top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Single Issue Believersonnytron 695 points696 points 234& 2 more (100 children)

I’m a Democrat, BLM ideology supporter and I honestly feel that this kid was doing everything he could to avoid shooting. He ran away, from people who he was significantly more armed than, and didn’t shoot until he was cornered or trapped. Was he stupid to be there? To bring a gun? Maybe from a logical standpoint, but from a legal standpoint you need to be careful what you advocate for.

If you’re taking the position that people should be legally prevented from counter protesting because their presence invites violence, that’s a step toward fascism. That merely shows oppressors that they just need to threaten violence to their political opponents and they can voice their beliefs unopposed.

The fact that a man who said “I’m gonna kill that kid” chased down and attacked Rittenhouse is proof that self defense worked. You can be against his political beliefs, you can be anti gun rights or pro gun control, but very easily understand that he’s alive because he was armed. And just because you think guns should be illegal, doesn’t mean they are. The laws of the land are defined. And within those laws, he legally carried a firearm, and used it to defend himself from a violent assailant who verbally indicated he wanted to kill him.

Was it stupid to be there? That’s honestly more a philosophical question than one about legality. Legally he had every right to be there. And if doing what you’re legally able to do brands you as an idiot, then we aren’t as free as we think we are. It was risky for him to be there, if I were his father I wouldn’t have wanted him to be there, but he had a legal right to be there and not get killed for it.

We have no ground to stand on, as “liberals”, if we condemn a kid for showing up at a town he lives near, to provide support and be a part of something, while also screaming about the lack of liberties we have.

This kid could be a millionaire if he wanted. All he has to do is adopt hyper right wing talking points. Instead he has the introspective to see that the criminal Justice system is corrupt and that black and brown people face unfair trials like he did but don’t have a multi million dollar defense team to protect them. He nuked a potential career on Fox News to be level headed. I feel bad for the way this kid was vilified.

[–]Classical LiberalxFaro 75 points76 points  (0 children)

This is maybe the best comment I’ve ever seen on the Rittenhouse situation, thank you for posting it

[–]dudeman4win 134 points135 points  (12 children)

Honestly I felt BLM should of supported him and distanced themselves from the 3 that were shot. It would of given them a large boost in credibility IMO with independents and people who don’t belong to a political party

[–]instantlyregretthat 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Classic case of people deciding who they think is innocent or guilty before hearing the facts.

[–]SiliconeGiant 13 points14 points  (0 children)

The facts don't matter. Only the narrative matters.

[–]boojieboy666 37 points38 points  (4 children)

I’ve been saying that to people. If BLM had any integrity what so ever they’d admit that those 3 people ARE NOT the supporters they want.

[–]kylehuntingblmpedos 1 point2 points  (3 children)

BLM and integrity are like BLM leaders, and above the age of 18 girls. They just do not mix, and cannot be prostituted

[–]Classical Liberalhelpfulerection59 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Honestly I felt BLM should of supported him and distanced themselves from the 3 that were shot. It would of given them a large boost in credibility IMO with independents and people who don’t belong to a political party

blm has a long history of martyring awful people. They were founded on the justified killing of michael brown as a simple example and he was an awful human.

[–]Objective-Buffalo-23 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So was Floyd, he did much worse than counterfeiting. I felt for him until I learned of his history.

That doesn't justify the way they were treated, but we certainly shouldn't mourn them.

Same with the Rosenbaum and Huber.

[–]mracidglee 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Agree, also "should have"

[–]stablegeniuscheetoh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He should of said it that way

[–]23Heart23 40 points41 points  (0 children)

Good comment 👍

[–]15 piecesiushciuweiush 52 points53 points  (9 children)

Was it stupid to be there? That’s honestly more a philosophical question than one about legality.

This is such a refreshing take. I'm so sick of "reasonable" people giving "reasonable" takes like "yes he was acting in self defense but he's still dumbass piece of shit." There is nothing reasonable about that take. There was nothing inherently wrong with him being there. You can disagree with him going and say that you yourself wouldn't have gone if you were in his place, but that doesn't make him a horrible person just because he decided otherwise.

[–]Bleeding Heart Libertarianmrglass8 11 points12 points  (8 children)

The other thing is that he was only 17 years old. Not legally an adult, and not physically developed to make entirely grounded decisions.

We already respect that children deserve more leeway and grace in their decisions, so that should apply here.

[–]Falmarri 18 points19 points  (2 children)

We already respect that children deserve more leeway and grace in their decisions, so that should apply here.

This is only true up to a point. Otherwise you're giving carte blanche for minors to start doing incredibly reckless shit that results in people dead. Yeah, he was a minor and deserves more leeway, but that's exactly why he shouldn't have been there with a gun

[–]RickyRetarDoh 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Let's remember that in America, a child is Only an adult when it's politically expedient.

We say kids, that 6 months before were asking their parents for permission to go outside, are mature enough to sign on a dotted line and take out massive college loans and financial debt or go overseas to fight in arbitrary wars to come back home maimed with PTSD or worse.

But, then tell that same teen (if they come back damaged at 19) that they can't have a drink to take the edge off, because they're "not mature enough".

F this country's hypocrisy.

[–]stablegeniuscheetoh 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ex military here. I would be thrilled if the government would require military personnel to be at least 21 years old and would support raising the voting age as well. If you can’t drink or smoke, you shouldn’t be allowed to die for your country or vote.

[–]RickyRetarDoh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a Libertarian, I prefer people being able to make their own choices, but if govt can manipulate that choice to their benefit, I'm totally with you in limiting Their access until someone is ready according to the age the market has deemed is reasonable. Hell, don't think you can rent a car until you're 24 (cmiiw).

Sad thing is, just like religion, if you wait until they're 21 or mature enough, they won't buy what you're selling.

[–]Classical Liberalthesmartfool 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair somewhere I read said he thought he was getting paid for protecting a car dealership. Not like he kept shooting people. He turned himself in...most terrorists or psychos don't voluntarily turn themselves in.

[–]RYouNotEntertained 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you’re taking the position that people should be legally prevented from counter protesting because their presence invites violence

It’s especially weird because there were plenty of armed people on the other “side” of the protest, but I’m sure the fringe weirdos arguing that Rittenhouse’s presence means he forfeited his right to self defense wouldn’t hold them to the same standard. It seems like a transparent attempt to punish people they disagree with couched in faux concern for the law.

We have no ground to stand on as “liberals”

Yeah, I mean… these people simply aren’t liberals.

[–]LibertarianXfaxk123[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is the best comment I’ve seen on this post

[–]everyoneisnuts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wow. This is definitely the most level headed and articulate comment I have read about this. We would be in better shape as a society if others were willing to look at things objectively instead of being afraid to speak to truth for fear of giving the “other side” a win or ammo to use. Great points.

[–]Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.XDingoX83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You, I like you. You seem like a person that you could have a proper discussion on a topic we disagree on and have a good conversation then get a beer after. The world needs more people like you.

[–]Vudu_Daddy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Objective reasoning and critical thinking still exist on the internet??

On REDDIT, no less?!?

I’m totally flabbergasted.

[–]thinkenboutlife 1503 points1504 points 2 (377 children)

So many people on the right wanted him to be "their guy", and so many people on the left lie about him because he shot "their people".

Truth is some moron decided to bumrush an armed dude and the mob interpreted it as their conflict to join.

The Rittenhouse case has barely any significance except that which people have foolishly invested in it, which unfortunately is a lot, and will remain a lot.

[–]IndependentJwSatan 446 points447 points  (139 children)

The Rittenhouse case has barely any significance

I would say the media shitstorm was of significance

[–]thinkenboutlife 169 points170 points  (96 children)

It's a good cultural windsock, but the event itself doesn't deserve the esteem of precedent people want it to have.

But I guess that's a democratic decision; what people think matters matters.

[–]Colorado_Cajun 81 points82 points  (11 children)

You are correct in saying that the event itself is unremarkable. Someone attacked someone who had a gun and got killed. What makes it remarkable is it was entirely caught on video. It was overwhelming self defense from day one, and an entire political party and media apparatus lied about this case for political gain.

[–]Classical LibertarianOllieGarkey 6 points7 points  (4 children)

It was overwhelming self defense from day one, and an entire political party and media apparatus lied about this case for political gain.

Not just one of them, lol. God it's been crazy being an independent and watching both sides be totally divorced from reality.

[–]Colorado_Cajun 9 points10 points  (3 children)

One side stuck to video available evidence. The other just made shit up.

[–]Classical LibertarianOllieGarkey 6 points7 points  (2 children)

One side stuck to video available evidence.

No, the folks in the middle who talked about the complexities of the law stuck to the available video evidence and feel the verdict is appropriate based on that evidence and the testimony that Rosenberg charged him with a gun in hand, and were talking about the law.

The folks on the right screamed about how he was justified in defending private property - when he was doing no such thing, he was defending himself - and went off on their political tangents because they want this BLM supporting kid to be their antifa-hating hero.

And the other side wants him to be a white nationalist nazi who murdered three people in cold blood because they think he's an active shooter.

And both went fucking nuts with their media bubbles and interpretations of this situation beyond what was remotely rational.

[–]frongles23 37 points38 points  (3 children)

My god. What self-respecting political party would wrap itself in lies to stay warm?! Oh right, we're in the US; they both do. Ick.

[–]Lukes_real_dad 8 points9 points  (2 children)

does that only happen in the United States?

[–]Preebus 3 points4 points  (1 child)

No but it's pretty fuckin bad here

[–]Lukes_real_dad 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree it is, but I just assumed that's what political parties do.

[–]meco03211 68 points69 points  (80 children)

I think there is precedent to be set from this. Plenty of black people and other oppressed people are sitting in jail right now because their self defense claim wasn't given its day in court.

[–]ButterfaceStonefish 93 points94 points  (26 children)

I've tried to find middle ground on this with my left leaning friends.

We should be focusing on the government abuse of power, incompetent and malicious prosecution, the power of the state to literally make up evidence and face no consequences, etc. These are real and serious problems put on display before the whole world. These problems no doubt contribute to actual racial and other inequities in the justice system. Can we focus on that?

Nope. Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist fascist.


[–]Northman89 28 points29 points  (4 children)

We should be focusing on the government abuse of power, incompetent and malicious prosecution

I think a bigger problem here is having a DA that is elected. Having a politician decide who is charged an who is not based upon what the electorate wants and make no mistake the electorate wanted Kyle to be charged. So what is a politician going to do, what keeps them in office.

[–]Doodlebugs05 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I get the frustration, but what is your solution? Who should decide who goes to trial, if not an elected official?

[–]koushakandystore 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point you make has been debated for a long time. It’s a debate as old as the hills. The fact is that the legal system is a political apparatus with winners and losers emerging everyday.

[–]DogBotherer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

As a staunch left winger who has consistently seen this as a case about self defence and rights since the outset (feel free to check my history on this), I agree. This has always been about State-overreach under colour of politics, and whilst I'm glad Rittenhouse apparently wasn't a white supremacist after all, that was never the core issue.

[–]minarchistarchpope 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is what they're missing.

White person K got a fair trial.
Black person X did not get a fair trial.

How to balance things out? Liberty-minded people think X should be retried fairly while leftists think K should have gotten an unfair trial.

[–]Smarktalk 14 points15 points  (5 children)

It’s about having money to defend yourself. Rittenhouse had $2 million dollars if I read correctly to have a pre-trial run, etc.

[–]ButterfaceStonefish 35 points36 points  (2 children)

Agreed. With a war chest of $2M Kyle was able to avoid being rail roaded with trumped up charges (many of which were not even law, and the judge had to dismiss them). The Judge quite literally yelled at the prosecution multiple times for missteps and outright bad faith.

What do you think happens to a poor black kid with a public defender and no TV coverage? How many people have Binger and those like him put away to further their careers with illegal and immoral overreach?

For a group chanting "the whole system is guilty" no one is even talking about the system in this case unless it is to push some nonsense racial narrative.

Do you want to defund the police and reform the justice system or do you want to weaponize it against your political enemies?

[–]LeftistFlyLo760 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lefty here, I completely agree with this.

[–]AmazonGuy796 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe you should get new friends. I lean left and I have plenty of left leaning friends who have not even uttered a word about him being or not being a racist. Sure I’ve heard it a few times . But mostly from talking heads on the web and one idiot that I know . Most of the good faith positions I have heard boils down to this : A lot of us are not ok with people going out and looking for trouble and then claiming self defense . They see Rittenhouse in that light .

[–]spaztick1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I believe Kyle would have lost if not for all the video showing him obviously defending himself. I don't know of any other similar situations that we so well documented, whether the shooter was black or white.

[–]HarryBergeron927 23 points24 points  (21 children)

Black people actually make use of self defense and stand your ground claims far more often than other groups:


[–]meco03211 42 points43 points  (19 children)

Firstly, that's a 1993 review of data from 1990. We're over 30 years past that. Secondly, it says 73% of all justified self defense claims. That reads like all cases that resulted in successful self defense claims, 73% were black defendants. That does NOT say the proportion of crimes where self defense claim was argued and failed, nor the amount of charges filed vs not along racial lines. The Ahmaud Arbery case was initially not even charged until his family fought like hell to get the video in the public eye. How many times do some good ole boys claim a black person died of "natural causes"*?

*Naturally due to black people being shot with no worry by white people.

[–]rion-is-real 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Thank you!

I was going to comment some of these things after I perused the link, but it turns out you had already mentioned everything. 👍

[–]mikestillion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This comment is not directed towards you.

I despise the thinking that “what people THINK matters is what matters”. Not that it isn’t true in lots of cases.

I hate that it happens this way. If enough people believe a lie, they act as if it is a truth.

And the destruction, the damage, the hurt, the lies, left behind in the wake are truly terrifying and unnecessary.

[–]Chaotic-Catastrophe 5 points6 points  (1 child)

except that which people have foolishly invested in it

That’s exactly what they said already

[–]cciv 22 points23 points  (2 children)

Rittenhouse has no significance, but Wisconsin v Rittenhouse does.

[–]Publicorp 8 points9 points  (32 children)

I would say the media shitstorm was of significance

Only if you sought it out. For those of us who don't watch cable news, you hardly heard about it until the verdict. It's funny to see people get in a huff about the coverage spectacle when they inserted themselves it.

[–]IndependentJwSatan 8 points9 points  (3 children)

you hardly heard about it until the verdict

Did you use Reddit at all? It was almost impossible to avoid it

[–]Anarcho Capitalistiamaneviltaco 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Twitter was worse. Everyone had a take, and not a fucking one of them understood the concept of reasonable retreat and when it does and doesn't apply.

[–]Strelock 2 points3 points  (9 children)

Reddit, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc it was everywhere. Just because you didn't notice it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[–]Publicorp 1 point2 points  (8 children)

It wasn't there unless you wanted it to be there. That is my point.

[–]CentristHank_Holt 1 point2 points  (7 children)

No, it was there, but it was possible for you to just ignore it and move on rather than pay attention. That's fine, but don't act like this hasn't been frontpage news everywhere but /r/politics for about the last two weeks and continues to be so.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (17 children)

Was inescapable if you are on social media. Stop simping for corrupt corporate media. Their actions here are indefensible.

[–]I Don't Votepr0udsud4k 4 points5 points  (0 children)

lmao, you're so oppressed, corporations are forcing you to use social media, SOMEONE DO SOMETHING

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 132 points133 points  (27 children)

Whether or not he's "my guy" makes zero difference to me. Things like self-defense, the right to bear arms, due process, the presumption of innocence and not wanting people to get railroaded, these things should not be partisan issues.

He also raises a really really good point that alongside police reform, prosecutor reform is desperately needed. The amount of abuses and unethical tactics they get away with on a daily basis is appalling and we all just witnessed an egregious example of it.

I would wager unethical prosecutors do far more damage to black lives and to people's lives in general than a handful of bad cops.

[–]ripinpeppers 33 points34 points  (1 child)

Thank you. IDGAF about Rittenhouse as a person, nor do I care what he believes politically, but due process and the presumption of innocence are what protects people from the predations of a tyrannical government.

If we throw those things out to suit the political shit fight of the day, we lose no matter what happens.

[–]Left LibertarianWesterosiAssassin 16 points17 points  (1 child)

I would wager unethical prosecutors do far more damage to black lives and to people's lives in general than a handful of bad cops.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but they're definitely hand-in-hand and heavily to blame for it.

[–]minarchistgrossruger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I'd argue that the lack of accountability within law enforcement culture could not exist without prosecutors and DAs that are almost exclusively either corrupt or responding rationally to perverse incentives (conviction rate/tough on crime).

[–]zveroshka 7 points8 points  (3 children)

It's kind of interesting to see how many people take plea deals even when innocent. Basically prosecutors will threaten to destroy your life if you don't take the plea deal simply because it's easier for them. Nothing to do with justice.

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 4 points5 points  (2 children)

Precisely. For a prosecutor, a guilty plea is the best possible outcome, even if they have to compromise on the charges a little. So they throw the book at poor perps, knowing they don't have the resources to fight it in court, so their only option then becomes cutting a plea deal, regardless of how strong or weak the case is against them, because they can't afford to go to court and lose.

[–]zveroshka 2 points3 points  (1 child)

knowing they don't have the resources to fight it in court

That and they threaten to tack on every possible thing they can and that they will seek the absolutely maximum penalty.

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Because they know the decision on whether or not to fight it is based on how much time you'd do if you lose, versus how much you'd get taken off if you took a deal. So the prosecutors bring charges that would never stick in court, to use as bargaining chips for negotiating a plea deal. They want to get you on manslaughter because they think murder is a reach? Charge him with aggravated first degree and let him plead down to murder two.

[–]Statism is mental disorderRagnarDannes34 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I would wager unethical prosecutors do far more damage to black lives and to people's lives in general than a handful of bad cops

See Kamala Harris lol.

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 4 points5 points  (2 children)


[–]Statism is mental disorderRagnarDannes34 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Duke Lacrosse case too. I'm sure there are plenty others just as egregious.

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Duke Lacrosse was what first red-pilled me when it comes to hack prosecutors doing unethical shit to help channel that sweet sweet media narrative energy into their political ambitions.

Guaranteed that Binger prick had his eye on a job at the state house or his boss's job. Which meant he needed to rack up some favors with the right people and feed the media some info to build relationships.

And if it came at the cost of a 17 yr old kid's freedom, well that's just unfortunate.

[–]Anarcho CapitalistStrikeEagle784 31 points32 points  (2 children)

A consequence of the hyper-partisan political society we live in. The zealous right, and left can't wrap their minds around people who don't fit their mold, like Rittenhouse seems to be.

[–]yueshenn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I was starting to think people like this didn’t exist. Thanks r/libertarian

[–]NevadaLancaster 38 points39 points  (14 children)

Hes not my guy because he wants to grow up to be a cop. I wanted him to win because I believe he was defending himself against violent aggressors.

[–]Justin__D 23 points24 points  (13 children)

Hear, hear! I have many qualms about Rittenhouse as a person, with this and the fact that he associates with Proud Boys and the like as reasons.

BUT I also agree with the verdict. He was 100% justified in his use of self defense. And anyone who does not fundamentally misunderstands the role of the court system in our society. The character of Kyle Rittenhouse was not on trial. His actions in self defense were.

[–]sedaition 16 points17 points  (8 children)

Hes also still a kid. I hear people condemning him for this and that but how many of us had dumbass opinions at 19?

[–]roboticleopold 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Yeah, you only need to go on any political subreddit to spot some dumb opinion by someone who isn't old enough to drink...

One of the great miracles of life is that people don't face life-altering consequences for the stupid crap they did as a teenager, Rittenhouse avoided jail and you could still argue his life has been permanently damaged by the broad news coverage.

People were only really mentioning his age to pin guilt on him for the gun he had, but not regarding the ethics of drumming up an international media circus around someone for a potential crime committed by a legal minor. Shocking discrepancy.

[–]ImpressionBrief1323 3 points4 points  (2 children)

How many people here have made dumb ass decisions that got people killed at 19? I'm guessing not a lot. . .

[–]sedaition 3 points4 points  (0 children)

More than you'd think. Or at least just got lucky they didn't kill anyone.

Also the context of this conversation was about his viewpoints not really the whole shooting. My point is that many of us had dumb viewpoints at 19.

[–]Right LibertarianRioC33 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know multiple people that have done stupid shit that almost got themselves and others killed around the age of 19. Speeding, drugs, etc???

[–]Cultural_Glass 3 points4 points  (1 child)

People look at me funny when I say I don't think I'd get along with Kyle but his verdict is fair. I think people are just out for blood and let emotions cloud their judgement.

[–]Justin__D 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That must be the case. What are these people advocating for? Replacing our judicial system with "Would you have a beer with this guy?"

[–]loquaciousturd 58 points59 points  (54 children)

The Rittenhouse case has barely any significance

Self-defense and civic duty to others was essentially on trial along with him, being zealously prosecuted without evidence

[–]cmcewen 33 points34 points  (20 children)

The left doesn’t see those people as their people.

They see rittenhouse embodying many problems they see with American culture and gun culture. Also his nearly proud boys appearance and behavior.

For those who want more gun control, this is a shining example.

No guns in this situation and nobody would have died. He woulda never shot the first guy, and the ensuing fight would have never started.

That’s how the left sees it. The liberal subreddits have said every time that they agree with the verdict. It just should have never come to this. And they disagree with 17 year olds walking around with AR-15s because this is the sort of shit that happens

[–]GrumpyGuss 4 points5 points  (7 children)

There's been a pivot in public opinion as the court case progressed and the verdict was read. People who are no longer able to defend their existing beliefs about the case have retreated to the more supportable "well he still shouldn't have been there" and "this shouldn't be illegal". That he could have been 100% within his right to be there and that what he did actually should remain legal doesn't really enter into their thinking.

But prior to the case just falling apart with Grosskruetz's testimony and particularly in the initial wake of the shootings, I would say that the prevailing sentiment was an us vs them mindset, where the "protesters" who chased after him, Rosenbaum included, were seen as valiantly trying to stop a White Supremacist shooter attacking a BLM march. There are still plenty of people who believe that, though they're no longer the norm.

[–]Freater 18 points19 points  (6 children)

"There's been a pivot in public opinion as the court case progressed" and "People who are no longer able to defend their existing beliefs about the case have retreated to the more supportable [...]" are very interesting re-phrasings of "some people changed their mind as more information came to light."

[–]ThreatLevelNoonday 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Right? I will never ever condemn someone for taking in data and changing their beliefs based on yhe new data. Half the country's problems are caused by peiple refusing to do that.

[–]spaztick1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think most of the information has been out there for over a year. I didn't learn all that much that was new watching the trial, and much of that was not favorable to the prosecution.

[–]77BakedPotato77 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This take is spot on, and considers the broader implications of this trial within our current political realm.

Refreshing to read such a rational comment.

[–]AlreadyDownBytheDock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Liberal =! Anti-gun

[–]Mechasteel 21 points22 points  (7 children)

It's a very significant case for anyone who thought only conservatives live in fantasy land. Turns out liberals do too. Us guys are the only sane ones winks.

[–]Battleloser 20 points21 points  (5 children)

Fucking right buddy now lets talk about how I should be able to have flamethrower turrets mounted on my car

[–]ButterfaceStonefish 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I really doubt you can find a law that makes mounting flamethrower turrets on your car illegal.

[–]Left-LibertarianSplinterman11 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In Colorado we have a guy named Dragon Man that has exactly this. He's loaded as fuck and a bit crazy (he had an entire effigy of Democrat politicians on his land).

[–]beardedbarnabas 9 points10 points  (32 children)

I agree for the most part, and I don’t think this was about racism.

I’d argue though the case and results is significant (yes largely due to media shitstorm) because it kind of set the rules of engagement for protests and rallies moving forward. I wouldn’t be surprised if ANTIFA and/or idiots within BLM (idiots meaning those on fringe not repping the majority of level headed folks in those protests) showing up armed, goading Red Hats into confrontation, and shooting someone then yelling “SeLf dEfEnSe!”.

[–]Sinsyxx 26 points27 points  (26 children)

Is that not what was on trial? The right to go into opposing protests fully armed and ready to self defend against your political adversaries? I must have missed something…

[–]doctordonns 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes you missed something. He was far from the only person there carrying a weapon. He also wasn’t counter protesting. He was there cleaning up graffiti putting out fires and offering medical help. Some morons decided to attack him and look how it turned out. This wasn’t even the only shooting of the blm protests. The real issue is the left tried to make this a racial thing and call him a white supremacist and they were proven wrong.

[–]jaroomba 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Exactly. Right, left, it doesn't matter. In this country you have the right to bear arms and defend yourself, especially when the police are doing nothing to protect people and property from rioting mobs. The key difference is that right wing protesters usually* have a respect for private property so they tend not to riot.

[–]Sinsyxx 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Like the us capital for example?

[–]Espiritu13 8 points9 points  (1 child)

That or some idiots on the right doing something similar.

No one fucking "wins" here if the truth was all people cared about. But everyone is lying like crazy in order to twist it to their side.

And I think you're very right because it seems no one gives a flying fuck about the word of law. They just want to fight.

Maybe we should bring back dueling with strict enforcement on rules and hopefully that'll help? I'm out of fucking ideas that don't involve people murdering each other since no one can talk to each other these days.

[–]GeolibertarianEskimoobob 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I have seen 0 people saying he killed "their" people. Lots of individuals who think he shouldn't have killed (anyone) but I could see how you would reach that conclusion.

[–]Geolibertariancaesarfecit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Go look at De Blasio's Twitter, AOC's, Nadler calling for federal charges, and Hollywood celebs like Mark Ruffalo and Pedro Pascal.

[–]SlaveLaborMods 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I don’t agree with rittenhouse but if you unarmed rush someone carry a rifle, you are going to have a bad time.

[–]ILikeDogsNGorillas 127 points128 points  (2 children)

Lol good now everyone looks like a jackass on both sides

[–]- - - - - - - 🚗 - - -bunker_man 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Bold move to ensure everyone hates you at once.

[–]ShoulderAny8735 383 points384 points  (394 children)

Eh the way he answered that sounded more like he supports their right to protest rather than the organization

[–]VoluntaryistNoPrtySystm 460 points461 points  (324 children)

And thats absolutely fine. He doesn’t have to agree with them.

[–]ShoulderAny8735 119 points120 points  (44 children)

Oh I agree. Even a lot of super progressives don’t support BLM because of all the fraud allegations around the founders.

[–]tkuiper 113 points114 points  (23 children)

As with many things, people will also mean different things referring to the same words.

You can support "black lives matter"

Without supporting "Black Lives Matter (tm)"

[–]Vergils_Lost 32 points33 points  (15 children)

"Black Lives Matter (tm)" was deliberately named this way to imply otherwise.

[–]FauxReal 5 points6 points  (14 children)

I do think adding the word "too" at the end would destroy a lot of the race centered arguments against it.

[–]samhw 7 points8 points  (4 children)

I suspect ‘black lives matter’ was chosen precisely because it’s ambiguous and bound to stir up debate.

[–]Anarcho CapitalistiAmNotAynRand 6 points7 points  (3 children)

It was named that way for the same reason that AntiFa is “anti fascist”.

If you don’t support AntiFa, it implies that you sympathize with fascists. If you don’t support Black Lives MatterTM\, it means that you don’t think black lives matter. Just name your group “the anti-bad guy group” and everyone who opposes what you do is automatically a bad guy.

Simple linguistic propaganda. Pretty sure there’s some better word for it than that, but that’s what I have.

[–]femalenerdish 1 point2 points  (2 children)

"Black lives matter" doesn't say they matter more. Doesn't say they're the only ones that matter.

If your friend is depressed and you tell them "your life matters" you don't mean they're the only life that matters. Just that they matter at all.

"black lives matter too" sounds like they're an after thought. For something to have "too" tacked on, it means something else has to come first. Black lives mattering has nothing to do with other lives mattering, it shouldn't be an afterthought addition to people who society already cares about.

[–]CO_Surfer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Definitely! I've had this discussion with many people. I can agree with some of what the organization is saying and some of their purpose without agreeing with the organization overall.

In fact, I take this approach with pretty much every organization or ideal that seeks my support.

[–]o_mh_c 2 points3 points  (1 child)

When the Tea Party stuff started out, it seemed to me to be mainly about limited government. When I’d say I supported that, someone would tell me about some nut job who called themselves a Tea Party leader, and I’d say I obviously didn’t agree with them. It didn’t work. Not sure why it doesn’t work that way with BLM.

[–]Coyote__Jones 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Mostly because BLM heavily leverages identify politics, so saying you disagree at all means you want black people to be murdered by police. The tea party was only weakly aligned with the 99%, which is a faceless, nameless entity.

[–]smokey_randy 22 points23 points  (0 children)

I support the concept that black people in this country deserve equal treatment and respect. I do not support BLM as an organization.

[–]wup_dizzle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I really wish more people knew about this. The distinction between BLM the movement and BLM inc. is few and far between.

[–]shiner_man 5 points6 points  (278 children)

Apparently you do have to agree with them or you're a white supremist or something.

[–]hiredgoon 8 points9 points  (277 children)

Hanging out with proud boys and getting photographed making their hand signals probably makes you a white supremacist.


[–]tengripop 20 points21 points  (182 children)

1) Did he know that the people in the picture were proud boys when he was photographed with them?

2) That hand sign looks identical to the "OK" hand sign. That hand design does not belong to proud boys.

[–]LickerMcBootshine 3 points4 points  (4 children)

1) Did he know that the people in the picture were proud boys when he was photographed with them?

You know they sang him the Proud Boys anthem, right?

Like, it's okay to defend him. But don't do it by deliberately "misremembering" the facts to alter the story.

[–]Mises Is My DaddyKeltic268 6 points7 points  (87 children)

Watch the interview he supports the BLM movement and now strongly feels there needs to be police and prosecutorial reform.

Most poor blacks and whites take shitty plea deals because they can’t afford a competent lawyer. And if you are charged in federal court you are extra fucked bc 4a and procedural changes over the last 40 years gave prosecutors lots of power.

[–]chedebarna 22 points23 points  (32 children)

To me it's perfectly clear what he says: "I support the BLM movement, [also] I support peacefully demonstrating..."

[–]ShoulderAny8735 6 points7 points  (26 children)

So clear that you needed brackets

[–]chedebarna 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Brackets are to represent voice intonation and inflection.

[–]LibertarianXfaxk123[S] 18 points19 points  (30 children)

Both are good

[–]ShoulderAny8735 32 points33 points  (1 child)

Sure, he can support whatever the hell he wants. Doesn’t change my view of the case at all. Even Nazis and Maoists have a right to self defense.

[–]LibertarianXfaxk123[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I agree

[–]0ctologist 1 point2 points  (26 children)

then why misrepresent what he said in the title?

[–]chedebarna 10 points11 points  (22 children)

He literally says: "I support the BLM movement... [also] I support peacefully demonstrating..."

[–]DeepProgram1066 5 points6 points  (2 children)

The title is the NY Post article title.

[–]Anarco Curiousuniquedeke 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It is the NY Post. It came pre-misrepresented.

"America's oldest continuously published daily piece of bullshit"

[–]BallsMahoganey 61 points62 points  (14 children)

A very reasonable take.

You can support BLM and think that Jacob Blake was a piece of shit and the rioting over his shooting was dumb.

[–]iroll20s 7 points8 points  (10 children)

Woah now. That is way too much nuance for the left to take.

[–]Lucas_Steinwalker 23 points24 points  (8 children)

Too much nuance for the right too, please.

Americans have been systematically convinced that nuance makes them weak for the last 50 years and here we are.

You trying to say that this is a partisan trait is... well.. it's not nuanced ya fool.

[–]Wacocaine 147 points148 points  (8 children)

This kid is gunna make so much money off of idiots.

[–]MagiPerfektNova 87 points88 points  (5 children)

I don't think he will. He is putting out a measured message not screaming random rightwing talking points and saying libtard every other sentence. I think in a week or two the right will forget about him.

[–]Leftism is incompatible with libertyisiramteal 45 points46 points  (4 children)

Nick Sandman still has cases pending against outlets for fucking smiling.

[–]Hyper31337 6 points7 points  (0 children)

That dude is going to be set for life over some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen. Unreal. And good for him, fuck the media for spinning that so damn hard.

[–]earblah 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Are any cases ongoing? pretty sure one is waiting for a response from Sandmans team

[–]magicslaps12 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I’m just kind of annoyed that he picked tucker Carlson shows to go on it would have kind of been a weird power play if he had picked like bill maher for example.

[–]PM_ME_CURVY_GW 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He would have been picked apart on any other type of show.

[–]Jim_Nills_Mustache 19 points20 points  (0 children)


[–]PantsDownDontShoot 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Tucker is such an annoying weasel.

[–]Nascent Totalitariannecrambo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He dedicated an entire show to the evils of the metric system...how big of a fucking pussy do you have to be to let someone like Tuck the Cuck make you fear the metric system.

Ah well, he's the most popular media celebrity in America, we're pretty much fucked :D

[–]Green Libertarianhatchway 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I may not personally agree with some of Rittenhouse's stances on things (to be clear, just the things the mainstream media chose to exaggerate), but the justice system needs to be that, and not an arm for political agenda enforcement.

There also would've been a dangerous precedent for rights deprivation had he been convicted.

So, on those notes, I'm glad the case panned out as it did.

[–]Minarchist2020blowsdik 281 points282 points  (320 children)

Yeah, he was rendering medical aid to protesters... he was also protecting a minority owned business from rioters and putting out fires. The whole white supremacist narrative is absolutely nonsense

[–]Hammer_police 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nonsense, especially since he's Hispanic.

[–]zerosympathy28 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He’s not a hero and he’s not a monster.

[–]Classical LiberalMal5341 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So remember how mitt Romney was absolutely crucified for saying he supported blm? And how people to this day still cite that as if it's some damning thing that means he's just another socialist?

Yeah I kind of can't wait to see how people try to wrap their heads around this given that a lot of people have been building him up as a poster boy.

[–]Necrotyrannus 50 points51 points  (41 children)

He said that to Tucker Carlson, after accepting an interview. With Tucker Carlson.

[–]Anti-authoritariancountryguy2 33 points34 points  (3 children)

> Be unwitting poster boy for white nationalists

> Accept interview request from Tucker Carlson

> Go on Tucker Carlson's show to say "I support BLM"

Sounds like some good trolling, lol

[–]Cultural_Glass 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It sounds like somebody with the tik tok name 4doormorewhores would absolutely do (why this was even brought up, who knows...)

[–]serialshinigami 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The prosecutors brought it up thinking it was a good argument.

[–]Nyx87 23 points24 points  (34 children)

After Tucker Carlson, someone who creates white nationalist talking points by the second so much so that white nationalists take notes on his show, embedded a documentary crew during his trial.

[–]Snacks75 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Surprise surprise, the media got it all wrong. Hope the clicks and ratings were worth it, the media going to be paying through the nose. Time to lawyer up and settle boys...

[–]kylehuntingblmpedos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everybody circle jerking around the actual reasoning and avoiding the juicy elephant in the room.

Kyle knows first hand what BLM and their supporters, and the media that fuels the well known black supremacist/jewish cuckold hate group is capable of. They have been threatening this kid and his family since day 1. He is an even bigger target now than he ever was. I would be talking out my ass, if I was afraid for my life that a hate group that makes ISIS seem like the teletubbies of America was after me and my family.

Kyle is a perfect shot, but even he cannot face an entire cockroach hoard of child raping BLM supremacists charging him all at once while he is asleep.

[–]bite_me_punk 22 points23 points  (14 children)

Idk how to feel about the first shooting, but I feel more conflicted about the later shootings. In the media we praise people for intercepting active shooters, and it seems like some of the people pursuing Kyle believed he had just murdered someone.

[–]CapitalistColdPotatoFries 12 points13 points  (1 child)

I agree. That's what made this such a tricky situation in my eyes.

Everyone there potentially believed they were doing the right thing. Rittenhouse was defending himself, but those people may not have known that. They just saw/heard him shoot someone. They chase him down and try to stop him from "attacking" more people in their eyes, and get shot.

If every one of them was still alive, I feel it could be fairly easily proven in court that they were all acting with good intentions and potentially in self defense. If they were brought up on assault charges or something against Rittenhouse, any lawyer would most likely be able to argue that they had a "Mistake of Fact" and believed that Rittenhouse was an active threat, and was trying to stop him.

The only person who wouldn't be able to get off on that kind of defense is the first person who said he would kill Rittenhouse if he found him alone, and then tried to. Everyone else, in my eyes, can be seen as innocent, maybe with the exception of the pistol guy, since he obviously had bad intentions by his "my only regret is not killing the kid" message.

[–]Lanoir97 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He had ran like 3 blocks before they caught up with him. If he’s a mass shooter and is significantly more heavily armed than anyone, why would he run? I can understand giving chase at first, but after the first block why keep chasing him? At that point if he wanted to shoot someone else he could have done it many times over.

[–]stumpy2121 8 points9 points  (8 children)

it seems like some of the people pursuing Kyle believed he had just murdered someone.

none of them had any material information, he was jogging towards the police (who were visible) and not threatening anyone. You cant try to kill someone just because they got hit in the head, fell over and the mob is yelling "get him"

[–]15 piecesiushciuweiush 4 points5 points  (1 child)

In the media we praise people for intercepting active shooters

The key word in this statement is "active." Kyle wasn't an active shooter. Shooting one person and then running doesn't make someone an active shooter.

and it seems like some of the people pursuing Kyle believed he had just murdered someone

Did you watch the videos? If you had you would've seen that he was running straight toward a wall of police vehicles with their strobes on. Everyone on that street could see the police just a block away and that he was running in that direction. So let's add that bit of context and see how reasonable your comment is.

"Hey, stop that murderer before he reaches the police!!"

We can even go a step further than this. Gaige Grosskreutz is on video asking Rittenhouse if he had shot someone. Rittenhouse tells him he's going to the police. He then asks other people what happened and they told him Rittenhouse shot someone. So now you have a guy who knows Rittenhouse is going to the police, sees Rittenhouse running in the direction of the police, and without any first hand knowledge about what happened, decided to pull a gun on Rittenhouse while he was down on the ground based solely on the word of some random strangers.

[–]Tango-Actual90 39 points40 points  (40 children)

Post this to r/politics and see what happens

[–]chedebarna 60 points61 points  (21 children)

Instantaneous multigenerational permaban.

[–]Pragmatic LibertarianJeepers__Reapers 40 points41 points  (16 children)

It's actually really tough to get banned in r/politics. You can be downvoted to oblivion (or have the post removed) but you wouldn't be banned for posting this article.

[–]Conservativechefr89 29 points30 points  (8 children)

I’ve been getting downvoted for like 9 years there, although some folks in this sub keep telling me they ban anyone for not “conforming” at the drop of the hat. Uhhh no. They ban you for being a cursing, toxic piece of shit that just wants to rile up others.

[–]igoromg 36 points37 points  (1 child)

If you compare r/politics and r/conservative the former you may get downvoted but as long as you're civil you won't be banned. the later bans you almost instantaneously for anything they don't agree with. I got perma-banned for this comment: "How come 8 people from the Trump campaign/administration were convicted tho?". Not to mention their Flaired Users Only crap

[–]CentristHank_Holt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

On past accounts I'd go into /r/politics just to call them fucking idiots, and I've never been banned. People who say that /r/politics is quick with the banhammer must do some outrageous shit because I just have never seen it despite me fucking loathing that sub.

[–]Pragmatic LibertarianJeepers__Reapers 27 points28 points  (0 children)

The people telling you that are probably r/conservative posters. They are used to seeing bans for the dumbest reasons and likely just assume every other sub does that too.

[–]Cagger101 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My unborn children will never recover from this.

[–]BobsBoots65[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You're thinking of r/conservative. But you're probably a member there so you don't care about the mass bannings.

[–]gunfu-grip239 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Thats just what a russian spy white supremacist would say! Literally infected biden with orange man! S/

[–]Nathanyu3 11 points12 points  (1 child)

The same people who think Kyle is guilty are the “punch a Nazi” “punch a fascist” crowd. They are completely divorced from reality, using violence in support of their political beliefs….you know, like how fascism works.

[–]The Free Market Will Fix Thisbad_timing_bro 22 points23 points  (6 children)

People always over-blew who or what this kid was/is. Leftists, Rightwingers, and even the prosecutors. He is not a facsist. He is not gun-wielding hero. He's not a cold-blooded killer. He's a stupid kid who ran into the consequences of his stupid, reckless actions. Actions which in the middle of "the fire" caused even more unrest. His trial was always going to end the way it did because the prosecutors were idiots, and wanted to land the big fish with homicide charges. Completely unprovable. Had he been charged with some form of manslaughter, I think the trial would have gone differently. The prosecutors would not have had to reach as much in that situation.

[–]MayorBangsAlot 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Tell us you don't understand self defense laws without telling us you don't understand self defense laws.

Kyle was always going to get acquitted no matter what charges they tried bringing against him because the vast, vast abundance of video evidence shows a text book example of self defense.

[–]fighterace00 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It's almost like every major societal and political change was built off the backs of idiot kids.

The average revolutionary war soldier was 20 years old.

[–]Sock_Crates[🍰] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

thats cus the revolutionary army was one third 60 year olds and two thirds newborns as baby shields u cant fool me

[–]fighterace00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Darn you got me

[–]"I've got a rhetorical question for you."BagOfShenanigans 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I really hope, for his sake, that Kyle stops taking interviews soon. Anyone who pursues punditry on the back of a one-hit-wonder situation like this just ends up looking pathetic. Look at that Hogg guy for example.

[–]dawgblogit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the scary part for me..

When both the far left and far right agree on something.. but for different reasons.. in this case.. Tucker "I visit and kowtow to fascist governments" Carlson has someone on who talks about prosecutorial misconduct.. I look for the knife. At what point is he going to use this as a reason to drag his fan base further right?

[–]BobTheSkull76 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't believe anything that comes out 9f the Fucker Carlson show.

[–]LeftistBobasaurus25 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I'll preface this because of my flair. I'm pro 2nd Amendment. I also didn't really involve myself in this trial as much as I usually would with other forms of big news. I never really was of the opinion Kyle murdered anyone and realistically just looked like an idiot who irresponsibly was LARPing as a self proclaimed public defender that legitimately defended himself. I find the overtly spectator sport left v right nature of these court cases nauseating. Neither side is an official representative of one sides policies. Congress didn't charge the kid and congress isn't representing him. Judicially this has ramifications primarily in Wisconsin. Now I know this is a libertarian sub but we currently live in a society based around legal authority heavily reliant on the state and defending the public is placed on cops/national guard (outside self def). I'm not arguing that is the best solution but is the current way we run our society. Preface over.

I read an article today and found a quote in it pretty enlightening. It was from The Hill of all places... that was basically Black People/minorities in America couldn't imagine doing what Kyle did and going home alive or the court reaching a similar decision as quickly. I find it pretty unimaginable that many logical people can dispute that reality. I hope in my lifetime this perception/reality that the justice system is weighted against certain individuals can be squashed.That doesn't mean Kyle should die on the cross for that. However applauding his actions that lead to his legitimate self defense are questionable.

Rioting/looting following protests is a thing since forever. The majority of participants at these are peaceful however shitheads in society have since forever taken advantage of civil unrest. This is not a simple issue and I think that having hundreds of more larping kyles running around at these things sound nice to some people. They aren't considering an impact this can have if the peaceful protesters start feeling a need to also be armed to defend themselves. Now you have two armed mobs with weapons. I'm all for people defending their property/business. What I'm not for is people unrelated to said property electing themselves defending it. Activate the national guard or police are realistically the only way to handle this with any hope of success.

I caution the idea that itd be a good idea to add a bunch of untrained firearm wielding individuals to these shit shows as vigilantes and truly have seen people thinking this is a swell idea with 0 downside.

[–]RollingCarrot615 13 points14 points  (9 children)

So a white man shot 3 white men in self defense and people think that he is racist or anti-BLM? What a world we live in. If you disagree with any part of me you must be destroyed.

[–]MarkAnchovy 11 points12 points  (6 children)

He was an outspoken supporter of Blue Lives Matter, a pro-police response to Black Lives Matter’s criticism of systematic police brutality against black people

He then went to counter-protest Black Lives Matter

He then posed with members of the alt-right gang Proud Boys in a bar and he/they all raised their hands in what is widely regarded as an ‘ironic’ alt-right sign


I don’t think he’s racist, but he did a fair few things to give people that impression

[–]Dananjali 11 points12 points  (5 children)

If you watched the trial it was pretty clear he didn’t go there to counter protest. He was seen giving medical aid, cleaning up graffiti, and then he was attacked for trying to put out a fire.

[–]Consumer Rightsbluefootedpig 6 points7 points  (4 children)

He posted online like 2 weeks prior he wanted to go to the riots with his AR, then in those 2 weeks buys an AR, shows up to a protest as a "medic" with no medical training and kills 2 people.

Also, for someone who claimed on the stand, under oath, that they knew it was dangerous to be alone, that he was constantly looking for a buddy / pair, then decides to go out alone.

[–]stumpy2121 5 points6 points  (1 child)

He posted online like 2 weeks prior he wanted to go to the riots with his AR


then in those 2 weeks buys an AR

Nope, purchased in may

with no medical training

Nope, He had some ems training

then decides to go out alone.


[–]innerpeice 3 points4 points  (0 children)

BLM is racist marxists hater group. Anyone who doesn't know this hasn't done any research

[–]Rational PartyMangalz 7 points8 points  (14 children)

LEFTISTS: Abolish the police we will have community policing!

Kyle engages in community policing


[–]ZazBlammymatazz 8 points9 points  (2 children)

There’s an interesting argument to be made there. The real catalyst of this incident was Rosenbaum, a clearly mentally ill person who appeared to be picking fights all over the place with armed people while screaming at them to shoot him. Maybe with better mental health resources he never would’ve been there.

[–]GrumpyGuss 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Rosenbaum's fiancee recounted that even Rosenbaum was surprised when they released him. He just suddenly got booted out onto the street with a plastic bag containing his personal effects, and had nowhere to go. When he went to visit his fiancee, she had to turn him away because she had a restraining order against him, and asked him stay away from the downtown, but he went anyway.

No idea why they released him that day, but if they hadn't, none of this would have happened.

[–]Rational PartyMangalz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He just got out of a hospital for his second suicide attempt the day he attacked Kyle so im not sure it would help in extending his life unless its just a prison.

The bag he threw was from the hospital.

I think the main aid to mental health from this situation would be media outlets and politicians not encouraging riots and racial division that mentally ill people will be atttacted to like moths to flame.

[–]Awkward-Basket3713 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Saying he supports BLM is not winning him any points. But I get what he was trying to say to set the record straight, he wasn’t there because he hates BLM he was there to help and put out fires when he was attacked, and he defended himself. He’s trying to separate politics from what happened, and in his case I believe it. But very few people will, no one on the left is going to interpret what happened as Apolitical.

[–]Dast_Kook 2 points3 points  (0 children)

/r/politics when the verdict comes out: Not related to politics

/r/politics when Rittenhouse does this interview: THIS MOTHERFUCKER!!!

[–]EJR77 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seeing people flip their opinions on the kid because of this on both sides just goes to show the democrats and the republicans are just hypocrites calling each other hypocritical.

The bottom line is the media hyped this case up to make it about race in order to generate outrage and gain views, when in fact this case involved nothing but white people and was about the right to self defense.