Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
November 11, 2021
Rittenhouse Trial Exposes The Democrats’ Reliance On False Narratives

In August 2020 I wrote about the riots in several U.S. cities.

'Mostly Peaceful' Rioting And Looting Is Helping Trump's Campaign

The piece attracted 610 comments which made it the longest Moon of Alabama thread ever.

The immediate starting point of my thoughts had been the riots and shooting in Kenosha:

Last Sunday police in Kenosha, Wisconsin proved to be too incompetent to arrest a man they had already had under control. They shot him 7 times into the back when he was trying to get into his car. Nights of rioting followed. Buildings were burned down and businesses were looted.

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.

Many of the regular commentators disagreed with my conclusion.

The white teen, Kyle Rittenhouse, is now standing trial. Of note is that the casualties in this case were all white and had criminal records, something that the media at the time of the incident intentionally neglected to say.

Yesterday Rittenhouse testified and was cross examined by the prosecutor Thomas Binger. I watched a stream of the trial and was not impressed:

Moon of Alabama @MoonofA – 20:12 UTC · Nov 10, 2021

Watching the Rittenhouse trial.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=si9YXq0A1Vk
That prosecutor is ridiculous.

The judge seemed to have the same impression:

The Kenosha County, Wis., judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial clashed with the lead prosecutor several times during the teenager’s cross-examination on Wednesday, while defense attorneys requested a mistrial alleging prosecutorial misconduct.

The defense objected to Binger’s questions about Rittenhouse’s decision to remain silent about the shootings until taking the witness stand Wednesday, arguing that this line of inquiry infringed on Rittenhouse’s Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

While Binger said he was making the case that Rittenhouse had tailored his testimony based on what other witnesses had said before him, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder appeared to agree with the defense, ordering the jury out of the room before rebuking the prosecutor.

“The problem is this is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence,” Schroeder yelled. “You're right on the borderline, and you may be over it. But it better stop.”

Later on in the cross-examination, Schroeder admonished Binger for attempting to question Rittenhouse about evidence that the judge had previously deemed inadmissible.

It was not only that misbehavior by the extremely arrogant prosecutor which caused me to call him ridiculous. It was the way in which he questioned minor decisions Rittenhouse had taken during the incident implying that they showed this or that malicious intention even when that was clearly not the case. A prosecutor should not behave like a child playing gotcha.

I may well be, as the defense implied, that Binger tried to provoke a mistrial. His chances to win the case are by now practically zero.

The videos prove that Rittenhouse was under attack when he fired his gun. The man who had been wounded in the incident, and who was the prosecution's main witness, admitted under cross examination that he had pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse aimed and fired at him.

A clear act of self defense:

In an account largely corroborated by video and the prosecution’s own witnesses, Rittenhouse said that the first man cornered him and put his hand on the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle, the second man hit him with a skateboard, and the third man came at him with a gun of his own.

Rittenhouse said he “didn't want to have to shoot” Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man to fall that night, but he said Rosenbaum was chasing him and had threatened to kill him earlier.

“If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it," he said, "and probably killed more people.”

But Rittenhouse also acknowledged that the strap holding his gun was in place and that he had both hands on the weapon. And Binger suggested that Rosenbaum might have been trying to bat the rifle away.

Rittenhouse testified that he then shot and killed protester Anthony Huber after Huber struck him in the neck with his skateboard and grabbed his gun. Then he wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, saying the protester had lunged at him “with his pistol pointed directly at my head.”

The trial thus confirmed my August 2020 analysis:

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.

Some prominent voices are agreeing with me:

Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard – 0:01 UTC · Nov 11, 2021

The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial clearly didn’t do due diligence before making the decision to prosecute. This tragedy never would have happened if the government carried out its responsibilities to protect the safety, lives and property of innocent people.

Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald – 19:29 UTC · Nov 10, 2021

I never commented on the Rittenhouse case until I started watching large chunks of the trial, and all I can say is that anyone who has done the same and denies that there's a huge gap between the media narrative about this and what actually happened is not telling the truth.

Greenwald also points to this video report by rising which includes video clips from the trial, including the prosecutor witness admitting that he pointed his gun first.

Rittenhouse is not on trial for bad judgment or offensive behavior. He is on trial under murder charges and will likely be acquitted of them. That will of course cause outrage by the usual suspects.

Michael Tracey @mtracey – 11:38 UTC · Nov 11, 2021

Even if the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crimes alleged? Telling statement from the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus

Hakeem Jeffries @hakeemjeffries – 21:30 UTC · Nov 10, 2021
Lock up Kyle Rittenhouse and throw away the key.

Jeffries' hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. See this June 2020 tweet by him.

Hakeem Jeffries @hakeemjeffries – 16:17 UTC · Jun 29, 2020

End. Mass. Incarceration.
Defund The Prison Industrial Complex.

The riots in Kenosha were part of the Democrats strategy of tension campaign aimed at increasing the turnout of 'progressive' democrat voters. 'Black life matters', 'abolish the police' and the riots and looting were all part of it. It was what I had earlier sarcastically called the Civil War of 2020. 

Begun The Civil Wars Of 2020 Have

The campaign had the obvious but unintended effect of also increasing the turnout of republican voters for Donald Trump's law and order policies. The campaign was not successful. In the end Joe Biden barely won by some 60,000 votes in three swing states.

With Russiagate exposed as fraud, Rittenhouse getting acquitted and with many of the Democrats campaign promises unfulfilled a majority of midterm voters may well conclude that the Democrats are crooks who do not deserve their vote.

Comments

=> fnord | Nov 12 2021 5:42 utc | 197
Except it was in fact Rittenhouse’s very own neighborhood.
His family lived there.
Just more Dem Party bullmanure.

Posted by: blues | Nov 12 2021 5:49 utc | 201

@wagelaborer #132
Your statements are uttered with so much certainty and specificity one might think you were there recording the whole incident. Please upload the video so we can see as well.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 5:52 utc | 202

If this had happened in a ‘shithole’ country would we care at all? Oh wait, it did happen in a shithole country.

Posted by: Patroklos | Nov 12 2021 6:05 utc | 203

@c1ue #147
I didn’t post #131.
Can we agree that if one shows up brandishing a loaded firearm one is looking for violence?

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:07 utc | 204

blues@186 “Aim a pistol at somebody with a powerful rifle? What do you expect? A Darwin Award. For sure.”
Yeah, except he didn’t qualify for a Darwin Award. Ya have to do something really stupid that gets you killed to earn a Darwin. He should be grateful to Rittenhouse that he is still alive. Maybe he was expressing his gratitude by essentially testifying for the defense that he pointed his pistol directly at Rittenhouse at close range before he was shot.
The other two earned Darwin Awards, one by grabbing the rifle by the barrel and the other by attacking the guy with the rifle with a skateboard. We can truly hope those morons have not passed their genes along to another generation of morons.
Both had significant criminal backgrounds. The quality of our criminals has clearly deteriorated. Maybe there will be funding in the Build Back Better bill to raise our standards for criminals and not just settle for equity.
https://darwinawards.com/

Posted by: Lefty665 | Nov 12 2021 6:16 utc | 205

@William Gruff #153
Gruff, you bi-phasic motherfucker. You post a bunch of nonsense then come out with this erudite analysis of American culture. I may not agree with you 100% of the time but I’m glad you’re here.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:17 utc | 206

Posted by: Patroklos | Nov 12 2021 6:05 utc | 204
Hits the nail on the head once again. It was your comment much earlier that snapped me back into reality about this argument which consumes some of the better minds at MoA in a way that I thought previously very intelligent and philosophical (although in one or two cases, my opinion had changed in the past few days) commenters were not subject to.
This case, trial, outcome, whatever is inconsequential to anything of importance. A dumb fuckin’ kid who worshiped cops decided to illegally arm up and go shoot some people illegally destroying or stealing property and it happened in a shithole country (my own) where the Wild West has never quite been put in the rear view mirror. Convicting Rittenhouse will do nothing for racial/class justice and setting him free will do nothing for the militaristic police forces against whom the protestors, rioters, looters, and whatnot were allegedly standing against.
Is there truth that sometimes violent protest accomplishes good? Of course there is. Peaceful protest (usually in masse) also can accomplish this. But we’re so fractured and fragmented now (the exact aim of the corporate news media, right wingers and identity politics weilding Democrats) that we can’t accomplish anything as evidenced by the obvious fact that nobody participating in this debate is willing to change their mind or consider looking at the situation from within someone else’s shoes. Well, not nobody, but definitely not most.
This is a dead topic to me now. There are much larger battles to analyze and, well, fight.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 6:19 utc | 207

This discussion should be one of law. I offer much gratitude to those who remind us that the trial is over the matter of self-defense or not self-defense. Really, all this discussion is about is how well a court works in a case.
Honestly, this has always been one of the great fascinations of the American Republic – how a matter of law is judged by its highest arbiters, its highest intellects. The people have an interest in knowing how its highest intellects judge a matter of law, to know whether they must take the law back into their own hands, or if it can continue to be entrusted to the appointed courts.
~~
I think many people don’t understand this. We are discussing a trial, not an event – thus, legal reasoning is the language. But actually the irrelevance displayed in this thread – more than 200 comments I’ve looked at so far – shows me how much one must appreciate the sheer clarity of the reasoning of the early Republic.
In those days, the law was considered the only way to bring the lessons from the “state of nature” into the rules by which a society must conduct itself. And the court was the supreme arbiter – except as this mechanism might be absent or defunct, at which the people should retake their originating power, the only source of any social power.
~~
Many people, I think, do not understand the underlying compact of the Union of the United States. It was based on law, and on a pioneer love of law to steady the wildness, and to regulate human life.
Yes, the law is violated in every minute of daily existence, most certainly. But it doesn’t die away. Not yet. Perhaps not ever. Hopefully not ever.

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 12 2021 6:23 utc | 208

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:07 utc | 205
Is he “looking” for it, or expecting, anticipating it based on previous “demonstrations” of the sort?
I do not think he ought to have been there with his gun. I do not think the demonstrators he killed should have been there to create mayhem, either.
However, as far as the law is concerned, it is clear that Rittenhouse was decidedly not quilty of murder, and seemingly justified in defending himself from crazed “demonstrators” who had know business attacking him and threatening his life, all of which seems to have been established in the court case.
There may be lesser violations of the law that he could be found quilty of, but it is clear the prosecution overcharged their case, and have created a politically charged distraction in doing so, possibly deliberately given the efforts of the oligarchy to promote divisions in US society.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 6:23 utc | 209

I recognize that violence in the American Black community is the result of generations of lumpenization, but that recognition on its own cannot make the violence go away either. The only thing that can cure it is revolution, and the Black community has no alternative but to team up with the “deplorables” for revolution to happen. […..]
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 12 2021 3:03 utc | 153
This is a ridiculous comment in terms of reality on the ground vs. reality in the minds of some of the more observant commentators. Gruff, you should know better. You seem to me very good at being a historian of the empire’s abuses (and those that came before) but you don’t seem to grasp American history. Are you an American? I genuinely don’t know. But to think that (a sufficiently large number of anyway) “deplorables” will ever wake up and want to learn genuine American history and accept white privilege is pure imagination. Yet that’s the first step for the “deplorables” and the Black community to come together. Yes, “woke” propaganda in as much as it’s there to promote division is rampant. But also rampant is the falsified, whitewashed, victim blaming version of American (and world) history that I was taught in school and which most everyone still is, except in places where curriculum changes (NON math) are being fought tooth and nail by the comfortable white power establishment. Do you REALLY think that anyone would be trying to force this “wokeness” into mathematics if REGULAR history and politics were ever taught accurately?
To that point, I’m curious. What’s your take on how American history should be taught all the way through redlining and the subprime crisis? SHOULD high school kids be taught that black people, black farmers, had their land and property stolen from them up until Ronny Raygun was in office? Should they be taught that life wasn’t just hard under slavery or for the poor whites in the Dust Bowl/Depression years, but that “sundown towns” existed into the 1980s for all intents and purposes in some places?
Tell me this: If real history was being taught in the core of the imperium, would this shit really be finding its way into math? The answer is a resounding “NO.”

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 6:27 utc | 210

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 6:23 utc | 210
Geez look at me. I said I was done with this, but you deign to answer what “the law” is and what it isn’t.
Let me tell you. “The law” has been massaged, manipulated, contorted and straight up ignored by too many American juries (the formation themselves of which was manipulated) to count where it comes to Black people “defending themselves.”
I get the feeling that not many people here know very much about American history other than the (mostly) propaganda taught in our schools and projected unto the world at large.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 6:30 utc | 211

this little terrorist wanted to play batman or the joker, went to “protect” a business which had no desire for his protection, and killed 2 people. why B is taking his side is not clear. the judge is a hack, and is helping rig the trial, and the prosecution is imo fucking up on purpose. does B now support the ruthless us stormtroopers in Syria and else where?

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 6:39 utc | 212

if you “support” Rittenhouse, you support William Calley, or the apache gunship crew Assange exposed, or Derek Chauvin, or the White Hats.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 6:45 utc | 213

Many people, I think, do not understand the underlying compact of the Union of the United States. It was based on law, and on a pioneer love of law to steady the wildness, and to regulate human life.
Yes, the law is violated in every minute of daily existence, most certainly. But it doesn’t die away. Not yet. Perhaps not ever. Hopefully not ever.
Posted by: Grieved | Nov 12 2021 6:23 utc | 209
Let me first ask you if you’re being somewhat facetious there. If not, then continue reading…
Whatchoo talkin’ bout Willis?! There is no single unified underlying “compact” of the United States unless you’re talking about the trash compact-or of the many treaties and promises made on the frontier to natives, Blacks, Asians and Mexicans. Steady the wilderness == cleanse the savages and lock up valuable resources, pure and simple. And let me tell you – “savages” has historically been a term that’s very flexible and easy to manipulate via propaganda even before the term was coined. Do you know that more than 200 treaties – including a large number of which were ratified by the US government – with the natives were broken? The USA has *never* been an agreement capable country and it’s rooted in the false construct of white supremacy, the Monroe Doctrine and “manifest destiny” – all of which are very flexible concepts easily enough bent to bring in or exclude whatever group of immigrants or political adherents were/are necessary for expedient political (and genocidal) but mostly capitalistic greed aims.
I mean, unless by “regulate human life” you meant “regulate” (as in destroy or force to bend the knee) those who stood in the way of expansion, exploitation and immiseratioin, you’re full-on Orwellian as far as the actual history of what happened goes.

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 6:48 utc | 214

@Cadence calls #180
Nice Straw Man. Did you buy that at the store or make it yourself?

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:48 utc | 215

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 6:30 utc | 212
It works both ways of course.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/democrats-are-profoundly-committed
The US, as I noted, has been kept divided by the oligarchy through identity politics and the provoking of racism through BLM and apparently critical race theory. The oligarchs applaud and support both as profitable distractions. Originally the earlier BLM demonstrations seemed to focus more on police violence, not just against African Americans. This would have been in line with the thinking of MLK and Fred Hampton. – uniting the people against their oppressors.
But, this is what the oligarchs rightly fear most, so coopting movements and redirecting them on narrow identiy issues rather than top down political economic issues is the aim. They succeed with their propaganda media and captured governments. Yes, lawfare is also a part of it – witness the Assange persecution.
In this case, however, the case was most likely clear to the prosection from the get go as they had access to the videos, which seem to have vindicated the defence, but went ahead with an unsustainable charge anyway. Rittenhouse had good lawyers, unlike many African Americans charged with crimes, so the prosecution ought to have realized that their case was weak to say the least. Hubris, arrogance, maybe. They should have attemped realistic charges rather than sensationalist ones.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 6:50 utc | 216

Herr Ringbone #200
I’m starting to think that you’re being intentionally obtuse. Violence begets violence. If you show up somewhere brandishing a loaded weapon then you must be expecting violence.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:59 utc | 217

kid who was helped by the cops uses standard cop defense “i was in fear of my life”, usually works. he went there to play superhero, people were threatened by him (one commentator has the honesty to admit that the skateboard guy should also have a valid plea of self defense if he had brained him, but i expect that judge would not have been as blatantly biased for the defense had that occurred)reacted to the threat in a non lethal manner and he killed them. if a BLM supporter had illegally purchased a firearm and traveled to the site of a right wing riot, say washington dc, and shot two demonstrators i expect you would hear very different narrative and the trial would have a very different result.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 7:03 utc | 218

LOFL it was not Rittenhouse’s neighborhood.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 7:04 utc | 219

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 6:59 utc | 218
That is true, and why was he expecting physical attacks, looting and arson* Because previous demonstrations had also turned into riots. This isn’t to say that the amjority of the demonstrators were looking for violence. Mots were undoubtedly peaceful in intent.
But, we are not naive and know that criminal elements among the demonstrators, and even police provacteurs, do indend to ignite violence as well as buildings for there various goals.
This particular demonstration cannot be taken out of context – there were other violent demonstrations. Obviously, Rittenhouse unwisely came to this demonstration anticipating possible, even likely, violence. Given his age and inexperience, he most likely should have stayed home. At the same time, so should have the similarly young people who engaged Rittenhouse and others in violence. Based on the known facts, Rittenhouse is unlikely to be found guilty of manslaughter. Again, the prosecution had the evidence and knew that any competent defence lawyers could easily get him off.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 7:11 utc | 220

Blue Dotterel he was one of the criminal elements. the original violence was perpetrated by the cops, who were in “incompetent” as b would have it but typical murderous thugs. newsflash, when people are attacked they defend themselves. from the cops. he went there because he wanted to help the cops. in essence i think he fantasized about being part of a right wing death squad. like so many people who attack the marginalized, he will probably get away with it.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 7:18 utc | 221

now i read that the video footage shot by right wing journalists is not the original footage but a compilation. where have i heard this before, oh yeah the fbi explaining that that didn’t actually examine Clinton’s computers, they just depended on the objectivity of Crowdstrike. yeah no bias there.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 7:21 utc | 222

In this case, however, the case was most likely clear to the prosection from the get go as they had access to the videos, which seem to have vindicated the defence, but went ahead with an unsustainable charge anyway. Rittenhouse had good lawyers, unlike many African Americans charged with crimes, so the prosecution ought to have realized that their case was weak to say the least. Hubris, arrogance, maybe. They should have attemped realistic charges rather than sensationalist ones.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel |
Even while that wasn’t a complete reply to my points, let me inform you of the actual charges that Rittenhouse faces.
Here’s the Langley Times since I have the bad luck to be using a shitty Logitech mouse that doesn’t work. (Otherwise I’d copy/paste)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-charges.html
So only a couple of them are direct murder charges. He committed crimes. Period. Whether the US jury selection process and what the decide leads to his conviction on any of them is up for betting, Wall Street casino style.

But, this is what the oligarchs rightly fear most, so coopting movements and redirecting them on narrow identiy issues rather than top down political economic issues is the aim. They succeed with their propaganda media and captured governments. Yes, lawfare is also a part of it – witness the Assange persecution.

Assange is a totally different matter. A show trial. Read my reply to Gruff. The so-called deplorables, at least a good number of them, will never accept American history (and all that’s resulted) as it is. Hence the “lost cause” and Gruff’s newfound version of it, the “big lie.”
Are you an American? Did you vote in the 2000 presidential election and if so, for whom?

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 7:21 utc | 223

Blue Dotterel,
Have you read ANY of my previous commentary? Do you seriously think I don’t get “it”?

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 7:23 utc | 224

tom collins, one thing i want to know is why they didnt use the raw footage, from what i’ve read the videos shown were edited by Hernandez, who is clearly biased. the judge seems very biased too.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 7:30 utc | 225

fnord@218
Noting that you, fnord, have claimed a right you won’t extend to another person (as a result of ideological animus, it seems) is not being “obtuse”. If it’s OK for you to come out armed against violent intruders in your neighborhood, why can’t Rittenhouse do the same?
“Violence begets violence”, you say. Rittenhouse didn’t deploy any violence until he was attacked. Hey, I guess you’re right on that one then.

Posted by: Herr Ringbone | Nov 12 2021 8:04 utc | 226

Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Nov 12 2021 7:21 utc | 224
Did I say Rittenhouse hadn’t committed crimes? No, I did not. I said that from the evidence his shooting of his attackers was in, from what has been shown, clearly in self-defence, and the videos apparently show this which is why the prosecutors are trying to create a situation for a mistrial. They know they have lost on the murder cases.
No, I haven’t read all of the posts you have made. I had only just gotten up and had work to do. I am well aware of the history of the US and its mistreatment of the indiginous people, and other minorities, as well as the working class.
I am not a US citizen, although I have visited a number of US cities on many occasions. I would never vote for any of the duoploy politicians, and feel that any USaian that does has little understanding of how the US is actually run. Both parties are demonstratably corrupt and clearly controlled by the criminal corporate classes – the corporatocracy, if you like, the US version of an aristocracy. It is clearly in their interest to divert public eyes from their crimes and have them focus on trials like this, stoking horizontal hatreds.
This thread pretty much demonstrates the success of their objective.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 8:11 utc | 227

@Herr Ringbone #227
I’m not in the business of killing folks. I left my Army gig years ago. My point is that no one can be shot if there aren’t any firearms involved. He showed up brandishing a semi-automatic rifle. Did he think that would endear him to the folks he encountered in the street? Perhaps you like seeing people walking around in public brandishing a firearms. I’m not a fan and consider it a threatening if not violent act. I also thought it was threatening when traveling in Lebanon and having to show my passport to 18-year-old kids with automatic rifles at check points.
It seems from the publicly available court documents his actions appear to be self-defense as defined by the law in Wisconsin.
Why does a 17-year-old travel across state lines with an illegal firearm and put himself in a position where he will need to defend himself?

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 8:26 utc | 228

what did the raw footage videos show? in other news, what would clinton’s computers have shown if the fbi had actually examined those? vexing questions.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 8:30 utc | 229

Rittenhouse pointed his gun and shot two people before the medic pointed his gun at him. the medic should have gotten off with self defense if he had shot and killed Rittenhouse. he had a reasonable fear for his life.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 8:32 utc | 230

do palestinians have the right to protest and defend themselves against brutal israeli cops and soldiers? if a right wing israeli kid, indoctrinated from youth, shows up a a rally and shoots 3 palestinians are you going to support him?

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 8:34 utc | 231

you would almost have to be nonamerican to think that oligarchs are promoting, or have ever promoted Black Live Matter. you would have to be ignorant of the long history of racial violence perpetrated by cops and groups claiming to support the cops. you would have to be ignorant of the long history of both cops and civilians getting away with murder, or the fbi’s cointelpro operation against civil rights and leftist groups. you would have to believe what the oligarch’s say and be unaware of what they do. you know what is racially divisive? letting law enforcement and private citizens get away with murdering, assaulting and stealing from a marginalized group, whether it is palestinians, or blacks in america. just as in israel, the groups are blamed for fighting back.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 8:46 utc | 232

The shootings in Kenosha were a smaller play in a much bigger stage production at the time, It was quite clearly an orchestrated campaign of violence (strategy of tension as b calls it) to make the country ungovernable in an attempt to ensure that Donald Trump did not win re-election. The violence had all the hallmarks of a colour revolution.
When they got what they wanted (through ballot fraud in swing states as the campaign of violence backfired) the violence stopped.

Posted by: Down South | Nov 12 2021 9:07 utc | 233

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 8:46 utc | 233
I am well aware of the history of racial violence in the US. I was a teenager during the race riots in the late sixties, the assasinations of King, Hampton and others. It was my awakening to racism in the US, you might say, being a Canadian living 10 minutes from the border. I would suggest that you are not aware of the history of racism in the 60s and 70s. You are apparently not aware of the way security services coopt groups and direct them to ends that benefit their real “employers”.
The history of racism has little to do with whether one kid, Rittenhouse, is guilty of committing murder or manslaughter against three caucasians threatening to kill him. You are deflecting the issue in a way the oligarchs would approve.

Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Nov 12 2021 9:18 utc | 234

The violence had all the hallmarks of a colour revolution.
When they got what they wanted (through ballot fraud in swing states as the campaign of violence backfired) the violence stopped.

Yep, they’ve been doing it here since the beginning, the democracy stuff was always a con. They’ve always been shameless and grasping. The color revolution stuff started here too, that was the 60s. Politicans and everybody else here have not been in the habit of following the law unless it was convenient. I mean it is what the CIA does, the FBI, what they are FOR.
And they were really impressed with themselves after that, which is how we got here now. The big shots here, the old elites, worked really hard to get themselves into this predicament, lots of crimes, tremendous waste, too.
So of course, they want to move on now. Don’t look back, right? So that’s where we are. I think they are scared shitless & witless, to be frank.
The old Yurpean/Anglo elites will set up these feudal systems whenever they get the chance. They want to go back to that. Hence the attitude that regulation is anathema and the government is to be drowned in a bathtup.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 12 2021 9:29 utc | 235

Rittenhouse, Arbury, all the black and leftist men and women murdered, they are all individual cases and the form a pattern. the security services didnt coopt the panthers though they tried, so they obliterated them. you also dont seem aware of what provoked the race riots, the centuries of oppression. you never refer to that, you must make insinuations. blm is not some hollywood woke party it is grounded in historical racism. blacks fight back against that the same way palestinians do; you don’t need to invoke some conspiracy to divide people. you just need to remember what Gould (iirc) said about hiring half the working class to kill the other half. if anything, it is the right wing groups, the ones with a long history of affiliation with law enforcement, that you should be scrutinizing.
it is amazing to me that somebody that lives so close to the US isnt aware of Biden’s racism. again, watch what they do, not what they say. leftists resist just as right winger do, we just aren’t blatant hypocrites. we get killed by the cops a lot more often, though. “first they came for the socialist”. still true.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 9:33 utc | 236

so you think Rittenhouse was orchestrated by somebody else? possible, he’s an airhead by all accounts, like the dupes the FBI likes to use in the terrorist plots it foments and then “uncovers”. but the long history of oppression and murder by the authorities has been going on since some of the earliest police forces in america got their start in the slave patrols. it’s hardly part of a plot to kick Trump out. not that i care much, we get a right wing oligarch either way, 2 bowls of shit. the main problem the elites had with trump is they don’t control him, he’s a loose cannon. but his policies were pretty standard in a lot of ways. the plot to take down trump played out in Russiagate. Don’t confuse that with the bipartisan support of brutal government thugs. Crime Bill Joe and drug warrior Kamala certainly don’t.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Nov 12 2021 9:39 utc | 237

This comment is directed to b, and I would appreciate an explanation.
Last night there was an exchange between Gruff and fnord, and I commented on it.
fnord said something to the effect of “if you come into my neighborhood armed with an ak47, I will fuck you up” and Gruff responded with something to the effect of “i dont want to come to your neighborhood because it is a shithole because people like you live in it. The only people killing people in your neighborhood are your ‘homies’.”
I commented that Gruff should “really tell us how he feels.”
I thought Gruff clearly crossed a line with his comment and had expected others here would feel the same, so this morning I came to see what others thought of this exchange. There is no trace of Gruff’s comment or my response to it.
How can this be? Is b practicing censorship now?

Posted by: David F | Nov 12 2021 9:50 utc | 238

A follow up to my previous comment.
I would be interested to hear from Gruff and fnord about this exchange. Either one of these posters could confirm or deny this exchange took place.

Posted by: David F | Nov 12 2021 9:58 utc | 239

Unbelievable. 238 comments about this as I begin to write. Only in (or about) America!
Maybe it has been talked about before so excuse me if there is no solution, but the numbering system of the posts is all screwed up making references to other posts inaccurate and confusing. I’m not interested in why it’s so, just wondering if some solution can be found in order to follow the arguments better.
b?
Can it possibly be that this trial is so consequential to the world – or even to the US? Can anyone explain why this is so important?
And in response to David F. who just posted while I’m writing, I think a whole lot of comments have crossed the line. The bar’s rep has taken a hit. A lot of barflies should go home and practice a little introspection.
240 comments in this thread now. Unbelievable!

Posted by: waynorinorway | Nov 12 2021 10:11 utc | 240

These nonsensical discussions about Rittenhouse seem soooo attractive…
How puzzling to see barflies usually quite admirable with their knowledge and analysis capacities reduced to brats punching each other and shouting stupid invectives.
From an european POV, that Rittenhouse affair is the confrontation of two major perils devouring the whole country.
Woke leftism and firearm worshipping rightism are united here in the celebration their very own and misguided vision of freedom.
Another page of the american History of violence is being written here. And that book is far from over.

Posted by: HerrHesser | Nov 12 2021 10:49 utc | 241

@David F
This comment is directed to b, and I would appreciate an explanation.
Last night there was an exchange between Gruff and fnord, and I commented on it.
fnord said something to the effect of “if you come into my neighborhood armed with an ak47, I will fuck you up” and Gruff responded with something to the effect of “i dont want to come to your neighborhood because it is a shithole because people like you live in it. The only people killing people in your neighborhood are your ‘homies’.”
I commented that Gruff should “really tell us how he feels.”
I thought Gruff clearly crossed a line with his comment and had expected others here would feel the same, so this morning I came to see what others thought of this exchange. There is no trace of Gruff’s comment or my response to it.
How can this be? Is b practicing censorship now?

I tend to delete comments with personal insults if I happen to see them. I have even blocked a few people (not today) for the recurrent use of insulting language. That Gruff-Fnord exchange had caught my eye. It is now gone (and the thread numbering is thus screwed up).
I understand that the Rittenhouse case (or the false reporting about it) has been twisting minds and people take sides even while they are usually more neutral. I certainly don’t mind the debate about it. But people should stick to the facts and avoid personal attacks or insults.

Posted by: b | Nov 12 2021 11:05 utc | 242

I agree that the main issue with Kyle Rittenhouse is that he put himself in danger. The killings themselves, however, were totally in self-defense.
Of course you could say that it was not Rittenhouse’s job to protect citizens, but the police. To that I say yes, but what when the state and the police abdicate responsibility ? What if the job is simply not done ?
The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. On the one hand, leftists complain about police, state violence, legitimate riots and mob rule ; on the other hand, when counter-movements appear, suddenly leftists turn all law and order. “Let the police do its job ! Lock these alt-right guys up !” How convenient. As if it wasn’t a bit transparent…
Rittenhouse is innocent. The culprit is the American state who is unable of properly protecting its citizens.

Posted by: Micron | Nov 12 2021 11:18 utc | 243

b, thanks for the response.
I understand your decision, and it is clearly yours to make. I might add that I don’t want to see this forum degenerate to the likes of unz, which is a cesspool of open racism and just plain stupidity. So from that perspective, I agree with your reasoning.
On the other hand, I do however think that when a person potentially outs themselves as a racist that it is a disservice to the other posters not to let them see that, and then to let them judge that posters credibility as they see fit.
Again, your call to make and thanks for the explanation.

Posted by: David F | Nov 12 2021 11:22 utc | 244

1. If Russiagate was a fraud, then how to explain the huge number of interactions between Russians and the Trump campaign? Y’all claim it’s something that it’s not and then concludes that there was absolutely nothing going on between the campaign and the Russians. Of course, Russian interference such as it was was nothing compared to let’s say the receptivity to it by far too many voters. Then, too, there’s the karma of the US receiving a little of the treatment of our elections like we imposed on foreigners going back at least to the 1940s and, more specially here, Russia in the 90s.
2. Let’s see if I have the defense of Rittenhouse correct. He’s walking around with an assault rifle and someone with a handgun maybe is let’s say frightened and responds maybe wrongly yet understandably and he’s the bad guy in this. And unarmed people were rightly killed. Please. There’s no justifiable way that that isn’t manslaughter.

Posted by: Hart Liss | Nov 12 2021 11:25 utc | 245

Moon of Alabama is entirely full of shit on this case. He conveniently leaves out numerous facts that don’t fit into his alt-right nonsense narrative, such as the fact that Rittenhouse drove a very long way across state lines to Kenosha, basically to shoot BLM protestors under the euphemism of “protecting property”. I don’t like this blog, I think MOA is oftentimes full of shit, and the kangaroo show trial of Rittenhouse is a fine example. I guess MOA is siding with the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, 3%ers, and other extreme right wing pro-Trump extremists who love their guns, and who love to attack and kill BLM protestors. And how about Rittenhouse wearing a “free as fuck” T-shirt after being released on bail? Outrageous. The “judge” in this case is so utterly biased in favor of Rittenhouse, from the very get-go. ZERO impartiality, and will NOT allow the prosecution to call the 2 people Rittenhouse hunted down and shot to death ‘victims’!? Not to mention the FBI footage that reveals Rittenhouse was not protecting property, but in fact was persuing BLM protestors looking to shoot and kill them.
MOA sucks, and is an incredibly arrogant person.

Posted by: deschutesmaple | Nov 12 2021 11:57 utc | 246

I’ll join with David F in thanking b. It’s gotta be a job managing this bar, to say nothing of getting abuse from idiots. People who don’t like this bar should get on down the boulevard.
Regarding the post numbering, is it possible to keep just the post number when deleting a post? That would keep the numbering in order.
(Sorry if that’s an elementary question I shouldn’t even ask. I was born a while ago when our home phone # was 3234, we were 3rd on a 4-party line and talked to the operator whenever we placed a call. I can work my TV remote but still don’t have a smart phone.)
Gruff, fnord, and others, you’re all welcome to come to my neighborhood. Just so you know, we’ll be serving lutefisk. We’ll wash it down with aquavit and stay up til all hours shouting ‘skoal’ and arguing about Rittenhouse. Then about 5a.m. we’ll put headlamps on our throbbing heads and head out on snowshoes for an invigorating climb up a nearby mountain. Your call.

Posted by: waynorinorway | Nov 12 2021 12:09 utc | 247

Worth noting two things that may not ever come up in trial:
– would Rittenhouse have gone to Kenosha if he’d had to leave his firearm behind?
– his unlawful transport and possession of same puts him on the same (potentially) illegal footing as his co-belligerents. He was not “peaceably assembling, nor was he seeking a redress of grievances. He was breaking the law just standing there, which means he will certainly lose any civil wrongful death suit, and he should be charged with whatever class of weapons violations he’s guilty of.
As for murder of even manslaughter…probably not.
A final note- the judge forbidding any discussion of Rittenhouse prior motive sends the proceedings into kangaroo court territory. Intent is a major component of criminal culpability. The judge is building the impression of an environment where the other belligerent’s prior motives were presumed unlawful, and Rittenhouse’s are presumed lawful – despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: miller | Nov 12 2021 12:30 utc | 248

I honestly fail to see why this topic is so controversial. No matter the verdict, although at least partial acquittal certainly appears the most likely, this case doesn’t seem extraordinary in any way, nor is it likely to set any legal precedent or have any real impact on US culture or system.
Armed juveniles looking for action during a riot, getting into altercations with criminals and ending in the premature demise of one or the other, with the survivors being dragged through a court soap-opera — sounds like a traditional American pastime to me.
Actually, the reaction does make more sense in this context. I’ve heard similarly heated exchanges on the topic of otherwise meaningless tv-shows, games and other mediums of entertainment before.

Posted by: Skiffer | Nov 12 2021 12:56 utc | 249

@vk
Just wanted to say you’re great and when b. fucks up leave it to you to correct the record. Dunno why but I always thought you were Russian (probably because of the homonimous social network). Glad to find out you’re a comrade from my country.

Posted by: tropicalML | Nov 12 2021 12:57 utc | 250

@deschutesmaple #247
Troll, begone!

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 13:02 utc | 251

I harbor no ill will towards Gruff and I assume he harbors none towards me. Our exchange was passionate but it was only an exchange of ideas and opinions. I don’t take these things seriously inside or outside of this forum. See my post #207 as of 13:29UTC.

Posted by: fnord | Nov 12 2021 13:31 utc | 252

Ignorance of the law is rampant. You can not claim self-defense is you are in the process of committing a crime. As people will see in the closing arguments, Rittenhouse lied on the stand when he said he did not point his weapon at Saminski. Rittenhouse threatening deadly force without provocation, is what provoked Rosenbaum to chase after Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse turned and shot him dead–shooting him four times. Following the murder of Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was so in fear of his life that he went to look at his victim–did not offer assistance, made a phone call to his best friend to tell him he had shot some one–he made no effort to call 911–only then did he flee the scene of the crime– only then did people begin chasing him, Rittenhouses flight from his first crime was provocation—you can not claim self defense if you provoke the actions. The judge–who has done everything he can to protect Rittenhouses rights was obviously displeased about the lies Rittenhouse told on the stand. Prior to those lies, the judge had refused the prosecutions entering into evidence the enlarged video of Rittenhouse threatening Syamanski–after the lies, the judge admitted the evidence. When the judge allows the lesser included offenses to be considered by the jury–which he will, he is assuring Rittenhouse goes to jail.

Posted by: mark kaufmann | Nov 12 2021 13:37 utc | 253

The delusional thinking and the

“I’ll completely ignore what the available video evidence and reams of both defence and prosecution evidence and witness testimony clearly shows, and just keep repeating some pseudo-logical bullshit I just pulled outta my ass and I will surely win the argument by boring everyone to death”

attitude displayed by this site´s “Woke-i-tardia in-residence” contingent, is proof positive that delusionaldemented lying idealogues have simply replaced reality-based thought with ideology.
It`s easier than acknowledging reality, or engaging in real critical thought.
It was fun to read the whole thread and watch the demented delusional trolls & liars creep out from under their rocks, but I do think the thread-quality has deteriorated somewhat since commenters such as the-ever-untruthful vk, internet-tough-guy fnord and the hilariously demented pretzelattack reared their demented and delusional little heads, to attempt to propagandise on behalf of the Woke-i-tardia dystopian world-view…..such as it is…..

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 13:55 utc | 254

In a video made 15 days before he shot two people to death in Kenosha Rittenhouse revealed who he is. As he watched people he believed to be shoplifters he said, “I wish I had my fucking AR with me. I’d start shooting rounds at them.” He is nothing more than a grandiose teenage punk who wanted to make himself famous. That is why he drove to Kenosha, a place where there were likely to be opportunities for confrontations, with an illegally obtained automatic weapon. He was looking for trouble and he found it. In no other country would he be seen as a heroic actor merely defending himself.

Posted by: David | Nov 12 2021 14:04 utc | 255

Before the trial, I watched many videos of the night in question and read many article. I had a bias in favor of Rittehhouse. I work from home and I have been able to play lice the trial.
I was open to change my mind if anything came up to point to Rittenhouse’s guilt of any of the charges.
Rittenhouse is not guilty of the charges.
It has been so bad for the prosecution that the prosecution tried to impeach Rittenhouse on Rittenhouse’s lack of public comments. Implying that his silence was guilt. The prosecution almost got the mistrial that seemed to be what they were after.
I am not going to address all the ignorant comments against Rittenhouse. I say ignorant because it is obvious they are based on lack of knowledge of what transpired.
Charging and putting Rittenhouse through this trial is an injustice. Sadly, I am still not sure if justice will be carried by declaring Rittenhouse not guilty.

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 12 2021 14:15 utc | 256

In response to mark kaufmann@254,
I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that someone in the process of committing a crime cannot claim self-defense. Not every crime warrants a lethal or violent response from the victim of said crime, and it’s difficult to imagine a legal justification for violent or lethal retribution to a person that’s running away, even if the person is a criminal fleeing a crime-scene. The exception, in that case, would be that the criminal poses a serious danger and must be stopped by any means necessary, but that sort of reasoning is shaky even by law enforcement standards, never mind when applied to violence between civilians.
So, in a case where a criminal is confronted and turns to flee, the victim does not have carte blanche to pursue the criminal, who in that case presumably would have the right to defend him or herself from violent or lethal retribution. The initial crime would, at that point, be considered irrelevant to the subsequent turn of events, at most to be considered as extenuating but rarely exculpatory circumstances.

Posted by: Skiffer | Nov 12 2021 14:17 utc | 257

He was not even defending his own turf, he crossed state lines. With the aid of his mother, who should be tried as an accessory.
If he had been packing a pistol, I could see the self-defense angle a bit more clearly. A rifle being carried openly does not speak “self defense” it means that you have come to attack someone with it.
These nuances are lost in the extreme gun fetishization that has gripped the USA, which is really on its way to a lot more serious armed clashed in the future.

Posted by: Malchik Ralf | Nov 12 2021 14:19 utc | 258

@197
You have the context wrong.
Imagine the police has abandoned you and your neighborhood is being set on fire, etc. You cannot go out because of the mob, want to protect your home, and worry about your business.
And you say that you will not open your arms to the offer of help and protection of your life and property from strangers willing to give such aide?
Yeah, right!

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 12 2021 14:21 utc | 259

@184
You reminded me of:
1) the fast and easy manner the investigators dropped search warrant on Grosskreutz’s phone.
2) the way that hitting someone around the neck/head is no big deal.
3) that the skateboard whereabouts are unknown.
Also, that the prosecution came within a hair width’s of opening the door to Rosenbaum’s criminal background.

Posted by: JaimeInTexas | Nov 12 2021 14:28 utc | 260

And just in case anyone thinks I’m being a litle harsh on the ever-untruthful-VK I can assure people here that he is most definitely never arguing in good-faith on this, or possibly any, subject.
In a previous thread on this subject he inadvertantly let slip his little mask and revealed his true motivations and agenda:

I’m finding all of this hilarious, and I want it to continue and to continue to escalate.
Just don’t embargo Elma Chips to my country, because I like my Doritos when I’m watching and having fun.
Posted by: vk | Aug 29 2020 22:50 utc | 469

So despite apperances, and by his own admission, at no piont is he ever being sincere or arguing in good-faith in his comments on this subject.
Those attempting to engage in good-faith, with his bad-faith contibutions to this thread, are simply wasting their time.
As an aside, and further proof of his duplicitious nature and bad-faith contributions it is worth noting that the VK comment quoted above was posted at around the same time he posted this little gem:

I’m not American. I have a poetic license to say or write the word “nigger”.
Posted by: vk | Aug 29 2020 23:56 utc | 484

anyone fooled by his pretence regarding having any concern for the life-quality or justice-prospects of Black Americans shouldbear in mind his thoughs on his “poetic licence”.

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 14:34 utc | 261

Its hardly worth the effort to even attempt to push-back against the demented woke-tard hordes but the little gem of idiocy from miller @249 is a fine examle of the demented innaccuries/lies still being propagated in this thread.
The whole comment contains only one suppossed “fact”
However that one suppossed “fact” turns out to not be a “fact” at all…
The idiotic comment opens with something which immediately proves to be a lie, as soon as one reads the rest of his comment

Worth noting two things that may not ever come up in trial:…..
Posted by: miller | Nov 12 2021 12:30 utc | 249

because the things he mentions just so happen to not to be true, as anyone that has followed the trial would know.

– would Rittenhouse have gone to Kenosha if he’d had to leave his firearm behind?

Accepted even by the corrupt (allegedly) perjury-suborning prosecution, the testimony at trial was that Dominic Black was the legally-registered owner of that weapon and the weapon was stored in a Gun-safe in Blacks fathers house in Kenosha.
.

– his unlawful transport and possession of same puts him on the same (potentially) illegal footing as his co-belligerents.

again this is simlpy false, as anyone following this case would know.
It is a mystery to me why some many of the woketards cannot even bother to first inform themselves as to the basic facts of the case in question, before rushing to a computer and making fools of themseleves by posting idiotically ignorant comments on this case.
If you cannot get even the basic facts correct, why the hell would you feel that you are in any way qualified to comment?

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 14:55 utc | 262

The stage managers have succeeded in pulling everyone’s strings. Endless comments endless anger. That is the whole purpose of the project.
I knew about Rittenhouse Square in Philly and knew about first director of US Mint. I knew about Moses Rittenhouse and meatpacking because that is local to me. Looked further. Rittenhouses are a small and not particularly active family. They are Habsburgs. They are Jagiellons. Of course this is just coincidence. If vk says Rittenhouse is petit bourgeois one thousand times then it must be true. This is America. We are all middle class doncha know.

Posted by: Oldhippie | Nov 12 2021 15:03 utc | 263

Rittenhouse went people hunting and he’s getting away with murder because he killed the right type of people – lefty protesters, and the right type of people have his back – Trump loving cops and judges.

Posted by: Nate | Nov 12 2021 15:12 utc | 264

Posted by: Oldhippie | Nov 12 2021 15:03 utc | 264
Media circuses doesn’t happen by accident, yes.

Posted by: Bemildred | Nov 12 2021 15:54 utc | 265

Contra-Conspiraloon@263, there is nothing factually incorrect about any of my comment.
Rittenhouse unlawfully took that firearm to the protest area, possessed it in violation of the law, engaged in what can only be called brandishing a firearm. He and the dope that supplied him with said firearm both knew it was unlawful for R to possess it, but they were having a “Red Dawn” moment of sorts I suppose and couldn’t be bothered familiarizing themselves with Wisconsin penal code re “justification”.
The only legality for self defense that needs to be determined is the initial shooting. If there is ANY ambiguity re that it changes the legal footing for everything that follows as he would then be an armed felon fleeing the scene and subject to lawful apprehension by any citizen who witnessed the crime, per Wisconsin law.
I’m not sure what one would have to be huffing to claim these factors have nothing to do with R’s motive or the outcome. Rittenhouse should have hunkered down on the roof of the auto repair shop with a fire extinguisher if he was truly motivated by concern for private property. He had no lawful justification or privilege to go armed, walking around with an unslung rifle, anywhere at that scene.
This stage managed trial is going to set a dangerous precedent no matter your political leanings.

Posted by: miller | Nov 12 2021 15:58 utc | 266

Bottomline. @1 if you try to protect your life, livelihood and or property against crazies, BLM and Antifa [dems], you will be prosecuted. So you better sell all your processions and hire a good lawyer.
Welcome to 2021.

Posted by: Curious | Nov 12 2021 16:14 utc | 267

@fnord #195
More idiotic posturing.
What would you do if hundreds and thousands of people showed up to burn out your home and/or business?
Big talk always comes from little people.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:21 utc | 268

agree to disagree.
i saw greenwald ranting about this and assumed it was just his compulsive need to “dunk” on the media about any subject (see also: lab leak, not liking wet markets makes you “racist”, etc.) but hoped other people had more sense.
1. that kid had no business being there and was LARPing with an actual firearm.
2.the criminal records of those shot are moot. he didn’t know any of that and it’s funny the same “end the prison industrial complex” types who are oddly defending this twat are basically excusing his actions as justified extra-judicial executions. because you know people are never wrongly charged with crimes.
i could also point out that rittenhouse had his own history of prick behavior. or that this is the same line of rationalizing asshole actions used by “derp floyd had teh drugz in his systum derp” scum right types.
3. one guy pulled a gun and one guy had a goddamn skateboard. both only approached the kid AFTER he blew out the brains of an unarmed person who dared to throw a plastic bag. spare me the self defense bullshit. if a guy breaks into my house and shoots my dog and i pull a gun on him does he have the “right” to “self defense”? (and yes, i’m aware of the outlier cases of burglars suing their victims for injuries. not relevant.)
the guys shot after rosenbaum were engaged in “self defense” far more than an active shooter fleeing his crime. ask the cops where the fuck they were if you want to criticize the actions of civilians trying to disarm a dangerous fatass randomly shooting a gun bigger than those used by the cops in the area. i’ll also point out the obvious: the one surviving guy had a chance to blow rittenhouse’s “brains” out but didn’t. sadly.
4. if it was self defense why did he waddle home and not turn himself in? the little shit got on his phone and called a friend to say he just killed someone. he could have dropped the gun or found a cop or any other million options besides falling down like a little spaz and shooting blindly at anyone near him. or he could have stayed home and played “call of duty” to get his combat kicks. he could have just accepted that he was a useless nobody instead of acting out his chris kyle fantasies.
5. yeah, the kid didn’t put on an act AT ALL. you can see how racked with guilt and remorse he was just an hour after his arraignment. what a poor tortured victim.
i could go on but this seems like a tempting chance for “hot takes” on the MSM and a chance to point out that “riots are bad, m’kay” so i won’t ruin it for anybody.
note: for all of greenwald and others’ talk of “people only think they know cuz media derp”, i followed this case from the beginning and came to a lot of my conclusions from reading far- to scum-right reporting and opinion pieces. that’s why i’m a free speech absolutist: more chances to point out idiotic opinions.

Posted by: the pair | Nov 12 2021 16:23 utc | 269

@vk #188, others
You are clearly someone who has no idea of anything related to guns or self defense.
Self-defense is not predicated on likelihood of death – it is predicated on likelihood of harm. In the United States, there is almost universally no requirement of “likely” death or “level of harm”.
Then there’s the gun ignorance: A gun is not a magic wand – AR15 or otherwise. It isn’t something that you wave and people die.
The vast majority of say, school shootings or mass random shooting have 5 to 10 wounded per person killed, because it is pretty hard to kill someone with a gun – even an AR15. The fact that 2 of 3 people shot died indicates – without any other information – that the shooting occurred at extremely close range.
Now if/when a multiple shooting happens at extremely close range, the immediate question is why? If someone is brandishing an AR15 and threatening people – people run away. That’s why even school shooters don’t have a great wounded/kill ratio.
So why did only 3 people get shot – when video shows clearly there were at least a dozen?
All of the secondary evidence makes it very likely that Rittenhouse was, in fact, in close proximity with the 3 shot.
Were the wounds in the front or back, for example? If in front, the likelihood that Rittenhouse was under assault is enormously greater. How many regular people are going to run up to an armed person? Why would they run up to said armed person?
No, your obvious prejudice and ignorance is leading you to accept the MSM narrative as true when it is so clearly not.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:35 utc | 270

Have to agree with Cabe@176 – wtf? Looks like ZH commentary here and we are doomed, demons, angels, all…
Some minor incident in a country of 300 million transfixes the MSM and independent bloggers alike while crimes of the wealthy minority against the people at large continue as usual without pause as Tom Q C noted. wtf?

Posted by: the pessimist | Nov 12 2021 16:35 utc | 271

Everything the stupid ‘the pair’ said is nonsense. The reality was comprehensibly recorded on clear video.

Posted by: blues | Nov 12 2021 16:39 utc | 272

@fnord #205
You said:

Can we agree that if one shows up brandishing a loaded firearm one is looking for violence?

No, we cannot.
A gun can be used to initiate violence, it can also be used for self defense. Saying a “loaded firearm” is idiotic – what exactly is the point of a not loaded firearm?
Self defense is an act in response to imminent threat. The means by which self defense is performed is never the issue unless you’re anti-gun.
Secondly, one of the attackers had a loaded firearm which he pointed at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse opened fire.
Why is it ok then for this guy to have and threaten with a loaded gun, and not expect a response in kind?
Lastly, you keep attempting to defend the attackers. It is abundantly clear they were part of a mob – a mob which had already initiated violence including beatings and arson. These men had run up to Rittenhouse and both threatened and physically assaulted him.
The notion that they are innocent in any way is idiotic.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:40 utc | 273

Rittenhouse went people hunting and he’s getting away with murder because he killed the right type of people – lefty protesters,
Posted by: Nate | Nov 12 2021 15:12 utc | 265
——
He killed a guy who had earlier threatened to rip out his heart if he got him alone and when he got him alone he then attacked him unprovoked, and tried to take his weapon.
This same guy had previously sodomised several male children between the ages of 9 yrs old and eleven yrs old
He killed another guy who attacked him in the head twice with a skateboard. This same guy had previous convictions for violent Domestic Abuse.
He shot a guy in the arm who rushed at him with glock pistol drawn, retreated briefly making a false surrender, causing KR to lower his rifle, and then glock guy immedaitely raised his weapon and moved forward in a threatening manner again. Not until then was he shot.
Glock guy had previous conviction for breaking and entering and had a gun in his possession at the time.
He “hunted” no one and was in fact himself actually hunted by the guy who had earlier threatened to rip out his heart if he got him alone and when he got him alone then attacked KR unprovoked, and tried to take his weapon.

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 16:45 utc | 274

the fact the people shot were allegedly “Leftist” “protestors”/rioter/arsonists has nothing to do with any of the events

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 16:46 utc | 275

@Tom_Q_Collins #208
It is pretty amusing your volte-face regarding government.
On the one hand, you advocate currencies outside of the government, policing outside the government etc etc.
On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge that riots and mobs do occur. Policing is the government way to respond.
How should a private individual respond to a mob that is looting, burning, and beating people? How should a private person respond when assaulted by a mob?
Rittenhouse was illegally possessing a weapon – he should pay the legal misdemeanor penalty for that.
But that is entirely separate from a legitimate self defense against people who had already assaulted him physically, one of whom then pointed a gun at him (loaded, but that’s irrelevant).
He did not go there to confront looters, he was there and was attacked. The why of his being there doesn’t matter in self-defense terms – every person has the right to go where they please, for whatever reasons.
The focusing on his being there is idiotic because he has every right to be there, for whatever reason. He has every right to defend himself if physically assaulted. Was his judgement good? I would say not but Rittenhouse’s judgement is ultimately better than the judgement of the 3 rioters/looters/mob components that assaulted him.
End of story.
This is what lack of government/government implicit endorsement of looting and violence engenders.
This is what the blind condemnation of a sitting President engenders.
Rittenhouse did not create the situation – that can be laid 100% on the mainstream media with their “mostly peaceful” protest announcements, at the Democrat party politicians for giving verbal carte blanche for anyone to commit violence, at the Kenosha authorities for either going along with the Democrat party line or being too chickenshit to preserve law and order.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:49 utc | 276

C1ue “… because it is pretty hard to kill someone with a gun – even an AR15.”
This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen in print.

Posted by: David F | Nov 12 2021 16:49 utc | 277

@the pair #270
Meh.
You focus on Rittenhouse having a gun for self protection while he cleaned up graffiti as bad, but ignore that one of his attackers had a gun in order to join a looting, burning, beating up people mob.
You have zero credibility.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:50 utc | 278

Contra-Conspiraloon@263, there is nothing factually incorrect about any of my comment.
Rittenhouse unlawfully took that firearm to the protest
Posted by: miller | Nov 12 2021 15:58 utc | 267

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 16:54 utc | 279

Posted by: Oldhippie | Nov 12 2021 15:03 utc | 264
most interesting comment in this thread by far

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:00 utc | 280

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen in print.
Posted by: David F | Nov 12 2021 16:49 utc | 278

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:02 utc | 281

When the government refuses to protect life and property what are you supposed to do? Make no mistake, these blm and antifa thugs are not opposition. They are foot soldiers stirred up by the left of the political establishment for their own interests. It seems some here are in love with the dystopian future we are headed to. Maybe everyone should get a gun and stand their ground against the mob?

Posted by: norb | Nov 12 2021 17:07 utc | 282

Posted by: the pair | Nov 12 2021 16:23 utc | 270
It is a mystery to me why some many of the woketards cannot even bother to first inform themselves as to the basic facts of the case in question, before rushing to a computer and making fools of themseleves by posting idiotically ignorant comments on this case.
If you cannot get even the basic facts correct, why the hell would you feel that you are in any way qualified to comment?

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:07 utc | 283

@Oldhippie #264
Your comment might be more meaningful if there weren’t a lot of Rittenhouses in the US starting in the 1700s. Any family that was around since then, if they didn’t die out, has done very well.
Seems far more conspiracy theory than useful fact.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:24 utc | 284

Right wing Americans are so stupid. If that fascist little fuck kid showed up with a tank and blew up three people because a skateboard had been thrown at him, these fascist apologists would still say “self defense!”

Posted by: Prof | Nov 12 2021 17:27 utc | 285

Rittenhouse was illegally possessing a weapon – he should pay the legal misdemeanor penalty for that.
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 16:49 utc | 277
—-
even that is not strictly true.
They have litteraly just finished arguing that point in court right now and the judge has said several times that the law on this issue is extremely unclear, due to 2 exceptions contained in the law, so much so that the judge said it is almost impossible for any ordinary citizen to know exactly what the law actually says on the matter.

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:28 utc | 286

Right wing Americans are so stupid. If that fascist little fuck kid showed up with a tank and blew up three people because a skateboard had been thrown at him, these fascist apologists would still say “self defense!”
Posted by: Prof | Nov 12 2021 17:27 utc | 286

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:31 utc | 287

@Contra-Conspiraloon #287
I dunno about that. I am 100% certain Rittenhouse is not licensed for said weapon and doesn’t own it.
I believe the operative law is:
948.60(2)(a) states: “Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
There are exceptions but they’re for target practice and under the supervision of an adult – neither of which is clearly the case here.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:38 utc | 288

@Oldhippie #264
Your comment might be more meaningful if there weren’t a lot of Rittenhouses in the US starting in the 1700s. Any family that was around since then, if they didn’t die out, has done very well.
Seems far more conspiracy theory than useful fact.
Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:24 utc | 285
—-
The most well known Rittenhouse branch originally established itself in Wisconsin, of all places
KR’s father, from whom he got the surname, comes from Wisconsin

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:41 utc | 289

@Prof #186
Left wingnuts are so stupid.
Condoning public mob violence engenders these types of tragedies.
I have little sympathy for 3 grown men who attempted to bully/beat up a kid openly armed.
They are, at a minimum, guilty of stupidity.
And no, I don’t focus on their past criminal records. American laws do not look at past history on guilt – only on sentencing.
If these 3 are part of the Democrat “coalition of the willing”, I can only wait with anticipation the 2022 election beat-down to come.

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:42 utc | 290

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:38 utc | 289
you may not indeed know about that but I just watched the lawyers and judge argue that very point, and the judge clearly said, several times in fact, that in his opinion the meaning of the law is so badly written an so unclear that the ordinary citizen would most likely never be sure exactly what it means

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:44 utc | 291

Posted by: c1ue | Nov 12 2021 17:38 utc | 289
the discussion in court followed almost exactly the points discussed in this article
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:47 utc | 292

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon— If that fascist little fuck kid showed up with a tank and blew up three people because a skateboard had been thrown at him, these fascist apologists would still say “self defense!”
The IDF do the equivalent all the time.

Posted by: Michael Weddington | Nov 12 2021 17:50 utc | 293

@294
I might agree, in fact i do, but it has no relevance to this case nor any subject discussed in this thread

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:53 utc | 294

BTW
@294
I never posted what you quoted
it was some woketard fool who posted it

Posted by: Contra-Conspiraloon | Nov 12 2021 17:55 utc | 295

Kyle trial is a theater to conceal ALL that’s wrong with America and to divert people’s attention(as usual) from all the real problems they are facing. As usual.
America is best at theater. EVERYTHING in America is a theater: politics, entertainment, economics, even social life. NOTHING is real. Reagan was presented as competent president. Obama was the great hope. Trump was a fighter against the Deep State. Assholes like Bezos who shamelessly exploits his workers is presented as a great businessman, while Musk who can only makes his money from government contracts while all his other businesses are bleeding money is presented as a genius. And so on and so on. Why? Because the Real Reality MUST be concealed as Robert Crumb said. And the Real Reality is that America is a racist country(https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/11/us/suni-lee-racist-attack/index.html) that made its richest exploiting and killing people, has started numerous wars around the world but says its defending something called “democracy”. Make no mistake, America together with Israel will light the world on nuclear fire if it doesn’t get its way.

Posted by: Hoyeru | Nov 12 2021 18:07 utc | 296

It was a shooty but mostly peaceful protest.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 12 2021 18:16 utc | 297

Yes, the law is violated in every minute of daily existence, most certainly. But it doesn’t die away. Not yet. Perhaps not ever. Hopefully not ever.
Posted by: Grieved | Nov 12 2021 6:23 utc | 209
I think the 6th amendment applies here.. the interpretation of Rs venture into danger land (basically his right or duty to be there) and the right of those on the other side who were injured are both up to a jury of the peers (and those peers must be local community peers) of the person charged.. its is the mind of the jury that should decide this case. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense ..
This amendment was written for cases just like this one.. His peers is a question just who are they .. and how should they be determined? The jury system was designed to allow circumstances beyond the capacity of the letter of the law to be judged in the context of the event in which the action charged occured. That is the American system of justice.
As i said in earlier comment the jury is going to excuse the crime because of the context of the circumstances neither the victim nor the perpetrator belonged to be in the place in which the event charged occurred.. and the cops failed to police the area properly, so .. its is up to the jury and no law applies
R is guilty of the crime but excused because of the circumstances.

Posted by: snake | Nov 12 2021 18:19 utc | 298

All of the woke freaks here thirsting for the Rittenhouse kid’s blood should just watch the trial. Few of you have any idea what you are talking about at all. You are just regurgitating the brainwashing that the corporate mass media fed you to get you clutching at your pearls over “white supremacists” and other imaginary boogeymen.

Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 12 2021 18:25 utc | 299

@299 snake
Nice comment. It really is about the law and the nature of trial. Lots of people in this thread worked up over issues that actually don’t pertain here. Your concluding sentence, I would have worded differently, but your point is clear and it’s an excellent one. This is exactly what juries are for.
However, given the level of debate in this thread, I’m quite sure many people will not get your point, and will instead beat themselves silly with the words.

Posted by: Grieved | Nov 12 2021 18:29 utc | 300