differently, but not to anything that he did wrong once he was there. I still don't agree that he should have been there, which is the same as I would say for anyone of that age and younger. Most of what I think about this kid particularly is sympathy, cause I don't have the impression that he was looking for a fight or wanted to hurt anyone - but now, two people are dead and he'll have to live with public condemnation for the rest of his life. His actions were justified, and hopefully the court will agree, but that's still a lot of potential guilt and trauma to put on someone who's barely considered an adult.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

in that case I agree, but I'm bothered by the double standard that has kept everyone I know silent on the numerous children (many armed with automatic rifles, ironically, as in CHAZ) who have been involved in protests since Floyd's death but made them suddenly speak out on this particular 17 year old being at a protest. I am not implying you are one of those people, but this is really the first time I have seen this argument made by leftists and I'm surprised it's coming up suddenly.

Personally I think any non-adult should be kept away from protests/riots that are or are likely to turn violent, so I agree with you in principle. I don't think his mom had any say in him going though, as I understand it he went straight from work and after-work volunteerism, so I doubt she was involved in taking him.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I heard she did drive him, was that not true? But I agree, and I feel the same way about children being armed at any protest.

[–]BEB 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's an old American joke, "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged."

Women who've been victims of violence might be more pro-gun than others, and more in support of self-defence pleas, but let's not let this issue divide us.

We women have bigger fish to fry, like that under our noses, the gender lobby is passing laws stripping us of our rights, safety, dignity and sports.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was really just trying to get at the fact that I'm seeing so many people quick to point the finger at his mother.

[–]BEB 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I get what you were trying to say and completely agree with you that until we know the mother's role, we shouldn't assume. Thanks for making that point! Plus, as I said in a different post, you can be the best mother on Earth and still have a child turn out badly.

I just didn't want an argument over whether this shooting was justified or not to divide us because we need all hands on deck at this very critical time.

One thing I will say is that the media right now is adding fuel to all of these fires, so please, everyone, do your own homework before accepting the media narrative.

[–]Oneofthesesigns 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Weren't there people blaming the sandy hook shooters mother? I seem to remember people kept bringing up that she bought the guns, she failed to recognize undiagnosed mental problems, etc. Completely ignoring the fact that he murder his own mother.

[–]OrneryStruggle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

kyle will walk anyway, everything he did was 100% self defense. the people he ended up killing (who tried to kill him first) were convicted pedophiles and wife beaters attacking a child for helping put out a fire they were trying to set at a gas station.

whether she is charged as an accessory or not nothing whatsoever will happen because there is video clearly and unambiguously showing everything he did was self defense. the only charge that may stick is possession of a firearm, and his mom probably wont be culpable in that since AFAIK the firearm was borrowed from an acquaintance and his mother had nothing to do with acquiring it.

[–]Daraincork 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

She drove home across a state line with a deadly weapon. I don't know the USA laws. But is being an accessory in most jurisdictions?

[–]Daraincork 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Him*

[–]aldoushuxleyghost 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is a very political topic, nuisance arguments like yours will get swamped immediately.

Still the criminal complaint does not include his mom. Here is a good video comb through the charges against Kyle... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMmCAbJT6U0

My 2 cents ... one unifying thing ... it is pretty telling that there is evidence both the shooter and both dead guys, all men, treat women like shit. The video of Rittenhouse punching a girl. Then you can play devil's advocate and argue the dead guys, Rosenbaum and Huger, were "worse" since they had felony convictions around their horrible abuse of women.

And now others jumping in and blaming his Mom?! Fuck right off. This world hates women.

[–]ImPiqued1111111[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This world hates women.

Yeah. :(

[–]OrneryStruggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

there's no confirmed video of him punching a girl and the boy in the video doesn't even look like him.

the other three men were misogynistic pigs definitely.

[–]aldoushuxleyghost 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I might be wrong. To me it looks like him. There is a lot of rumors swirling around Kyle (also heard that he's defending his sister in that video for example).

[–]OrneryStruggle 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm it doesn't seem like him but it could be, there's no confirmation anywhere. His mom did pull him and his sister out of school for severe bullying, so that sounds plausible as well, but anyway I wouldn't use a video so blurry that the guy is completely unidentifiable as proof of anything unless there's some other confirmation it's him.

[–]lefterfield 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The hair style looks different to me in that video, and can't really tell details about his face. Without confirmation we shouldn't jump to accuse him of anything.

[–]MarkJefferson 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moot. They're kinda jumping the gun(pardon the pun). There's way too much of this 'judge first on social media, ask questions later in an official capacity' mentality going on. Let them do their investigation first. I'm gonna give it a month or so so I can get some real information and not some twitter crap.

[–]WrongToy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If she has legal custody of him part of that responsibility includes not letting him carry an AR out of his house and to another state.

[–]anonymale 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is a link between being an inadequate gun-nut and being a violent misogynist.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find that his mother was afraid of him. Whether or not that’s the case I feel for her, since he has destroyed her life as well his own and those of his direct victims.

[–]Overdrive 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The parents are always blamed when their children turn out to be terrible people. A lot of cases have some merit to that. It takes a particularly abusive concoction to create certain serial killers. I do believe criminals are "made" rather than "born".

But there's so, so many cases where in all other respects you had a person who was just going through their young life and with no warning do something heinous. Not giving an opinion on Kyle here, but I have heard parents of accused children speak about the experience. How others accused them of not hugging them enough. Bullshit like that.