Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 19, 2021

Kyle Rittenhouse Is Not Guilty

The jury in the contentious Rittenhouse trial has made its judgment.

On the five counts Kyle Rittenhouse was accused of it found: Not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty. The decision was unanimous.

Some here have repeated the 'woke' media claims which falsely accused Rittenhouse of being a racist murder.

For starters the three people he shot were all white just as he is. In each case he defended himself from people who directly attacked him. They were obviously seeking to severely harm him.

All the available video evidence, aptly combined in this 13 minute clip, proves that the verdict is fully justified.

It also confirms the judgment I had made on August 27 2020 after reviewing the evidence:

Yesterday a white teen with a semi-automatic weapon had the stupid idea to join others in 'protecting the businesses' in Kenosha from further looting. He ended up killing two people and wounding more after he was attacked by some of the rioters. The teen was arrested and he is facing charges but I doubt that he is guilty of more than sheer stupidity and manslaughter in self defense.

The case the prosecutors had was very thin. I doubt that they will try to appeal the case.

I am for one satisfied and happy with this outcome.

Posted by b on November 19, 2021 at 18:32 UTC | Permalink

Comments
next page »

Who cares

Posted by: VeraK | Nov 19 2021 18:38 utc | 1

Great timing! Russia's R2P move will now be buried by the media generated verdict blowback. Yes, Rittenhouse lacked judgement but deserved acquittal.

Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 19 2021 18:39 utc | 2

Your 4th paragraph says 'obviously trying to attack him.' I assume this is your interpretation from the trial videos. The trial argued over that narrative as well.
I thought, though, that the videos could just as well be showing people trying to disarm the fellow. The first three (two now dead) grabbed the gun. The 4th, the medic, was trying to find out who the shooter had shot.
Anyway, that interpretation was not a part of the trial, so, it doesn't matter now.

Posted by: dave constable | Nov 19 2021 18:49 utc | 3


Unanimous verdict
The well detailed rational arguments here were correct.
.
There’s a lot of posters here who might want to re examine their understanding of self defense laws in Wisconsin, and America in general.

Posted by: Cadence Calls | Nov 19 2021 18:51 utc | 4

Then you are a fool.

Posted by: Cesare | Nov 19 2021 18:55 utc | 5

Rubbish analysis.

The political context is what matters most. This fascist scum took a machine gun to a leftist riot and killed people, and then celebrated with the Proud Boys.

This emboldens fascists to do more of that -- and more of that will occur now as the social, environmental and economic crises of US capitalism compound each other and trigger mass social struggle.

B misses the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Prof | Nov 19 2021 18:55 utc | 6

The kid deserves a medal.

Posted by: par4 | Nov 19 2021 18:57 utc | 7

A sensible decision I think. Now we can expect a few half-hearted protests.

Posted by: dh | Nov 19 2021 18:57 utc | 8

Interesting, so there still is the Rule of Law in the US, not just a Rules Based Order.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 19 2021 19:00 utc | 9

After watching that 13 minute clip I’m not surprised by the not guilty verdict.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 19 2021 19:00 utc | 10

Laurels for a great job by the jury.

Darts for the deceitful prosecution.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 19 2021 19:01 utc | 11

Instant American icon.
Kyle is drinking for free, the rest of his life.
When he isn’t getting gratis drinks and meals,
He’ll be dodging leftist assaults.

I bet he’s got a loooooong political career of fighting loony leftists ahead of him.

Posted by: Cadence calls | Nov 19 2021 19:02 utc | 12

b, In the United States you can't appeal a not-guilty verdict, only a guilty one. Unless new charges are brought, but if I remember correctly even presenting new evidence will not overturn a not-guilty verdict. It's what they call double jeopardy.

My first or second post here, I think this is the very best news site there is. Congratulations.

Posted by: Rick | Nov 19 2021 19:06 utc | 13

congrats to Kyle, a small victory of justice against the tidal wave of corruption that has swamped the US courts for the last 30 yrs

Posted by: Kadath | Nov 19 2021 19:17 utc | 14

Live like a thug, die like a thug. Maybe this will be a wake up call to communist agitators who think they own the streets.

Posted by: nook | Nov 19 2021 19:18 utc | 15

Imagine for a second he was a black kid. He would be found guilty on ALL charges.
Yet another shit show circus comes to an end. What will the next show to divert the dumb American's attention?

In OTHER, important news, NATO says they will be posting atomic weapons in Eastern Europe. This will render MAD irrelevant and give NATO a serious tactical advantage over Russia. And as usual, Putin does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, instead he sends emergency oil tankers to USA. Go Putin, go!

Posted by: Hoyeru | Nov 19 2021 19:22 utc | 16

Your Opinion is duly ignored b.

He had zero business being there BRANDISHING a weapon to allegedly 'defend' property that wasn't his. It DOESN'T MATTER if the victims were pink or purple. White Supremacists are referring to this piece of human scum as "Saint Kyle". I hope he never feels safe in public ever again and dies young from his fears along with those Proud Boys he was partying with a few months ago.

Posted by: Razer Ray | Nov 19 2021 19:27 utc | 17

Its look pretty comprehensive from the Youtube video provided, that Rittenhouse was infact defending his life by using lethal force in turn. One point of interest I'm pretty sure the AR-15 rifle is a powerful weapon, on the video @5.45 minutes in we see the first guy shot, and lying on the ground, yet it difficult to see any entry wounds, or prolific blood loss from being shot four times.

Posted by: Republicofscotland | Nov 19 2021 19:27 utc | 18

@ Rick | Nov 19 2021 19:06 utc | 13.. thanks rick... i agree and appreciate you posting!

Posted by: james | Nov 19 2021 19:28 utc | 19

Prof @6

You are delusional. I mean that in the true sense of the word which is that your perception of the real world is perversely inaccurate.

Our host didn't render the verdict in this case. That verdict was handed in by a jury of Americans who deliberated the issue in detail. The shot people were violent attackers and Rittenhouse was their intended victim. This is the real world and you are not in touch with it. You should try to fix that flaw in your head.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 19:30 utc | 20

Surprised he wasn't charged with incitement, because that's just what he did. By design. Should be interesting to see how many nutbags show up at future social protests "locked and loaded"...

Seems " sheer stupidity" runs deep on both sides of this issue..

Posted by: vetinLA | Nov 19 2021 19:31 utc | 21

So many guns. So many irrational people. It's a sad commentary on the collapse of American society.

Posted by: Michael | Nov 19 2021 19:31 utc | 22

@dave constable #3
You said

The 4th, the medic, was trying to find out who the shooter had shot.

You mean Gaige? The one with a gun in his hand?
I think that someone who has already been chased and shot in self defense, then was attacked again by multiple people and struck several times, has every right to respond when another person pulls a gun out and starts pointing it at him.
In every single case, Rittenhouse is running away attempting to exit the confrontation.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:32 utc | 23

The case wasn't as simple as the author of this blog claims it is. The jury was clearly divided, and it took five days for the whole thing to be buttressed so that a verdict (which must be unanimous, in the case of a jury) could be reached. Was the case simple and clear-cut, the jury would have come with a verdict on its first day, even if there were multiple charges.

The verdict was clearly only reached because of exhaustion. By day 4, the defense clearly got nervous and tried to get some bogus mistrial (the prosecution allegedly showed some evidence "too late" in the trial). At the end of the day, the human factor seized the day: a mixture of exhaustion by the members of the jury, the consideration of the political-ideological inclination of the population of Kenosha (conservation of the social fabric of the town), the fact that the three victims were worthy of little to none sympathy, the fact that the policemen were acquitted, and the fact that Rittenhouse was just 17 years old certainly decided his fortuitous fate.

Some rumors about an MSNBC journalist or something like that trying to bully the jury leaked more or less at the same time, probably in order to induce the jury to acquit Rittenhouse under the underlying threat of some leftsist conspiracy. The judge then did some circus by expelling MSNBC (or whatever is the MSM covering the case) from the court. The rumor, even if true, is nothing special: ambitious journalists going rogue and trying to fuck up some trial is recurrent in American history, it does not indicate by any means some political-ideological conspiracy was going on.

From a purely juridical perspective, I think this opens a dangerous precedent in American justice system. It essentially states someone with an assault weapon (in this case, an AR-15) has inherently more right to kill in self defense than someone with a lesser weapon. The reason for that is that carrying an assault weapon inherently makes you a greater threat, therefore more susceptible to be a target, therefore more prone to kill or be killed (if you're disarmed, you're most likely getting killed by your own weapon). From now on, everybody who kills multiple people in a riot scenario will ask for a jury because he will think he can win on the argument of self defense.

I don't understand why the alt-right/far-right/anti-communists/anti-Woke/BLM/Antifa think the Rittenhouse trial is a political victory for them. First of all, because the precedent can be used against their ilk: Antifa, BLM members can buy and use AR-15s, too. Second of all, the media repercussion wasn't so big as many in the alternative media are saying it was: it is very unlikely Rittenhouse will ever become a thing (although, in theory, it can happen). Third, the victims were all white, not black, so this is not even a BLM thing (the BLM protests, it's good to remember, happened at daytime of the same day; what happened in nighttime was just the "black block" style opportunist rioters). Fourth, this is a situation where the right-wing has little to win and much to lose: best case scenario, nothing happens, everything goes back as normal, to the same shitty situation the USA was before; worst case scenario, the whole thing escalates, the left-wing starting to appeal to buying and using AR-15s against the right-wing.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 19:32 utc | 24

Imagine for a second he was a black kid. He would be found guilty on ALL charges.


Posted by: Hoyeru | Nov 19 2021 19:22 utc | 16


the White Kyle Rittenhouse

vs

the Black Timothy Simpkins.

--------- ........KR..........................TS

bail :.......$2,000,000 ...........$75,000
Age:.............17............................18
killed:...........2.......,.....................0
wounded:....1.............................4

KR - time spent in custody (so far): 2.5 months (with an "M")

TS - time spent in custody (so far): max. 24 hours (with an "H")

KR only shot people who were actively attacking him at the time of the shooting.


KR can make plausible case for self-defence.

TS shot one person who had attacked him earlier, but who was not attcking him at the time TS later produced a weapon, and shot 3 other people, including the teacher, who attempted to prevent the shooting of the 1st shooting victim.

TS cannot make plausible case for self-defense.

The difference in extent and nature of media coverage of both cases is extremely stark, and very telling.

generally media reported only simple verifiable known facts of TS shooting

generally media obscured known facts while promoting false narrative of events in KR shooting

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 19:33 utc | 25

I share your satisfaction B.

Posted by: Roger | Nov 19 2021 19:35 utc | 26

LOL the stupid comes out for this one- people are immune to evidence. That was some seriously Ninja sh*t, the kid deserves a medal. Watch the damn video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkTnQfjRvk0

Posted by: phodges | Nov 19 2021 19:40 utc | 27

@Republicofscotland #18
An AR-15 is not a "powerful weapon". It uses a .223 caliber bullet - which measures roughly .223 inches or a bit over 1/2 centimeter. The .223 was designed to wound, not kill.

To give another view: a standard infantry weapon in World War 1 was the M1 Garand. The Garand is .30-06.
The relative striking power of .223 vs. .30-06:
.223: 1250 foot pounds
.30-06: 2920 foot pounds

The .223 is a lot more energy than a .22 - which is an oversized BB gun but is nothing like mankiller weapons used in warfare.

Lastly - the front/entry points is not where the damage is. The big(ger) holes would be in the back with the internal damage occurring in a rough cone starting from the entry point. The person shot was lying on his back - so the blood would drain downwards through the cone of damage unless a major artery/vein with high pressure was hit. The shots also occurred literally in touching distance - so there is zero chance the bullets had tumbled - they likely went straight through thus reducing the angle of the cone.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:41 utc | 28

Michael | Nov 19 2021 19:31 utc | 22

To continue my thought an apt quote from an Australian commenter.

"If I wanted to crush socialism and anti-imperialism in the most powerful nation in the world I'd train Democrats to believe being on the left means shrieking about Trump all the time and train Republicans that the left means forcing your son to wear a dress at kill whitey class."

--Caitlin Johnson

People are so easy to program. All you need to do is appeal to their tribalism and emotion.

Posted by: Michael | Nov 19 2021 19:41 utc | 29

This is a victory for those who want to defend a sick society and the bourgeois institution of property on which it is based. It's a victory for no one else, especially not anti-imperialists (who are all leftist, besides a handful of paleocon isolationist leftovers) and a harbinger of social violence to come. The sadism on display here and elsewhere toward the American left, especially those American leftists who are derided as "woke" for being knowledgeable about how race still plays a guiding role in our society, really just churns my stomach.

Leftists should take note that aimless, leaderless, riots - to this day still hyped up by leftist theorists and media personalities as the "language of the unheard" - get us nowhere, and subject us to legally protected vigilante violence. This exposes the need for greater organizational discipline, and to not be caught lacking when the other side comes armed with the motive of "defending property."

The American socialist movement is growing. The conditions which gave rise to an American society dominated and defined by small property owners is giving way, and the petit-bourgeoisie is increasingly finding itself cornered by class conscious proletarians making demands that could sink them (higher wages, public housing, which squeeze the profitability of small business profits and landlord rentseeking respectively), and a haute bourgeoisie that could liquidate them the moment they feel like they no longer need the middle class preserving post-FDR social compromise (see C. Wright Mills's "White Collar: the American Middle Class" for more on that compromise). One way or another, small property owners are getting liquidated, but what we live in now is the period of the death throes of this class's social domination. American society will be better off when the petit-bourgeoisie is cut down to size, but the petit-bourgeoisie are not going out without a fight.

To the bourgeoisie as a whole, we can only repeat what the master himself, Friedrich Engels, had to say:


How many times have the bourgeois called on us to renounce the use of revolutionary means for ever, to remain within the law, now that the exceptional law has been dropped and one law has been re-established for all, including the socialists? Unfortunately we are not in a position to oblige messieurs les bourgeois. ... It remains to be seen whether it will be the bourgeois and their government who will be the first to turn their back on the law in order to crush us by violence. That is what we shall be waiting for. You shoot first, messieurs les bourgeois.

... Counter-revolutionary violence will be able to slow down the victory of socialism by a few years; but only in order to make it all the more complete when it comes.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/01/socialism-germany.htm

Posted by: fnord | Nov 19 2021 19:42 utc | 30

@Prof #6
You are ignorant.
An AR-15 is NOT a machine gun. A machine gun would have killed dozens of people as the bullets go through everything for a hundred feet or more.
But then again, you have yet to demonstrate an iota of credibility in any of your posts.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:43 utc | 31

Every person who blows away wiggers deserves a medal. Wiggers are degenerate scum who will never produce anything positive in life, so they're no loss.

Posted by: Anon | Nov 19 2021 19:43 utc | 32

I would like to see the same vigilante brought on to him as he brought on to his victims.

Posted by: Gerard | Nov 19 2021 19:46 utc | 33

For all those posters screaming for Kyle's blood based on the false mainstream media lies about the case, I suggest you take the time to watch this legal discussion by two lawyers, Viva Frei & Robert Barnes Rittenhouse Closing Arguments RECAP - Viva & Barnes LIVE!

Posted by: Kadath | Nov 19 2021 19:47 utc | 34

@ Razer Ray 17

Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as the protesters, and more right that the rioters.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 19 2021 19:49 utc | 35

Interesting to see the comments. Some all emotion, others based on facts and reason.
Emotion is nothing more than a whine and not to be respected.
A pound of iron and a pound of feathers are both a pound no matter how anyone feels about one or the other.
If this post upsets you, you are the problem with society.

Posted by: Slat1 | Nov 19 2021 19:53 utc | 36

@ vk

I don't understand why the alt-right/far-right/anti-communists/anti-Woke/BLM/Antifa think the Rittenhouse trial is a political victory for them. First of all, because the precedent can be used against their ilk: Antifa, BLM members can buy and use AR-15s, too.

Indeed. In my hometown, which is majority Black, we had our own marches, none of which involved any violence. At one point, however, at a march dedicated to removing a confederate memorial which is placed prominently in front of our city's courthouse, and which was placed there around the high watermark of white supremacy and segregation in America, a handful of neo-confederate provocateurs showed up, armed, trying to intimidate the protesters.

The call was immediately put out on social media for community members to show up armed in response, to defend community members who were protesting from armed out-of-town counter-demonstrators (the neo-confederates are typically afraid to actually live in the city, usually citing its crime rate, but show up every now and then to rally around the monument). Once the armed community members showed up, the neo-confederates promptly fled the city.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 19 2021 19:54 utc | 37

The responsible parties guilty for this tragedy are:
1) The Democrat party
2) The mainstream media supporting the Democrat party
3) The Kenosha city government

The Democrats for inflaming passions; the mainstream media for amplifying the Democrat message and talking about "mostly peaceful" protests that were anything but.

The Kenosha city government for preventing its police forces from keeping public order.

The mobs of angry citizens (on both sides) should never have been allowed to form.

The blood is on those hands.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:54 utc | 38

What was on trial in Kenosha was not really KR himself.

What was on trial in Kenosha was the very right to dare to defy the mob.

The very right to push back in anyway to assert one's own rights against the fascist antics of the alleged "AntiFa" mob.

The right to dare to defend yourself when singled out by the mob.

The right to not just have to curl into a ball and take the punishment meted out by the mob and just hope you survive with enough bodily and mental capacity to function as a sentient being afterward.

The right to not have your community be terrorized by a mob of criminals.

The right to act on your own and own community's behalf when police and govt simply refuse to live up to their sworn oath of office and carry out their professional legal duties to act on the community's behalf.

The right of working class communities not to be held hostage to a hostile mob intent on chaos.

This is why the media and the Woke-erratum has done so much to obscure the very facts themselves. To swear blind that the pursuer is the pursued, the attacker the attacked etc etc

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 19:55 utc | 39

I have a page prepared for the aftermath of this trial. I have named it US Civil War. The comments on this page strongly hint that it is coming.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Nov 19 2021 19:56 utc | 40

Word meanings matter: Brandon did not “brandish” a “machine gun” or “assault weapon”, he had a legal semiautomatic rifle slung over his shoulder.

Posted by: Absurdio | Nov 19 2021 19:56 utc | 41

Republicofscotland @18

The AR-15 that Rittenhouse owns is chambered for .223 ammo. That is just a slightly larger bullet than a .22 caliber rifle bullet. It is tiny, in other words, though with significantly more powder in the cartridge. When I was a youngster practically every boy owned a .22cal rifle, the way kids had BB and pellet guns in later generations.

The .223 is small and lightweight, but has very high muzzle velocity. It is quite the effective cartridge. For military purposes it has the advantage that a soldier can carry more ammunition for the same weight as NATO (7.62x51) ammo.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 19:56 utc | 42

Write up from former NYT journalist that touches on the narratives the US corporate press has been pushing:

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-medias-verdict-on-kyle-rittenhouse

Posted by: Slat1 | Nov 19 2021 19:57 utc | 43

Two people went downtown looking for trouble. Together, they found it. One man found the suicide he sought. The other found a guilty conscience, though it may be assuaged by the lionizing treatment it seems Rittenhouse has and will receive. Neither person was in their right mind. Rosenbaum was in the throes of mental illness. Rittenhouse was too young to understand his actions and was misled by others. What happened was a terrible tragedy. The outcome is worse. One person is dead. The other got off scott free when he should face some consequences, though well short of a murder conviction.

Society created the brutal powder keg conditions that led to this particular misguided confrontation, along with many others. Society also convinced both these people that violence was the answer. The only decent human response to this tragedy is tears.

Posted by: paul | Nov 19 2021 19:57 utc | 44

@ Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:41 utc | 28

As far as I could research, there was no change in caliber of the AR-15 since its creation, for the Vietnam War. You can bet your soul the Americans wanted to kill - not maim - the communists.

The AR-15 put to civilian use can handle both .223 and the traditional 5.56. I didn't find any information for your claim the .223 was projected to maim and not kill - only that it has "a little bit less firepower" than the NATO 5.56. I found stores on the internet that sell .223 as interchangeable with 5.56.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 19:59 utc | 45

Sorry, Kyle, not Brandon.

Posted by: Absurdio | Nov 19 2021 20:00 utc | 46

Kyle Rittenhouse was actually very restrained in his defence from attack on the night in question:

He fired a mere 8 bullets.
All but 2 of which hit their targets.
No innocent bystander was hit by any bullet he fired.
He retreated immediately at the first opportunity, after the two self-defence events, both times immediately after dealing with the immediate attacking threats from the 3 criminals: Rosenbaum, Huber & Grosskreutz.

Had the arsonist mob shown even a fraction of that restraint, KR would never have been there.

Had Rosenbaum had even a fraction of that restraint both he and Huber would likely be alive today.

Had Grosskreutz shown similar restraint, before falsely surrendering and/or before he then very imcompetently seized on what he thought was an opportunity after KRs weapon was lowered, he'd still have a useful right arm. He'd still have a reputation as anything other than a bought and paid-for lying witness.

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:02 utc | 47

vk @24: "It essentially states someone with an assault weapon (in this case, an AR-15) has inherently more right to kill in self defense than someone with a lesser weapon."

You're just making shit up, vk. It is embarrassing. Are you deliberately trying to discredit Marxists and make them look like fools? Please stop.

"I don't understand..."

Yes, we can see that. At least get familiar with the facts of the event before making grand pronouncements.

There were armed BLM contingents at the riots. They had AR-15s too. Nobody attacked them, perhaps because those on the "other side" were not there to start fights as you wrongly believe they were.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:07 utc | 48

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 19 2021 19:00 utc | 9

Oh but if there were. It's the same at home as it is abroad, I'm afraid. The way the prosecution and judge handled this case was pretty laughable on the balance. The rules based order allows certain parties (cough cough USUK) the ability to frame any incident and/or investigation/judgment/penalty in a manner that benefits themselves or their interests. The American jury trial system is scarcely better in as far as it's been practiced over the years (compared to 'on paper' where it's probably one of the better systems in the world).

Without getting too far down this rabbit hole, I disagreed with several points of b's analysis the first time, and frankly skipped right to the comments section this time without reading it. In the time between then and now, however I did more thinking and discussion on this case. What I came to conclude, even before the verdict, is that it sets a bad precedent for vigilantism in the USA.

My main beef with b's take stemmed from 1) this not being a 'woke' issue as he claimed, 2) whether or not Rittenhouse was defending himself (of course he was, but that's not as cut and dried given the larger context) was as relevant as the fact that the way this jury was instructed, the way Wisconsin's law is written and the way the prosecution was prohibited from introducing contextual evidence was prejudiced and problematic, and 3) that the context I'm alluding to there is a young man in possession of a firearm that is not his (narrowly eluding illegality on a loophole) set himself up for a situation in which the only possible outcome when he felt "his life was in danger" is that someone was going to die.

On #3 my reasoning is as follows: Young man acting as vigilante property protector and "medic" arms himself w/ a borderline illegal assault style weapon in the streets of a city where he doesn't reside and has tangential connection with during a time of protests and property damage (although aside from what would've been useful context of his statement to a friend on tape that he wished he had his "AR" with him to shoot alleged shoplifters days before, a burning dumpster is all I could find associated with him the night of the shootings) and thereby sets up a Catch 22 of sorts in which literally any scenario where he may have felt his "life was in danger" stems from the fact that he has a gun which could potentially be taken from him and used against him. Let's not forget he was seen allegedly pointing his weapon at others prior to this. It wasn't simply slung behind his back the whole time.

This presupposes distinction of desire by anyone trying to disarm him (after he killed the first guy) to murder him rather than to affect a citizens' arrest, which is also legal in most states, including I believe, WI. So the young man, nowhere near old or wise enough to bring sound judgment to bear, has created the scenario where it's kill or be killed despite the strong probability that his "attackers" would have simply taken his gun and turned him in. Instead, in this vigilante dynamic arising from his being armed w/ lack of mature faculties, the very fact that he has a gun ensures that any act perceived as "threatening his life" (the first mentally ill guy he shot merely threw a bag of stuff at him - hardly life threatening*) could only possibly be interpreted him as "if they take away my gun, I'm surely going to be shot with it" therefore justifying the use of deadly force despite no clear threat of such to a more mature, capable mind.

* - To my knowledge, no counter protestors or protectors of property were killed or even close, in ANY of this kind of street violence/protest across the country. Hence, the only logical reason Rittenhouse felt his life was in danger was that he himself had a gun which could be used against him - AND - he was inadequately confident in his ability to defuse, de-escalate or handle himself in a hand to hand combat situation. I can assure you there are a lot of older, more mature folks on that side of the protests who wouldn't have ever pulled the trigger in that situation; most of whom I'd wager had military, martial arts or other self-defense training and wouldn't have felt their life was threatened when some whacko "chased" them and threw a bag of miscellaneous (harmless from what I recall reading) objects at him.

It's nearly inevitable that this thread devolves into the same type of name calling and gross stereotyping that the others on this subject have, so I'll bow out now entirely unless something really relevant is lobbed my way.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:09 utc | 49

Imagine for a second he was a black kid. He would be found guilty on ALL charges.

Posted by: Hoyeru | Nov 19 2021 19:22 utc | 16

Now, that is just not true, .........

St. Paul man who shot at Minneapolis Police Officers in self-defense acquitted of all charges by jury

A St. Paul man has been acquitted on all charges in a jury trial stemming from an incident where he shot at Minneapolis police officers in self-defense last summer.

Court records show 28-year-old Jaleel Stallings was acquitted on Wednesday of multiple charges, including two counts of attempted second-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of second-degree assault, second-degree riot and intentional discharge of a firearm that endangers safety.

Stallings claimed self-defense in court.

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:13 utc | 50

Thank You to those who replied to my AR-15 comment, I defer to your knowledge on the weapon and why it appears to me that the entry wounds on the first guy shot are for me at least difficult to see, as well as the lack of blood loss.

Posted by: Republicofscotland | Nov 19 2021 20:17 utc | 51

VK @ 24:

I would hope that criminal trials where murder or manslaughter is involved are never clear-cut and simple as you appear to suggest they should be. To reach a unanimous verdict, the jury has to examine all available evidence presented to them and discuss and argue it among themselves in a setting where they cannot be influenced by bias or prejudice, including MSM bias or prejudice. That takes time and effort.

Most such criminal trials can run for weeks and months - in some rare cases, even over a year. In the past, in Australia anyway, juries could expect to be accommodated (even locked up) at hotels or some other shelter overnight while a murder trial was in progress. All the evidence has to be deliberated over. Even then, if a jury makes a wrong decision, the fault may not lie with the jury: it could be because the judge has not allowed certain evidence to appear or has misdirected the jury, among other things.

I have been on jury duty myself on a minor case of heroin dealing and possession. Though the charges were straightforward and there was no doubt at all of the person's guilt, the case originally was anticipated to last at least three weeks. In the end it lasted five days after plea deals were made. Jury deliberations still weren't done in a day. I myself even felt we were being hurried along and if I recall correctly - the case was nearly 30 years ago - I was one of two hold-outs prolonging the final jury decision.

The rest of your comment unfortunately comes over as waffle. All criminal trials in the US and other English-speaking countries involve the use of juries and all juries have to reach unanimous decisions.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 19 2021 20:18 utc | 52

were not there to start fights as you wrongly believe they were.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:07 utc | 47

imo, vk "believes" whatever is politically expedient at that moment in time.


A moment later he might "believe" something entirely different, the polar opposite in fact, and yet argue it with every bit as much ferocity and pseudo-legalstic logical-contortionism

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:18 utc | 53

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 19 2021 19:54 utc | 38

Since this isn't on the topic of the details of the trial itself, I'd like to add a few responsible parties to your list (which which I agree).

- The NRA which has opened the door for a flood of guns on the streets of the USA and the fact that almost every gun in the hands of a bad actor/criminal was once in the hands of a "good guy."

- The Qanon/Pizzagate culture which inflamed many on the side of Kyle Rittenhouse and in fact the Republican party of the USA by casting the "other side" as literally evil, child molesting/cannibalizing "Satanists" and monsters deserving *ONLY* of death.

- Social media giants like FaceFuck and Instagram and Twitter which are driving Americans not capable of exercising legitimate skepticism into increasingly hateful and isolated echo chambers by way of algorithms, and just as importantly although it rarely gets mentioned, the love of $ by way of social media influencer status, clicks, likes, follows, shares and the like.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:19 utc | 54

@ Tom_Q_Collins, 53

The extent to which the right inflames tensions can't be overstated. To pretend, as some commenters here do, that it's only the "left" aligned "mainstream media" (which, if it's really aligned with me as a leftist, well, that's news to me) which does so, betrays either a profound ignorance of the right-wing stereopticon, or otherwise betrays a personal loyalty to the far right.

Thanks for your comments. They're a nice respite from the sadists cheering on right-wing violence against leftists.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 19 2021 20:21 utc | 55

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:13 utc | 49

Wow that's crazy. Good find and regardless of the race of the shooter in that case it's incredibly rare for a citizen to be exonerated for killing law enforcement. That's actually good news and encouraging. Too bad it's the tiny exception to the massive rule.

I'm waiting on this Ahmaud Arbery verdict. That one should be interesting and also may lead to more protests and violence depending on the decision.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:22 utc | 56

“Mostly peaceful protest” = “Safe and efficacious“

Posted by: Kiza | Nov 19 2021 20:22 utc | 57

Rittenhouse may have not been guilty of the charges against him, but the outcome of this trial must be seen as a victory for vigilantism. Seriously, WTF was this 17 y/o kid doing in Kenosha, Wisconsin walking the streets with an AK-47 rifle in the middle of a protest demonstration? Protecting property, maintaining order and security.? Give me a break. He was there with a political agenda, and now like-minded people will feel enabled to behave similarly. All-in-all, it's just another sign of the fraying of the social fabric in the United States. More to come, for sure.

Posted by: Rob | Nov 19 2021 20:22 utc | 58

@ all

We should differentiate what really happened from the media coverage.

It is only by chance that the MSM covering the episode was MSNBC. If it was Fox News, we would be talking about an alt-right conspiracy instead of a Woke conspiracy.

It is not the victims' fault that MSNBC made (I don't know, I didn't watch the MSM coverage) a lamentable coverage of the episode and the trial. The judge (who's clearly ideological, pro-Rittenhouse, the whole trial), unfortunately, used this fact to dissuade the jury to acquit Rittenhouse because either he has a thin skin and/or because he's ideologically aligned with Rittenhouse's cause.

But like I said: it's a dog-eat-dog world. One day you're the first dog, other day you're the second dog in the term. If the judge wants fifth quarter justice, he will get fifth quarter justice.

--//--

@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:07 utc | 47

The trial was for murder, not illegal weapon carrying. The AR-15 is only relevant to assess motivation for the murder, not the murder itself.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:23 utc | 59

@ Tom Collins 48: Canadian style gun control works pretty well in Canada, because it is designed for Canadians, who pretty much agree you shouldn’t be able to have a rifle slung over your shoulder, unless you’re out on the land.

Posted by: Absurdio | Nov 19 2021 20:24 utc | 60

This has triggered vk.
His propensity to inject his imagination into topics of all kinds is on full display here.
It lessens his credibility when he insists that false facts are actually true facts.

Vk has made some very obvious false conjectures throughout all of this.
And inevitably, he always returns to a Marxist lens.
That’s his go to.
And in this case it’s not applicable, at all.

If I was vk, I’d cut my losses on this topic.
He is WAY off the mark with his “analysis”

Posted by: Cadence Calls | Nov 19 2021 20:26 utc | 61

@ Posted by: Jen | Nov 19 2021 20:18 utc | 51

That's what I said. All juries deliberate by unanimity (it's obligatory). That's why the factor of exhaustion is so important.

Juries are more decided by exhaustion than many people think. It's Friday, everybody wants to go home, etc. etc. Jury is not that sacrosanct, infallible method of trial that many Westerners think it is.

And well, you were in one jury. Anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:26 utc | 62

@ Posted by: Cadence Calls | Nov 19 2021 20:26 utc | 60

You're the one doing ad hominem attacks, not me.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:27 utc | 63

Republicofscotland @ 18, 50:

I used to write short stories as a hobby years ago and as part of the hobby I looked up books on guns and gunshot wounds. C1ue is correct about bullet entry and exit wounds. Exit wounds are always far, far more serious! I would add that how bullets act within the body is not straightforward either as they can hit bone and splinter into fragments before exiting the body. So internal injuries are even more serious than what you would see on the body.

Posted by: Jen | Nov 19 2021 20:29 utc | 64

vk @58

There was no murder in Kenosha. Kyle Rittenhouse prevented that.

Your comments about the media are empty nonsense. They make no sense. Your comments just mark you as ignorant of the facts but willing to assert your fact-free wrong opinion nonetheless.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:30 utc | 65

The NRA which has opened the door for a flood of guns on the streets of the USA and the fact that almost every gun in the hands of a bad actor/criminal was once in the hands of a "good guy."
.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:19 utc | 53

Not true

Many if not most illegal weapons are smuggled in from sources outside the US.

It hardly takes a geniius to work out that the type of people that smuggle drugs and humans are often the exact same people who smuggle illegal weapons, often using the same routes etc

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:30 utc | 66

The NRA which has opened the door for a flood of guns on the streets of the USA and the fact that almost every gun in the hands of a bad actor/criminal was once in the hands of a "good guy."
.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:19 utc | 53

Not true

Many if not most illegal weapons are smuggled in from sources outside the US.

It hardly takes a geniius to work out that the type of people that smuggle drugs and humans are often the exact same people who smuggle illegal weapons, often using the same routes etc

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:30 utc | 67

For an accurate description of the riots in Kenosha see "Business Trying to Rebound After Unrest Face a Challenge: Not Enough Insurance" (linked below) from Nellie Bowles published at the NYT. Nellie says that her article was intentionally held back until after Biden's election. In the end she quit after 4 years, as she had a habit of not toeing the party line and submitting to the Borg discourse control.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/business/small-business-insurance-unrest-kenosha.html
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/19/investigative_issues_ny_times_suppressed_story_of_kenosha_wreckage_till_post-election_804348.html
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/a-very-exciting-introduction

So a bunch of people, many of them white and many of them repeat offender violent criminals, went and torched a significant portion of the local black small businesses in Kenosha, while the 89% white police force stood by and let them. Kyle was actually there to protect Black businesses from white arsonists! Then he shot three of the rioters, all of them white. That certainly flips the script doesn't it.

Posted by: Roger | Nov 19 2021 20:31 utc | 68

@vk
I’m just calling a spade a spade.
You’re “facts” suck on this topic.
Frankly, so does your general view on the topic.
Face it.
The truth hurts, I know

Posted by: Cadence calls | Nov 19 2021 20:32 utc | 69

Disappointed by all the violence lovers here. Yep, we now have given 'permission' for any and all to be armed at protests. What could go wrong? O it already did...but now more in the offing.

What a sad 'society' we live in...what a Death Cult.

Posted by: furies | Nov 19 2021 20:33 utc | 70

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:30 utc | 65 and 66

You can (and did) say that again, lol.

But seriously yes many illegal weapons are indeed imported and smuggled. But many of *those* were previously manufactured in the USA.

But the majority are obtained through "straw purchases", secondary sales through private sellers (or gun shows) and theft.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:35 utc | 71

@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:30 utc | 64

Read again my comment. I said that the trial was for murder.

You look nervous, Mr. Gruff.

--//--

@ all

I think you're all misunderstanding me.

I want Americans to keep killing themselves. The more, the better. I want the social fabric of the USA as we know today to disintegrate. So, please, buy more weapons, do more riots.

Rittenhouse is the face of American decline. Deep down you know that I'm telling the truth.

I'm just engaging in a nice logical exercise and having some fun. It is a good pastime. It is also good to train my English (which admittedly is not good - but better than no practice at all).

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:36 utc | 72

The entire case was bumper to bumper clown cars from start to finish but the media was playing the loudest tune.

If anything it should serve to highlight just exactly how nasty and deceptive the US fake Left press really is.

Posted by: S.O. | Nov 19 2021 20:37 utc | 73

@ Posted by: Cadence calls | Nov 19 2021 20:32 utc | 68

Why do you keep responding to me? I thought I was the one "triggered".

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:37 utc | 74

"..All criminal trials in the US and other English-speaking countries involve the use of juries and all juries have to reach unanimous decisions."
Jen@51
This unfortunately is no longer true. Majority verdicts are now accepted in, for example, the UK and Australia.

Posted by: bevin | Nov 19 2021 20:39 utc | 75

Seriously, WTF was this 17 y/o kid doing in Kenosha, Wisconsin walking the streets with an AK-47 rifle in the middle of a protest demonstration? .

Posted by: Rob | Nov 19 2021 20:22 utc | 57

What you are calling "a protest demonstration" was in fact a 3-night siege of parts of the city by a looting mob of rioting arsonist criminal degenerates.

Over the preceeded 2 nights part of the city was set aflame by these "demonstrators".

On the night in question they attempted to repeat the arson-filled chaos of the previous 2 night and were only prevented from doing so by the firefighting efforts of Kyle Rittenhouse and his comrades.

Next you'll be claiming the arson attacks were "mostly peaceful" ....

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:40 utc | 76

Posted by: bevin | Nov 19 2021 20:39 utc | 74

but not "simple majority" like 7 vs 5, no?

its more like 10 vs 2 isn't it?

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:41 utc | 77

The trial was for murder, not illegal weapon carrying. The AR-15 is only relevant to assess motivation for the murder, not the murder itself.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:23 utc | 58

not even remotely true.

the illegal possession charge was in play right until the end, when the judge rightly threw it out because there was no evidence ever presented that he had broken the law as written in the statute books, which is what counts, not what happens in your head

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:46 utc | 78

Posted by: Roger | Nov 19 2021 20:31 utc | 67

The Langley Times....hardly a surprise. I will say I've read that piece and it's often used disingenuously by opponents of BLM and Democrats writ large.

The part I question is this, which doesn't seem to be backed up by the article you linked:

So a bunch of people, many of them white and many of them repeat offender violent criminals, went and torched a significant portion of the local black small businesses in Kenosha, while the 89% white police force stood by and let them. Kyle was actually there to protect Black businesses from white arsonists!

No doubt there were plenty of bad actors, most just taking advantage of the temporary lawlessness and chaos. Also no doubt many doing so as the result of lockdowns, poverty, the effects of rapacious capitalism for so many years, mental health issues and frankly out of sheer stupidity and greed in the case of most of the white looters.

But not a single small business discussed in the article was actually Black owned. Not that it matters in the context of small businesses in general being hit hard by the looting/arson, but in the context in which it's being presented in the right leaning media/social media as though MAINLY Black owned businesses were the ones that suffered most. Now, that may actually still be true, but I'm just saying the NYT article doesn't name any.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:47 utc | 79

@ vk
Oh, you’re triggered.
Everyone here knows this triggered you.

I’m taking victory laps, toasting Kyle and the brief moment of justice the US judicial system
just afforded the vast majority of Americans.

Im ecstatic.
So yeah in a sense, I’m triggered.
Triggered into a fucking party!
That may be the one thing you’ve gotten correct so far.

Posted by: Cadence Calls | Nov 19 2021 20:49 utc | 80

The Rittenhouse Verdict is Only Shocking if You Followed the Last Year of Terrible Reporting
A year of pronouncing the "Kenosha shooter" a murderer could have serious real-world consequences

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:49 utc | 81

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:23 utc | 58

To quote:

The judge (who's clearly ideological, pro-Rittenhouse, the whole trial),...

The ideology the judge was following was the Bill of Rights. I saw the clip where the judge excoriated the prosecution for using Rittenhouse's silence as proof of guilt. It has been established that the police and prosecutors cannot use the invocation of the 4th amendment as a sign of guilt, or as an excuse to threaten or punish people.

I have seen cops threaten people with punishment if they remained silent. (Talk or I will arrest you.)

I am utterly amazed how those arguing against the verdict are utterly ignorant or making stuff up about the basic facts of the case or even basic matters of law. Apparently so was the prosecution.

Posted by: Erelis | Nov 19 2021 20:50 utc | 82

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:36 utc | 71

Why would you want the entire social fabric of the US to disintegrate? Aren't there more humane ways to hope for the dissolution of Uncle Scam's empire? That's pretty awful, despite the fact that I find no fault with most of your "logic."

P.S. Your English is way better than my Spanish and I've actually spent significant time in Spain, Mexico and Costa Rica. Stop fishing for complements ;-)

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 20:50 utc | 83

I'm just engaging in a nice logical exercise and having some fun. It is a good pastime. It is also good to train my English (which admittedly is not good - but better than no practice at all).

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:36 utc | 71

so, not even the presence of sincerity any longer.

well that shows us who and what you truly are.

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:51 utc | 84

vk @24

Not guilty is not guilty.

Period end of argument. You state that "The verdict was clearly only reached because of exhaustion." That is a reckless charge. You have no personal knowledge of that. You were not present in the Jury Room. The fair implication of your charge is that some or all of the jurors violated their oaths and rendered their verdict, not upon the evidence, but because they were tired and wanted to stop the deliberative process and go home. Are you aware of the oath that each juror takes individually when sworn in? In substance it says, "I swear by almighty God that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence." It would be a violation of that oath to render a verdict because of exhaustion as you charge. That in essence is what you have charged and that is reckless as you have no personal knowledge of that fact.

Do you have any personal knowledge of the jury system in criminal cases? Or is your knowledge based upon Hollywood movies and TV programs? The jury system is a deliberative one, it does not call for snap judgment decisions or "first day" results as you suggest if Kyle Rittenhouse was really not guilty. People do change their minds upon reflection and snap judgments can often be wrong so why does a criminal jury have to render its verdict on the first day of deliberation? In reaching a true verdict all the jurors each agree to the result of their deliberations and unequivocally so state according to their oath as a sworn jury. And it may interest you to know that the word "verdict" comes from the Latin meaning "to speak the truth." That is what the jury swore to do and that is what they have done in this case. Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty as charged. Period end of story.

Posted by: Lawrence Miller | Nov 19 2021 20:56 utc | 85

The real villains here were, and remain, the corporate mass media. The mass media played the part of the Pied Piper and summoned the rats to the evening carnival. The mass media made clear their intention of being sympathetic to the rioters by managing the narrative to excuse and even lionize their behavior. The mass media then deliberately lied to gaslight the population into fear of imaginary "white supremacists". There are still people, even among those posting in this thread, whose minds remain damaged from this laundering and think the Proud Boys are "white supremacists", even though they are mostly Latino.

Those of you who find yourselves outraged by the jury's decision really should confront the fact that you have been brainwashed. You have literally been made to deeply believe something that is simply not true, like someone in a religious cult. The very fact that you cannot accept the jury's verdict is proof positive that you are clinging to a false narrative. You should look at this as an excellent opportunity to break your programming and learn to think independently of the narratives that the mass media uploads into your head. Those false narratives are not balloons lifting you to the high ground. They are anchors dragging you under. Let those false narratives go and you will not fall, but instead you will rise to the surface where you can take a breath.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 20:58 utc | 86

You are dead wrong B. Rittenhouse is a white suprematist killer. His judge is a racist as is the jury.

Ich bin erschüttert über das Versagen Ihres moralischen Kompasses in diesem Fall. Damit tun Sie ihrem Blog keinen Gefallen. Offensichtlich sind die gelegentlich aufscheinenden Sympathien für Tronald tiefer verwurzelt, als man ansonsten vermuten könnte. Angesichts des Einflusses, den Sie besitzen, ist das eher schon tragisch zu nennen.

Posted by: pnyx | Nov 19 2021 21:00 utc | 87

Posted by: Roger | Nov 19 2021 20:31 utc | 67

BTW, I don't recall a link to a nascent Substack page in your previous posts here. Are you the same Roger that's a regular? I'm just trying to keep things straight.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 19 2021 21:00 utc | 88

"I used to write short stories as a hobby years ago and as part of the hobby I looked up books on guns and gunshot wounds. C1ue is correct about bullet entry and exit wounds. Exit wounds are always far, far more serious!..."Jen | Nov 19 2021 63

True as it was in Dallas, 1963.

Posted by: spudski | Nov 19 2021 21:00 utc | 89

Read again my comment. I said that the trial was for murder.

You look nervous, Mr. Gruff.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 20:36 utc | 71

Again, not even remotely true. Or it has only the minutest bit of truth to it, like most of your commentary thus far.

The trial included charges for illegal possession of a weapon.

The Jury had to sit through the misguied attempts by the prosecution to validate this charge.

The charge was later thrown out after it was determined that no evidence was shown he had broken the law as written in the statute books.


Those charges were thrown out only after the jury retired to consider its verdict.

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 21:01 utc | 90

@ furries 69

Why would you type such rank nonsense? Do you imagine you are fooling anyone? The case did not decide that someone could have a gun at the protest. That was never a question.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 19 2021 21:02 utc | 91

@ Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 20:51 utc | 83

Did you think I'm here to appreciate your intellect?

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 21:04 utc | 92

vk @71: "I'm just engaging in a nice illogical exercise and having some fun."

Spoken like someone whose anus is hurting from being called out for stupidity.

Try to stay away from the "woke" crap in the future. We really don't need that infantile nonsense associated with Marxism.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 21:04 utc | 93

Just amazing. There seems to be this argument that Kyle was guilty because he was in a particular location at a particular time. The irony is that the police have used the guilt by location to arrest and harass black people. One of the most viral videos was of cops stopping a black teenager walking home from work during a snow storm. They ended up arresting him. Guilt by location. And it is not only black people. DC prosecutors tried journalists who were at protest of instigating a riot. They happened to be there and were arrested for simply being there. Must be guilty of something.

Posted by: Erelis | Nov 19 2021 21:05 utc | 94

@ Posted by: Lawrence Miller | Nov 19 2021 20:56 utc | 84

But the trial, while it was happening, was for murder. You can't have a trial for innocence in modern Law, as it is presumed.

Unless you think the jury transcends space-time, there's no way around that.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 21:06 utc | 95

Vk isn’t even trying to defend his voluminous opinions that lacked actual facts, any more.
Sad.
If I was vk, I’d take a long hot shower, and go to bed.

Posted by: Cadence calls | Nov 19 2021 21:07 utc | 96

@ pnyx | 86

Please specify how race plays any part in this given that the three attackers and their victim were all white?

Your position is so utterly senseless, I have to wonder if it's a real opinion or a talking point you are incentivized to promote.

Posted by: figleaf23 | Nov 19 2021 21:08 utc | 97

@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 19 2021 21:04 utc | 92

You're the one calling your own fellow Americans "rats" (a Nazi term).

You're clearly deranged. I recommend you to get out of this forum and take some fresh air, and calm down. It is better, for your own dignity.

--//--

@ Posted by: Erelis | Nov 19 2021 21:05 utc | 93

What do you even mean? Everybody must be somewhere, sometime. You're extrapolating a simple tautology to a trial.

Posted by: vk | Nov 19 2021 21:10 utc | 98



This is why Jacob Blake had a warrant out for his arrest

By Gabrielle Fonrouge

August 28, 2020 | 6:19pm


The cops involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake — which touched off a fresh wave of angry, anti-police sentiment across the country — were attempting to arrest him for violating a restraining order stemming from an alleged sexual assault, The Post has learned.

Blake, 29, was forbidden from going to the Kenosha home of his alleged victim from the May 3 incident, and police were dispatched Sunday following a 911 call saying he was there.

The responding officers were aware he had an open warrant for felony sexual assault, according to dispatch records and the Kenosha Professional Police Association, which released a statement on the incident on Friday.


Blake is accused in the criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her.

The victim, who is only identified by her initials in the paperwork, told police she was asleep in bed with one of her children when Blake came into the room around 6 a.m. and allegedly said, “I want my sh-t,” the record states.

She told cops Blake then used his finger to sexually assault her, sniffed it and said, “Smells like you’ve been with other men,” the criminal complaint alleges.

The officer who took her statement said she “had a very difficult time telling him this and cried as she told how the defendant assaulted her.”

The alleged victim said Blake “penetrating her digitally caused her pain and humiliation and was done without her consent” and she was “very humiliated and upset by the sexual assault,” the record states.

She told police she “was upset but collected herself” and then allegedly ran out the front door after Blake, the complaint says. She then realized her car was missing, checked her purse and saw the keys were missing and “immediately called 911,” the complaint alleges.

The alleged victim told cops she has known him for eight years and claims that he physically assaults her “around twice a year when he drinks heavily.”

Police filed charges against him for felony sexual assault, trespassing and domestic abuse in July when a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Posted by: LOL | Nov 19 2021 21:10 utc | 99

congrats b for getting all the right-wingers on this blogpost!

Posted by: v | Nov 19 2021 21:10 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.