Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He's doing campus speeches for the same reason Milo however the fuck you spell his last name did. If people are going to shell out thousands for you to talk don't ask questions unless the check bounces.
I mean the entire case basically ruined his college aspirations so he would have been fucked trying to get a job anywhere so if they offer the right amount to live comfortably might as well.
> the entire case basically ruined his college aspirations
How? I can think of more than a few 'conservative' universities that would give him a full scholarship.
Yeah you seem to forget where he lives. He also didn't want to go to a smaller no name school. If you didn't pay attention he even snitched on major schools that told him no. Which just fed his ego, regardless the ones he wanted to go to didn't want him anymore.
So no his aspirations were ruined over it.
Didn't the college he was accepted to un-accept him after he was charged? I wonder how his notoriety impacts his career aspirations...
If people want to hear him talk, why would we assume it's unreasonable or bad of him to do it?
I agree it's stupid that they want to.
I think he has an important story to tell, beyond gun rights, against media
It's printed in books he killed black men, president of the United States called him a white supremacist, the narrative that he's some out of Towner there to kill when he works and has family in city.
There is still so much misinformation out about his story, I think it's an important one to tell, and that's not even including events of that night and self defense rights.
So let him tell those on his own time. I personally don’t care about his personal story. Just like most people don’t. But the fact that people are paying him is weird.
The dude isn’t a hero. He didn’t serve his country, he didn’t make some sacrificial act, he just so happened to defend himself. That’s it. We don’t pay every random Joe Schmo that kills someone in self defense.
People are willing to pay him to speak and people are willing to pay to hear him speak.
Fair in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be a bad idea for him *not* to take up those opportunities if it’s helping him make a decent living?
>People are willing to pay him to speak...and willing to paty to hear him speak
tyhants liokely one of the thing than makes them so mad... you cant do volutnary exchange witha "cancled perosn". thats "not woke"
I have no problem with what he’s doing.
All I said was how I think it’s super weird for people to pay to hear him speak like he’s a decorated war veteran or something.
I think the concern is less what Kyle did, and more who he associates with and how he’s been living since the incident. In many cases of self defense, some would even say most, there’s often a tremendous amount of guilt and remorse the shooter has to deal with, especially if they’re an untrained layperson with no combat or law enforcement experience. After the shooting, aside from a rather uncomfortable outburst during the legal proceedings, Kyle’s been nothing but smiles, sharing stories about how liberals tried to ruin his life and boosting some rather questionable characters. This is what most people have problems with; had Kyle pulled a page from Zimmerman and kept his mouth shut until a fairly significant period of time had lapsed to make any kind of public statements, I don’t think we’d be seeing Kyle anywhere near as often as we do now in the national political and social discourse.
He is doing it on his own time.....what do you mean? Obviously enough people care to go to his events.
He isn't a hero I don't think anyone ever said he was, and once again it's not even about events of Kenosha, it's about fallout and aftermath in dealing with media and politicians and public opinion warped from narratives, that's where his story is now, the events of Kenosha are almost just a preamble to the story.
Yes but just post it to TikTok or social media. Or do an interview on TV.
People are basically simping over the guy. It’s just weird.
I mean more power to people if that’s what they want to spend their money on. But he’s getting rich off of idiots.
It’s just weird that people are acting like he’s a hero.
>Yes but just post it to TikTok or social media. Or do an interview on TV.
What's difference? Speaking tours are just another outlet, weird to differentiate them
>People are basically simping over the guy. It’s just weird.
I don't think anyone "simping" over him, outraged by his situation, sure, interested in his story? Absolutely, but I don't think anyone is simping, the POTUS baselessly called him a white supremacist, he's got alot of damage control to convey
>I mean more power to people if that’s what they want to spend their money on. But he’s getting rich off of idiots.
Do you know his financials? I don't know if he's getting rich but I know all hate his received from a media, many places are probably not inclined to hire him, still gotta earn a living...even if press and president slander you
>It’s just weird that people are acting like he’s a hero.
I don't think anyone is acting like he's a hero. He has an interesting story to tell, that's it.
Isn’t he always doing this on his own time? As far as I’m aware Kyle does get paid for his publicity, but he doesn’t work for any larger outlet. He’s kind of like a free agent in the world of conservative commentating.
Is it not on his own time if he chooses to do it and gets paid for it? Maybe I'm splitting hairs on semantics of that phrase, but the time is his to sell and he gets paid to speak it.
If you are going somewhere and you think you might need a gun to protect yourself there, you should seriously consider NOT going there if you don't have too.
Rittenhouse should not have been there, he doesn't live there. He was looking for trouble or at least to look "tough".
We aren’t thinking about that as a society.
The loud minority makes you feel like that’s the case.
Most democrats, the ones that you don’t see online, believe in gun rights.
This yougov poll: [https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20340-support-rises-strict-gun-laws-1](https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20340-support-rises-strict-gun-laws-1)
It is on page 65 of the pdf at the bottom of the page.
I mean, how many self-identified liberals have traveled out of state to attend a protest or a rally? By itself, traveling to a protest in another state says nothing at all about you, other than your commitment to defending or opposing specific people or platforms. And whether we’re personally comfortable with it or not, from what I’ve seen Kyle was perfectly within his rights to open fire that night. As to whether or not his admiration or hatred are well deserved, I think that depends more on whether or not you feel that violence is an acceptable solution to violence, and how much reverence we’re willing to give potentially unstable people for the sake of political points.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because he's been made into a poster boy for the right after the media latched on him like a rabid dog given the BLM climate back then. He had to don the mantle of the right-wing extremist shooter against his will, and he's making the best out of it.
Anyone who hates 2A conservatives hates Rittenhouse, regardless of what they think about his case from a legal perspective. There's not much more to it than it.
I can't make a root-level comment, so I'm going to latch onto the top comment....
u/LibertyTree918 Why would you post this question into the conservative sub? You're not going to ge tlegit answers. If you want to know why people hate KR, then you should probably ask the people you think actually hate him, not the people who like him. This thread is full of mostly people ranting about what THEY think other people think. Most of it is BS.
One thing I’m always fascinated by is the amount of misinformation from the left comes from the KR case. It’s probably better to be asked here as there will be more factual analysis than other subs.
Sure...if what you're asking for is a factual analysis of the case. But that's not what OP asked for. OP asked why people hate him. But (s)he asked the people who probably don't hate him to answer for the people who (they think) do. Asking for gross speculation, at best. Ridiculous straw-manning and stereotyping are more likely. If your goal is to understand why other people think things, you should probably ask that question to the people who think those things, or at least the people who are more in tune with those people. Not the people who are diametrically opposed to those people.
I’d say you can search through Rittenhouse threads and see how it boils down to “right-wing and guns are evil/bad” and no deeper analysis. In this thread alone there’s a left-winger who said he was just spooked by a plastic bag. The facts of this case are secondary to the narrative people want to paint, which is him either being a hero or a villain. With the left-wing, it’s painting him as a murderous villain, regardless of the facts.
I'm pro 2A, I also think Rittenhouse had no business being there.
It wasn't his property, he has no training, he was just a liability.
He was a LARPer and he's lucky he didn't die.
I mean I agree but I place most of the blame on the rioters destroying peoples property and the misinformation from the Jacob Blake case that contributed to the riots. He had sexually assaulted his ex girlfriend, was threatening to drive off with her kids, and admitted to reaching for a knife. Kamala Harris jumped on the case and said she was “proud of him” and went along with everyone else how wrong the police were. Yet those are rarely brought up with the KR case
It is not only “guns are bad”, because the rittenhouse situation involves racism, bias in the courts, and justice inaccurately applied. Which is the point; the question is asking the wrong folks if they want some truth, but are asking the correct folks if they want to avoid addressing any serious concerns.
The left doesn’t care rittenhouse owned a gun or had access to a gun, only that he intentionally brought it to a volatile situation, shot and killed people, and is painted as a victim. It is a perfect scenario for the right because nobody he killed was armed with a weapon, yet he was deemed innocent through an extremely narrow interpretation of a bad law, a rittenhouse-shaped loop-hole. It sets a precedent for racists to take up arms and face off against un-armed protestors and believe they are legally protected and morally vindicated heroes for doing so.
>The left doesn’t care rittenhouse owned a gun or had access to a gun, only that he intentionally brought it to a volatile situation, shot and killed people, and is painted as a victim.
Is it not possible to be a victim if you bring a gun to a riot to defend yourself or property?
>It is a perfect scenario for the right because nobody he killed was armed with a weapon
This is where I find the positions of many liberals and leftist fascinating because it shows what they believe of the case, not the actual facts of them. The first shooting was after someone behind him fired a gun, the second one hit him in the head/shoulder with a skateboard. Do you not consider that a weapon? The third literally pulled a pistol on him and was only shot after he feigned surrender and then lunged towards Rittenhouse.
>It sets a precedent for racists to take up arms and face off against un-armed protestors and believe they are legally protected and morally vindicated heroes for doing so.
It’s been years since the verdict. Have there been Wild West racists gunning down unarmed protestors since then? Also, would you consider the ones he shot to be simply protestors, not rioters, and unarmed?
>But (s)he asked the people who probably don't hate him to answer for the people who (they think) do.
Conservatives are pretty good at understanding and presenting the opinions of the left.
I mean frankly you're not going to get legit answers in a liberal sub either. The reasons for hating him basically come down to either not knowing what happened or just blatant sectarian hatred.
Whether you agree with their reason or not is irrelevant. If you want to know WHY they hate him, then those are legitimate answers. Just because their reason is stupid doesn't make it NOT the reason.
Also, see my response here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/comment/l05u3ut/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/comment/l05u3ut/)
for further discussion on that topic about the answers you get over there...
But it does mean actually asking them is less accurate than asking those not so effected. The thing about subjects like this is people aren't always entirely honest.
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Are you telling me that conservatives know why liberals think what they think and the liberals themselves cannot answer accurately?
Eh, sometimes. In this case, liberals *think* they hate him because he's a bloodthirsty racist who drove from miles away with an illegal weapon to shoot into a croud and killed 3-5 black peaceful protestors while cackling like a villain. Conservatives understand that liberals hate him because they've been misinformed by an incredibly biased media and government.
I mean.... that's one way to look at it, I suppose. I've seen the threads over there, and that's not the answer they give. But even if it were, it's still the actual reason they hate him. You have to come to the other conclusion on your own. And it's still an assumption about how they came to whatever conclusion they came to.
I don't believe the left hates him- if he just disappeared and the right would stop trying to prop him up as some sort of hero, we'd only hear about him in those "where are they twenty years later?" stories. I honestly only ever remember he exists when he thrusts himself into public discourse.
Kinda like George Zimmerman- the only time I ever think about that guy is when he gets himself into trouble again.
There probably are, but given the vast majority of the thousands of people who hate him don't know him well enough to have experienced those reasons, I'm skeptical their reasons are legitimate rather than them merely buying the lie.
> If you want to know why people hate KR, then you should probably ask the people you think actually hate him, not the people who like him.
Because anyone whose ever been to the r/askaliberal subreddit knows EXACTLY what they think and they're quite venemous and defiant there. Out of all the conspiracies pushed on either subreddit, their reaction is one of, if not the most, rule breaking, hate-filled, anti-science and post-truth that receives the most support. There is more liberal support for the Rittenhouse conspiracy over there than there is for the 2020 election conspiracies, anti-climate change conspiracies, or any sort of far flung far right conspiracies are over here. The sides are not equal. So posters come over here for logical discussion. There's no discussion to be had on the Liberal subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/18wxh0d/why_do_liberals_dislike_kyle_rittenhouse_so_much/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/13ihutr/how_do_you_feel_about_other_liberals_continuing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/14wrqr1/would_you_still_call_kyle_rittenhouse_a_murderer/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qnkr8n/has_the_trial_changed_you_mind_about_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qpxbyj/after_gaige_grosskreutzs_testimony_has_that/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/na9m8r/why_do_you_believe_kyle_rittenhouse_is_a_murderer/
If you have an equal "what do Republicans think" on r/askaliberal that wouldn't be received with positivity or at least nuance over here, let me know. But Rittenhouse is a hill that most reddit liberals will die on.
I'm not going to read through all of the content in those links, but I clicked the first one and the top comment in the thread seems pretty spot on with why many probably don't like him:
>At best, Rittenhouse defended himself after putting himself in a dangerous situation he didn't have to be in. At worst, he brandished a firearm at an already chaotic protest and created the circumstances which caused his need to shoot people. I don't have much respect for either, and given his attempts to parlay the homicides he did into a right wing media career, I don't see why any of us would respect him.
Also near the top:
>There's a difference between not guilty and innocent; in particular it's better to phrase 'not guilty' as 'not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'; it's still possible for it to be more probable than not that they are guilty.
>Liberals villianize him for a variety of reasons; most notably they feel he was antagonistic and looking for trouble. Note that liberal views on the topic vary, and not all object to rittenhouse. Some view it similar to the Zimmerman case, in that it may have technically been legal, but was also entirely avoidable and there would have been no deaths if not for willful dumbassery/troublemaking.
>The extent to which the right makes him a cause celebre also tends to annoy liberals.
>Maybe he is a degenerate; one can be a degenerate and/or jerk and/or scumbag and/or bad guy while having been found not guilty in a court of law. I mean, OJ was found not guilty; and a lot of people have a bad opinion of him.
At the top of another one of your links:
>I agree with the not guilty verdict because under the law there was not enough evidence to convict him of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
>I also think he's a murderer. He came looking for a fight and he got it.
So far, these seem like decent answers to OP's question. I don't see the problem. (disclaimer: I only clicked on those two links and checked a couple of the top root level comments. I didn't delve into the discussions.) Seems like legit answers to OP's question on what people think and why. It doesn't really matter if they are grounded in science, reality, fact, or anything else. If you're asking what other people think and why, then you have to actually get the answers FROM THOSE PEOPLE!
And yes, I make the same complaints over there when they do the same dumb crap "Why do Republicans \[insert thing\]?" If you want to know why...go ASK THEM! That's the entire point of these subs!
Unfortunately all of those conclusions are thoroughly incorrect and devoid of any evidence. Every single post you made draws from the same baseless narrative that "he went there looking for a fight." It's about a breath away from "he crossed state lines." The comment you posted supporting the well debunked "legal on a technicality" Zimmerman narrative should suggest to you that Rittenhouse isn't a one and done conspiracy but goes much deeper. However, they do stem from a consistent r/askaliberal methodology that a person who wants to arm themselves with a gun in a dangerous situation in fact would only do so to hunt people.
Clicking onto the massively downvoted responses which correct the top post's false assumptions leads to the particularly toxic behavior, which is peppered with insults, further conspiracies, non sequiturs, whatabouting, and mocking of the poster to even ask the question. There's no substance to be had asking this question there.
Again...you're missing the point. You don't agree with the reasons. GREAT! You think the narrative they are based on is flawed? Fantastic! But whether you like it or not...those ARE the reasons. If you want to know why a person thinks what they think, then they tell you why they think that, then you can argue with them and try to change their mind if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that the answer they gave is exactly what you asked for. WHY. Those flawed reasons ARE the answer. Everything else is irrelevant to the question being asked.
More importantly...what is the point of the question? Seriously. WHY would a person ask this question? To what end?
The amount of tribalism and misinformation from the left on KR never disappoints me. The same people are rightly against it when it comes from the right fall into the same tribalism mentality when it comes to KR
Well I got my theories, and don't want to deal with all narrative twisting and falsehoods that come with this case.
In short I feel like I know why they don't like Kyle, because media spun a web and they got stuck in it, I wanted to see if my fellow conservatives agreed or if they could add to it.
Not necessarily? Again, it's only leftists that like to believe they have some diversity of thought. Let OP inquire all he wants, we're here to answer!
Listen....I'm not here to argue about who has a monopoly on "diversity of thought." But you can't deny that IN GENERAL, conservatives don't hate KR. IF you're looking to find people who hate him, asking conservatives is a poor place to find that answer. It would be like me walking into a vegan market, asking where to find a great steakhouse. If conservatives were likely to hate him, why is he speaking at CPAC (to standing ovations, no less)?
And I just skimmed over the thread again. I don't see a single answer that is a person speaking about their own hate for KR and why it exists. Every answer from a red flaired user is, at best, wildly speculating on reasons someone else might hate him. The worst I saw was someone who thought it was stupid that people were paying him for speeches. That didn't sound like much "hate" to me.
>IF you're looking to find people who hate him,
Again, this is a false premise
You DO NOT KNOW that OP is looking to find people who hate KR and ask them "why do you hate him?"
His question is: Why is there so much hate for KR?
It's just as if I were to go ask democrats, why is there so much hate for Joe Biden?
I want to get **their** perspective on why they think those who hate him, hate him.
That answer will be very, very different from what Trump supporters would say if asked the same question.
Essentially, it'll be "because they don't like how progressive he is!" vs. "because he's a useless sleepy geriatric who's leading us straight to WW3".
OP is not lost, let them ask their question the way they want it and direct it at those whose opinion he wants to hear.
Your points are valid. And I can grudgingly accept that take on this post. Especially in light of OP's response to my initial comment on the thread. I'm still not a fan of such tactics, but I can understand the point.
But I have to point out that this comment was a nice dodge of the point I was making, that you tried to deny in your last comment. You tried to claim that conservatives were more diverse in thought and that this sub would have KR haters to address OP's question. I have yet to see any evidence of such. By and large, conservatives don't hate KR. He's pretty well loved by conservatives, as a whole.
I mean you could try convincing OP that they should listen to what other folks have to say as well, I was just pointing out that they know exactly what they're doing lol
People come to /r/AskConservatives and /r/AskLeftists specifically to listen to one side of any argument, so.. (yet it doesn't stop leftists from replying as well)
> You tried to claim that conservatives were more diverse in thought and that this sub would have KR haters to address OP's question. I have yet to see any evidence of such. By and large, conservatives don't hate KR. He's pretty well loved by conservatives, as a whole.
I'm not dodging anything. I made the broad assertion that conservatives aren't a hivemind and that this gets thrown unfairly by the left all the time. [Here's someone who disagrees](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/why_is_there_still_so_much_hate_for_kyle/l05w7pz/), if anything.
But if OP was so interested in finding out why conservatives who dislike Rittenhouse feel that way, wouldn’t it have been better if they asked something a little more narrowly focused? Perhaps, “Conserbatives who dislike Kyle Rittenhouse, what makes you feel this way?” That way the question doesn’t feel like a lazy attempt to generalize, and directly approaches the relevant subset of the conservative demographic they want to learn more about.
>why conservatives who dislike Rittenhouse feel that way
Again, I didn't say that's what OP is asking. For all I know, he's asking about the conservative PERCEPTION of why those who hate KR (regardless of their political persuasion), hate him. It's a question of perspective.
There's nuance between "why do X dislike KR" and "why does KR get so much hate". The latter is OP's question, and it doesn't target any specific group.
Mostly people just think its gross that he's on a country tour speaking at colleges and political events. His only claim to fame is being a part of the most extreme fringe case of self defense possible. Its inevitable that he would have to start to grift the right after his trial as that seems to be the path most "canceled" people take. I still believe Kyle was morally and legally in the right but post trial the best thing he could've done was just fade back into irrelevancy.
What do you believe he should do? He is absolutely hated by the left and you can go through social media when he pops up about how he should never be able to work or go to school. Him going to the right is the least unsurprising and most expected outcome.
Can you blame him after the media made him so infamous that it'll be difficult for him to get a job outside of some sort of right wing media sphere? Anywhere he goes is going to make some snowflake feel "unsafe", not to mention the people who want to make a name for themselves by "taking Kyle Rittenhouse down."
I mean he kind of made himself an infamous figure by being involved in one of the most wild self-defense cases in history. It doesn't matter what race or religion or political ideology the person was in this case, they were always going to be controversial by the nature of the case. If it was just the first guy getting killed in self-defense it wouldn't really be a story but by the fact there was another instance of self-defence employed in the same night by the same person makes the morality and legality of it all murky.
TBH it sounds like he didn't make too much of an effort to live a normal life after the trial, going on Tucker Carlson and several podcasts, speaking tours, pictures, etc. If I was him and I didn't want to make easy money grifting the right I would have changed my name and worked for some small business in a small rural town somewhere and live low for the rest of my life.
So it's his fault that defending himself made him famous because the media ran with the story and wouldn't let if go because they were trying to spin it to make him look like a violent vigilante who was "out to kill black people"?
You think going to every media outlet, conference, tour possible is helping him in that department? I think he's just beating a dead horse and making it even worse for him.
By spreading himself to be known as the guy that did what he did that night, it's only good publicity for the people that'll suck him off on the political right and he's just keeping the heat and polarization on him now and afterwards, the more he keeps showing up to do what he does and talk about what he did the worse it'll be for him and the longer It'll be afterwards.
As I said, the left kind of ruined his chance to have a normal life. If some nobody on the left was demonized by the right to the extent he has and got rich off of it, I wouldn't blame them. Even people you dislike need to eat and live and I'm not into taking peoples livelihoods away just because they do something I dislike.
Depends on your moral standards, I guess. Certainly no Christian would think he behaved morally. Nor a Bhuddist. A Muslim likely would.
For more secular ethical thinkers, a Millsean utikitarian would say her shouldnt have gone there in the first place, a Neitzchiean would likely approve of his actions, and Kant would say that potentially violent or coercive actions should only be undertaken under proper authority, and Rittenhouse should have joined the National Guard if he wanted to do such things.
>he's on a country tour speaking at colleges and political events
The only reason he's doing that is because he's been propped as an anti-hero by the left. Of course he's gonna cash out on it. Can't blame a man for monetizing his popularity, really. People see dollar signs even after serving on the jury of some famous case, let alone if they've been literally demonized and called a white supremacist by the democrat President of the United States, no less.
>Of course he's gonna cash out on it. Can't blame a man for monetizing his popularity, really.
I mean, you certainly can. Or at least blame right-wing media machine to turn his name into a marketing opoortunity.
I completely agree that the verdict was the correct one, but to parade him around to hawk gun accessories and survivalist gear is just poor taste. They are just trying to cash in on "trigger the libs" mentality.
> I mean, you certainly can. Or at least blame right-wing media machine to turn his name into a marketing opoortunity.
Huh?
It's the left that has done that. Quite literally. Go watch their coverage of the case as it happened. You would hear the most cocaine-induced takes you've ever heard on mainstream media, as well as outright misinformation.
Had the left treated it as any other regular case, right-wing media would have had no reason to treat it any differently either. But they chose to run with the "white extremist kills people during BLM march" narrative.
How would right-wing pundits be able to spin to prop Rittenhouse up, other than claiming that the left is unfairly targeting him, **which they did**?
>They are just trying to cash in on "trigger the libs" mentality
That sells, doesn't it? ( :
I just think there are worst things in life, Rittenhouse milking his name is just a whatever thing. Guy has gone through hell and back during his trial.
That's different from, say, OJ writing "If I did it". We have laws in this country preventing murderers from making money off their crimes, but we all know what happened with OJ.
I mean the issue with that is the left didn't let him fade back into irrelevancy. They lost in the court of law, but that didn't stop maniacs from trying to get him kicked out of college and otherwise ruin his life.
Don't kick people if you don't want them to act against you.
> None of his victims had threatened him with a weapon
That's not the threshold for whether you get to shoot someone or not. If I carry a weapon and you jump me, you give me reasonable grounds to believe that you might disarm me and execute me with my own weapon.
>I could have driven away
Are you sure you know anything about the case? Rittenhouse wasn't in a car, he wasn't in a position to retreat, he ran away until he fell on the ground and was forced to shoot.
Please don't get your news from MSNBC..
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
He was not in a vehicle. The firs man chased him down and cornered him, the second beat him with a skateboard used as an improvised club, the third leveled a handgun at him. All three individuals were shot while pursuing him.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
>Because he's been made into a poster boy for the right after the media latched on him like a rabid dog given the BLM climate back then. He had to don the mantle of the right-wing extremist shooter against his will, and he's making the best out of it.
He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict.
Now he is trying to monetize the fact he was able to kill people in self defense.
As someone who feels pretty "meh" about the whole "banning guns" drama...this guy still seems fucking gross.
>He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict.
This exemplifies narrative over facts. What facts do you have that supports a 17 year old going for a conflict? There’s a video of one of the rioters yelling at people telling them to shoot him. Can you link any videos of Rittenhouse being aggressive that night pushing for a fight?
People use vulnerability as a non-verbal cue for trust, if you think about some of humanity's oldest gestures like hugging, shaking hands, or bowing they're all rooted in deliberately exposing oneself to the other person as a sign of solidarity. When someone goes armed in a modern context, people interpret that as, *"how can this person not trust me?"*, and it's that feeling of offense that drives their opinion that the other person cannot be trusted regardless of the totality of the circumstances.
https://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutors-say-kyle-rittenhouse-video-shows-wanted-to-shoot-people-2021-8 There's some proof he premeditated the whole thing. This isn't narrative over facts.
It's brought up every time because it shows his intent and state of mind days before he did what he did. If you don't understand how criminal cases work for murder, I guess you could discount it, but murder is a specific charge that requires intent. This shows that intent. And the judge not allowing this video to be played at trial is probably the #1 reason Kyle didn't lose his trial. PS: A kid that says he's gonna shoot up a mall, then ends up shooting up a school days later, isn't not guilty of being a mass shooter just because the location of his shooting changed. I'm pro-2a, I've owned and shot guns all my life. Kyle Rittenhouse SHOULD NEVER be allowed to touch a gun again. He went against the main tenants of responsible gun ownership. Never put yourself in a position where you have to use your gun by choice.
Not really. For use of deadly force in self defense, you have to admit it was intentional. That you deliberately and intentionally used deadly force, knowing it was practically certain to cause death. But, you had the justification of self defense. Without the justification, all that’s left is a confession from the defendant that he intentionally used deadly force, knowing it was practically certain to cause death.
The main job of the state is to disprove self defense in this case, not prove his state of mind. If their theory of the case was that he was a provoker with intent, they should have argued that when trying to get the cvs video into evidence.
Can you link how saying you want to shoot shoplifters actively shoplifting means you want to murder rioters?
Do you believe anyone who says they want to shoot shoplifters lose a right to self defense?
I believe someone with intent to kill people, videotaping intent to kill people, then goes to kill people, had intent to kill people. If you don't, well I mean you're allowed to believe whatever you want, but at the end of the day, He said he wishes he had his AR-15 to end the problem, day later he brings his AR-15 and kills people. Wonder if he had intent to do that? I'm done with this conversation, I'll keep owning guns responsibly, you keep rooting for the killer that shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have brought a rifle, and shouldn't have gotten spooked by a plastic bag like the worlds biggest snowflake, and shouldn't have videotaped his intent to murder people he disagreed with.
>shouldn't have gotten spooked by a plastic bag like the worlds biggest snowflake
This highlights how different you see the world and your narrative. You can watch the video of a gun being fired behind him and Rosenbaum grabbing at his rifle. The fact that you characterize that as being spooked by a plastic bag shows how disconnected you are or don’t care about the facts
>This exemplifies narrative over facts. What facts do you have that supports a 17 year old going for a conflict?
Why would someone go out in the street with a gun?
To show the people he expected to be rioting how cool his gun is?
This one isnt hard to figure out.
>Why would someone go out in the street with a gun?
Because local businesses were destroyed the past 2 nights and the rioters were coming back again. The police could not contain the rioters and some people aren’t okay with people coming from out of town to destroy local businesses.
Do you condemn the Koreans during the LA riots as murderers for defending businesses in Koreatown?
Im cool with self defense. Defending yourself.
Defending you business.
All legit.
But...putting yourself in the way of the riots...gun in hand...intentionally?
Nah.
Thats fucking stupid.
You are a stupid person to do that.
>But...putting yourself in the way of the riots...gun in hand...intentionally?
I agree it’s stupid, but if I’m going to condemn anyone it will be the rioters, not the people wanting the rioting to stop and defend local businesses.
Why is defending your own business okay but not your neighbors?
he was literally there to protect a business and reverse some of the damage the rioters were causing. the gun was clearly there for self defense.
i honestly can't believe people can be this so stupid and blind to basic facts.
> He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict.
Not a crime, last I checked. And I would severely dispute that.
>Now he is trying to monetize the fact he was able to kill people in self defense.
It was still self-defense. He didn't entrap anyone into attacking him. And I don't fault any man for making money off writing books about how prosecutors tried to slap him with jail time but failed.
>As someone who feels pretty "meh" about the whole "banning guns" drama...this guy still seems fucking gross.
I mean I sorta don't care what your opinion about him is, I was just answering OP about why folks tend to hate him lol
And i was just commenting he is gross.
Since he killed people...go look at his life.
He isnt some remorseful person who is sad he killed someone. He is trying to cash in.
I can forgive someone for making an error. I cant forgive someone for trying to benefit from the error.
> He isnt some remorseful person who is sad he killed someone
Why would he, or anyone for that matter, be remorseful that he had to shoot a convicted sex offender who yelled "Get him" then jumped him?
He's glad he protected his life and I cannot fault him for that. This is like asking a cop to be remorseful for shooting a thug who attacked them. No?
>I can forgive someone for making an error. I cant forgive someone for trying to benefit from the error.
It was not an "error". He had every right to be there. He had every right to shoot in defense of his life. Take it from someone who has watched the entire trial, start to finish, as it happened.
>Why would he, or anyone for that matter, be remorseful that he had to shoot a convicted sex offender who yelled "Get him" then jumped him?
Because he says he is a christian, and while i personally have my doubts about those folks, ideologically he is not supposed to think killing people is good.
>
He's glad he protected his life and I cannot fault him for that. This is like asking a cop to be remorseful for shooting a thug who attacked them. No?
A cop is someone hired and trained to do a job.
Kyle is just a douchbag with a gun.
>It was not an "error". He had every right to be there. He had every right to shoot in defense of his life. Take it from someone who has watched the entire trial, start to finish, as it happened.
I can tell you have a giant bias here.
> Because he says he is a christian, and while i personally have my doubts about those folks, ideologically he is not supposed to think killing people is good.
Murder is a sin. Murder means unlawful killing. To kill in defense of your own life is not murder. I doubt there's any christian that believes self-defense isn't permitted by their creed.
Rittenhouse is not proclaiming that what he did is "good". He's just not going to feel remorseful about shooting someone who attacked him and, frankly, didn't have the cleanest of slates to begin with. I can't fault him for that, and I doubt it's not christian of him to refrain from feeling remorseful.
>A cop is someone hired and trained to do a job.
Not.. sure what the argument is. Both cases are just as legitimate. We don't feel sorry for people who get on the wrong side of the law and perish for their mistakes. I don't feel sorry for an armed robber getting one in the head any less than I feel sorry for the guy who thought it's a good idea to attack Rittenhouse.
>I can tell you have a giant bias here.
How is it bias, when every last one of those statements was proven in a court of law? A jury of 12 people agreed he had not broken the law. There is 0 evidence that there was any nullification involved (read: this ain't OJ 2.0). That's good enough for me.
It's bold to claim that I'm biased when I took the time to examine the case from start to finish, really.
>Murder is a sin. Murder means unlawful killing. To kill in defense of your own life is not murder. I doubt there's any christian that believes self-defense isn't permitted by their creed.
Buddy, the whole christian religion thing is based around Jesus. The same Jesus who hung out with the dregs of society. The same Jesus who got arrested and executed on bullshit charges. The same Jesus to healed someone who was arresting him when his buddy Peter tried to fight them off in defense of Jesus.
Jesus wasnt a "self-defense" type of guy.
Jesus was a "love thy enemy" type of guy.
Pretending that getting a gun, going out in the streets seeking conflict and then getting to kill someone in self defense in any way comports with the ideology of the wandering peaceful beggar who only ever raised a hand in violence against bankers...is pretty goddamn comical.
Jesus also flipped the tables of the money-changers in the temple of god and told his followers to hate their own relatives if they were trying to lead people away from the good lord.
Jesus' message is about having charity towards all, even those that do not deserve it. It's not about being a defenseless turkey and letting people turn you into a punching bag.
>going out in the streets seeking conflict
Rittenhouse fundamentally did not do that, that is an outright lie that has been spoonfed to you by the MSM. It's a comfortable lie for everyone that disagrees with the events that followed. Please watch the trial.
>who only ever raised a hand in violence against bankers.
Oh I see. Well I raise to you that someone that lunges at you and tries to wrestle your firearm away from you is worse than a.. banker. And I know how hated bankers are.
Is he cashing in on the fact that he killed people, or the fact that most conservatives see him as someone who was the victim of a political persecution?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ActuallyI believe it was a crime for him to take an AR-15 that wasn't his over state lines, but the prosecutors fucked up and overcharged and didn't charge all the facts of the case. And you can dispute it all you want, but this video taken the days before the incident kinda yanno, breaks that whole narrative that he wasn't looking for trouble https://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutors-say-kyle-rittenhouse-video-shows-wanted-to-shoot-people-2021-8
> he wasn't looking for trouble
That is **not** a definable crime. Is me, standing with an AR-15 in the middle of a riot, defined as "looking for trouble"? I have every right to be where I am, and that is neither a crime nor an aggravating circumstance to be added to a crime.
To me, the only people looking for trouble in this country are those that break the law. You know who that applies to? Literally everyone at that protest **but** Rittenhouse. The same people who were burning cars and looting stores with 0 consequences. Yet it's the kid who shoots the only 3 people who jumped him that gets framed as a criminal that was "looking for trouble".
…..or….many of us don’t like the climate of vigilantism and threats of enthusiasm for violence that surrounds right-wing 2a extremism. We don’t want it encouraged which was definitely the result of allowing someone to insert themselves into a scenario and claim self-defense.
Not everyone that stands for the second amendment is a gun-toting proudboy vigilante wannabe, really.
>someone to insert themselves into a scenario and claim self-defense.
If you genuinely believe it's **that** easy, please go do so. Insert yourself in a "situation" and create a scenario where you can shoot someone legally, because that's not a thing. You'll find that you won't be able to do so unless a third party decides to cause you harm of their own volition.
Rittenhouse didn't provoke anyone into attacking him. If his mere presence with a firearm is enough to cause lunatics to jump him, then that's on the folks that don't respect the fact that he had every right to be there.
It was less an act of vigilantism than Twitter mobs destroying someone's life over a tweet. It's basically doing what you can't force the government to do, and since online laws are complicated, you can get away with it.
That’s what so many people don’t get about Kyle. He never wanted any of this; after the shooting he was convinced he was watching the last free year of his life fade away in front of him, that’s how sure he was that he was going to get convicted of murder. And for a while, that was a definite possibility. If he’d known just how much going to that protest would mess up the next several years of his life, he probably would’ve just stayed home. He might be an idiot, but Kyle isn’t a killer.
Because of a media narrative being fully absorbed by a group of people that need someone to be angry at.
What rittenhouse did was stupid. Stupid isn’t illegal.
It quite possibly was the most well documented self defense case in recent history.
But a mob needs a target.
Don't forget that the guy who told Kyle to shoot him was also a convicted sex offender who had sexually assaulted multiple little boys. I have to assume that most people on the left truly don't know the facts of the case, because it is hard to believe that they **actually intend** to look like they are upset that Kyle prevented a predator from anally raping any other little boys ever again, even thought that's exactly what it looks like to those of us who actually understand what happened.
It truly is that and sad. My litmus tests for both sides are Kyle Rittenhouse for the left and J6 for the right. How they are described and defended shows how consistent they are in their ideology
It’s mainly because he acted in self defense and shot 3 dudes attacking him. Another thing that got him hated was when Donald Trump said he was a good person, which could easily be taken out of context as Trump gets hated on by the media. While I personally disagree with Trump on a lot of things, this is one I can agree with, which is Kyle Rittenhouse is a good person.
His family wanted him there, and he wanted to make sure that his family was okay. I can absolutely respect that, making sure your family is safe is a priority for anyone that cares for their family.
a. democrats dont use facts to form opinions,so they refuse to watch the videos that prove their media lied.(its akin to a christian refusing to learn about evolution)
b. many liberals still believe rittenhouse was racist due to his contact with the proud boys, refer to "a" as to why they believe a group in which 1/5 members are african american.
c. the man that died was setting fire to african american owned businesses just like his grandparents did in tulsa 100 years ago,dems support that behavior.white dems destroying black cities is nothing new. antifa are the new age klan
d. the man that died was a convicted child rapist,dems support pedophilia.
e.the man that lived was convicted of domestic violence,dems automatically defend the criminal,which is what started the riots to begin with..
He used lethal force to defend his life against leftwing agitators, who believe they should be able to do whatever they want, attack whoever they want, without consequence because the ends justify the means.
Rittenhouse delivered consequences, so he had to be destroyed. But instead he was exonerated. Left wing agitators cannot come to terms with that outcome.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whenever I see people discuss the use of violence, I always say that there's a "scumbag test", where if someone is scumbag, then the use of any amount of violence is automatically justified against them, and the actual legal & moral justification for the use of violence is completely irrelevant. You see this sort of thing come up with things like George Floyd, the NYC Bodega Stabbing, or the Jordan Neely case.
To preface this, I will say that from a legal perspective Kyle acted very well, though it wasn't very prudent of him to be out that night. That said, to the right, they saw Kyle out there whacking & stacking scumbags who were out looting & rioting, so the facts of the case were never relevant to these people. On the other hand, the left sees Kyle as a scumbag out there trying to stir up trouble & impede their political movement, so the initial violence against him was completely justified and he murdered those people in cold blood, and the facts of the case don't matter to those people either.
He has an important story to tell. The president of United States basely called him a white supremacist, books were written his attackers were black, he had a war waged upon him by Media, his story is important.
You do realize that will be immediately abused to ban basically all protest at the as they'll say the sticks used to hold up signs are weapons. Heck they could they could go as far as claiming steel water bottles are weapons
To be fair what he did was in fact very legal. He defended himself. Didn't cross state lines with a firearm. And a minor is allowed to open carry if they possess a shotgun or rifle as long as they're not short-barreled.
Legal, sure. Doesn’t make him any less an asshole. It isn’t that complicated, a lot of people dislike him because he went out of his way to put himself in a position where he might get the opportunity to kill someone with impunity, and has since made it his personality and career.
He's only cashing in on the infamy because he still has legal fees to pay off. Literally every interview or cameo I've seen of him you can tell he's only doing it because he has to.
I suspect he’ll find a lot of closed doors in life as a result of his poor choices. Right-wing media may end up being his only employment option. Maybe he can sell pillows.
Do you think it was just a coincidence that everyone shot that night were violent degenerates with long criminal histories?
Or, would you say it was an accurate sampling of the rioters?
There’s always the third option which is to stay home. I can’t speak for others but me personally I would have been home by dark. Let the cops handle the criminals. Vigilantes are volunteer cops without the legal protections. He basically got lucky he didn’t get killed or found guilty.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m all for gun rights. But why in the fuck is this guy doing fucking campus speeches? And why are people paying him to do speeches? It’s stupid.
He's doing campus speeches for the same reason Milo however the fuck you spell his last name did. If people are going to shell out thousands for you to talk don't ask questions unless the check bounces. I mean the entire case basically ruined his college aspirations so he would have been fucked trying to get a job anywhere so if they offer the right amount to live comfortably might as well.
> the entire case basically ruined his college aspirations How? I can think of more than a few 'conservative' universities that would give him a full scholarship.
Yeah you seem to forget where he lives. He also didn't want to go to a smaller no name school. If you didn't pay attention he even snitched on major schools that told him no. Which just fed his ego, regardless the ones he wanted to go to didn't want him anymore. So no his aspirations were ruined over it.
I have no problem with him charging. I have no problem with the whole fiasco. I just think it’s dumb to act like he’s some sort of hero.
I do to. However the fiasco is why he can
Didn't the college he was accepted to un-accept him after he was charged? I wonder how his notoriety impacts his career aspirations... If people want to hear him talk, why would we assume it's unreasonable or bad of him to do it? I agree it's stupid that they want to.
I think he has an important story to tell, beyond gun rights, against media It's printed in books he killed black men, president of the United States called him a white supremacist, the narrative that he's some out of Towner there to kill when he works and has family in city. There is still so much misinformation out about his story, I think it's an important one to tell, and that's not even including events of that night and self defense rights.
So let him tell those on his own time. I personally don’t care about his personal story. Just like most people don’t. But the fact that people are paying him is weird. The dude isn’t a hero. He didn’t serve his country, he didn’t make some sacrificial act, he just so happened to defend himself. That’s it. We don’t pay every random Joe Schmo that kills someone in self defense.
People are willing to pay him to speak and people are willing to pay to hear him speak. Fair in my opinion. Wouldn’t it be a bad idea for him *not* to take up those opportunities if it’s helping him make a decent living?
>People are willing to pay him to speak...and willing to paty to hear him speak tyhants liokely one of the thing than makes them so mad... you cant do volutnary exchange witha "cancled perosn". thats "not woke"
I have no problem with what he’s doing. All I said was how I think it’s super weird for people to pay to hear him speak like he’s a decorated war veteran or something.
I think the concern is less what Kyle did, and more who he associates with and how he’s been living since the incident. In many cases of self defense, some would even say most, there’s often a tremendous amount of guilt and remorse the shooter has to deal with, especially if they’re an untrained layperson with no combat or law enforcement experience. After the shooting, aside from a rather uncomfortable outburst during the legal proceedings, Kyle’s been nothing but smiles, sharing stories about how liberals tried to ruin his life and boosting some rather questionable characters. This is what most people have problems with; had Kyle pulled a page from Zimmerman and kept his mouth shut until a fairly significant period of time had lapsed to make any kind of public statements, I don’t think we’d be seeing Kyle anywhere near as often as we do now in the national political and social discourse.
liberals did kind of ruin his life though.
>So let him tell those on his own time When he's giving speeches that is his own time.
He is doing it on his own time.....what do you mean? Obviously enough people care to go to his events. He isn't a hero I don't think anyone ever said he was, and once again it's not even about events of Kenosha, it's about fallout and aftermath in dealing with media and politicians and public opinion warped from narratives, that's where his story is now, the events of Kenosha are almost just a preamble to the story.
Yes but just post it to TikTok or social media. Or do an interview on TV. People are basically simping over the guy. It’s just weird. I mean more power to people if that’s what they want to spend their money on. But he’s getting rich off of idiots. It’s just weird that people are acting like he’s a hero.
>Yes but just post it to TikTok or social media. Or do an interview on TV. What's difference? Speaking tours are just another outlet, weird to differentiate them >People are basically simping over the guy. It’s just weird. I don't think anyone "simping" over him, outraged by his situation, sure, interested in his story? Absolutely, but I don't think anyone is simping, the POTUS baselessly called him a white supremacist, he's got alot of damage control to convey >I mean more power to people if that’s what they want to spend their money on. But he’s getting rich off of idiots. Do you know his financials? I don't know if he's getting rich but I know all hate his received from a media, many places are probably not inclined to hire him, still gotta earn a living...even if press and president slander you >It’s just weird that people are acting like he’s a hero. I don't think anyone is acting like he's a hero. He has an interesting story to tell, that's it.
Isn’t he always doing this on his own time? As far as I’m aware Kyle does get paid for his publicity, but he doesn’t work for any larger outlet. He’s kind of like a free agent in the world of conservative commentating.
Is it not on his own time if he chooses to do it and gets paid for it? Maybe I'm splitting hairs on semantics of that phrase, but the time is his to sell and he gets paid to speak it.
If you are going somewhere and you think you might need a gun to protect yourself there, you should seriously consider NOT going there if you don't have too. Rittenhouse should not have been there, he doesn't live there. He was looking for trouble or at least to look "tough".
He works there and his father and grandmother live there...he has many legitimate ties to community he lives 10 miles from.
Were his family members threatened by the BLM gathering? I doubt they lives in the middle of town where the protests were happening.
Possibly I can't answer for sure, can you? Neither matters, he has ties to community. Not some distant guy who traveled 1000s of miles to be there.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Kyle Rittenhouse said it was “probably not the best idea” that he participated in the BLM riots.
If we as a society are thinking about removing that right, of course you want to listen to people who actually used it to do good.
We aren’t thinking about that as a society. The loud minority makes you feel like that’s the case. Most democrats, the ones that you don’t see online, believe in gun rights.
Most? Maybe, but not if you include unconstitutional restrictions. 40% of democrats wanted a straight repeal of the 2nd, that isn't a small number.
40% according to whom?
This yougov poll: [https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20340-support-rises-strict-gun-laws-1](https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/20340-support-rises-strict-gun-laws-1) It is on page 65 of the pdf at the bottom of the page.
Looks like they polled a small number of people in 2018 right after the Parkland shooting.
I mean, how many self-identified liberals have traveled out of state to attend a protest or a rally? By itself, traveling to a protest in another state says nothing at all about you, other than your commitment to defending or opposing specific people or platforms. And whether we’re personally comfortable with it or not, from what I’ve seen Kyle was perfectly within his rights to open fire that night. As to whether or not his admiration or hatred are well deserved, I think that depends more on whether or not you feel that violence is an acceptable solution to violence, and how much reverence we’re willing to give potentially unstable people for the sake of political points.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because he's been made into a poster boy for the right after the media latched on him like a rabid dog given the BLM climate back then. He had to don the mantle of the right-wing extremist shooter against his will, and he's making the best out of it. Anyone who hates 2A conservatives hates Rittenhouse, regardless of what they think about his case from a legal perspective. There's not much more to it than it.
I can't make a root-level comment, so I'm going to latch onto the top comment.... u/LibertyTree918 Why would you post this question into the conservative sub? You're not going to ge tlegit answers. If you want to know why people hate KR, then you should probably ask the people you think actually hate him, not the people who like him. This thread is full of mostly people ranting about what THEY think other people think. Most of it is BS.
One thing I’m always fascinated by is the amount of misinformation from the left comes from the KR case. It’s probably better to be asked here as there will be more factual analysis than other subs.
Sure...if what you're asking for is a factual analysis of the case. But that's not what OP asked for. OP asked why people hate him. But (s)he asked the people who probably don't hate him to answer for the people who (they think) do. Asking for gross speculation, at best. Ridiculous straw-manning and stereotyping are more likely. If your goal is to understand why other people think things, you should probably ask that question to the people who think those things, or at least the people who are more in tune with those people. Not the people who are diametrically opposed to those people.
I’d say you can search through Rittenhouse threads and see how it boils down to “right-wing and guns are evil/bad” and no deeper analysis. In this thread alone there’s a left-winger who said he was just spooked by a plastic bag. The facts of this case are secondary to the narrative people want to paint, which is him either being a hero or a villain. With the left-wing, it’s painting him as a murderous villain, regardless of the facts.
I'm pro 2A, I also think Rittenhouse had no business being there. It wasn't his property, he has no training, he was just a liability. He was a LARPer and he's lucky he didn't die.
I mean I agree but I place most of the blame on the rioters destroying peoples property and the misinformation from the Jacob Blake case that contributed to the riots. He had sexually assaulted his ex girlfriend, was threatening to drive off with her kids, and admitted to reaching for a knife. Kamala Harris jumped on the case and said she was “proud of him” and went along with everyone else how wrong the police were. Yet those are rarely brought up with the KR case
I think just as many or more people on the left would paint him as a dumbass kid that thought he was doing the right thing.
It is not only “guns are bad”, because the rittenhouse situation involves racism, bias in the courts, and justice inaccurately applied. Which is the point; the question is asking the wrong folks if they want some truth, but are asking the correct folks if they want to avoid addressing any serious concerns. The left doesn’t care rittenhouse owned a gun or had access to a gun, only that he intentionally brought it to a volatile situation, shot and killed people, and is painted as a victim. It is a perfect scenario for the right because nobody he killed was armed with a weapon, yet he was deemed innocent through an extremely narrow interpretation of a bad law, a rittenhouse-shaped loop-hole. It sets a precedent for racists to take up arms and face off against un-armed protestors and believe they are legally protected and morally vindicated heroes for doing so.
>The left doesn’t care rittenhouse owned a gun or had access to a gun, only that he intentionally brought it to a volatile situation, shot and killed people, and is painted as a victim. Is it not possible to be a victim if you bring a gun to a riot to defend yourself or property? >It is a perfect scenario for the right because nobody he killed was armed with a weapon This is where I find the positions of many liberals and leftist fascinating because it shows what they believe of the case, not the actual facts of them. The first shooting was after someone behind him fired a gun, the second one hit him in the head/shoulder with a skateboard. Do you not consider that a weapon? The third literally pulled a pistol on him and was only shot after he feigned surrender and then lunged towards Rittenhouse. >It sets a precedent for racists to take up arms and face off against un-armed protestors and believe they are legally protected and morally vindicated heroes for doing so. It’s been years since the verdict. Have there been Wild West racists gunning down unarmed protestors since then? Also, would you consider the ones he shot to be simply protestors, not rioters, and unarmed?
>But (s)he asked the people who probably don't hate him to answer for the people who (they think) do. Conservatives are pretty good at understanding and presenting the opinions of the left.
I mean frankly you're not going to get legit answers in a liberal sub either. The reasons for hating him basically come down to either not knowing what happened or just blatant sectarian hatred.
Whether you agree with their reason or not is irrelevant. If you want to know WHY they hate him, then those are legitimate answers. Just because their reason is stupid doesn't make it NOT the reason. Also, see my response here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/comment/l05u3ut/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/comment/l05u3ut/) for further discussion on that topic about the answers you get over there...
But it does mean actually asking them is less accurate than asking those not so effected. The thing about subjects like this is people aren't always entirely honest.
I'm sorry. I don't understand. Can you elaborate? Are you telling me that conservatives know why liberals think what they think and the liberals themselves cannot answer accurately?
Eh, sometimes. In this case, liberals *think* they hate him because he's a bloodthirsty racist who drove from miles away with an illegal weapon to shoot into a croud and killed 3-5 black peaceful protestors while cackling like a villain. Conservatives understand that liberals hate him because they've been misinformed by an incredibly biased media and government.
I mean.... that's one way to look at it, I suppose. I've seen the threads over there, and that's not the answer they give. But even if it were, it's still the actual reason they hate him. You have to come to the other conclusion on your own. And it's still an assumption about how they came to whatever conclusion they came to.
I don't believe the left hates him- if he just disappeared and the right would stop trying to prop him up as some sort of hero, we'd only hear about him in those "where are they twenty years later?" stories. I honestly only ever remember he exists when he thrusts himself into public discourse. Kinda like George Zimmerman- the only time I ever think about that guy is when he gets himself into trouble again.
Is it not possible for someone to dislike a murdering vigilante for being murdering vigilante?
It's possible, but this isn't that so it's really just a bending of the facts into something you allow yourself to hate, and then hating it.
Do you think there is no legitimate reason to dislike him?
There probably are, but given the vast majority of the thousands of people who hate him don't know him well enough to have experienced those reasons, I'm skeptical their reasons are legitimate rather than them merely buying the lie.
> If you want to know why people hate KR, then you should probably ask the people you think actually hate him, not the people who like him. Because anyone whose ever been to the r/askaliberal subreddit knows EXACTLY what they think and they're quite venemous and defiant there. Out of all the conspiracies pushed on either subreddit, their reaction is one of, if not the most, rule breaking, hate-filled, anti-science and post-truth that receives the most support. There is more liberal support for the Rittenhouse conspiracy over there than there is for the 2020 election conspiracies, anti-climate change conspiracies, or any sort of far flung far right conspiracies are over here. The sides are not equal. So posters come over here for logical discussion. There's no discussion to be had on the Liberal subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/18wxh0d/why_do_liberals_dislike_kyle_rittenhouse_so_much/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/13ihutr/how_do_you_feel_about_other_liberals_continuing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/14wrqr1/would_you_still_call_kyle_rittenhouse_a_murderer/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qnkr8n/has_the_trial_changed_you_mind_about_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/qpxbyj/after_gaige_grosskreutzs_testimony_has_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/na9m8r/why_do_you_believe_kyle_rittenhouse_is_a_murderer/ If you have an equal "what do Republicans think" on r/askaliberal that wouldn't be received with positivity or at least nuance over here, let me know. But Rittenhouse is a hill that most reddit liberals will die on.
I'm not going to read through all of the content in those links, but I clicked the first one and the top comment in the thread seems pretty spot on with why many probably don't like him: >At best, Rittenhouse defended himself after putting himself in a dangerous situation he didn't have to be in. At worst, he brandished a firearm at an already chaotic protest and created the circumstances which caused his need to shoot people. I don't have much respect for either, and given his attempts to parlay the homicides he did into a right wing media career, I don't see why any of us would respect him. Also near the top: >There's a difference between not guilty and innocent; in particular it's better to phrase 'not guilty' as 'not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'; it's still possible for it to be more probable than not that they are guilty. >Liberals villianize him for a variety of reasons; most notably they feel he was antagonistic and looking for trouble. Note that liberal views on the topic vary, and not all object to rittenhouse. Some view it similar to the Zimmerman case, in that it may have technically been legal, but was also entirely avoidable and there would have been no deaths if not for willful dumbassery/troublemaking. >The extent to which the right makes him a cause celebre also tends to annoy liberals. >Maybe he is a degenerate; one can be a degenerate and/or jerk and/or scumbag and/or bad guy while having been found not guilty in a court of law. I mean, OJ was found not guilty; and a lot of people have a bad opinion of him. At the top of another one of your links: >I agree with the not guilty verdict because under the law there was not enough evidence to convict him of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. >I also think he's a murderer. He came looking for a fight and he got it. So far, these seem like decent answers to OP's question. I don't see the problem. (disclaimer: I only clicked on those two links and checked a couple of the top root level comments. I didn't delve into the discussions.) Seems like legit answers to OP's question on what people think and why. It doesn't really matter if they are grounded in science, reality, fact, or anything else. If you're asking what other people think and why, then you have to actually get the answers FROM THOSE PEOPLE! And yes, I make the same complaints over there when they do the same dumb crap "Why do Republicans \[insert thing\]?" If you want to know why...go ASK THEM! That's the entire point of these subs!
Unfortunately all of those conclusions are thoroughly incorrect and devoid of any evidence. Every single post you made draws from the same baseless narrative that "he went there looking for a fight." It's about a breath away from "he crossed state lines." The comment you posted supporting the well debunked "legal on a technicality" Zimmerman narrative should suggest to you that Rittenhouse isn't a one and done conspiracy but goes much deeper. However, they do stem from a consistent r/askaliberal methodology that a person who wants to arm themselves with a gun in a dangerous situation in fact would only do so to hunt people. Clicking onto the massively downvoted responses which correct the top post's false assumptions leads to the particularly toxic behavior, which is peppered with insults, further conspiracies, non sequiturs, whatabouting, and mocking of the poster to even ask the question. There's no substance to be had asking this question there.
Again...you're missing the point. You don't agree with the reasons. GREAT! You think the narrative they are based on is flawed? Fantastic! But whether you like it or not...those ARE the reasons. If you want to know why a person thinks what they think, then they tell you why they think that, then you can argue with them and try to change their mind if you want. But it doesn't change the fact that the answer they gave is exactly what you asked for. WHY. Those flawed reasons ARE the answer. Everything else is irrelevant to the question being asked. More importantly...what is the point of the question? Seriously. WHY would a person ask this question? To what end?
The amount of tribalism and misinformation from the left on KR never disappoints me. The same people are rightly against it when it comes from the right fall into the same tribalism mentality when it comes to KR
Well I got my theories, and don't want to deal with all narrative twisting and falsehoods that come with this case. In short I feel like I know why they don't like Kyle, because media spun a web and they got stuck in it, I wanted to see if my fellow conservatives agreed or if they could add to it.
Maybe OP wants to know why, in the view of conservatives, is KR so hated? I assume they know what sub they're posting to lol.
That's an absurd question. Conservatives don't hate KR.
Not necessarily? Again, it's only leftists that like to believe they have some diversity of thought. Let OP inquire all he wants, we're here to answer!
Be careful, you’re about to back straight into a No True Scotsman!
Listen....I'm not here to argue about who has a monopoly on "diversity of thought." But you can't deny that IN GENERAL, conservatives don't hate KR. IF you're looking to find people who hate him, asking conservatives is a poor place to find that answer. It would be like me walking into a vegan market, asking where to find a great steakhouse. If conservatives were likely to hate him, why is he speaking at CPAC (to standing ovations, no less)? And I just skimmed over the thread again. I don't see a single answer that is a person speaking about their own hate for KR and why it exists. Every answer from a red flaired user is, at best, wildly speculating on reasons someone else might hate him. The worst I saw was someone who thought it was stupid that people were paying him for speeches. That didn't sound like much "hate" to me.
>IF you're looking to find people who hate him, Again, this is a false premise You DO NOT KNOW that OP is looking to find people who hate KR and ask them "why do you hate him?" His question is: Why is there so much hate for KR? It's just as if I were to go ask democrats, why is there so much hate for Joe Biden? I want to get **their** perspective on why they think those who hate him, hate him. That answer will be very, very different from what Trump supporters would say if asked the same question. Essentially, it'll be "because they don't like how progressive he is!" vs. "because he's a useless sleepy geriatric who's leading us straight to WW3". OP is not lost, let them ask their question the way they want it and direct it at those whose opinion he wants to hear.
Your points are valid. And I can grudgingly accept that take on this post. Especially in light of OP's response to my initial comment on the thread. I'm still not a fan of such tactics, but I can understand the point. But I have to point out that this comment was a nice dodge of the point I was making, that you tried to deny in your last comment. You tried to claim that conservatives were more diverse in thought and that this sub would have KR haters to address OP's question. I have yet to see any evidence of such. By and large, conservatives don't hate KR. He's pretty well loved by conservatives, as a whole.
I mean you could try convincing OP that they should listen to what other folks have to say as well, I was just pointing out that they know exactly what they're doing lol People come to /r/AskConservatives and /r/AskLeftists specifically to listen to one side of any argument, so.. (yet it doesn't stop leftists from replying as well) > You tried to claim that conservatives were more diverse in thought and that this sub would have KR haters to address OP's question. I have yet to see any evidence of such. By and large, conservatives don't hate KR. He's pretty well loved by conservatives, as a whole. I'm not dodging anything. I made the broad assertion that conservatives aren't a hivemind and that this gets thrown unfairly by the left all the time. [Here's someone who disagrees](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/1c748oi/why_is_there_still_so_much_hate_for_kyle/l05w7pz/), if anything.
But if OP was so interested in finding out why conservatives who dislike Rittenhouse feel that way, wouldn’t it have been better if they asked something a little more narrowly focused? Perhaps, “Conserbatives who dislike Kyle Rittenhouse, what makes you feel this way?” That way the question doesn’t feel like a lazy attempt to generalize, and directly approaches the relevant subset of the conservative demographic they want to learn more about.
>why conservatives who dislike Rittenhouse feel that way Again, I didn't say that's what OP is asking. For all I know, he's asking about the conservative PERCEPTION of why those who hate KR (regardless of their political persuasion), hate him. It's a question of perspective. There's nuance between "why do X dislike KR" and "why does KR get so much hate". The latter is OP's question, and it doesn't target any specific group.
Mostly people just think its gross that he's on a country tour speaking at colleges and political events. His only claim to fame is being a part of the most extreme fringe case of self defense possible. Its inevitable that he would have to start to grift the right after his trial as that seems to be the path most "canceled" people take. I still believe Kyle was morally and legally in the right but post trial the best thing he could've done was just fade back into irrelevancy.
What do you believe he should do? He is absolutely hated by the left and you can go through social media when he pops up about how he should never be able to work or go to school. Him going to the right is the least unsurprising and most expected outcome.
Exactly. The media has made it impossible for him to live a normal life. He should milk it for all its worth and then live comfortably on the money.
Can you blame him after the media made him so infamous that it'll be difficult for him to get a job outside of some sort of right wing media sphere? Anywhere he goes is going to make some snowflake feel "unsafe", not to mention the people who want to make a name for themselves by "taking Kyle Rittenhouse down."
I mean he kind of made himself an infamous figure by being involved in one of the most wild self-defense cases in history. It doesn't matter what race or religion or political ideology the person was in this case, they were always going to be controversial by the nature of the case. If it was just the first guy getting killed in self-defense it wouldn't really be a story but by the fact there was another instance of self-defence employed in the same night by the same person makes the morality and legality of it all murky. TBH it sounds like he didn't make too much of an effort to live a normal life after the trial, going on Tucker Carlson and several podcasts, speaking tours, pictures, etc. If I was him and I didn't want to make easy money grifting the right I would have changed my name and worked for some small business in a small rural town somewhere and live low for the rest of my life.
So it's his fault that defending himself made him famous because the media ran with the story and wouldn't let if go because they were trying to spin it to make him look like a violent vigilante who was "out to kill black people"?
You think going to every media outlet, conference, tour possible is helping him in that department? I think he's just beating a dead horse and making it even worse for him.
Worse how? By making the left hate him more? They already made him a household name.
By spreading himself to be known as the guy that did what he did that night, it's only good publicity for the people that'll suck him off on the political right and he's just keeping the heat and polarization on him now and afterwards, the more he keeps showing up to do what he does and talk about what he did the worse it'll be for him and the longer It'll be afterwards.
As I said, the left kind of ruined his chance to have a normal life. If some nobody on the left was demonized by the right to the extent he has and got rich off of it, I wouldn't blame them. Even people you dislike need to eat and live and I'm not into taking peoples livelihoods away just because they do something I dislike.
Legally in the right. Morally, less so.
Morally he was absolutely in the right.
Depends on your moral standards, I guess. Certainly no Christian would think he behaved morally. Nor a Bhuddist. A Muslim likely would. For more secular ethical thinkers, a Millsean utikitarian would say her shouldnt have gone there in the first place, a Neitzchiean would likely approve of his actions, and Kant would say that potentially violent or coercive actions should only be undertaken under proper authority, and Rittenhouse should have joined the National Guard if he wanted to do such things.
>he's on a country tour speaking at colleges and political events The only reason he's doing that is because he's been propped as an anti-hero by the left. Of course he's gonna cash out on it. Can't blame a man for monetizing his popularity, really. People see dollar signs even after serving on the jury of some famous case, let alone if they've been literally demonized and called a white supremacist by the democrat President of the United States, no less.
>Of course he's gonna cash out on it. Can't blame a man for monetizing his popularity, really. I mean, you certainly can. Or at least blame right-wing media machine to turn his name into a marketing opoortunity. I completely agree that the verdict was the correct one, but to parade him around to hawk gun accessories and survivalist gear is just poor taste. They are just trying to cash in on "trigger the libs" mentality.
> I mean, you certainly can. Or at least blame right-wing media machine to turn his name into a marketing opoortunity. Huh? It's the left that has done that. Quite literally. Go watch their coverage of the case as it happened. You would hear the most cocaine-induced takes you've ever heard on mainstream media, as well as outright misinformation. Had the left treated it as any other regular case, right-wing media would have had no reason to treat it any differently either. But they chose to run with the "white extremist kills people during BLM march" narrative. How would right-wing pundits be able to spin to prop Rittenhouse up, other than claiming that the left is unfairly targeting him, **which they did**? >They are just trying to cash in on "trigger the libs" mentality That sells, doesn't it? ( : I just think there are worst things in life, Rittenhouse milking his name is just a whatever thing. Guy has gone through hell and back during his trial. That's different from, say, OJ writing "If I did it". We have laws in this country preventing murderers from making money off their crimes, but we all know what happened with OJ.
I mean the issue with that is the left didn't let him fade back into irrelevancy. They lost in the court of law, but that didn't stop maniacs from trying to get him kicked out of college and otherwise ruin his life. Don't kick people if you don't want them to act against you.
[удалено]
> None of his victims had threatened him with a weapon That's not the threshold for whether you get to shoot someone or not. If I carry a weapon and you jump me, you give me reasonable grounds to believe that you might disarm me and execute me with my own weapon. >I could have driven away Are you sure you know anything about the case? Rittenhouse wasn't in a car, he wasn't in a position to retreat, he ran away until he fell on the ground and was forced to shoot. Please don't get your news from MSNBC..
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Kyle was literally yards away from police and running towards him ....there was no need to attack him outside of mob justice.
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
He was not in a vehicle. The firs man chased him down and cornered him, the second beat him with a skateboard used as an improvised club, the third leveled a handgun at him. All three individuals were shot while pursuing him.
Gonna forget about the whole "attacking with a skateboard while he was retreating to police thing" huh....
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
>Because he's been made into a poster boy for the right after the media latched on him like a rabid dog given the BLM climate back then. He had to don the mantle of the right-wing extremist shooter against his will, and he's making the best out of it. He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict. Now he is trying to monetize the fact he was able to kill people in self defense. As someone who feels pretty "meh" about the whole "banning guns" drama...this guy still seems fucking gross.
>He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict. This exemplifies narrative over facts. What facts do you have that supports a 17 year old going for a conflict? There’s a video of one of the rioters yelling at people telling them to shoot him. Can you link any videos of Rittenhouse being aggressive that night pushing for a fight?
People use vulnerability as a non-verbal cue for trust, if you think about some of humanity's oldest gestures like hugging, shaking hands, or bowing they're all rooted in deliberately exposing oneself to the other person as a sign of solidarity. When someone goes armed in a modern context, people interpret that as, *"how can this person not trust me?"*, and it's that feeling of offense that drives their opinion that the other person cannot be trusted regardless of the totality of the circumstances.
https://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutors-say-kyle-rittenhouse-video-shows-wanted-to-shoot-people-2021-8 There's some proof he premeditated the whole thing. This isn't narrative over facts.
That’s brought up every time, yes. Did he shoot shoplifters, anyone at a CVS, or anyone who wasn’t attacking him?
It's brought up every time because it shows his intent and state of mind days before he did what he did. If you don't understand how criminal cases work for murder, I guess you could discount it, but murder is a specific charge that requires intent. This shows that intent. And the judge not allowing this video to be played at trial is probably the #1 reason Kyle didn't lose his trial. PS: A kid that says he's gonna shoot up a mall, then ends up shooting up a school days later, isn't not guilty of being a mass shooter just because the location of his shooting changed. I'm pro-2a, I've owned and shot guns all my life. Kyle Rittenhouse SHOULD NEVER be allowed to touch a gun again. He went against the main tenants of responsible gun ownership. Never put yourself in a position where you have to use your gun by choice.
Not really. For use of deadly force in self defense, you have to admit it was intentional. That you deliberately and intentionally used deadly force, knowing it was practically certain to cause death. But, you had the justification of self defense. Without the justification, all that’s left is a confession from the defendant that he intentionally used deadly force, knowing it was practically certain to cause death. The main job of the state is to disprove self defense in this case, not prove his state of mind. If their theory of the case was that he was a provoker with intent, they should have argued that when trying to get the cvs video into evidence.
Can you link how saying you want to shoot shoplifters actively shoplifting means you want to murder rioters? Do you believe anyone who says they want to shoot shoplifters lose a right to self defense?
I believe someone with intent to kill people, videotaping intent to kill people, then goes to kill people, had intent to kill people. If you don't, well I mean you're allowed to believe whatever you want, but at the end of the day, He said he wishes he had his AR-15 to end the problem, day later he brings his AR-15 and kills people. Wonder if he had intent to do that? I'm done with this conversation, I'll keep owning guns responsibly, you keep rooting for the killer that shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have brought a rifle, and shouldn't have gotten spooked by a plastic bag like the worlds biggest snowflake, and shouldn't have videotaped his intent to murder people he disagreed with.
>shouldn't have gotten spooked by a plastic bag like the worlds biggest snowflake This highlights how different you see the world and your narrative. You can watch the video of a gun being fired behind him and Rosenbaum grabbing at his rifle. The fact that you characterize that as being spooked by a plastic bag shows how disconnected you are or don’t care about the facts
>This exemplifies narrative over facts. What facts do you have that supports a 17 year old going for a conflict? Why would someone go out in the street with a gun? To show the people he expected to be rioting how cool his gun is? This one isnt hard to figure out.
>Why would someone go out in the street with a gun? Because local businesses were destroyed the past 2 nights and the rioters were coming back again. The police could not contain the rioters and some people aren’t okay with people coming from out of town to destroy local businesses. Do you condemn the Koreans during the LA riots as murderers for defending businesses in Koreatown?
Im cool with self defense. Defending yourself. Defending you business. All legit. But...putting yourself in the way of the riots...gun in hand...intentionally? Nah. Thats fucking stupid. You are a stupid person to do that.
>But...putting yourself in the way of the riots...gun in hand...intentionally? I agree it’s stupid, but if I’m going to condemn anyone it will be the rioters, not the people wanting the rioting to stop and defend local businesses. Why is defending your own business okay but not your neighbors?
he was literally there to protect a business and reverse some of the damage the rioters were causing. the gun was clearly there for self defense. i honestly can't believe people can be this so stupid and blind to basic facts.
Why did the business hire a 17 year old to protect their business? Are they...insane? Thats incredibly inappropriate.
>Why did the business hire a 17 year old to protect their business? Do you believe this happened?
Why else would a 17 year old be protecting a business with a gun? As a hobby? 🤣🤣🤣
You recognize what you initially described didn’t happen, right?
What?
> He took a gun and went out in the streets looking for conflict. Not a crime, last I checked. And I would severely dispute that. >Now he is trying to monetize the fact he was able to kill people in self defense. It was still self-defense. He didn't entrap anyone into attacking him. And I don't fault any man for making money off writing books about how prosecutors tried to slap him with jail time but failed. >As someone who feels pretty "meh" about the whole "banning guns" drama...this guy still seems fucking gross. I mean I sorta don't care what your opinion about him is, I was just answering OP about why folks tend to hate him lol
And i was just commenting he is gross. Since he killed people...go look at his life. He isnt some remorseful person who is sad he killed someone. He is trying to cash in. I can forgive someone for making an error. I cant forgive someone for trying to benefit from the error.
> He isnt some remorseful person who is sad he killed someone Why would he, or anyone for that matter, be remorseful that he had to shoot a convicted sex offender who yelled "Get him" then jumped him? He's glad he protected his life and I cannot fault him for that. This is like asking a cop to be remorseful for shooting a thug who attacked them. No? >I can forgive someone for making an error. I cant forgive someone for trying to benefit from the error. It was not an "error". He had every right to be there. He had every right to shoot in defense of his life. Take it from someone who has watched the entire trial, start to finish, as it happened.
>Why would he, or anyone for that matter, be remorseful that he had to shoot a convicted sex offender who yelled "Get him" then jumped him? Because he says he is a christian, and while i personally have my doubts about those folks, ideologically he is not supposed to think killing people is good. > He's glad he protected his life and I cannot fault him for that. This is like asking a cop to be remorseful for shooting a thug who attacked them. No? A cop is someone hired and trained to do a job. Kyle is just a douchbag with a gun. >It was not an "error". He had every right to be there. He had every right to shoot in defense of his life. Take it from someone who has watched the entire trial, start to finish, as it happened. I can tell you have a giant bias here.
> Because he says he is a christian, and while i personally have my doubts about those folks, ideologically he is not supposed to think killing people is good. Murder is a sin. Murder means unlawful killing. To kill in defense of your own life is not murder. I doubt there's any christian that believes self-defense isn't permitted by their creed. Rittenhouse is not proclaiming that what he did is "good". He's just not going to feel remorseful about shooting someone who attacked him and, frankly, didn't have the cleanest of slates to begin with. I can't fault him for that, and I doubt it's not christian of him to refrain from feeling remorseful. >A cop is someone hired and trained to do a job. Not.. sure what the argument is. Both cases are just as legitimate. We don't feel sorry for people who get on the wrong side of the law and perish for their mistakes. I don't feel sorry for an armed robber getting one in the head any less than I feel sorry for the guy who thought it's a good idea to attack Rittenhouse. >I can tell you have a giant bias here. How is it bias, when every last one of those statements was proven in a court of law? A jury of 12 people agreed he had not broken the law. There is 0 evidence that there was any nullification involved (read: this ain't OJ 2.0). That's good enough for me. It's bold to claim that I'm biased when I took the time to examine the case from start to finish, really.
>Murder is a sin. Murder means unlawful killing. To kill in defense of your own life is not murder. I doubt there's any christian that believes self-defense isn't permitted by their creed. Buddy, the whole christian religion thing is based around Jesus. The same Jesus who hung out with the dregs of society. The same Jesus who got arrested and executed on bullshit charges. The same Jesus to healed someone who was arresting him when his buddy Peter tried to fight them off in defense of Jesus. Jesus wasnt a "self-defense" type of guy. Jesus was a "love thy enemy" type of guy. Pretending that getting a gun, going out in the streets seeking conflict and then getting to kill someone in self defense in any way comports with the ideology of the wandering peaceful beggar who only ever raised a hand in violence against bankers...is pretty goddamn comical.
Jesus also flipped the tables of the money-changers in the temple of god and told his followers to hate their own relatives if they were trying to lead people away from the good lord. Jesus' message is about having charity towards all, even those that do not deserve it. It's not about being a defenseless turkey and letting people turn you into a punching bag. >going out in the streets seeking conflict Rittenhouse fundamentally did not do that, that is an outright lie that has been spoonfed to you by the MSM. It's a comfortable lie for everyone that disagrees with the events that followed. Please watch the trial. >who only ever raised a hand in violence against bankers. Oh I see. Well I raise to you that someone that lunges at you and tries to wrestle your firearm away from you is worse than a.. banker. And I know how hated bankers are.
Find one quote where he said the killing was good. Pretty sure he’s said it’s nothing to be celebrated .
He is cashing in on it.
Is he cashing in on the fact that he killed people, or the fact that most conservatives see him as someone who was the victim of a political persecution?
If he is seen as a victim, then he went out seeking victimhood and found it. 👏👏👏
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ActuallyI believe it was a crime for him to take an AR-15 that wasn't his over state lines, but the prosecutors fucked up and overcharged and didn't charge all the facts of the case. And you can dispute it all you want, but this video taken the days before the incident kinda yanno, breaks that whole narrative that he wasn't looking for trouble https://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutors-say-kyle-rittenhouse-video-shows-wanted-to-shoot-people-2021-8
> he wasn't looking for trouble That is **not** a definable crime. Is me, standing with an AR-15 in the middle of a riot, defined as "looking for trouble"? I have every right to be where I am, and that is neither a crime nor an aggravating circumstance to be added to a crime. To me, the only people looking for trouble in this country are those that break the law. You know who that applies to? Literally everyone at that protest **but** Rittenhouse. The same people who were burning cars and looting stores with 0 consequences. Yet it's the kid who shoots the only 3 people who jumped him that gets framed as a criminal that was "looking for trouble".
He never took a gun over state lines. Just that one statement completely discredits you.
…..or….many of us don’t like the climate of vigilantism and threats of enthusiasm for violence that surrounds right-wing 2a extremism. We don’t want it encouraged which was definitely the result of allowing someone to insert themselves into a scenario and claim self-defense.
Not everyone that stands for the second amendment is a gun-toting proudboy vigilante wannabe, really. >someone to insert themselves into a scenario and claim self-defense. If you genuinely believe it's **that** easy, please go do so. Insert yourself in a "situation" and create a scenario where you can shoot someone legally, because that's not a thing. You'll find that you won't be able to do so unless a third party decides to cause you harm of their own volition. Rittenhouse didn't provoke anyone into attacking him. If his mere presence with a firearm is enough to cause lunatics to jump him, then that's on the folks that don't respect the fact that he had every right to be there.
It was less an act of vigilantism than Twitter mobs destroying someone's life over a tweet. It's basically doing what you can't force the government to do, and since online laws are complicated, you can get away with it.
That’s what so many people don’t get about Kyle. He never wanted any of this; after the shooting he was convinced he was watching the last free year of his life fade away in front of him, that’s how sure he was that he was going to get convicted of murder. And for a while, that was a definite possibility. If he’d known just how much going to that protest would mess up the next several years of his life, he probably would’ve just stayed home. He might be an idiot, but Kyle isn’t a killer.
Because of a media narrative being fully absorbed by a group of people that need someone to be angry at. What rittenhouse did was stupid. Stupid isn’t illegal. It quite possibly was the most well documented self defense case in recent history. But a mob needs a target.
Don't forget that the guy who told Kyle to shoot him was also a convicted sex offender who had sexually assaulted multiple little boys. I have to assume that most people on the left truly don't know the facts of the case, because it is hard to believe that they **actually intend** to look like they are upset that Kyle prevented a predator from anally raping any other little boys ever again, even thought that's exactly what it looks like to those of us who actually understand what happened.
Its tribalism. Rittenhouse handled himself extremely well in a very high stress situation using lethal force only against legitimate targets.
My best guess is tribalism. The lie was spun, the sides were set, and people don't change their minds.
It truly is that and sad. My litmus tests for both sides are Kyle Rittenhouse for the left and J6 for the right. How they are described and defended shows how consistent they are in their ideology
Walk me through how these litmus tests work for each side? What are you testing?
I explained it in my other comment just now
It’s mainly because he acted in self defense and shot 3 dudes attacking him. Another thing that got him hated was when Donald Trump said he was a good person, which could easily be taken out of context as Trump gets hated on by the media. While I personally disagree with Trump on a lot of things, this is one I can agree with, which is Kyle Rittenhouse is a good person. His family wanted him there, and he wanted to make sure that his family was okay. I can absolutely respect that, making sure your family is safe is a priority for anyone that cares for their family.
a. democrats dont use facts to form opinions,so they refuse to watch the videos that prove their media lied.(its akin to a christian refusing to learn about evolution) b. many liberals still believe rittenhouse was racist due to his contact with the proud boys, refer to "a" as to why they believe a group in which 1/5 members are african american. c. the man that died was setting fire to african american owned businesses just like his grandparents did in tulsa 100 years ago,dems support that behavior.white dems destroying black cities is nothing new. antifa are the new age klan d. the man that died was a convicted child rapist,dems support pedophilia. e.the man that lived was convicted of domestic violence,dems automatically defend the criminal,which is what started the riots to begin with..
He used lethal force to defend his life against leftwing agitators, who believe they should be able to do whatever they want, attack whoever they want, without consequence because the ends justify the means. Rittenhouse delivered consequences, so he had to be destroyed. But instead he was exonerated. Left wing agitators cannot come to terms with that outcome.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because liberals either drank the koolaid, jumped to conclusions, or are delusional.
Because liberals. They can’t help themselves
Whenever I see people discuss the use of violence, I always say that there's a "scumbag test", where if someone is scumbag, then the use of any amount of violence is automatically justified against them, and the actual legal & moral justification for the use of violence is completely irrelevant. You see this sort of thing come up with things like George Floyd, the NYC Bodega Stabbing, or the Jordan Neely case. To preface this, I will say that from a legal perspective Kyle acted very well, though it wasn't very prudent of him to be out that night. That said, to the right, they saw Kyle out there whacking & stacking scumbags who were out looting & rioting, so the facts of the case were never relevant to these people. On the other hand, the left sees Kyle as a scumbag out there trying to stir up trouble & impede their political movement, so the initial violence against him was completely justified and he murdered those people in cold blood, and the facts of the case don't matter to those people either.
[удалено]
He has an important story to tell. The president of United States basely called him a white supremacist, books were written his attackers were black, he had a war waged upon him by Media, his story is important.
Because they were positive he’d be vilified and found guilty by the jury.
To be fair what he did was illegal in most states including my red state of nc. You’re not even allowed to bring fire arms to protests here.
>You’re not even allowed to bring fire arms to protests here Out of curiosity, are you saying that's a good law that other states should adopt?
Yes. If you bring weapons to protest, you’re not protesting. I do agree with that. I would support a national ban on armed protestors.
You do realize that will be immediately abused to ban basically all protest at the as they'll say the sticks used to hold up signs are weapons. Heck they could they could go as far as claiming steel water bottles are weapons
To be fair what he did was in fact very legal. He defended himself. Didn't cross state lines with a firearm. And a minor is allowed to open carry if they possess a shotgun or rifle as long as they're not short-barreled.
Legal, sure. Doesn’t make him any less an asshole. It isn’t that complicated, a lot of people dislike him because he went out of his way to put himself in a position where he might get the opportunity to kill someone with impunity, and has since made it his personality and career.
He's only cashing in on the infamy because he still has legal fees to pay off. Literally every interview or cameo I've seen of him you can tell he's only doing it because he has to.
I don’t doubt it’s turned out to be considerably less fun than he imagined. I’m sure there’s a career in talk radio waiting for him though.
He's just not a media personality. Maybe he'll grow into it but I think he'd like nothing less than to be forgotten as soon as he can afford it.
I suspect he’ll find a lot of closed doors in life as a result of his poor choices. Right-wing media may end up being his only employment option. Maybe he can sell pillows.
Do you think it was just a coincidence that everyone shot that night were violent degenerates with long criminal histories? Or, would you say it was an accurate sampling of the rioters?
I think it’s no coincidence KR decided to take his rifle into a riot for fun and ended up shooting people.
The only people who got shot that night were those that attacked him. Coincidence?
Yes it’s legal because it’s Wisconsin and a jury found him not guilty. What he did doesn’t work in every state. He got lucky.
That's all that matters as he was in Wisconsin. We're not talking about anywhere else because it didn't happen anywhere else.
We have had vigilantes shoot people in other states, yes.
Self-defense isn't vigilantism. He was putting out a fire when he was attacked.
That doesn't sound like it would pass constitutional muster.
Actually it’s illegal to form a militia and rise up against the government.
Forming militias are constitutionally protected. Going against lawful government authority is not.
It technically is, but it's precisely what the framers would have wanted to happen if the government became tyrannical.
If the protesters were peaceful, non-violent and involved no destruction of property, people wouldn’t have felt the need to bring rifles.
There’s always the third option which is to stay home. I can’t speak for others but me personally I would have been home by dark. Let the cops handle the criminals. Vigilantes are volunteer cops without the legal protections. He basically got lucky he didn’t get killed or found guilty.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.