Lying media had no effect on Rittenhouse verdict and propaganda was defeated

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 weeks ago  •  94 comments

By:   By Tucker Carlson

Lying media had no effect on Rittenhouse verdict and propaganda was defeated
For months, CNN, MSNBC and Kamala Harris, have been allowed to define him. That ends Monday. We're sitting down for a long interview with Kyle Rittenhouse. You can see it on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Monday night. We hope you will.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Here's how the story started, just so we all remember. 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse wound up on the street in Kenosha in the first place with a gun for one reason: He was there because in the summer of 2020 the leadership of the  Democrat Party  endorsed mob violence for political ends. That's why there were riots in Kenosha that night, because people like  Kamala Harris  supported those rights. 

More than a year later, as Rittenhouse stood trial for murder, those very same people implied there would be more violence if he was acquitted. So imagine being a juror on that case. Imagine the pressure and the fear. It would take enormous moral courage for any juror to ignore the threats and follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. So much courage that at times we doubted it was even possible in a country as politicized as ours now is. 

But as we learned today, it is still possible, thank God. 

This afternoon, the jury acquitted Rittenhouse on all charges. The jury affirmed what was obvious from the very beginning: He acted in self - defense. It was a wonderful moment. Anyone who believes in impartial justice was vindicated. Here's that moment: 

COURT CLERK: As to the first count of the information—Joseph Rosenbaum—we, the jury, find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the second count of the information - Richard McGinnis - we the jury, find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the third count of the information - unknown male - we the jury find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the fourth count of the information - Anthony Huber - we, the jury, find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. As to the fifth count of the information - Gaige Grosskreutz - we the jury find the defendant, Kyle H. Rittenhouse, not guilty. 

Remarkable. Months of relentless lying from the  media  about this case, in the end, had no effect whatsoever on the jury. Propaganda doesn't always win. Today it was soundly defeated, thank God. 

Our documentary team was there in Kenosha when it happened. They've been there for days putting together an installment of our  Tucker Carlson Originals  series on this case, and they captured Kyle Rittenhouse's first moments outside the court today after being acquitted.

KYLE RITTENHOUSE: It's the stuff that keeps you up at night. Once you finally do get to

REPORTER: You have dreams about what happened? 

KYLE RITTENHOUSE: Every single night. It's quite scary, actually, because the dreams feel so real, and they're not the same at all, they're all different. They're the different scenarios that run through your head, what could have happened? I'm alive, but what could have happened? Like, what if I wasn't alive, or what if I did let Mr. Rosenbaum steal my gun. It's those type of dreams of the outcome, it's bad, but almost every outcome is me getting seriously injured or hurt, or dead. Those are just the dreams I have on a daily basis.

REPORTER: How do you feel, man? 

KYLE RITTENHOUSE: The jury reached the correct verdict. Self-defense is not illegal. And, I believe they came to the correct verdict. And I'm glad that everything went well. It's been a rough journey, but we made it through it, we made it through the hard part.

As you read that, you're reminded that maybe the one person in America who hasn't yet weighed in on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is Kyle Rittenhouse himself.
 
For months, CNN, MSNBC and  Kamala Harris , have been allowed to define him. That ends Monday. We're sitting down for a long interview with Kyle Rittenhouse. You can see it on " Tucker Carlson Tonight " Monday night. We hope you will. 

Technically as a legal matter this case is over. Kyle Rittenhouse has been proclaimed innocent in a court of law. He’s free to resume his life. For the authoritarians among us, this is a disaster, they can’t let it go. Why? Because they understand the Rittenhouse case is a referendum on the most basic right of all, the ancient right of self-defense. If Kyle Rittenhouse can save his own life from the mob, then you can too. That drives them insane.

So insane that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee today,  Jerry Nadler  of New York, implied Kyle Rittenhouse may face federal charges. Nadler wrote, "Today’s verdict justifies federal review by the DOJ." So will Joe Biden’s  Justice Department  indict Kyle Rittenhouse now that he’s been acquitted by a jury in Wisconsin, it’s hard to believe. You have to be deranged to consider that. What would be the effect on the country? 

But you never know with these people. At the very least, the case will be used to justify taking your guns away. You can bet on it. But, if it does go to the Feds, if Kyle Rittenhouse is prosecuted by the Department of Justice, the case will be handled by Kristen ClarkE, the Black nationalist who runs the so-called Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The division that does not protect your civil rights, in fact, it’s trying to take it away.

Last year Kristen Clarke weighed in on the Rittenhouse case and zeroed in on Rittenhouse’s color like his race was some kind of crime. She described him as an "armed White man," murdering innocent protesters at "point-blank range." What does his race have to do with anything? It doesn’t have anything to do with anything, of course, but it’s been a fixation of the Democratic Party from the first moments. They’ve tried to racialized this case. 

And by the way, Kristen Clarke is far from the only member of the Democratic Party trying to do that. Just hours after the verdict, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Sean Patrick Maloney, a congressman, released this statement: "It is disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into a protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man." Savor that for a minute. 

That’s from the head of the Democratic Party’s congressional campaign arm. Everything about it is wrong, not just a lie, but factually wrong. Jacob Blake was not killed. He was also not unarmed. He was carrying a knife. You know that because he said he was carrying a knife. He was allegedly trying to kidnap a child. That’s when the police showed up. When he grabbed a knife, they shot him. Again, that’s not in dispute. And he’s still alive. But it doesn’t matter. Because to these people, facts don’t matter, clearly. 

Sean Patrick Maloney has no interest in what actually happened. Kamala Harris said she was proud of Jacob Blake last year, the Democratic Party is sticking with that too. They are trying and they have been from the beginning to make this case into a racial divide, to further divide the country. Kamala Harris today said that the outcome of this case, the jury’s verdict, was proof that our judicial system is not "equitable," whatever that means. It needs to be changed. The Attorney General of the state of New York said it needs to be completely torn down and rebuilt, our justice system, that we’ve had for 250 years, the best thing in our country. The idea that you are tried on the basis of the facts, not on the basis of what you look like. But they would like to change that. 

ABC News, by the way, just reported the same thing. ABC News a "news corporation" told us that Jacob Blake was killed in Kenosha. 

ABC NEWS: Well, it’s very significant, first for the community of Kenosha, this city was traumatized by the police killing of a Black man, Jacob Blake.

The police killing of a Black man who is, in fact, still alive. So, what are they doing when they tell lies like this? Lies that you can check very easily or if you have a memory that extends into last year, you recall very well. Well, they’re inciting people, of course. They’re trying to whip people into a frenzy on the basis of claims that are totally, provably untrue. What kind of a frenzy? Well, consider this: This is from a senior advisor at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic campaign arm. His name is Dyjuan Tatro, he issued an explosive call for riots. "No justice, no peace," he wrote in the wake of the verdict. Who is Dyjuan Tatro? He, according to news reports, spent a decade in prison after he shot two people. Now he works for the Democratic Party, in case you’re interested in whose side they’re on. But you knew that. 

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Congresswoman Val Demings, another Democrat, offered this assessment: "The core of the far-right movement in America is they should be able to kill you if they want to." That’s the official line of the Democratic Party tonight. Keep in mind, if you watch the trial, you know this, Kyle Rittenhouse was walking down the street when he was charged by a convicted child rapist and charged by a number of other people. He sought no conflict. There was never any evidence he was the aggressor in any case. He was aggressed against. 

Joe Biden  also weighed in on this. He gave two versions of his views on it. First, he said we’re going to respect the jury’s verdict. Then when his advisors took over and wrote a new press statement, he told us how upset he was by the verdict. And that’s what aired on MSNBC all day.

HUCK TODD, MSNBC: The next time there’s a protest of some sort, and it may get politicized, that gun owners, with a certain ideology may feel incentivized now, may feel even emboldened.

MSNBC GUEST: What some may take from this verdict is vigilante justice prevailed.

MSNBC GUEST: Knowing the history of vigilante justice in this country all the way back to times of enslavement, when people would be deputized to go out and track down enslaved persons who ran away, to lynching mobs, this is 2021.

MSNBC GUEST: It is to tell the current and future Kyle Rittenhouse’s of the world that they can engage in White vigilantism and be let off for it, be defended and protected for perpetuating White supremacy.

White vigilantism, White supremacy. White. White. White. White. White. That was over the media all day long, explicit racial attacks. What does that have to do with this case? And in what kind of country is that allowed when the most powerful people in the country level explicit racial attacks against one of their countrymen? Most of us didn’t grow up in a country where people talk like this. It’s very ominous they are talking like this now. Just as a reminder in case you’re tuning in for the first time in a year, everyone involved in this case is the same color. The people of the Council on American-Islamic Relations offered this take, which was very common today on the left: "It is difficult to imagine a Black or Muslim defendant engaged in the same conduct being found not guilty." Really? Were you here for the O.J. Simpson Trial? It’s ridiculous. MSNBC, the network banned from the courthouse for following jurors around, broadcast this from a relative of Jacob Blake.

JUSTIN BLAKE: You tell us why he got a free ride. His bail money was raised by the Proud Boys, the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, the Skinheads. Are they up in this courtroom? Do we know the history of this judge? I heard he’s been racist to these people in Kenosha for many years.

It’s really, really dark. The rest of us should not allow them to get away with racializing this, allowing them to get away with attacking people on the basis of their skin color. That is always wrong, we would never engage in that, never have, no one should do that. It divides the country. It’s immoral, flat out. But somehow to the crazy logic that governs their positions and deeds, they wind up defending child rapists and domestic abusers, elevating them to some sort of hero status. 

The former mayor of New York Bill de Blasio wrote, "Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum were victims, they should be alive today." Maybe we'll get a statue, a very small statue, to Joseph Rosenbaum in New York someday. 

Meanwhile, the ACLU, which you would think would be in favor of self-defense - that's the most basic of all civil liberties - suggested crossing state lines is a crime. Stay in your own state. The ACLU said, "Despite Kyle Rittenhouse’s conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police, he was not held responsible for his actions." 

This is insanity. And by the way, the continuous references to crossing state lines are not insignificant. Legally they’re meaningless. You have a right to cross state lines if you’re an American because it’s your country. You can go to all 50 states and you're not breaking the law. So why do they bring that phrase into every analysis of this case? "Crossing state lines." Because they want to use it to change gun laws. That’s right. You watch. 
If you want to know what the worst people are saying, tune in to Jeb Bush’s former flak on MSNBC. Nicole Wallace told us anyone who crosses state lines is a domestic terrorist.

NICOLE WALLACE: The Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal today, not guilty on all counts did not happen in a cultural vacuum. There’s alarming context to this moment we’re considering and talking about. Just last week, the Department of Homeland Security released the latest bulletin warning Americans, again, of the ongoing threat posed by domestic violent extremists. We should also point out conservative media for many, many months have been priming its audience for this moment, framing Rittenhouse as a hero.

So why are we inflicting that on you on a day when all of us should be celebrating? We’ll tell you why. 

Because none of that made any difference to the jury. And if you’re totally absorbed in American media, you get the impression that American media are in charge of our country. And it turns out, they’re not. Most people don’t watch that crap. They don’t care what people like that say. They don’t care at all. There are a lot of rational, decent, thoughtful people on all sides of all races in this country who are still willing to think clearly about what is right, what is wrong, what is factual, what is false, what is just, and what is not. And today, they did. So, that’s the real lesson here. In the face of all of that propaganda, a group of jurors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, were brave enough to reach the right and obvious conclusion anyway. Amen. 


R.e502206bd016b5504b9fe907dc75e07f?rik=IfAhfgX0CAVkJA&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

Tucker Carlson is a Libertarian and a political commentator who has hosted the nightly news analysis show "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on Fox News since 2016. Carlson began his media career in the 1990s, writing for "The Weekly Standard." He was a CNN commentator from 2000 to 2005 and a co-host of the debate program "Crossfire." From 2005 to 2008, he hosted the nightly program "Tucker" on MSNBC. In 2010 Calson co-founded and served as the initial editor-in-chief of "The Daily Caller." He has written three books on American politics.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Tucker Carlson gets the last word on the Rittenhouse verdict.  He really said it all.

It's required reading.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Or listening to…

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

He cleaned the clock of the MBFC approved lamestream news and big tech social media 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago

Nobody has the right to argue with the jury verdict if they were not there and privy to all the evidence presented at the trial.  But it is a travesty of justice that the Judge dropped the charge of a minor illegally bringing a gun to that scene.  A jury could not possibly have found him not guilty of that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.3    2 weeks ago
But it is a travesty of justice that the Judge dropped the charge of a minor illegally bringing a gun to that scene.  A jury could not possibly have found him not guilty of that. 

On that, the judge dropped it because he could not be charged for that under the Wisconsin law. Under that law Rittenhouse would have had to be in violation of two elements, not just one. The word "and" was involved.

THIS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE JUDGE TOSSED IT OUT:

The problem with the Wisconsin statute is not a problem of pluralization but definition. It is not clear that the statute actually bars possession by Rittenhouse. Indeed, it may come down to the length of Rittenhouse’s weapon and the prosecutors never bothered to measure it and place it into evidence.

In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section  941.28 . Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with  an advertised  barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.

Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.”  Under Section  948.60(2)(a)  (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”),  “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?

Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304  and  29.593.”

Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304  and  29.593. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of  Section 29.593 , which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “ Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. ” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.

If Rittenhouse were convicted on that count, it could face a serious challenge on appeal. Indeed, it is curious is why Schroeder would even submit the count to the jury if it is uncontested that Rittenhouse was 17. If that is the correct interpretation of the statute, there would be no way for a jury to reasonably convict Rittenhouse. It is akin to giving the jury a criminal count based on his use of force as a police officer when there is no evidence that he was a police officer....Jonathan Turley

 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

The law is an inconvenience if it gets in the way of a desired outcome.  Many on the left were hoping at least this one would stick and he’d get the maximum for it.  It isn’t even a felony, barely more than an infraction.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
1.3.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.3    2 weeks ago
But it is a travesty of justice that the Judge dropped the charge of a minor illegally bringing a gun to that scene.

There were many lies from both the prosecution and left wing media made about this case, and this is one of them.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

I was unaware of the legal technicalities, and Vic explained them to me.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.3.5  gooseisback  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.3    2 weeks ago
But it is a travesty of justice that the Judge dropped the charge of a minor illegally bringing a gun to that scene

You are a prefect example [Deleted]

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
1.3.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  gooseisback @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

Ah, Buzz is a lawyer or was my friend.... Not sure he was familiar with the law in that jurisdiction though when he made that statement as that was the basis for throwing out that charge...

It was incorrect as a matter of law and should never been charged in the first place....

But he understands that now since the law there was explained to him....

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

Thank you, Nowhere Man.  There are members here who prefer to insult rather than correct, and did so in my case more than a day AFTER I posted that I had been unaware of the technicalities, being a Canadian rather than an American lawyer, but thanked Vic for educating me on the situation of which I was OBVIOUSLY unaware.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.4  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
It's required reading.

Required only if one is not looking at what he says as being true. One sentence in and he totally discredits himself. To wit:

 He was there because in the summer of 2020 the leadership of the  Democrat Party   endorsed mob violence for political ends. 

That is a lie. Argumentation based on a lie is faulty, and therefore, everything that follows is going to be of questionable value. I didn't bother to read any further because I am not going to waste my time or energy on the lying gasbag. He lies, and anyone who posts anything that happened to fall from his lips as being true is a liar also.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse benefited from the concept of "reasonable doubt".  His behavior that night was extremely problematic but his intent could not be proved. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

There was a lot of problematic behavior that night and that would include the mayor of Kenosha.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

You continue to want to blame Rittenhouse for all of this.  The video evidence and testimony in court showed the intent of the 4 people who attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse defended himself from their actions and the jury agreed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2    2 weeks ago

There is no evidence that anyone wanted to kill Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a gun lover who used shooting someone as his self defense of first resort. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence that anyone wanted to kill Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a gun lover who used shooting someone as his self defense of first resort. 

Joseph Rosenbaum twice stated he wanted to kill Rittenhouse according to testimony in court. 

The drop-kick man was on video attempting to do a flying kick at Rittenhouse's head.

Anthony Huber chased down and hit Rittenhouse in the back of the head with a skateboard.

Gaige Grosskreutz pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse.

The video played in court and the testimony given all seems quite clear to me. While I am not a mind reader so I cannot say that these four men "wanted" to kill Rittenhouse, the video sure does give a good impression that they were trying to kill him.

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
2.2.3  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Where is your outrage for all the innocent people shot and killed in chicago? People minding their own business. Sometimes just sitting in their homes, some are kids. Where is your outrage for them? You are so hellbent on destroying rittenhouse yet not a peep from you about bringing the thugs in your city to justice. Why is that?

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.4  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence that anyone wanted to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.

That's not required for self-defense - no matter how many times you insist so and no matter how many times you ignore the law.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.2    2 weeks ago

Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, unarmed, and threw a plastic bag at him. I would say he wanted to chase Rittenhouse away. 

Kyle Rittenhouse is a kid. He convinced himself that everyone wanted to kill him. That is why his first impulse was to pull the trigger. 

Jump Kick Man leapt at him undoubtedly to try and disarm Rittenhouse not kill him. In the video Rittenhouse is shifting his weight and pointing his gun at Jump Kick Man before Jump Kick Man even reaches him. Without the intent to shoot first he could have grabbed the guys foot and thrown him to the ground. But Kyle's mindset that night was that his gun was his ONLY method of self defense. 

The idea that this kid is some sort of hero is insane. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.6  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
He is a gun lover who used shooting someone as his self defense of first resort. 

Again, self-defense is not a weapons match - you use what you have. If you defend yourself with equal measure, your tactics suck. The degree of force, (deadly) is justified by the level of threat and bodily harm usually justifies that. 

To give you more context, in Pennsylvania the use of deadly force is justified to stop rape. Are you going to argue that I should not kill a man who just wants to 'have some fun with a woman'? You'd be happier if I got my head caved by a man twice my size?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2.7  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, unarmed, and threw a plastic bag at him. I would say he wanted to chase Rittenhouse away. 

Rittenhouse was running away and Rosenbaum continued to chase him. If all he wanted to do is chase Rittenhouse away he had already succeeded yet he continued on. Lastly you are attempting to read the mind of Rosenbaum and put your desired actions in but that is not what was testified in court.

Kyle Rittenhouse is a kid. He convinced himself that everyone wanted to kill him. That is why his first impulse was to pull the trigger. 

If his first instinct was to pull the trigger than he failed terribly as he ran past several other people that he didn't shoot at. If his first impulse was to pull the trigger then why didn't he do more of it?  He sure had the opportunity to do so.

Jump Kick Man leapt at him undoubtedly to try and disarm Rittenhouse not kill him. In the video Rittenhouse is shifting his weight and pointing his gun at Jump Kick Man before Jump Kick Man even reaches him. Without the intent to shoot first he could have grabbed the guys foot and thrown him to the ground. But Kyle's mindset that night was that his gun was his ONLY method of self defense. 

Again you are playing mind-reader and IMO doing a horrible job.  A flying jump-kick to the head is IMO not a move to disarm someone but a move to knock someone out. What would have happened after that we will never know. But the action of JumpKickMan is definitely enough to cause the receiver of said kick in fear of his life.

The idea that this kid is some sort of hero is insane. 

I never said he was a hero, all I said was the verdict was correct based on the evidence and testimony given in court.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.7    2 weeks ago

I dont strongly object to the verdict. I think that reasonable doubt was definitely in play in this case. 

But the fact is Rittenhouse stopped running and turned and shot and killed an unarmed man who was doing nothing more than chasing him. Sorry, nothing can change that. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2.2.9  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
But the fact is Rittenhouse stopped running and turned and shot and killed an unarmed man who was doing nothing more than chasing him. Sorry, nothing can change that. 

Obviously you missed the part in the testimony where he stopped running because directly in front of  him were more of those protestors who were breaking car windows with a club.  And the video shows as he stops running and turns around that Rosenbaum was catching up to him. Testimony in court stated that Rosenbaum was trying to take the gun.  Rosenbaum was doing more than just chasing no matter how you try to twist it. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.2.10  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
unarmed man who was doing nothing more than chasing him

Well, smack me in the head - ask Reginald Denny how that works out.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.2.9    2 weeks ago

The drone video shows Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum before he reached out for the gun. 

As far as where he could have run there was all sorts of room to run in that car lot . If you assume that everyone there wanted to kill Rittenhouse then yes I guess he felt trapped. I dont think that is the correct assumption. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
2.2.12  Gazoo  replied to  Gazoo @2.2.3    2 weeks ago

I don’t blame you for not answering, john. I know the reason and yes, you should be very embarrassed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.11    2 weeks ago

he drone video shows Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum before he reached out for the gun

It doesn’t show that. You claim it does.  Others claim the opposite. 

This is a prosecution witness:

“But it was unclear from video footage whether Joseph Rosenbaum was grabbing for Rittenhouse’s gun or trying to swat it away, said the witness, Dr. Doug Kelley, with the Milwaukee County medical exam”

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
2.2.14  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.8    2 weeks ago

How was Rittenhouse to know he was unarmed...or not?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.14    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse testified at the trial that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.2.16  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence that anyone wanted to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.

using the prosecutors own tactic , , "Lefty ", should have not had HIS weapon out or pointed at the kid ready to fire , because doing so , means he intended to "kill" the kid at the worst and at the best incapacitate the preceived threat . his own testimony and video show that is exactly what he did , and  as for intent , that would fall under burden of proof .

 "Lefty " , MIGHT have been about the only one that MIGHT have been able to pull off a plea of self defense out of all shot at . The others , not a snowballs chance in hell since they were the aggressors . 

Be interesting when he goes to renew that expired permit , if it is approved .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

JR, I don't believe you will ever grasp the concept that Rittenhouse defended himself legally.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
The idea that this kid is some sort of hero is insane.

What is TRULY FUCKING INSANE is thinking that Kyle did one damn thing OTHER than defend himself.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.17    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
2.2.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    2 weeks ago

Based on the evidence presented and the jury verdict, so is the claim that RT is a wanton loose cannon murderer as some here keep trying to claim!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.2.21  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
In the video Rittenhouse is shifting his weight and pointing his gun at Jump Kick Man before Jump Kick Man even reaches him.

 LOL , correct , the unmentioned part of that is it was done while the jumpkick dude , was already in mid air committed to a not so surpise surprise attack, what was suppose to happen ? press the pause button to keep the kicker suspended in mid air not advancing  so the kid could move out of the way ?

 that only happens in movies like the matrix .

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.22  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gazoo @2.2.12    2 weeks ago

I was hoping to see an answer to your reasonable inquiry as well..  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
2.2.23  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.8    2 weeks ago
But the fact is Rittenhouse stopped running and turned and shot and killed an unarmed man who was doing nothing more than chasing him. Sorry, nothing can change that. 

Okay. That's your opinion. I think it's a bad one but that's just me. What I'd like to know is, had Rittenhouse not turned and shot Rosenbaum, at what point would you have considered Rittenhouse justified in defending his life? So, as I said, suppose Rittenhouse hadn't turned around and Rosenbaum knocked him down from behind, fell on top of him and started to choke him. Not that Rittenhouse would have been in a position to do much about it at that point, but if he could have, would it then be okay to defend himself? Would you say no because we couldn't be sure Rosenbaum wasn't simply trying to subdue him? Suppose he'd had a knife and he pulled it out of his pocket and began stabbing Rittenhouse? Would it then be okay? 

Here's what you don't seem to understand about self defense. The person exercising the right doesn't have to have their attacker fill out a questionnaire concerning intent before defending themselves. It simply needs to be a reasonable action given the circumstances. We all knew, as did Rittenhouse, that Rosenbaum had twice threatened to kill Rittenhouse. Now he is literally attacking him. Apparently, you feel that self defense is either never justified or allowed only after you're so grievously injured by the attack that you'll die if you don't shoot. Can't be sure but what else could you believe?

So, maybe if you described an actual situation where it would have been justified for Rittenhouse to shoot someone in self defense we might understand you better. I'm not interested in hearing about how you think he never should have been there. He was so it doesn't matter. What I want to know is, what do you think actual self defense where shooting was necessary or justified would look like. What conditions do you think are necessary. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
2.2.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.20    2 weeks ago

Sorry, the above should have read KR instead of RT. Don't know how that happened.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
2.2.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
There is no evidence that anyone wanted to kill Kyle Rittenhouse.

Somebody didn't pay attention during the trial.

He is a gun lover who used shooting someone as his self defense of first resort.

And it must really get under your skin that his choice was the correct choice.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.2.26  gooseisback  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    2 weeks ago
Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse,

WHY!!!!

I would say he wanted to chase Rittenhouse away. 

Based on what? Please point to the witness that backs up your statement. 

Jump Kick Man leapt at him undoubtedly to try and disarm Rittenhouse not kill him

and you know this how? Oh wait Jump kick man was another criminal with a lengthy rap sheet that the prosecution hid.

Without the intent to shoot first he could have grabbed the guys foot and thrown him to the ground.

What is he Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible are you fucking kidding me.  Maybe he could of used a Jedi Mind Trick.

But Kyle's mindset that night was that his gun was his ONLY method of self defense. 

You have no idea of his mind set stop making shit up. What other defense do you have when your being pursued by a 36 yr old child molester.

The idea that this kid is some sort of hero

I don't know anyone who considers him a hero, he was just defending himself!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
Rittenhouse benefited from the concept of "reasonable doubt".

Do you recommend having "[beyond] reasonable doubt" removed from our codified, constitutional laws, John?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
His behavior that night was extremely problematic but his intent could not be proved.

This is why I don't understand your point of view. Just what would you consider proof of his intent? I mean, what would it take for you to be satisfied concerning what his intent was? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

The lies keep coming:

Hey

Jacob Blake is still alive, not dead. And he was shot by police because he had a knife, refused to drop it, and a woman he’d sexually assaulted called police asking for protection. This is embarrassing

.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago
and a woman he’d sexually assaulted called police asking for protection.

Has nothing to do with shooting him in the back and side. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago

Here's a Democratic Congressman one upping Jalen Rose:

Democratic congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, issued a statement on Friday in which he said that it is “disgusting and disturbing that someone was able to carry a loaded assault rifle into a protest against the unjust killing of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man,"

Blake was armed. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    2 weeks ago
as nothing to do with shooting him in the back and side.

And that has nothing to do with him being alive. He wasn't killed by police. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.2    2 weeks ago

I've never said he was dead. You're just going off on a tangent. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

I didn't say you did. Jalen Rose told a national audience he was killed by police. That's not true. 

The fact that he was shot in the back and the side is the tangent. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.4    2 weeks ago

ABC said it too!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    2 weeks ago

Didn't somebody on NT think he was killed?

That's how serious a lie being told by the media can be.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    2 weeks ago
Didn't somebody on NT think he was killed?

These fake narratives just take hold and are passed on generating more anger:

Blake wasn't armed. He was killed.   "Factcheckers" claiming it's a lie to say Rittenhouse was chased etc etc....   It goes on and  on. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
These fake narratives just take hold and are passed on generating more anger. 

And that is why the Trump-haters can't understand why four years of subversion, slander and scorched-earth resistance made ridiculous claims of a stolen election sound credible to a large audience of otherwise sane and sensible Americans.


Blake wasn't armed. He was killed.

And those two lies seem invulnerable to the truth. They are like the pandemic that can't be finally extinguished.


"Factcheckers" claiming it's a lie to say Rittenhouse was chased etc etc.... 

If only there was a siver bullet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
And that is why the Trump-haters can't understand why four years of subversion, slander and scorched-earth resistance made ridiculous claims of a stolen election sound credible to a large audience of otherwise sane and sensible Americans.

Bizarro world. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
3.2.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    2 weeks ago
Didn't somebody on NT think he [Blake] was killed?

More than one. They also said he was "unarmed". That's what happens when folks only read or watch MSM, NYT, WaPo, etc. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
6  Jasper2529    2 weeks ago

It's very true that left wing media and politicians repeatedly lied about Kyle Rittenhouse ...

but the lies were also spread internationally. This, from UOL in Brazil ...

UOL, one of Brazil’s largest internet news media, outright lies about the race of Kyle Rittenhouse's agressors. They've corrected the allegedly mistake in the article but the misinformation on their Twitter account with 2.2 million followers is still there. (Nov 12 2021)

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Silent
7  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago

New York Bill de Blasio wrote, "Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum were victims, they should be alive today." Maybe we'll get a statue, a very small statue, to Joseph Rosenbaum in New York someday. \

Didn't Rosenbaum serve 14 year for child molestation and had a no contact order against him?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    2 weeks ago
"Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum were victims, they should be alive today."

He is correct.

They were victims.

Victims of their own stupidity.

They should be alive today, but chose unwisely to attack Rittenhouse.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.2  bugsy  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7    2 weeks ago
Didn't Rosenbaum serve 14 year for child molestation and had a no contact order against him?

This is why leftists will erect a statue in his honor. He WAS a criminal, just like George Floyd, who the left is worshiping with his own several statues.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Principal
8  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

Speaking of the lying media AND Carlson

Rittenhouse Lawyer Says He Kicked Tucker Carlson Film Crew Out of the Room ‘Several Times’

Attorney Mark Richards was not pleased that a Fox News documentary crew was given what the network called “exclusive behind-the-scenes access” to the defense team during trial

But an MSNBC truck was 'following' the jury bus? Please, give it a rest. Fox Fake News was given exclusive access.. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @8    2 weeks ago
Fox Fake News was given exclusive access.. 

You understand the difference between the defendant voluntarily granting access to himself and a reporter following the jury right? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1    2 weeks ago

Facts don't matter to some.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
9  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Just another example of how left wing  bias dictates what's covered:

A former New York Times reporter claims the newspaper held her story about the ravaging effects of the Kenosha riots on impoverished neighborhoods until after the 2020 elections.

Nellie Bowles went to the Wisconsin city to report on the racial justice riots in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake in August 2020, according to a Thursday post on partner Bari Weiss’ Substack channel Common Sense…

Bowles said she was sent to report on the “mainstream liberal argument” that vandalizing buildings for racial justice was not detrimental because businesses had insurance.

“It turned out to be not true,” Bowles wrote. “The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots. It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered.”

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
9.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @9    2 weeks ago
until after the 2020 elections

Keeping the "peaceful protests" alive during 2020's Summer of Love was extremely important to the Biden crew and their lapdog media.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jasper2529 @9.1    2 weeks ago

And riots returned to Portland last night…

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
9.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  XXJefferson51 @9.1.1    2 weeks ago

No surprise. Early Christmas shopping, no doubt!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
10  Nowhere Man    2 weeks ago

From the Seed...

"White vigilantism, White supremacy. White. White. White. White. White. That was over the media all day long, explicit racial attacks. What does that have to do with this case? And in what kind of country is that allowed when the most powerful people in the country level explicit racial attacks against one of their countrymen? Most of us didn’t grow up in a country where people talk like this. It’s very ominous they are talking like this now."

No, history teaches us what happens in countries that get to the point where they talk like this....

Germany 1930 "Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! Jews! JEWS!!!! jews are evil, they are responsible for all the ills on our country and society... the only thing missing is the calls for aryan unity in the face of the evil JEW!!!

Wait a sec, Black Lives Matter! Black Unity!  Black is a license to kill White!!! No Justice no Peace!!!! I guess we do have calls for racial unity around the black race... And for those who claim that it isn't a call for black racial unity because there are many more whites involved, remember the numerous Jews in Germany of the '30's that hid their race/religion or deliberately married aryans to get out of the spotlight, Joined the army, registered as Nazi's etc etc...

Anyone schooled in history that hasn't been re-written knows and recognizes EXACTLY what is going on in America today...

And it sure as hell ain't about freedom...

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
11  RU4Real    2 weeks ago

Honestly, the verdict should not have been a surprise to anyone.  I think Rittenhouse is a great actor, was well-trained by his team, and has a very impressive fake crying babyface that I haven't seen since Shirly Temple.  Like it or not, defense team did their homework, used the law and whatever biases the judge had, his history and got the verdict they wanted.  The prosecution seemed ill-prepared and thought Perry Mason / Ironside theatric(k)s were going to work.

I think what is sad is the aftermath of the verdict, from "both sides" and Rittenhouse's own statements.  To have Repubs offer him internships, Trump Jr. offering to replace his AR-15, the Tucker Carlson interview is disgusting, but again, not a surprise.  Rittenhouse saying he supports BLM, he is not a racist, he was there to help, is a lie.  You support BLM yet you bring the AR-15, you're not marching with BLM or any other protestor, uh, okay.  Why did you not stay at your post and protect the business(es) against the rioters, looters?  Why not shoot the rioters breaking the car windows?  In AR-club-fist, AR will always win.  Why accept the monies from Proud Boys, KKK, neo-nazis, racists for your defense?  Why not reject or donate those monies to victims of hate crimes, BLM chapters, those injured by police during protests, Asian-Americans being kicked and beaten by righteous, upstanding Americans?  He went there with the intent to use that AR.  Remember, you don't bring, pick up, point a gun unless you intend to use it - isn't that the gun-user mantra?  Except, of course, when you are on the other end of that barrel or got caught using it in an illegal manner.  Tucker and Fox cashing in on this is the icing on the cake, should get them back in Trump's good graces and pop them ahead of OAN and Newsmax.  I'm sure this will be better than the Hannity Zimmerman and Greta brother Zimmerman interviews.

For the left to run around with their heads cut-off and continue to talk about the need to talk about Rittenhouse, his elk, and the need to talk about stopping his elk instead of actually doing anything is a waste of time.  The fake outrage of the not guilty verdict, trying to make this a racial incident is reaching, to ignore the backgrounds of the victims while digging up everything on this killer.  The list goes on and on for both sides.

In the end, Rittenhouse is going to make a "great" Proud, Neo, right-wing cop, Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, some day. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif   Maybe the defense in the Arbery case will have Rittenhouse and Carlson make guest appearances to combat "all the black preachers coming to the trial".

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


49 visitors