Rittenhouse Trial Rant

[Ninurta]

Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges. I hope they gave those 500 Guardsmen loaded magazines this time, unlike the unloaded guns they send them to the border with.

USA Today already trying to spin out the propaganda over the verdict. Headline: "Kyle Rittenhouse may be innocent, but the assault-style rifles are (once again) guilty in deadly shooting" First of all, NO ONE is ever found "innocent" in US courts. One is either "guilty" or "not guilty", because the law presumes no one is "innocent". Second, no rifle, "assault style" or otherwise, was on trial.

Get ready for the fireworks now that justice has prevailed - it wasn't the "justice" the SJWs were rooting for.

And that is how I know that they have  no idea of what "justice" is.


.

Hallelujah!!!

Now that kid needs to get out of town ASAP. Same with the jury. 

The media can take a flying leap with all their crap.  

Don't forget - he's got a crap ton of potentially lucrative civil suits against a whole lot of know it all loud mouths that he needs to be pursuing to helpfully assist some folks to learn about shooting their mouths off before they load their brains!

Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder" - never mind the fact that the jury determined it was NOT murder, they will not be denied!

One went so far as to say "what if it was your family member he shot? Wouldn't you want justice?" Well, first off, I try to teach my family members not to run in unreasoning, murderous, arsonist mobs, and second of all, if they are dumb enough to attack an armed man who has done them no wrong while they are high on an overdose of stupidity, they get what they get, so justice WAS served!

And this just in, from Babylon Bee: https://babylonbee.com/news/kyle-rittenh...56-MZXdWjY


.

[BIAD]

Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder"
-never mind the fact that the jury determined it was NOT murder, they will not be denied!

One went so far as to say "what if it was your family member he shot? Wouldn't you want justice?" 

This is what is so alarming with today's debating tactics, not the question... the wording of the question like it is based in reality!
'What if', 'Imagine for a moment' and 'Maybe'...all fanciful offerings of mental conceptualisations.

[Ninurta]

Already on social media the Leftist troops are massing up and bemoaning what they think is "legalization of murder"
-never mind the fact that the jury determined it was NOT murder, they will not be denied!

One went so far as to say "what if it was your family member he shot? Wouldn't you want justice?" 

This is what is so alarming with today's debating tactics, not the question... the wording of the question like it is based in reality!
'What if', 'Imagine for a moment' and 'Maybe'...all fanciful offerings of mental conceptualisations.

My usual response to such constructs is "Yeah. 'What if'. 'What if' frogs had wings? They wouldn't go along bumping their asses on the ground. But they don't, so they do. 'What if' means jack shit out here in the real world. So, 'what if'?"

.

[727Sky]

Found not guilty on all accounts....let the riots begin ? Seems justice is alive in this case for once.. I just hope whoever made the threats to the judge and jurors are all tracked down and have a stay at club fed for a few years.

[Ninurta]

I seriously doubt anyone will be held to account for the jury intimidation. It's not hard to find some of the intimidators - they could start with the prosecuting attorney for pointing a rifle at the jury with his finger on the trigger.

Rittenhouse does need to civilly sue a great number of very public people who also wouldn't be hard to find, for slander, libel, and defamation, because they very publicly made derogatory statements against him, statements that can be proven false, and which are demonstrably injurious. The standard in most of those cases would not need to rise to malicious speech - it would only need to be reckless disregard for his person and reputation.

The media talking heads were the worst offenders in that regard, and should be held to account - libelous and slanderous speech are not covered by the First Amendment, any more than the Second Amendment is a right to indiscriminately shoot any one for any reason or no reason. There are limits - people just usually try to capriciously set those limits in their own favor... but that is neither objective nor responsible.

There are protests right now across the nation regarding this decision, but so far all of them that I am aware of are peaceful. Most of them are generic, and have nothing to do with the actual trial. People are protesting on the "what if..." basis discussed above. They are marching on "what if Rittenhouse had been black?" Well what if he had been? He wasn't, so we will never know, and the protests are on a flawed premise. Many of the protesters are disregarding ALL aspects of the case. I saw one sign on TV in New York that simply said "You Can't Have Capitalism Without Racism" - nothing to do with the case at all, just a generic Communist protesting generic Capitalism. Any excuse will do, I reckon.

I don't know if the protests are peaceful so far because it's cold, or because protesters have been put on notice that if they turn rioter, and endanger folks, folks are legally allowed to endanger them right back. That seems to be a strange new alien concept to most of them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ahmad Arberry case in Georgia is wrapping up, and may present them another chance to protest. Those two shooters were pretty clearly in the wrong, and guilty of murder given the facts of that case. If they are found not guilty, that would present the protesters another opportunity to riot, and a more righteous one in my opinion. Maybe the protesters are just marshaling their resources and energies in case that happens...

.

[BIAD]

The media are still pushing the racial-angle on the Rittenhouse verdict along with a consoling via the supposed 'anger'
of the President of the United States. It seems the jury was wrong and Joe Biden doesn't appreciate the laws of the land
he presides over.

Or... the flu-fear is fading, Afghanistan has been put back in the box, an emotional televised court case has finished and
it's a weekend. What's to write about?!

Kyle Rittenhouse: Biden angry after teen cleared of shootings

'US President Joe Biden has said he is angry after a teenager who shot dead two men during racial unrest last year in
Wisconsin was cleared by a court. The president expressed dismay at the verdict in a written statement although earlier
he said he stood by the jury.

Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, sobbed as he was acquitted of all charges over the shooting in Kenosha on 25 August 2020.
There were low-key protests over the outcome of the trial that has divided the US.


Kyle Rittenhouse                                         The Public                                                              Members of James Blake's family.

Mr Rittenhouse had acknowledged fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and injuring Gaige
Grosskreutz, 28, but maintained he did so in self-defence. The former police youth cadet was cleared of two counts of
intentional homicide, one count of attempted homicide and two counts of recklessly endangering safety.

Mr Rittenhouse appeared to nearly collapse with relief as he learned his fate on Friday from a jury of seven women and five
men after three-and-a-half days of deliberations. His mother, Wendy, also wept. The defendant and the men he shot were all
white, but the issue of race hung over the case because the shooting happened during civil disorder over perceived police
brutality.

During last year's election campaign, Mr Biden tweeted a video that appeared to link Rittenhouse, without any evidence, to
white supremacists. On Friday outside the White House a reporter asked the Democratic president whether he stood by his
past comments about the teenager.

Mr Biden said he had only just heard the news and added: "I stand by what the jury has concluded. The jury system works and
we have to abide by it." He later released a statement saying: "While the verdict in Kenosha will leave many Americans feeling
angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken."

Mr Rittenhouse, then 17, had showed up in Kenosha after the city had been convulsed by two nights of rioting, looting and arson
when police shot a black man, Jacob Blake, seven times in the back on 23 August 2020, leaving him partially paralysed.

The defence presented their client as a civic-minded teenager who had gone to the Midwestern US city to protect private property
and only shot the men because he was in fear of his life. The prosecution had depicted Mr Rittenhouse as a reckless vigilante and
the men he shot as heroes attempting to disarm someone they thought was an "active shooter".

The trial heard that Mr Rosenbaum had been acting erratically that night and chased Mr Rittenhouse before trying to grab his gun.
Mr Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Mr Huber was then killed after striking Mr Rittenhouse in the head or neck with a skateboard.
Mr Grosskreutz had his bicep shot off after pointing his own gun at Mr Rittenhouse.

After the verdict, Mr Rittenhouse's defence attorney Mark Richards said of his client: "He wants to get on with his life.
"He wishes none of this ever happened. But as he said when he testified, he did not start this."
The parents of Huber, the second person shot, said they were "heartbroken" by the verdict.
"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they
have created to justify shooting people in the street," Karen Bloom and John Huber said in a statement.

The BBC's Nomia Iqbal in Kenosha said a small number of protesters gathered outside the court, holding signs that read
"Killer Kyle," and "No justice no peace." Local store owners told her they would be glad once the verdict was announced
so that the city could move forward.

The trial exposed political divisions, with many Democrats condemning the verdict while Republicans said justice had been served,
with some even offering him internships. Following the verdict, right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson posted a clip of an exclusive
interview with Mr Rittenhouse, to be broadcast on Monday. In the footage, Mr Rittenhouse describes waking up in a cold sweat because
of "scary" dreams he has every night about what happened...'

Archived BBC Article:

[Minstrel]

The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines to a town where he didn't live' is nauseating.
I served at the Naval installation at North Chicago (Illinois)...and virtually, right across the street from the base was, none other than Kenosha, WI.
He was there to protect his father's business.
And yet they twist ('spin' - thanks @"Ninurta" ) this irrelevant fact in every way imaginable, to wring every teardrop (spelled DOLLAR) possible from this soggy tissue.

[BIAD]

The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines' to a town where he didn't live is nauseating...

Ah yes, but look at through the lens of 'TV criminality'... Bonnie and Clyde 'crossed State Lines' along with other 'bad' people.
The narrative is warped in many areas to sneakily persuade a viewer/reader the idea that Rittenhouse is in that type of league!

He was there to protect his father's business...

But that would imply a family-orientated commitment and not inducing to the current dividing scheme. The lad put out
fires, treated the injured with basic medical care and aimed to protect property from rioters. In a situation a jury agreed
with, he had to defend himself in the most lethal of ways and the President of his country is angry with him.

How f*ckin' puerile can you get...?! The leader of the most powerful nation in history is angry with a kid because he
defended himself and isn't black. What's next...? Joe orders the military to destroy a business that makes breakfast
cereal he doesn't like?!

[Ninurta]

The media are still pushing the racial-angle on the Rittenhouse verdict along with a consoling via the supposed 'anger'
of the President of the United States. It seems the jury was wrong and Joe Biden doesn't appreciate the laws of the land
he presides over.

Or... the flu-fear is fading, Afghanistan has been put back in the box, an emotional televised court case has finished and
it's a weekend. What's to write about?!

Kyle Rittenhouse: Biden angry after teen cleared of shootings



Kyle Rittenhouse                                         The Public                                                              Members of James Blake's family.

Not a very flattering image of Blake's family. That's unfortunate, but I'm willing to bet intentional.

The defence presented their client as a civic-minded teenager who had gone to the Midwestern US city to protect private property
and only shot the men because he was in fear of his life. The prosecution had depicted Mr Rittenhouse as a reckless vigilante and
the men he shot as heroes attempting to disarm someone they thought was an "active shooter".

Here is an infographic rundown on their "heroes":

The trial heard that Mr Rosenbaum had been acting erratically that night and chased Mr Rittenhouse before trying to grab his gun.
Mr Rittenhouse fatally shot him. Mr Huber was then killed after striking Mr Rittenhouse in the head or neck with a skateboard.
Mr Grosskreutz had his bicep shot off after pointing his own gun at Mr Rittenhouse.

Some times, you mess with the bull, you get the horn.

"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they
have created to justify shooting people in the street," Karen Bloom and John Huber said in a statement.

Yes, because THEIR little darling could not possibly have done anything wrong. He was an innocent, I tell ya, only going about his own business of trying to burn a city down, and took umbrage, a righteous anger, when some little shit put out his glorious fire... but they are not the first idjits I've run across who misuse that word "unacceptable" in that manner. Here's a news flash - it is what it is, and will be what it will be, whether or not they "accept" it in their little world. The rest of us do not care what they find "unacceptable" - they're going to accept it anyhow, for the Greater Good, and the rest of us are going to move forward past their stuck-on-stupid asses.

The BBC's Nomia Iqbal in Kenosha said a small number of protesters gathered outside the court, holding signs that read
"Killer Kyle," and "No justice no peace." Local store owners told her they would be glad once the verdict was announced
so that the city could move forward.

"No justice, no peace"? Isn't catchy slogans like that what got their dumb asses in this mess to begin with? It appears that some folks never learn, and may well be uneducatable...

 Following the verdict, right-wing Fox News host Tucker Carlson posted a clip of an exclusive
interview with Mr Rittenhouse, to be broadcast on Monday. In the footage, Mr Rittenhouse describes waking up in a cold sweat because
of "scary" dreams he has every night about what happened...'

Archived BBC Article:

That right there is more evidence of Rittenhouse's PTSD, as I mentioned in another post about him breaking down in the court room. It's a sad fact that NO ONE came out of this mess free as a dove.

But the shit-stirrers just keep stirring onward....

.

[Ninurta]

The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines to a town where he didn't live' is nauseating.
I served at the Naval installation at North Chicago (Illinois)...and virtually, right across the street from the base was, none other than Kenosha, WI.
He was there to protect his father's business.
And yet they twist ('spin' - thanks @"Ninurta" ) this irrelevant fact in every way imaginable, to wring every teardrop (spelled DOLLAR) possible from this soggy tissue.

Indeed! It's almost as if they hold internal state boundaries inviolate, but external national boundaries as merely "a line on a map"... that seems a bit bass-ackwards to me, but what do I know? I'm just another citizen...

Yes, states have boundaries, but we are (still - so far) allowed to travel among them more or less freely within our own nation, and the state lines merely mark a change of jurisdiction and taxation. International borders, on the other hand, used to be a Pretty Big Deal, where crossing them unauthorized once was what was called "an invasion", whereas now it's just called "seeking a better life", but a better life that has to be taken from someone else already legally there... just as invasion forces once did.

My, how the times do change, but the more some things change, the more they stay the same under the surface. They just get a shiny new coat of paint.

.

[Ninurta]

The amount of attention they draw to 'Rittenhouse crossing state lines' to a town where he didn't live is nauseating...

Ah yes, but look at through the lens of 'TV criminality'... Bonnie and Clyde 'crossed State Lines' along with other 'bad' people.
The narrative is warped in many areas to sneakily persuade a viewer/reader the idea that Rittenhouse is in that type of league!

And let's not forget the Mann Act, that makes  "transporting minors across state lines for immoral purposes"  a Federal Felony... yeah, maybe a vague someone was vaguely pimpin'...

He was there to protect his father's business...

But that would imply a family-orientated commitment and not inducing to the current dividing scheme. The lad put out
fires, treated the injured with basic medical care and aimed to protect property from rioters. In a situation a jury agreed
with, he had to defend himself in the most lethal of ways and the President of his country is angry with him.

How f*ckin' puerile can you get...?! The leader of the most powerful nation in history is angry with a kid because he
defended himself and isn't black. What's next...? Joe orders the military to destroy a business that makes breakfast
cereal he doesn't like?!

Yeah, what you just said!  



.

[BIAD]

                                                                                                                             Members of James Blake's family.

Not a very flattering image of Blake's family. That's unfortunate, but I'm willing to bet intentional.

You're correct, as the BBC places people of colour in the status of a 'lower rank' to fit their own victim narrative.
However, I've believed for some time they're actually covertly ridicule those they constantly writing about.

[ABNARTY]

I have noticed a few things on my feed. Those lamenting the outcome of the case have nothing original to say. Simply recycled, feeble talking points from the news. Bring up a counter point or point out it isn't true and the "discussion" changes to another talking point. Zero engagement. This is expected because what they say is not their thought but someone else's. How do you reach someone bereft of their own cognitive agency? Kind of depressing.

Some are so invested in that narrative, they can't let go. The entire trial was televised. 1000's of hours of commentary by lawyers and trial specialists on YT. The video of what happened has been available for anyone to watch since August 2020. Multiple sources from many view points. All the evidence is there for the public. Yet what do we get? People still regurgitating things which are demonstrably false time after time. It's amazing. I guess the feelings they get from being outraged are far more powerful than any desire to look at data.

I'm not sure where to go with this. People I know and care about are mentally vacant I guess? What happens in their life when the time comes that no one is available to interject a thought into their head? Just a blank, buzzing sound? 

Has it always been this was throughout human history? If so, I can see why lunatics get away with that they do (e.g. Stalin)

  

[Ninurta]

I have noticed a few things on my feed. Those lamenting the outcome of the case have nothing original to say. Simply recycled, feeble talking points from the news. Bring up a counter point or point out it isn't true and the "discussion" changes to another talking point. Zero engagement. This is expected because what they say is not their thought but someone else's. How do you reach someone bereft of their own cognitive agency? Kind of depressing.

I've noticed the same thing, as well as a super-contortionist effort to maintain the narrative that this was somehow "racist". One white guy shooting 3 white guys who were trying to burn a city down and kill him, and they will make herculean efforts to turn that "racist".

They generally trot out the old "well what if Kyle Rittenhouse had been black?" Well what if he HAD? He wasn't, so we will never know, now will we? They should confine themselves to examples that actually support the narrative they are trying to generate, rather than attempting to "fundamentally transform" a story that has no bearing on it whatsoever.

This is why they can't win an argument, and why they are so easily shut down. It's also why they have to change the talking points every time they are countered, because they cannot defend their point and must abandon it. It's also the reason they have to shut down any dissenting views - any dissent at all destroys their carefully, if twistedly, crafted arguments forthwith.

@"BIAD" likes to quote Some Guy, and it's just as true now as it was when first uttered - "they're not sending their best".

.