Kyle Rittenhouse's mother

submitted by ImPiqued1111111 from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]lefterfield 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 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.

[–]jelliknight 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 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.

[–]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.