J.D. Vance’s Empathy for Kyle Rittenhouse Is Revolting
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
J.D. Vance’s Empathy for Kyle Rittenhouse Is Revolting Kali Holloway Thu, November 11, 2021, 5:05 AM
If you haven’t been paying attention, you might be forgiven for mistaking the latest Twitter thread fromnewly converted Trump worshipperandflailing Senate candidateJ.D. Vancefor a compassionate, if woefully misguided, defense of the country’s most vulnerable.
“We leave our boys without fathers,” the Hillbilly Elegy writerandPeter Thiel protegesaidin a tweet. “We let the wolves set fire to their communities. And when human nature tells them to go and defend what no one else is defending, we bring the full weight of the state and the global monopolists against them.”
Hypocrite’s Elegy: J.D. Vance Is an Avatar of GOP Corruption
Vancecould have been empathizing with Black and brown kids in underserved neighborhoods who,multiple studies show, respond to the psychological strain of over-policing by acting out. He could have beenemphasizing the humanityof Black parents disproportionately criminalized by a racist justice system that takes them away from their children and communities. He could have been noting that those involved in community uprisings against police abuse and political repression often face harm from state-backed agents willing to use any violent means necessary to disempower them.
But Vance wasn’t talking about any of those people or things. He was empathizing with Kyle Rittenhouse, the white 18-year-old currently on trial for intentional homicide after fatally gunning down Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber last summer and on charges of criminal violence related to his shooting that same night of a third person, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Vance has no empathy to spare for the Kenosha, Wisconsin, residents who live with the consistent low-grade terror of racialized police violence—as manifest in the sevenpoint-blank shots fired byOfficer Rusten Sheskey into Jacob Blake, leaving him paralyzed, and which catalyzed anti-racist protests in the city. Those residents, sneers Vance, were “lawless thugs” trying to destroy Rittenhouse’s “community.” It is a blatant statement of support for racist foot soldiers and a justification of whatever violence they inflict.
Rittenhouse crossed state lines with his mother, menacingly entered a protest crowd wielding an illegal semiautomatic weapon he thought “looked cool,” shot three men including two from the community he invaded, and later claimed self-defense despite being the “only person who killed anyone” among hundreds of others who were out that night in Kenosha. Hours after entering entering his not guilty plea, Rittenhouse, who is not old enough to legally drink without his complicit mom by his side, went to a bar and took pictures with fascist Proud Boys while flashing white power symbols and wearing a shirt that read “FREE AS FUCK.”
Kyle Rittenhouse Cries on Stand as Potential Mistrial Looms in Murder Saga
That young man is who Vance labels a heroic “baby boy,” and whose murderous actions he suggests “patriots” should defend and potentially follow. Just after Rittenhouse’s testimony—during which he appeared too choked up to speak,even as his face remained tear-free—Fox personality Jeanine Pirro called him “a good kid… who can grow up and have a moral core.” (She’d previouslydescribed Rittenhouseas “an innocent man, he’s looking to help, he’s all-American, and he’s trying to just make sure his town is safe.”) TuckerCarlson has said Rittenhouse“had to maintain order when no one else would.”
Hearing right-wing boosters attribute innocence and purity of motive to Rittenhouse, it’s hard not to recognize how those things are consistently denied to Black kids. In states where rightwing perversions of critical race theory have been turned into bans on the teaching of slavery, anti-Black racism, and the legacies of white American supremacy, the argument that history will make victims of white children prevails. The eight statesthat now legally prohibit a warped version of CRTin classrooms are attempting to ban any lesson that might make white kids feel “discomfort, guilt, anguishand any other form of psychological distress”—painting white children as the potential victims of truthful corrections to America’s whitewashed historical memory. School board members in Virginiaare suggesting book-burningand bookshelves arebeing purged in Kansasto protect white kids’ inherent innocence.
When CBS asks “How young is too youngto learn about racism?” they must know that Black kids learn firsthand about racism without being asked if the timing is convenient, a privilege extended to choosy white parents.
That courtesy is not provided to Black kids who, studies show, have a “25 percent jump in their likelihoodof being diagnosed with a mental illness” because of racial discrimination. Black boys, and especially girls, whose suicide rates are currently increasing—and who now “are about twice as likelyto die by suicide as white children of the same age”—do not get the benefits of victimhood conferred on their white peers.
The adults like Vance who somehow find a “baby boy” with a “moral core” in a young white man who needlessly shot three people, killing two of them, have no capacity for empathy when it comes to Black kids and young adults.
It’s a lethal blind spot. Isabella Tichenor, a10-year-old autistic Black girlso cruelly bullied by her Utah classmates that she committed suicide, was insufficiently capable of being seen as a victim by white school officials who reportedly refused to intervene in response to her pleas.
Black children arefar morelikely to be punished withexpulsion andsuspension by school administrators who too often can only view them as perpetrators. America’s criminal justice system disproportionately triesBlack kids as adultsand sentences them to time behind bars, while letting kids like Rittenhouse go free. And study after study finds that Black kids areseen as angrierby teachers,as less innocent bycops (like the one whotold Rittenhouse he was “appreciated,” later bypassing him after he’d killed two people), and as incapable of experiencing the samephysical pain as white kidsby doctors. Theadultification of Black kidssteals any notion of their victimhood away.
The Pain Gap: Why Doctors Offer Less Relief to Black Patients
The word “victim” is also whatthree white killersasked a Georgia court not to use in reference to Ahmaud Arbery, the young Black jogger they boasted of having “trapped like a rat” before shooting him dead in the street. But while the judge in the case rightly rejected that appeal, a seemingly sympatheticcourt has agreedto Rittenhouse’s demand that the word “victim” not be used to describe the people Rittenhouse fatally shot. The term “looter” was sanctioned instead.
“I think our peoplehate the right people,” Vance said in a recent interview. Whether said out of political expediency or not, the impact of Vance’s words is the same. He is being transparent about who deserves to be regarded as a full person, whose basic humanity cannot be questioned, whose decency remains intact despite their struggles and foibles—and whose does not.
That idea is repeated in the words of Josh Hawley,who while literally claiminghe was not saying men are victims,declared men victimsof modern society; or Paul Gosar, whoretweeted a video of himself killing of a congresswoman of colormonths after he calledfor the head of the officerwho shot white Capitol insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt; or Tucker Carlson, who once suggested George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Jacob Blackdeserved what they got, but remains adamant in his defense of a white kid who killed two people.
These people are just saying the quiet part out loud—louder and louder, and again and again.
Tags
Who is online
416 visitors
Those who cheer this little killer on and have made him some kind of hero, are revolting.
I bet we end up hearing about him again, some time in the future.
You know it, along with some other white supremacist domestic terrorist scum.
Rittenhouse crossed state lines with his mother, menacingly entered a protest crowd wielding an illegal semiautomatic weapon he thought “ looked cool ,” shot three men including two from the community he invaded, and later claimed self-defense despite being the “ only person who killed anyone ” among hundreds of others who were out that night in Kenosha. Hours after entering entering his not guilty plea, Rittenhouse, who is not old enough to legally drink without his complicit mom by his side, went to a bar and took pictures with fascist Proud Boys while flashing white power symbols and wearing a shirt that read “ FREE AS FUCK .”
Hearing right-wing boosters attribute innocence and purity of motive to Rittenhouse, it’s hard not to recognize how those things are consistently denied to Black kids. In states where rightwing perversions of critical race theory have been turned into bans on the teaching of slavery, anti-Black racism, and the legacies of white American supremacy, the argument that history will make victims of white children prevails. The eight states that now legally prohibit a warped version of CRT in classrooms are attempting to ban any lesson that might make white kids feel “ discomfort, guilt, anguish and any other form of psychological distress”—painting white children as the potential victims of truthful corrections to America’s whitewashed historical memory. School board members in Virginia are suggesting book-burning and bookshelves are being purged in Kansas to protect white kids’ inherent innocence.
When CBS asks “ How young is too young to learn about racism?” they must know that Black kids learn firsthand about racism without being asked if the timing is convenient, a privilege extended to choosy white parents.
That courtesy is not provided to Black kids who, studies show, have a “ 25 percent jump in their likelihood of being diagnosed with a mental illness” because of racial discrimination. Black boys, and especially girls, whose suicide rates are currently increasing—and who now “ are about twice as likely to die by suicide as white children of the same age”—do not get the benefits of victimhood conferred on their white peers.
The adults like Vance who somehow find a “baby boy” with a “moral core” in a young white man who needlessly shot three people, killing two of them, have no capacity for empathy when it comes to Black kids and young adults.
What was this killer Rittenhouse protecting? Nothing. He was not asked by anyone to protect anything. He wasn't from that community. He went looking to shoot someone.
www.mediaite.com /tv/absolutely-disgusting-joe-scarborough-goes-off-on-absolute-joke-of-a-judge-in-kyle-rittenhouse-trial/
'Absolutely Disgusting': Joe Scarborough Derides Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial as 'Complete Joke'
By Colby HallNov 11th, 2021, 6:56 am 2-3 minutes 11/11/2021
Joe Scarborough is not impressed with Judge Bruce Schroeder . At all.
Schroeder is, of course, the judge presiding over the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three people, killing two, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August of 2020.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, Schroeder laced into the prosecution , repeatedly admonishing the Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger as he cross-examined Rittenhouse in an attempt to undermine his self-defense argument.
Following clips of Judge Schroeder going off on Binger, the Morning Joe host flatly said to his fellow host Willie Geist , “This judge is, Willie, this judge is a joke. He’s been an absolute joke from the beginning.”
Scarborough described the prosecution’s efforts to give essential evidence that would go to the character of the defendant. “Like a T-shirt he was wearing after he got out saying he was free as you know what,” he said, and “sitting there basically taking great pride in the fact that he killed people has gotten out.”
“As far as, again, going to his character that he beats teenage girls,” Scarborough continued, “the prosecution tried to get that in of course has him crying on the like witness stand like he’s some poor babe in the woods and he just happens to cross state lines break gun laws illegally carry around an ar-15 and shoot three people and killed people.”
Doubling down on the insult towards Judge Schroeder, Scarborough concluded, “This judge again is absolutely disgusting the way he’s conducting himself on the stand there. He is obviously playing for the audience, a certain audience.”
Scarborough didn’t mention this, but Schroeder’s ringtone that went off revealed him to be a fan of Lee Greenwood, and God Bless the USA; it certainly supports the notion that he is part of an audience of Lee Greenwood fans.
Watch above via MSNBC.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
[deleted]
[deleted]
[r][emoved]
The judge was appointed by a democrat and liking a patriotic song like “God Bless the USA” has nothing to do with his standing up for the constitution in this case.
It's telling that simply liking a patriotic song is disqualifying to progressives.
But they don't America or anything.....
Far right wing fascists do not represent my idea of America.
Possibly acquitting Rittenhouse on a reasonable doubt basis is not at all the same thing as making a hero out of him afterwards.
He inserted himself into a volatile situation with absolutely no authority to do so and brought a gun to a fistfight. Both of the people he killed were not armed.
He is the opposite of a hero.
Interesting isn't it that those he killed and cannot testify were the ones without weapons? One of whom the little pig killer said threatened to kill him twice?
[deleted]
"Interesting how you stand up for racist child rapists."
[deleted]
What was it that one of the men Rittenhouse used self defense on was convicted of?
It doesn't matter what crimes, if any, prior to this incident, any crimes they may or may not have been convicted of. It makes no difference. This killer little pig Rittenhouse had no knowledge of the lives of the people he shot and killed for no reason. We only have his untrustworthy word that his life was threatened while he was carrying around a shotgun or whatever gun this little turd was carrying and used.
Some people say he did the world a favor by taking out these alleged criminals. Again, this fat little turd is not the judge, jury, and executioner and again had no idea of their lives before he shot and killed them.
which was substantiated by no less than 4 other eyewitnesses that were present .
Like that it really was self defense while being attacked/life threatened in all three cases.
I agree 100%.
But the likelihood of "hero" is pretty high at this point.
Or he could be judged innocent by a jury of his peers and that should be good enough for anyone but ...... when judgements don't go the way internet Matlocks want it to go .... i guess not.
He drove his stupid ass across state lines with his AR-15 looking for trouble and....to nobody's surprise....found it.
Whatever the outcome of his case, he's no hero. He's a fuckwit who never in a million years should have made the decisions he did.
Nice opinion but it doesn't mean jack-squat if he's acquitted.
Better get used to that concept
I think in time it will come out that he is not the innocent thing they are trying to portray.
With what he did or didn't do could end up being a boiling point in how he behaves.
Sure it does, it's water tight in context with this trial. Peoples delusions of grandeur not withstanding of course.
And I'm not defending anything so what you you arguing about? I'm just pointing out that the judicial system doesn't care about the arm chair lawyering on NT.
Aside from conviction or acquittal, one has to ask what was Kyle Rittenhouse doing at the location where the first shooting took place.
He was "stationed", as a guard , by the militia leader, at a location appx two blocks away. When he heard there was a disturbance up the road (at the used car lot)he sprinted toward the action. To do what?
The prosecutor got Rittenhouse to admit on the stand yesterday, multiple times, that lethal force is not permitted to protect property. So what was Rittenhouse going there (to the car lot) to do? Talk the rioters to death?
Undoubtedly he didnt know himself. All he knew is that he wanted to be a hero.
To put out a fire.
what was Rittenhouse going there (to the car lot) to do?
Put out a fire.
With what? Was he going to shoot the fire out?
He had no authority to be there. Yes, the rioters didnt either, but that is a police matter, not for Rittenhouse to address.
There is video of him running down the street toward the used car lot, carrying his gun. What do you think the people who saw him run at top speed past them carrying an AR-15 were thinking? Do you think they were concerned about what this KID intended to do?
The idea that he belonged in the middle of a "riot", putting out a dumpster fire, is absurd.
The fire extinguisher he was carrying.
He had no authority to be there.
what legal authority do you need to be on a public street. Do you lose the right to self defense unless you have a permit allowing you to leave your house?
Do you think they were concerned about what this KID intended to do?
Maybe. Maybe the fact that he was carrying a fire extinguisher towards a fire gave them a pretty good clue. Doesn't really matter though.
The idea that he belonged in the middle of a "riot", put
It doesn't matter if he "belonged" there. So he should spend the rest of his life in jail because he was legally in a place you don't think he should have been? Anyone who tries to help out in riot deserves to be attacked is essentially the argument you are making.
Obviously. And other brainless fuckwits will celebrate like something wonderful has happened.
I'm completely used to watching otherwise sane, intelligent people abandon both sanity and intelligence in the name of cheering their political team.
Should some young idealist liberal bring an AR 15 to a KKK cross burning to have handy for self defense while he puts out the fire?
No, because a private citizen doesnt belong there. Let the cops deal with it.
[removed]
If he runs away and someone tries to kill him, he's entitled to defend himself.
If he's threatening people with the gun, he doesn't have a self defense claim.
Don't get into confrontations with guns. It's a good rule of thumb.
Do you think a 17 year old should spend his life in prison because he illegally carried a gun? Is that standard applied anywhere else in America?
It's amazing to me how little of the Rittenhouse is guilty crowd ever discusses the actual facts of the shootings.
Why would that be the only option?
Yes, he's almost certainly guilty of carrying of the charge of carrying a gun as a minor. I recall seeing somewhere where there is a supposed defense to that but I don't care enough to look into the legitimacy of that argument.
It's the homicide charges that made this a national story.
Because the people who claim he should spend his life in jail for homicide point to his mere possession of a gun as compelling evidence he belongs in jail for life. There's remarkably little criticism or discussion of what he actually did with the gun, which is what's actually relevant to his guilt or innocence. His fate hinges on what happened when Rosenbaum chased him down as Rosenbaum's friend shot a gun and that gets ignored.
posession of a firearm by someone under 18 is a misdomeanor , with a max sentence of 9 months in county lock up. the MSM has been exploring things very well., that if he is found guilty , so the max is 9 months . and since the curfew charge was thrown out , he saves $200 which was the max fine ( no jail) he could have gotten for that .
No, r.t..b... - only THEIR opinions on the case are still valid. Or on any other subject for that matter.
I'm just pointing out that the judicial system doesn't care about the arm chair lawyering that you're doing.
EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IF YOU SAW THIS FAT LITTLE PIG RUNNING YOUR WAY CARRYING HIS LETHAL PENIS EXTENSION?
That judge is so biased towards this little pig killer, it'll be a miracle if he sees justice. His shithead mother belongs in prison too.
It's deplorable and par for the course regarding their right wing heroes who become the judge, jury, and executioner.
No argument there but that knife cuts both ways my friend.
Other equally brainless dimbulbs will judge Rittenhouse from afar, plopping their fat asses down in front of a computer to endlessly pontificate their uniformed and obtuse opinions online.
I'm completely used to watching THAT every day as well. Specifically right here on NT.
Which is exactly what you're doing . . . one of those fat ass brainless dimbulbs aren't ya endlessly pontificating their uniformed and obtuse opinions online.
So erudite!
You're my hero!
There is a general acknowledgement that those protesters that set property on fire were breaking the law. It was up to the police or the national guard to deal with them, not vigilantes.
Someone has a right to go to a KKK cross burning and try to put the fire out, no? But it would not be a good idea , would it?
Rittenhouse wanted to do what he wanted to do, and use his gun as the trump card if anyone objected.
In the cases of all three people he shot, he testified yesterday that he had to shoot them because they were attacking him.
Two of those people did not have weapons.
There was a fourth person who Rittenhouse shot at and missed. Rittenhouse reason for trying to kill this guy was that the guy had kicked him.
In the United States you cant kill people who kick you. The reason Rittenhouse shot or shot at four people is because he had a gun in his hands and it was easy for him to do so.
not disregarding anything , simply affirming the conclusion that the prosecution , whose burden it was to prove it was murder and not self defense , failed to prove what he set out to do . just about every piece of evidence shows the case for self defense and the prosicution solidified that claim, and almost in a textbook manner and supports justifiable homicide , that little thing in the law that allows for someone to kill someone because there was no other recourse in that specific moment of time in protection of ones self from serious harm or death , something the prosecutor himself touched on , while crossing the defendant when asking about use of force .
. since your the seeder even though on ignore , i can still see what you post .
the thing many are disregarding is were the killings justified by the series of events that happened ? the defense has in my view , with the help of the prosecution , shown that .
everyone is welcome to their own opinions , just not their own facts , or to demand others only listen to what they determine are the only facts .
have a great day and a better weekend .
Of course are disregarding and as usual making shit up as you go along. [deleted]
You're making up your own facts, not me.
That the narrative you going to stick with?
Use of deadly force in self defense is not predicated on IF the assailant is armed or not and its not predicated on the age of the one being attacked either . self defense law states that if faced with deadly force , which is force that a person can assume will cause serious injury or death .
use of physical force that can cause serious injury or death in the mind of the one being attacked is all that is needed rosembaum filled that criteria with words and action .
huber , had a skateboard , used it as an IMPROVISED weapon , so unarmed is not correct , his choice was stupid in my mind , but one that could as the defense said seperate his head from his body which the video shows , thats called decapitation , and not all decapitations result in the head physically being removed from the body ..
Ever hear of whiplash ? that is in the case of death , an internal decapitation , the head stays attatched but the vital connections are severed that sustain life , whiplash also can cause serious bodily injury . ever hear of shaken baby syndrome and its results ?
the one that lived , so much i COULD say , but suffice it to say the prosecutors reaction when he stated he wasnt shot until he himself pointed his weapon at the defendant says it all , and all that needs to be said .
please do point out the things i have "made up". that can not be corroberated .
of course you would like it if i did not participate , because i have a tendency to shoot down your narrative and premise with things that you can not refute effectively, i bring that reasonable doubt to what you say , and your right , as long as i remain civil , you cannot stop me .
Sorry to say, I was somewhat insomniac last night and ended up watching a lot of the cross examination of Kyle Rittenhouse.
There is very little doubt , by his own words, that Rittenhouse shot 3 people ,and shot at another one and missed, because he had the opportunity to do so because he had a gun strapped around his chest.
Incidents that normally would have been a "fight", instantly became shootings.
generally, in America we dont shoot people who hit us with something or kick us.
Rittenhouse testified he shot at the fourth person (who he missed) because the guy had kicked him and he was being "attacked."
Since when is it ok to shoot someone because they kicked you?
The answer according to this trial is it is ok if you have a rifle strapped to your torso at the time.
"Fights" don't start when someone is running away. Fights involve two people mutually agreeing to combat. Not one person chasing down another to attack them.
What do you think would happen to you if a grown man kicked you in the head while you were lying prone?
answer according to this trial
The answer is according to the common law and it's replacement by statutes. IF you want to take away the right to self defense, take your complaints to the legislature and convince them to change the law. Don't blame the "trial" for the law allowing people who are attacked to defend themselves.
I cannot stop you from making shit up, that's true, I just wish you'd make that shit up somewhere else.
You don't shoot down dick with your 'reasonable doubt'. You don't refute anything I say with your made up scenarios and made up facts.
LOL!
The prosecutors argument is that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people. Rosenbaum sounds kind of crazy, but it is not difficult to imagine protesters being angered by some 17 year old kid pointing an Ar15 at them.
The judge would not allow a video to be shown that was an enlargement of a drone video of the Rosenbaum killing.
I wonder what that video showed that the defense attorneys were so worried about.
I didnt touch on that one .
the so called "jump/kick " guy .
my understanding is the kick was aimed at the head and face After the defendant fell
could that be considered deadly / or could cause serious injury ? have people died in the past from being kicked in the face ? those are questions and nothing made up , just asking for clarification .
now if your question about shooting someone because they kicked you , depends on where the kick is placed , a kick in the ass wont kill you , nor will a kick in the shins , but one to the face ?
as for everything esle i have already talked about my thoughts on use of deadly force and when it is applicable .
going across a stateline is not a crime , and he has not been charged with that . he is charged with having the rifle in public while under age 18 , and likely will be found guilty of that , but it is not illegal for him to own one , it is illegal for him to buy one himself being under the age for purchase .
all my grandkids except the youngest ( 2 years old ) own .22 lr rifles for target shooting , gifts from myself to them , they simply are not old enough to buy them or the ammunition .
i agree he made some very bad choices , going to the riot was one of them, but that wasnt illegal either the other was going armed, i generally think that is never a good idea .
And that is something the prosecution failed to prove, that was the prosecutions burdern , and video evidence and witness testimony , all direct evidence , showed otherwise.
Well I don't think either of us will be surprised to learn that some people are really stupid.
You may be right.
I am concerned about an outright acquittal sending the message that anybody can load up their AR-15, go looking for trouble and then somehow not be responsible when they find and/or help create it.
I absolutely understand that we have created a current culture where you can load up your BLM/Antifa/rainbow/hello kitty flag, go looking for plunder and then somehow not be responsible for the TVs you steal or the buildings you burn. I get that, I really do, and I have a real problem with it.
Further, I really don't feel one bit sorry for any of those pillagers/vandals who end up getting injured or shot in the process. Nobody said barbarian life was safe. But that doesn't excuse roaming vigilante actions. KR's actions are not the answer.
Now....if these assholes were tearing up Rittenhouse's town and he shot three of them while defending his dad's store or his family home...then good for him. That's not looking for trouble, that's just being ready when trouble comes to you.
But that's not what happened.
He absolutely bears some responsibility for those deaths that night. If he's not a dumbass and just goes about his normal business, everybody would be alive today. I agree he doesn't bear ALL the responsibility, and life in prison is just an asinine idea. But I think there needs to be some type of serious consequence.
You have heard or read that ritterhouses biological parents are divorced and the mothers current husband isnt the bio dad ?
want to take a stab at WHERE the biollogical dad lives ?
Who is Kyle Rittenhouse's father? (the-sun.com)
so much for not having a connection there ..... and i would say so much for the idea he went looking for trouble when he has that said connection . still doesnt mean he wasnt stupid
people can do their own research
so you would be of the mind that the jury should be able to consider lesser charges like involentary manslaughter ( if allowed by the judge and the state has such a definition in their statutes )?
personally , the prosecution chose what to charge him with after reviewing the evidence , or at least that is how its suppose to work . and to allow the prosecution to even ASK that the jury be allowed to consider such is asking for a participation trophy for a job shittily done ,
My thought is if he is aquitted by the jury on the charges origionally presented which were the highest and most strict they could per the circumstance , his plea would get him off on any lesser charge as well, even though the lesser charges have a lower burden of proof .
also by asking for this consideration the prosecution is basically asking for sympathy for a poorly presented case they underestimated and ill prepared for , they had 15 months to prepare the case and the witnesses , they didnt .
imagine if the prosecutor , if they lose , had to serve the maximum sentence for the charges they bring? bet most if not all would not try and over charge a defendant and would stick with charges they could actually PROVE.
When will they charge mommy also? She gave him the rifle which was illegal for him to own or operate. Then she drove him over a state line to use it.
For the most part, I agree, however, only because of his age. If there is a crime Rittenhouse is guilty of, in my opinion, it would be possession of a gun he wasn't legally allowed to have and transport across state lines, if that applies. In spite of those things, that doesn't deprive him of the right to self defense, which this seems a clear cut case of. Having watched the ridiculous performance of the prosecution while Rittenhouse was on the witness stand, it seems the thing they are trying to plant in the jury's mind is nothing more than Rittenhouse shot some people and is therefore guilty, regardless of the circumstances.
One of the things I object to the prosecution's efforts is that the attackers apparently bear no responsibility to what happened to them. For instance, Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse with death if he ever got him alone, but that apparently isn't a relevant factor when Rosenbaum attacks him. I just don't see how that works. Apparently, the prosecution's position on all of this is that Rittenhouse couldn't know what the intent of any of the attackers were, which begs the question, was he supposed not do anything until after he was dead so that he could know what their intentions really were?
For instance, in the vid of the prosecution questioning Rittenhouse, the lawyer says that Grosskreutz could have shot Rittenhouse from ten or twenty feet away. While true, it isn't very relevant. What is relevant is that Grosskreutz was on Rittenhouse point blank and pointing a gun at him. Apparently, it is the prosecution's view that Rittenhouse is guilty of attempted murder because he couldn't know that Grosskreutz intended to kill him. Well, the only way to find that out would be to not defend oneself and just take whatever comes. Maybe you die, maybe you don't. Speaking for myself, the other guy dies.
Concerning skate board guy, the prosecution runs through a list of all the things skateboard guy doesn't have in his possession, like a gun, knife, club and other stuff. What he doesn't mention is that the guy has a skateboard he's already hit Rittenhouse with twice, which I'm sure you'd agree that, given the opportunity, you can certainly beat someone to death with a skateboard, intentionally or not.
So, if justice is served, Kyle will be acquitted on all homicide charges. The real issue is, should he have been there in the first place? There's the age angle but that isn't what I'm talking about. What I mean is, do citizens have the right to protect their property, especially when the legal authorities will not.
In the prosecution's examination of Rittenhouse on the witness bench they ask him, is it okay to shoot someone for lighting a car on fire. Rittenhouse answers no, but that isn't really the issue. The issue isn't about the car but, rather, does an individual have the right to destroy someone else's property simply because they believe they do? I believe they do not have that right. The question isn't put that way, though. It's usually some version of, is the car worth the life of the person? The answer is, of course not. However, the car isn't really the issue. The real issue is, can a person do something to someone else or their property simply because they think they are right in doing so. That they are justified?
To my mind, the answer is no. If I were to go armed to protect someone's property because the police won't, I would not shoot them because they were damaging or destroying property, I would shoot them because they believed they had the right to do so. I do not want to live in a society that thinks people have the right to destroy the lives of others simply because they think they have the right. I do not want someone who thinks it's okay to burn down my house or my business to be considered a legitimate part of society.
It seems from testimony that he wasn’t the only one there with a gun. He did use his in fully justified self defense. It’s not so much making a hero of him as it is outright destroying forever the liberal lies and narrative about the case and their attempt to convict him based on no facts.
That's what the 'right' is doing. Operating on no facts.
You keep using that poster. What relevance is Rittenhouse's drinking got to do with anything?
He's celebrating his first kills with some of his fellow republican white supremacist scumbags proudboys. He's also underage and had to have his mommy there so he could drink.
It makes no difference that the victims that he murdered were white. The fat little republican killer was hanging out with white supremacist scum after he murdered those two guys. This fat little killer is a republican white supremacist in training. Getting his creds from his republican domestic terrorist white supremacist scum new pals.
You know the two thugs he killed were white, right?
"Joseph Rosenbaum died as he had lived, trying to touch an unwilling minor."
[removed]
You seem to want to pride yourself in your logic every chance you get, so you know better than to think that Rosenbaum's past unrelated to the shootings by Rittenhouse is relevant at all here.
It’s funny. You don’t have to read more into than that.
Was that funny too?
"Interesting how you stand up for racist child rapists."
I obviously don't stand up for trumpturd.
That's because all you care about is political affiliation not right or wrong, good or bad, legal or illegal. You support a child molester arsonist who calls people the "N" word because you believe he was a democrat protester for your cause, but he wasn't he was just a low life criminal who went there to raise havoc.
Funny how things in the past are meaningless if they don't support one of your preferred narratives but they are very meaningful to you when they do.
[Deleted]
So, what are your feelings about Matt Gaetz?
You just agreed that [trump deleted] is a racist child rapist! Good job!
What logic?
Blep blop bloop .... deflection shields up .... about 20% power should be adequate Mr Chekov
No deflection, just trying to determine the level of hypocrisy I am dealing with.
Why?
[Deleted]
No he did not. Trump was and will be again a great American President!
He probably has a framed picture of Gaetz next to his bed.
Anyone see her crocodile tears along with her little pig turd killer son?
I bet she still breastfeeds the little scumbag.
Mommy dearest aided and abetted her little republican in training killer thug fat pig turd.
Time to bring out memes from Breitbart and Prager U now….
Yawn, consider the source.
Kali Holloway, the classic progressive asshat.
Her opinion on this matter is meaningless.
Absolutely meaningless.
Yawn, consider the source.
Your opinions on any matter are meaningless.
Absolutely meaningless.
Worthless.
Ain't worth a penny.
[deleted]
Do you have anything that actually relates to the case of the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide charges that are at trial now in Wisconsin?
Of course not. Somehow that poster reminds me of this movie I just saw on Mystery Science Theater 3000 - it was called Killer Fish.
[Deleted]
Shame on anyone voting up/agreeing with such ignorance.
Yep. What he said is actually worse than what others say.
They are cheering on vigilante style killing of people.
Sick.
Eleven up votes for that very fine and high value post. Proud to be one of them.
The testimony and the videos all show clear self defense. I stand with Greg Gutfeld’s comments during “The Five” on Fox News today on the issue in particular about the criminals that in self defense met their just and deserved fate that night. I associate his words and make them my own as well.
Proud of your ignorance.
No one right of center is coming from a point of ignorance on this thread/seed. Being wrongly accused of ignorance by a secular progressive is truly a badge of honor for me!
[deleted]
And the one who survived advanced toward him with a hand gun aimed at him before he was shot in self defense…And he wasn’t pure as the driven snow either.
Makes no difference. The little fat pig turd killer didn't that.
If someone whipped out a gun and aimed it at my head and advanced toward me and I had a gun it would be a shoot or be shot. Clearly Rittenhouse is much more experienced and trained in gun use than I am and he survived that situation where I likely wouldn’t have. That’s why I don’t keep a gun in my possession. I’m not sure I could pull the trigger on another person even knowing I’m in the right to do it. I’d likely get it taken away from me and shot with it. Regardless, Rittenhouse was in right in all three situations he hit another human being with one or more shots.
Sounds like some are intimately familiar with stripper poles.
"Well, I think any time you see your would-be murderer on the stand, it’s emotional," Grosskreutz said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Why, in the interest of fairness, is Grosskreutz on TV reliving stupid? You know, while that trial thingy is still going on?
'How not to be a good judge': Kyle Rittenhouse judge draws new backlash with 'Asian food' jok
On Thursday, the judge sparked backlash by making a quip about "Asian food." And his attempt to honor veterans led the courtroom to applaud a man who appeared to be the only veteran in the room: A witness for the defense.
While accusations of bias have mounted during the trial, Kyle Rittenhouse's mom said Thursday she thought the judge was "very fair."
Wendy Rittenhouse told FOX News Channel’s Sean Hannity she had been told by locals that "he doesn't allow no nonsense in his courtroom."
Those comments came as Schroeder's latest controversy gained national attention . On Thursday he attempted a joke in response to an inquiry about a lunch break: “I hope the Asian food isn’t coming ... isn’t on one of those boats along Long Beach Harbor," he said.
The comment seemingly referenced the situation unfolding on the West Coast, where a record-breaking number of cargo ships have waited off the coast of California due to a backup at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Critics found the joke offensive.
"The biased judge in the Rittenhouse trial just made a thinly-veiled anti-Asian comment," tweeted Stanford law professor Michele Dauber . "Because all Asian food comes from China like the boats haha what a bigot."
Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean , a Democrat, used the clip to criticize the judge and the judicial system that led him to preside over the trial: "Schroeder has provided an example of how not to be a good judge. The selection system in Wisconsin is also badly flawed," he tweeted.
"They are elected after initial appointment and there is no retirement age. This is why we have intemperate and unfit judges like this all over the country."