Criminal Justice

Legally Irrelevant Considerations Cloud the Debate About Kyle Rittenhouse's Acquittal

The jury rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

|

"I stand by what the jury has concluded," President Joe Biden told reporters on Friday after Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all the charges he faced for shooting three people, two fatally, during an August 2020 protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. "The jury system works, and we have to abide by it."

Later that day, by contrast, Biden said the verdict left him "feeling angry and concerned." The president's confusing attempt to straddle anger and acceptance reflected a sharp division of opinion about the outcome of Rittenhouse's trial—a clash that was based mainly on legally irrelevant considerations.

The unrest in Kenosha followed a police shooting that left a black man, Jacob Blake, partially paralyzed. But Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence had nothing to do with whether that use of force was justified or whether the response to it is more accurately described as a riot or as an exercise of First Amendment rights.

Rittenhouse, then 17, said he brought a rifle to the protest because he wanted to defend local businesses from vandals, looters, and arsonists. But his guilt or innocence had nothing to do with whether one views that decision as heroic or reckless.

Rittenhouse's political views and the merits of the gun laws that allowed him to carry that rifle likewise were irrelevant. So was the fact that Rittenhouse—who lived in Antioch, Illinois, 16 miles from Kenosha—"crossed state lines," a detail that critics of the verdict bizarrely emphasized.

What mattered, as far as the law was concerned, was whether Rittenhouse reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary each time he fired his gun. On that crucial issue, the jury heard credible testimony, from prosecution witnesses as well as Rittenhouse himself, that supported his self-defense claims.

Testifying for the prosecution, Ryan Balch described Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the men Rittenhouse killed, as "hyperaggressive and acting out in a violent manner." Another prosecution witness, Richie McGinniss, testified that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and lunged toward him.

"It was very clear to me that [Rosenbaum] was reaching specifically for the weapon," McGinnis said, reinforcing Rittenhouse's claim that he reasonably feared Rosenbaum would grab the rifle and use it to shoot him. Other testimony indicated that Anthony Huber, the second man Rittenhouse killed, had attacked him with a skateboard, striking him in the neck, and tried to take his gun.

Gaige Grosskreutz, who was wounded when Rittenhouse shot him in the arm, also testified for the prosecution. He admitted he had aimed a pistol at Rittenhouse.

The prosecution's task was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, which was impossible given the testimony from its own witnesses. The jurors, who deliberated for more than 25 hours over four days, clearly took their job seriously and ultimately concluded that the state had failed to meet its burden.

The politicians who rushed to condemn the verdict conspicuously ignored the evidence the jury considered. They treated Rittenhouse as a symbol instead of an individual who deserved the protections that criminal defendants are supposed to receive in our system of justice.

Notwithstanding the fact that all three of the men Rittenhouse shot were white, Rep. Cori Bush (D‒Mo.) described the verdict as "white supremacy in action." House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D‒N.Y.), who called the outcome "a miscarriage of justice" and "a dangerous precedent," suggested Rittenhouse should be prosecuted under federal law.

Vice President Kamala Harris was a bit more subtle, saying "today's verdict speaks for itself." The lesson, according to Harris, was that "there's still a lot more work to do" to "make our criminal justice system more equitable."

The most disappointing reaction came from the American Civil Liberties Union, which ordinarily is keen to defend the rights of the accused but in this case complained that Rittenhouse "was not held responsible for his actions." Contrary to that authoritarian sentiment, Biden had it right the first time: The jury system works, or at least it did in this particular case.

© Copyright 2021 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: The Biden Administration Is Asking an Appeals Court to Lift the Order Blocking OSHA's Vaccine Mandate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. money generating way, the best way of 2021 to earns even more than $15,000 every month online. start receiving more than $15k from this easy online job. i joined this 3 months ago and in my first month i made $12749 simply doing work for 2 hrs a day. join this right now by follow instructions mentioned on this web.

        ===>>............ Visit Here

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Goddamnit. Now we have to amend the BLM article. Fuck, thank god we don't buy ink by the barrel.

      1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company VTj now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH

    2. If Trump drops a reliable AR branded as Rittenhouse, it would sell a million units.

      1. I would at least buy the branded lower.

        1. Let's go branded!

    3. To Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz:

      Come on do-o-o-o-o-o-wn. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.

  2. NBC referred to the WI driver terror incident as a "crash". Nice.

    1. Minor traffic incident.

      1. Mostly peaceful.*

        (Scientifically[TM] true. How many people did he NOT hit?)

    2. Official vocab guidelines say we are to refer to these as collisions. Why? Because accident implies there is no one to blame.

    3. Official police report.
      https://www.waukeshacounty.gov/globalassets/circuit-courts/2021cf001848-comp7347101.pdf
      Slowed down and sped up. Aiming at people. Not a "Crash". NBC is the worst, even lower than CNN.

      1. Within 24 hours the internet not only had the driver's identity and race, they had past acts that go to intent and motive... Namely that he was facing charges for running over his baby mama with a car, character evidence like the video he posted talking about his 16 year old baby mama and how she lied when she told police that he forced her into prostitution postings of racial hatred, and direct evidence of racial animus such as his rap songs fantasizing about killing police and white people, including talk of running them over on the street.

        Yet the corporate media was loath to report his basic description (a clip of Anderson Cooper struggling to keep an eyewitness from describing the driver went viral) and still refuses to characterize anything about the event. CNN has pushed it off the main page. Imagine that... A mass killing of 6 that injured 40 and was all caught on video... And corporate media is suddenly restrained.

        Compare and contrast with the Rittenhouse case, where objective lies were reported as fact within minutes, and are still being repeated at fact long after being disproved.

        This should rightly be the death of corporate media, at least as it exists today. When failed comedians have podcasts that do a better job of getting the facts and getting the story right than multinational news organizations with thousands of employees, maybe it is just time to hang it up....

        1. ... When failed comedians have podcasts that do a better job of getting the facts and getting the story right than multinational news organizations with thousands of employees ...

          Their job is to get the story wrong. They are not multinational "news" organizations, but propaganda outlets operating within a traditional corporate structure. The only difference between an outlet like CNN and a raving leafleteer in the subway is the budget.

          1. Objection, the raving leafleteer might be correct. Significantly less likely with CNN.

          2. Ding ding ding!

        2. "When failed comedians have podcasts that do a better job of getting the facts and getting the story right than multinational news organizations with thousands of employees, maybe it is just time to hang it up...."

          This, very much. I watch a lot of comedians' podcasts if nothing else for a palate cleanser from the terribleness that is the news that plays non-stop in the hospital (either Fox or CNN usually). I never look at them and think "I am going to learn something deep" or "I am going to get 100% of the facts here", but I always at least feel like they will call BS on obvious BS, and look at something in an honest way.

          I cannot help but think every single time I see any corporate media coverage that it is blatant propaganda, and they keep proving me correct. I dont know how anyone can watch them and not think that it is full of lies

          1. The political, academic, and media classes are all blasting the rest of us with some of the most blatant gaslighting possible. They KNOW they’re full of shit. They know that most of us know it too. But they March forward with the blatant lies and still try and convince me that stream of piss flowing in my leg is rain.

        3. Can't happen.

          Comcast was taken over and nationalized in 2010 when the Obama FCC had 9 of their employees hired on at the top of Comcast.

          Comcast owns NBC and is a government contractor.

          Comcast is an agency of the federal government and makes more in tax money than it does in subscriber payments as of 2018. The CEO takes his orders from Obama still in 2021.

          Your tax money is funding this and the orders come straight from the feds.

          1. Probably why Obama liberalized the use of .gov propaganda.
            https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5?op=1

        4. I think we’ll look back and say that Rittenhouse was when the media credibility jumped the shark.

          It was really much longer ago, but “credibility” can be sustained by really stupid people. I think even they are starting to get it.

          1. I doubt it.

            It’s not high profile enough. If you stopped the average Joe on the street to ask their opinion of media coverage of the Rittenhouse case, they’re likely to reply, “Ritten-who?”

            1. You have to ask the question properly, and make it quick and easy:

              White-supremacist Kyle Rittenhouse, a good friend of disgraced fascist Donald Trump, rampaged through a peaceful protest and shot three black protestors, who were providing medical assistance to a wounded puppy. True or false.

            2. It’s not high profile enough. If you stopped the average Joe on the street to ask their opinion of media coverage of the Rittenhouse case, they’re likely to reply, “Ritten-who?”

              You seem to be under the impression that most people have their heads up their own asses as far as you do yours.

          2. I think we’ll look back and say that Rittenhouse was when the media credibility jumped the shark.

            {laughs in Sandmann}

            That happened well before the Rittenhouse case.

            1. Yep, the Portland/Seattle riots last year, if not even earlier than that.

              A case could probably be made for them jumping the shark with the 2016 presidential election.

          3. Nope.

            Just had a guy who I thought was semi-reasonable just post a list of all of the Biden “accomplishments”, while taking a page out of the Obama book and blaming all bad things as residual from his predecessor.

          4. If they didn’t jump the shark with Rittenhouse, you would think that the lack of coverage of the Waukesha lunatic is starting to open people’s eyes.

            This shit is getting crazy.

        5. Corporate media has already died, Cyto, as far as anyone sentient listening to or being influenced by it. The zombie, however, keeps shuffling about rattling your door and seeking entrance.

    4. If this was anything resembling a whyte man, we would be seeing 24 hour coverage, white supremacy/domestic terror, media up in arms, Biden visiting immediately.

      But he is a repeat criminal scumbag, black. So its basically crickets from the media, equivocating, moving on to next topic.

      The propaganda and malice of the media is one of the biggest threats to our society.

      1. "But he is a repeat criminal scumbag, black."

        In other words, an oppressed victim of systemic white supremacy and an innocent martyr.

  3. https://twitter.com/EricMMatheny/status/1463316612954660865?t=Ml0qvccLukeQCJhFVzb4lA&s=19

    We are doing criminal justice reform all wrong. You don’t release violent repeat offenders on $500 bond while at the same time putting people in solitary confinement for trespassing.

    1. this is bail reform! The Jan 6 insurrectionists weren't poor! There's a narrative in here somewhere I'll let you know when I find it.

    2. Lest we forget, Kyle's bond was $2M. When he, with help, posted bail and moved to an undisclosed location, the DA tried to (dox him,) have him rearrested and his bail raised another $200K.

      1. I mean, the DA *does* have something of an interest in making sure people on bail don't move to undisclosed locations, for obvious reasons.

        1. It wasn't undisclosed to the prosecution... Just to the general public.

          1. Was, but not necessarily. Released to Federal Custody (WITSEC) is uncommon but not unusual. The implicit condition of the bail is that you show up at trial. If there are other conditions of release, they need to be explicit and, at least nominally, ameliorating of the cash bail. If Kyle was to disclose his location at all times, be monitored, or forbidden from leaving or going into any given area, it should've been stated at the time. Unstated conditions imposed after the fact is unconscionable/cruel and unusual.

        2. No, their only concern is that the suspects show up in court.

          1. Well, that and that they don't victimize anyone else between apprehension and trial

  4. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1463379064148971520?t=d5WZZweEvEGvVesumQG4og&s=19

    There was a Capitol Police officer murdered by a Nation of Islam supporter this year and they don't even talk about it

    1. Somebody slept right through their woke math class:

      Nation of Islam = (Black) + (Muslim);
      Black = Righteous
      Muslim = Virtuous
      Therefore, Nation of Islam = The pinnacle of righteousness and virtue, to the nth power.

      1. I thought Nation of Islam was now right wing?
        It’s all so confusing.

        1. It depends on the story being discussed, and what narrative is being pushed.

          Sometimes it’s required by the narrative to label anything religious as right wing, regardless of the doctrines of that religion.

  5. "His guilt or innocence had nothing to do with whether one views that decision as heroic or reckless."

    Progressives want him found guilty--not because he's guilty of a crime--but because of the message acquitting him sends to racists. It's all about thought control. Progressives want innocent people to be afraid of being thrown in prison for thinking sinful thoughts--whether they're racist, homophobic, sexist, or xenophobic. It isn't the choices you make that matter in their world.

    They wanted Kavanaugh rejected for the same reasons. Progressives don't care whether the people they accuse are guilty or innocent. Progressives don't care whether they're wrong or right. Progressives don't care whether they're rational or irrational. And everyone who contributed to the progressives taking control of the entire government should be ashamed of themselves.

    1. They want innocent people to be afraid of defending themselves against the next violent BLM riot. Seriously.

      1. Correct.
        It's terrorism.
        Terrorism, whether from their disposable street army or of the State variety, is the majority of the left's playbook.

      2. Well, they're openly complaining about Rittenhouse not being convicted--because of the message it sends--regardless of whether he's actually guilty of something.

        On television.

        They don't care whether he committed a crime. They want him convicted anyway. It's just straight up authoritarianism--to make an example out of people.

        They want you to be afraid of expressing any dissent against progressive policy, ideology, or goals--for fear of what they'll do to you. They will throw you in prison if they can--for not conforming to their ideology.

        The pretext necessary for authoritarian rule is already present within the progressive movement, and after the midterms, when mostly moderate Democrats are knocked out of Congress, the progressives will be the only force left in the Democratic party. If and when they achieve power again after that, we're in really deep trouble.

        They don't care about justice. They don't care about individual rights. They don't care whether you're guilty of a crime. If you dare oppose them in public or as a public figure, they want you gone.

        1. They want you to be afraid of opposing violent riots. The actions of the four that assaulted Rittenhouse, the actions of some others there, the words of Biden and the narrative from MSM all point to this.

          1. They progressives are siccing the FBI's counter-terrorism units on parents who oppose their local school boards' progressive curriculum.

            They want you to be afraid of opposing them.

            1. Which should be enough to at least remove Garland from office... And possibly the president.

              Using the office to go after political rivals is supposed to be a big fat red line in this country that you never even think of crossing. There is a lot of blame to go around on this one... But the political left is beyond redemption on this one issue alone. Contrast the attempted impeachment of Trump for the crime of asking about possible corrupt acts by a former US official and potential political rival.

              For the crime of asking about a corrupt act that Biden had basically confessed to, they said Trump was corrupt and had to go.

              Meanwhile.... Biden is on record as VP instructing the FBI to frame Flynn for a crime. That alone should be enough to have out a room full of people in jail, not just out of office. Unfortunately, this FBI targeting of parents at school board meetings is not an anomaly. It is a pattern, and the fact that they have moved as far down the list as local school boards should let you know just how widespread this corruption is.

            2. Maybe “sicced”, past tense, although you have no evidence the FBI was sicced on even one parent before the whole thing was called off.

                1. Dee’s here to defend left wing authoritarianism, and if she has to lie to do it, so be it.

                2. The fascist knew that. He's here to dissemble.

              1. And here comes White Mike, completely devoid of any self awareness, to prove Ken's point.

                1. Dee doesn’t care if the left uses techniques of Chilling Effects against free speech. But she’s not a leftist!

            3. As far as we know, no action resulted, only lots of talk from Teams Blue and Red. So, the whole thing was empty political theater.

              1. This is almost the most obviously partisan you have ever been.

              2. Except for a FBI SWAT team raid on the home of one of the parents on Nov. 16.

                You're just insane, aren't you Mike.

            4. I live in Illinois and the IASB just bailed out of the NSBA. I'm a little surprised but outside of Chicago and a few other areas Illinois is pretty deep red. I'd love to see NSBA belly up over this.

    1. https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1463305955848986633?t=0zrMcUG41mcTD8BHnBQAeA&s=19

      Joe Biden and Kamala Harris travelled to Kenosha to visit the career criminal Jacob Blake and his family in the hospital.

      6 people died including an 8 year old child and over 60 are injured, following the devastating Waukesha Christmas parade.

      Where are they?

      1. 6 people died including an 8 year old child and over 60 are injured, following the devastating Waukesha Christmas parade.

        Where are they?</i

        Cleveland.

      2. Probably the most stark contrast. Domestic abuser / sex offender, fighting the cops and going for a knife? Give him a parade, let riots happen for him, gets to meet the prez and VP.

        Legit horror show of a domestic terror incident, and not a peep from the prez and VP or a visit. This is so fucking disgraceful. We can only focus on an event if it can somehow be framed that a black person was the victim, otherwise, we cant look at it too hard.

        1. Are we getting democracy good and hard yet?

          1. The beatings will continue until your moral improves.

        2. "A mob of Whites damaged a Black man's car in Waukesha..."

          1. well done, i lol'd.

            #fuckme

            1. Yeah, fuck you Joe.

      3. Wasn't the visit to Blake during the campaign, when they were pandering for every voting constituency they could - even though all they needed was the phony mailed-in ballot manufacturers?
        Now, they don't need to virtue signal.

    2. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1463326732057034753?t=nGMqyPZvibNEqenJWxHrhA&s=19

      Biden Admin currently has no plans to send anyone to Waukesha after Christmas massacre, per WH official

      1. I'm happy to say I don't speak from experience, but if something like that had happened in my town I'm pretty sure the very last thing I would want is an appearance by Gibbering Joe or Kacklin' Kamala or one of their obsequious genuflecting toadies.

    3. Might send the wrong message.

  6. Vice President Kamala Harris was a bit more subtle, saying "today's verdict speaks for itself." The lesson, according to Harris, was that "there's still a lot more work to do" to "make our criminal justice system more equitable."

    "Kyle should've been found guilty and Coffee IV shouldn't even have faced charges. What we need is a self-defense decency act to protect poeple's 1A rights and ensure the streets don't become the Wild West. A way to shield Good Samaritans like Coffee IV from being victimized by police and slandered by the media and ensure that his supporter's 1A rights aren't trampled by the legions of trolls like Kyle Rittenhouse. Congress needs to pass a 1A limitation of the 2A. A first amendment of self-defense."

    1. FUCK EQUITY!

      1. I was more speaking to how section 230 violates the 1A from multiple angles, specifically disrespects the judiciary, and can be backwards rationalized or retconned to arrive at both the preferred solution and seeming rationality.

        But, yes, fuck equity.

    2. Common sense self defense control.

  7. https://twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1463242288973422595?t=oxmYMyKLlMWR_UN_B3_MrA&s=19

    ????... That's strange. That quarantine camp looks almost like a prison?

    "@NewGranada1979
    REPORT: Australian couple discovered this facility next to the Brisbane airport. Includes outdoor gym and electrified fence. [Video]"

    1. Crikey!

      This is outright fascism. Unless they find kids in those cages. Then it's Trumpism.

    2. Yeah but they get three squares a day.

  8. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1463341745551417345?t=KLDWVhZj6GrGonLOKI1XXA&s=19

    #Waukesha suspect being freed from jail days before allegedly killing parallels conditions last year that allowed #antifa Michael Reinoehl to kill. He had already been arrested w/illegal pistol at riot, but had charges dropped. He later murdered a Trump supporter at another riot.

    I wrote about the failures of prosecutors in Oregon that allowed a criminal to go free and murder in the name of "anti-fascism." Aaron Danielson's homicide could have been so easily prevented. #antifa

    [Link]

    1. That entire event has been memory holed.

      1. Reason wrote an article lamenting his death.
        The murderer's death that is.

  9. https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/1463360184936456193?t=QB1A6EjdLdZJlAVohrsIMQ&s=19

    Days after explaining Rittenhouse ban and “criminal” policy, GoFundMe allows fundraiser for suspect in parade massacre [link]

    1. This may open up competition. Make a Wish refused to support hunts for terminal children and Hunt if a Lifetime was born.

    2. Well, that is pretty naked.

      But we really aren't surprised, are we??

      Remember when the New York Times refused to cover the Biden laptop story because they have ethical standards that don't allow them to report on stolen information?

      Then 5 minutes later they published Trumps tax returns... And now they pretend to be valiantly fighting the good fight as they publish privileged clients lawyer communication that was stolen for them from Project Heritage by the FBI... (Note that there are no big announcements about investigations or arresting the keakers).

      Soviet era "truth" was less blatant.

      1. FUCK THE NY TIMES!

  10. https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1463247985312256006?t=CW07TuH15cjt7-uZN5oZZg&s=19

    DOOCY: "Would the president ever apologize to Kyle Rittenhouse" for calling him a white supremacist?

    @PressSec: "The president believes in condemning hatred, division, and violence. That's exactly what was done in that video."

    [Video]

    1. The president believes in condemning... division

      So will the President be publicly condemning the divisions that separate convicted child molesters from minors?

    2. Rittenhouse killed two people that assaulted him. Biden’s drone killed innocent humans including children.

      The world sees this.

      1. Yes it does.

  11. Wow.
    KR is a rare breed.

    https://twitter.com/FearTheFloof/status/1463220048886173721?t=sUdNMn9VYz2zclu5uOIrsA&s=19

    BTW this explains why Gaige Grosskreutz suddenly lunged forward with his pistol after briefly putting his hands up. He saw Kyle’s rifle was jammed & thought he had an easy kill. In the video Gaige clearly launches forward in this moment…

    Imagine thinking you’ve got a free kill, you’ll be the hero of Antifa, Commies will cheer across the land, songs will be written about how you killed the fash… only to have a 17 year old kid smash the bolt home & blow your arm off in 0.2sec leaving you to jerk it lefty forever

    [Video]

    1. And they say the forward assist is useless. LOL.

      1. Not useless at all.

        I can't count the number of times, probably more than a half dozen, that I've walked into a gun shop and picked up a rifle or upper, pulled the charging handle to inspect the chamber and let it down only to have to use the charging handle to close the bolt all the way. The forward assist usefully signals, "Do not buy this gun. Buy a gun that works instead." My other semi-automatic weapons don't have a forward assist. If you prefer a forward assist, Savage makes a great straight-pull bolt gun.

        If you find yourself in a situation where your life depends on the forward assist, you've made a poor (but not illegal) decision.

    2. Rittenhouse left Grosskreutz’s arm a lighter than before.

      1. A little "out of joint"

        1. That was heavy handed.

    3. " jerk it lefty forever"

      New motto of the DNC.

      1. Yup. Meanwhile the RNC could not come up with a motto; “Our motto is whatever Trump says it is”, said an RNC spokesperson.

        1. Weren't you just whining the other day when a Republican audience booed Trump for encouraging the vaccine?

          You really need to get your narrative figured out.

  12. Self defense is never a crime.

    1. Get woke!

      In the 21st century, harming white people* is never a crime. Harming black people, even if they are committing violent acts, is always a crime.

      *white people can hold temporary POC status, if engaged in approved anti-racist activities

  13. Excellent Article.

  14. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1463304169511481348?t=FvOMD2Kea2iPOn2zvcy87w&s=19

    Best Buy sent out a notice offering their employees counseling services after the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict [link]

    1. The Week Squad

      1. Weak

    2. Until we live in a country Where people who make these decision are summarily dismissed, the decline shall continue.

      There was a time when this level of stupid was reserved for school system administrators who expelled 6 year old kids for pointing n their fingers like guns or chewing a pop-tart into the shape of a gun.

      Now it is everyone, everywhere, all the time.

  15. "Rittenhouse, then 17, said he brought a rifle to the protest because he wanted to defend local businesses from vandals, looters, and arsonists."

    When did he say that?

    1. I am pretty sure he said he was there to help people and protect businesses, and had a rifle to protect himself. And he is on video saying it before the shootings.

      1. Witnesses on the stands to establish that they asked for protection. Whether he actually said those exact words or not, it's a valid inference of a defense asserted.

        1. No, it's not a valid inference. The article says "Rittenhouse [] said", and if he didn't say that, the article shouldn't claim he did.

          We have a video interview from shortly before the shooting where Rittenhouse explains why he brought his gun: for self-defense, with no mention of defending property. One should cite a very specific quote before saying that Rittenhouse either said or implied some other reason.

  16. All you people talking as if Kyle Rittenhouse were a hero - you realize that Kyle Rittenhouse was directly responsible for the innocent dead in Waukesha, right? (If MSNBC and CNN and numerous "civil rights" groups haven't already said as much, they're missing a step.)

    1. Who was innocent? The serial child rapist? The domestic abuser? Jump kick felon? Lefty with the long rap sheet including felony charges, who was just let off the hook for felony DUI so he could testify that he only got shot when he was pointing his illegally carried pistol at Rittenhouse's head?

      1. Those guys you mention were in Kenosha, not Waukesha.

        (My spell checker wants to change "Waukesha" to "Milwaukee". I find that hilarious for some reason.)

        1. (My spell checker wants to change "Waukesha" to "Milwaukee". I find that hilarious for some reason.)

          It knows roughly where Waukesha is but is pretty sure that because normally nothing ever happens there, you mean Milwaukee.

      2. Welcome to post-parody America. Where you can say that the media should be reporting indirect actions as direct actions and the ACLU should be defending such assertions in abrogation of civil rights protections and everyone takes you seriously.

        1. I keep on waiting for Allen Funt to pop out and tell the planet we've all been on Candid Camera for the last ten years.

    2. You misspelled "indirectly"

      The man who chose to drive his vehicle into a crowd as an act of retribution is directly responsible. And people like you cheering it on have more responsibility in the situation than Rittenhouse does.

      1. You should watch more CNN and MSNBC so you can understand causality.

        Sarah Palin directly caused Laughner to shoot Gabby Gifford s (not his person obsession)

        Donald Trump directly caused 5 people to die in the worst political violence since the civil war by saying "fight like hell".

        Joe Biden is the innocent victim of circumstance for killing people in Afghanistan. And taking bribes from foreign countries via his kids. And encouraging illegal immigration only to Then put kids in cages. and for enacting policies designed to raise energy prices only to be surprised by rising energy prices... And...

        1. You have provided examples of the woke concept of "responsibility". I think the fundamental rule says something about how rich, white, males are the cause of all bad things. Others will be judged on their current intersectionality score.

          1. Strange that people who routinely dismiss the views of "old, white men" never seem to apply this principle to Karl Marx. Or Herbert Marcuse. Or Adorno, or Foucault, or Derrida... or Corbyn, or Sanders, or Joe Biden.

        2. It's the return of "society made me do it".

  17. So was the fact that Rittenhouse—who lived in Antioch, Illinois, 16 miles from Kenosha—"crossed state lines," a detail that critics of the verdict bizarrely emphasized.

    What are you talking about? It's perfectly natural that our progressive #Resistance allies repeatedly pointed out that he crossed state lines.

    #StateLinesAreSacred
    #(NationalBordersNotSoMuch)

    1. His home was not 16 miles from the state line. More like 2.

      I wonder, do any of these critics ever venture 2 miles from their home?

      1. Not since COVID paranoia, and desired government lockdowns.

      2. Most traffic accidents occur within five miles of home. Much safer to order in.

  18. This past weekend I crossed state lines. In fact I went into...Washington D.C.! Without permission or anything!

    Progressives...quick, to the fainting couches!

    1. I work in Washington. Cross state lines twice per day!

    2. This past weekend I crossed state lines a state line. In fact I went into...Washington D.C.!

      FIFY 😉

      1. Well, that was a fail.

  19. > he brought a rifle to the protest because he wanted to defend local businesses from vandals, looters, and arsonists

    In the videos I've seen where Rittenhouse specifically talks about the rifle he says part of his job was to protect local businesses, but he also said he knew he was going into a dangerous situation and he brought the rifle to protect HIMSELF.

    1. Yeah... But he only self-servingly said that *before* any shootings occurred. And then self-servingly repeated it afterwards.

      So who can blame a writer for missing that obscure detail?

    2. part of his job was to protect local businesses

      Hired by whom? Who hired him to be the security guard for the town of Kenosha?

      1. Did he need to hired? He volunteered, you know that libertarian concept.

        1. Well, why did he believe it was his "job" to protect local businesses?

          1. Probably for Justice or some shit.

            Do you ask who’s paying people to protest?

            1. Jeff is just looking for the proper chain of command. You know, authoritarianism.

              1. Or, you know, the owner of the car lot he was protecting actually having asked him to be there.

                1. You mean like fire departments do before responding to a house fire when nobody is home?

                  1. Depends if there's assault fire extinguishers present, because White Mike is super down on them.

          2. Lefties that pretend to be libertarians continue to assert that people need permission to protect their communities. And the follow up? They get to determine what others consider their community too.

      2. So, you're saying that all this time that I've been forking off child processes on various servers and sending them off to handle various tasks and jobs, all the cron jobs I've created, I had to hire them first?

        Wait a minute... I don't think you know what the word 'job' means.

        1. No, I don't think the original poster used the word 'job' correctly. Perhaps what he was insinuating was closer to the concept of 'duty'. And if that is the case, then why did Rittenhouse feel it was his 'duty' to protect these businesses?

          1. Thanks for opening your mouth and confirming my suspicions.

          2. You should probably ask him.

            I hear there’s an interview you can watch,

            Go find out and get back to us with your answer and what that means, really.

          3. Why is it your “duty” to ask stupid questions?

            1. Because he’s a dishonest lefty that’s been sent here to troll.

          4. why did Rittenhouse feel it was his 'duty' to protect these businesses?

            The same reason people feel a duty to protest other injustices. This isn't hard except to people who have been trained to not understand.

            1. Since "injustice" is strongly biased, then so is "duty".

              And most fun to watch when partisan duties conflict.

      3. Ho hired antifa?

  20. Bari Weiss:

    A note on Kenosha in light of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Until quite recently, the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy. Burnings allowed for the expression of righteous rage, and the businesses all had insurance to rebuild.

    When I was at the New York Times, I went to Kenosha to see about this, and it turned out to be not true. The part of Kenosha that people burned in the riots was the poor, multi-racial commercial district, full of small, underinsured cell phone shops and car lots. It was very sad to see and to hear from people who had suffered. Beyond the financial loss, small storefronts are quite meaningful to their owners and communities, which continuously baffles the Zoom-class.

    Something odd happened with that story after I filed it. It didn’t run. It sat and sat.

    Now it could be that the piece was just bad. I’ve sent in bad ones before, and I’ll do it again. A few weeks after I filed, an editor told me: The Times wouldn’t be able to run my Kenosha insurance debacle piece until after the 2020 election, so sorry.

    There were a variety of reasons given—space, timing, tweaks here or there.

    Eventually the election passed. Biden was in the White House. And my Kenosha story ran. Whatever the reason for holding the piece, covering the suffering after the riots was not a priority. The reality that brought Kyle Rittenhouse into the streets was one we reporters were meant to ignore. The old man who tried to put out a blaze at a Kenosha store had his jaw broken. The top editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer had to resign in June 2020 amid staff outcry for publishing a piece with the headline, “Buildings Matter, Too.”

    If you lived in those neighborhoods on fire, you were not supposed to get an extinguisher. The proper response — the only acceptable response — was to see the brick and mortar torn down, to watch the fires burn and to say: thank you.

    1. the mainstream liberal argument was that burning down businesses for racial justice was both good and healthy.

      Who actually said that? I see lots of people claiming that "the left" is explicitly pro-riot, but I don't see anyone making the explicit claim that "yes you should burn down buildings for the cause of racial justice". I have no doubt that there are some radical left-wing anarchists who actually do believe this, but they would probably only fill a coffee shop in Portland. Not "the left" broadly speaking. But hey if I'm wrong, feel free to point out all of those NY Times editorials where the writers said "go burn down buildings for the cause of racial justice".

      1. It's weird to watch someone develop autism in real time. Have you been vaccinated recently?

        1. So point to all of those NY Times articles that said "go burn down buildings for the cause of racial justice".

          1. Look at this shit and laugh at the progressive absurdity: https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/gttqo3/how_do_i_explain_to_my_mom_that_the_riots_are_good/

            “ how do i explain to my mom that the riots are good?
            she believes:

            -destroying cop cars is bad because people have to pay for them in taxes

            -destroying buildings is bad because it’s violent

            -violence doesn’t solve anything (?????)

            -actively fighting police is bad because they have families

            -people should kneel and the street and be peaceful

            -graffiti is pointless”

            The earnest replies…

            These people are ridiculous and horrible.

            1. So when you all say "the left is pro-riot and pro-looting", what you really mean by "the left" is "kids posting on a reddit forum devoted to anarchy". Got it.

              1. And the people who run local government in Dem cities. More nobodies I guess.

            2. -violence doesn’t solve anything (?????)

              ^Exceptional question marks exceptionally funny.

            1. You don't have to answer Jeff. I am sure your response will be, "Well, they didn't explicitly advocate for rioting and looting. They were only trying to explain it."

              Lol.

            2. Nowhere in your article does the author advocate for burning down property in the name of racial justice. The author is also criticizing media obsession on the looting rather than on major racial justice issues that he/she thinks are important.

              "I can understand why they are looting" is not the same as "go loot in the name of racial justice".
              "I don't agree with the media focus on looting" is not the same as "go loot in the name of racial justice".

              As is typical, the idea that the left, broadly, and in the mainstream, is "pro-riot" and "pro-looting" is just another right-wing caricature, substituting the most extreme elements to represent the whole, and purposeful misreading of good-faith arguments in order to arrive at a bad-faith conclusion.

              1. I said you didn't have to answer. I could see that coming from a mile away.

                1. It is the correct answer because your response does not answer my question. You have yet to find some mainstream left-wing publication expressly advocating to burn down property in the name of racial justice. You are instead pointing to articles and purposefully miscontruing them to make them seem more sinister than they really are.

                  1. I really need to mute you. Your tortured logic makes me nauseous.

                    1. The only logic that is "tortured" around here is the simplistic black/white thinking that's going on.

                      Anything other than complete condemnation of riots is equivalent to actively supporting riots.

                      If a writer says "I can understand why they may be rioting", that is supposedly equivalent to "I purposefully want you to go out and riot".

                      All the while with a big heaping dash of bad-faith characterization of the most extreme left-wing elements as being representative of the whole. Gee, I think that's a logical fallacy. I wonder if Ken will be on the scene to point that out?

                    2. It's only "simplistic" because you are mad about it.

                      You asked for a cite on a statement given by a former NYT employee about New York Times statements.
                      You were given a cite that demonstrated the claim but you moved the goalposts slightly and lied about the implications.

                      It's really time for you to fuck off permanently, you dishonest fascist.

                2. I could see that coming from a mile away.

                  20 min. is a pretty slow mile time. Unless you're crippled.

      2. I’ve watched the media flip out on Kyle Rittenhouse, which is completely different from how they treat BLM riots, which is completely different from how they react to Jan 6.

        Has anyone been charged with anything for organizing the riots that burned cities and cost billions in damage?

        Do they even care?

        1. I think lots of people are hypocrites when it comes to protesting in general. They will try to excuse protests that favor their own causes and try to cast dark aspersions on protests that do not. I don't think anyone denies that.

          But I have yet to see a *mainstream* point of view presented that the BLM protests were right and justified *even including the riots and destruction* and to encourage people to "burn down buildings in the name of racial justice". I think that is frankly just a caricature of what the mainstream position actually is.

          Again I am sure there are radicals in Portland coffeehouses who really do think that burning down buildings in the name of racial justice is an affirmative good. But that is far from being a mainstream opinion of "the left".

          So again, where are those NY Times articles advocating for burning down buildings in the name of racial justice?

          1. Google “riots are good” and look at the first link.

            1. Okay, this is what I found. Is this what you are referring to?

              https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting

              It's an interview with a book author who writes in defense of looting. Oh wow, here it is! What I've been asking for! A mainstream writer in favor of looting!

              And now let's look at how NPR chose to frame this interview. The book is "controversial". It is juxtaposed with statements from Democratic politicians all condemning riots and looting. And it's a book author, not the position of NPR.

              So at worst, NPR is both-sidesing the question of whether looting is good or bad. Okay, fair enough. I think that is the closest you will find among mainstream opinion to the idea of endorsing looting. Labeling it "controversial" and both-sidesing it as an edgy idea.

              Not exactly the whole "go riot and loot in the name of racial justice" that I asked for, which I am told repeatedly is the common, mainstream, ordinary, everyday opinion of the modern Left.

              So I give the attempt 2/10.

              1. Dude, it is an entire meme. Take a look at Como on CNN saying where is it written that protests have to be peaceful.

              2. Your quibbling is tedious.

                I’m not really talking to you. I’m talking to everyone else.

                I know you’ll insist that the media is just as against BLM riots as they are people crossing state lines.

          2. It's revealing he demands articles openly claiming it. But he ignores actions including a bail fund for rioters, Dem governments refusing to stop rioting before the election but figuring it out and stopping them immediately after the election, and local prosecutors dropping charges against rioters. I'm sure there were other events as well proving Dems support. The fact that they weren't willing to admit it publicly is hardly surprising, which is exactly why dishonest left wingers claim that can be the only true proof.

            1. a bail fund for rioters

              I understand there were many bail funds for the Jan. 6 rioters. Based on your argument, are we now to conclude that "the right", broadly, and in the mainstream, are "pro-riot" and "pro-looting" when it comes to the US Capitol? Or, would that be an unfair extrapolation based on limited evidence?

              There was also a bail fund for Kyle Rittenhouse. Based on your argument, are we now to conclude that "the right", broadly, and in the mainstream, are "pro-vigilantism"?

              1. I understand there were many bail funds for the Jan. 6 rioters.

                Maybe there were, the right tends to copy the left so it's always amusing to watch people like yourself hyperventilate over what the left has already done.

                But what the right did was known beforehand which means we already knew the overwhelming majority of arrests were for trespassing. Hopefully such funds only used their funds for these people who are being targeted for political reasons. By comparison during the BLM riots only rioters were arrested (because local governments worked to ensure police were vastly outnumbered and therefore ineffective) for such acts as throwing Molotov cocktails.

                Separately I do think those who contribute to such funds support whoever the bail is targeted to. But there is no contest to how much money was raised. The BLM riot fund generated millions in donations.

                Further this ignores that our institutions actively supported riots by by continually hamstringing police even after we knew it would result in riots.

                Based on your argument, are we now to conclude that "the right", broadly, and in the mainstream, are "pro-riot" and "pro-looting" when it comes to the US Capitol?

                Why do you pretend this is not exactly what the left claims? That's why your defense of Team Blue is both obvious and offensive, and also why your inane protestations of neutrality are so comical.

                There was also a bail fund for Kyle Rittenhouse. Based on your argument, are we now to conclude that "the right", broadly, and in the mainstream, are "pro-vigilantism"?

                They support self-defense surely. Vigilantism is what you and the left support with your support of Huber and Grosskreutz.

      3. "Who actually said that? "

        I feel like this doesn't justify a response. So I am going to have to just LOL.

        You know what you're doing. When someone dumps a mountain of evidence on you you'll either move on to the next thread or not respond

        1. I have no doubt you can find some radical somewhere advocating for deliberately burning down buildings in the name of racial justice. But my contention is that this is not a *mainstream* position.

          You know what you're doing. When someone dumps a mountain of evidence on you you'll either move on to the next thread or not respond

          This is just another way of saying "I don't have the evidence so I will just try to bluff my way into persuading people that I'm right". If you had the evidence you would most assuredly present it out of a desire to "pwn" me, right?

          1. Jeff, almost by definition the radical, revolutionary left endorses the "burn it all down" mentality. Some actually do it; the others may publicly tsk-tsk, but wish they could, too.

            1. You are right that the radical, revolutionary left takes a, well, radical and revolutionary approach. I am talking about mainstream viewpoints, though.

              1. Like MYOB, and don't destroy other people's stuff?

                1. That would be the general idea, yes.

                  1. [MYOB, and don't destroy other people's stuff] would be the general idea, yes.

                    He pretends to support this but has no criticism for those who don't follow it. When people don't follow their stated beliefs the best conclusion is that they believe something else.

                    1. I don’t call him Lying Jeffy as a term of endearment.

          2. Nah, I already "pwnd" you about 20 times burying you in multiple pieces of CRT evidence you swore didnt exist and weren't happening. But you and ol Mikey play the same game.

            - Claim thing is not happening
            - ask for "cite"
            - run away to the next thread after being "pwnd" over and over
            - move the goal posts next day/week (sure its happening but its not REALLY crt...etc)

            Your game is old and tired. And everyone knows you do it

      4. feel free to point out all of those NY Times editorials where the writers said "go burn down buildings for the cause of racial justice".

        It's interesting to note how left wingers change their standards based on whether they are protecting allies or attacking enemies. When determining whether their enemies are racist no explicit statements are necessary. Not only are their beliefs inferred from their actions or comments, but ludicrous inferences denying even far more likely interpretations suffice to support their conclusion.

        But when protecting an ally only explicit statements count.

        This is how you identify Team Blue pretending to be libertarian.

        1. True.

          Rittenhouse is really a racist even though he says he supports BLM.

          The media don’t support rioting because they never say so.

        2. Where did I call Kyle Rittenhouse a racist? I'll wait for you to find the quotation. You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

          And I am asking you to hold "the left" to the standard that you would want yourself to be held to.

          1. You’re such a radical individualist, chemjeff.

          2. Where did I call Kyle Rittenhouse a racist?

            Where did I say you called Kyle Rittenhouse a racist? I'll wait for a quote.

            Meanwhile the President of the United States - according to the left the right-most Democrat in the country, a conservative really - called him a white supremacist along with thousands of others. There's an entire movement calling anyone who disagrees with them on any subject racist, and this movement controls effectively all our institutions. Yet somehow no evidence is ever enough.

            And I am asking you to hold "the left" to the standard that you would want yourself to be held to

            What you should be doing is holding them to the standard they apply to others. Your choice results in them being held to a lesser standard with your full support. No one is stupid enough to think this is by happenstance, this is how Team Blue plays defense. .

            1. What you should be doing is holding them to the standard they apply to others.

              How about this instead: Hold everyone to the same high standard. Gee, how radical is that?

              1. How about this instead: Hold everyone to the same high standard. Gee, how radical is that?

                It doesn't seem hard. So now explain why you have literally never done this.

          3. We hold the left to their own stated and demonstrated standards.

        3. ^^^ exactly this

          When its a team R member, it is fine to assume white supremacy, racism and bigotry with literally 0 evidence. What was it Trump had denounced it like 20 times and the MSM still was on the "he hasnt explicitly denounced!!!". Kyle was slandered as a white supremacist racist. 0 evidence.

          When its a member of the dems or the MSM, its "where did they say, in writing and all caps, this explicit sentence!?...if they didnt spell it out and sign their name its not happening!"

          1. So you are applying the unfair standard used on your team, to the other team. Is that your position?

            1. Just accepting that it sure is a bitch when your poor standards come back on you. Its not my fault you have poor standards, maybe if you didnt the discourse could happen at a higher level.

              But things wont move forward with you applying shitty tactics on the other side while the other side turns the other cheek. Sometimes you have to punch the bully in the face

              1. I'll take that as your tacit admission that you don't actually think that it is the mainstream, ordinary viewpoint on The Left that one should riot and loot in the name of racial justice. That is just an edgy online position that you take in order to maintain your appearance as a member of the "correct" tribe.

                1. It is the mainstream viewpoint, and you deserve a reckoning of biblical severity.

            2. Holding you to your standard demonstrates your hypocrisy and dishonesty. It says nothing about what we think the standard should be.

        4. ""It's interesting to note how left wingers change their standards based on whether they are protecting allies or attacking enemies.""

          Yep.

      5. Hey look! It’s Lefty Jeffy defending the left again!

      6. Left wing anarchist is an oxymoron.
        Left = collectivism
        There are always rulers in a collective

      7. The silence on the left was DEAFENING.
        Until it looked like the rioting was harming them in the polls.
        Only then did we see muted condemnation of the concept, while never specifically indicating activities by Bai-dung voters as being, even mildly, wrong.
        "Justified" was the big go-to description and the "mainstream", as was done by the messiah, 0blama, in Ferguson, used "understandable".
        A lot can be said through inference, with the plausible deniability you are using to claim "the left doesn't support rioting, arson and looting".
        Honest, honorable people know what they are saying, and that never includes leftist.

      8. Please cite examples where NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC vigorously condemn the burning / destruction of private property related to BLM riots.
        If it's an article that spends 90% of the focus on how systematically racist the US is, and then casually mentions that maybe burning down neighborhoods isn't awesome, that's not a condemnation. That's' just standard CYA procedure on the part of MSM so they can keep up the charade.

  21. Oh good Lord. So much hyperventilating in the comments. "Progressives want you to be afraid to resist their agenda!" Sure, if they were cartoon villains and you were sufficiently paranoid, that's exactly what's going on. Or, hey, maybe a more reasonable take, is that MOST PEOPLE, not just progressives, want people who own guns to use them with prudence and restraint. They DON'T want a land full of armed Karens who take it upon themselves to do what THEY think to be the "right thing" and be self-styled vigilantes. One of the arguments against anarchism and in favor of having a government monopoly on the use of legal violence is precisely because of reasons like this. If everyone took it upon themselves to serve as their own judge and jury when it came to matters of life and death of OTHER PEOPLE, there could be no semblance of justice. Only vengeance and retribution, or in the case of Rittenhouse, a kid who wants to play the role of hero and ended up getting in way over his head.

    What Rittenhouse did was legal, but not wise.

    1. Oh fuck that. If progressives don’t want vigilante Justice, and they don’t want the police to stop riots, then they want law and order for everyone but their own rioters.

      “Stand down, police!” Is probably the most anti-gun control policy you could enact.

      They can prove me wrong anytime by noticing what they’re actually doing and stop.

      I don’t care what justification for that you want to twist yourself into like a pretzel, there comes a point where you have to look at their choices and realize these people have no business running anything.

      1. If progressives don’t want vigilante Justice,

        Progressives do want vigilante justice, that's why they support Huber and Grosskreutz. Unfortunately for them these two showed why vigilantism is a problem: because they often get things wrong but their self-righteousness means they'll never question their conclusions.

        1. It's the justice part they have a problem with, and they don't even hide it.
          They do not want justice, they want to oppress.

  22. "They DON'T want a land full of armed Karens who take it upon themselves to do what THEY think to be the "right thing" and be self-styled vigilantes."

    Dont know if you are aware of what a Karen is, but its pretty much the opposite of a Kyle.

    And your team (team blue) wanted this. You pushed everyone too far, you wanted the police to stand down, you wanted to allow riots and arsen. Armed citizens dont want that. What happens as a result is absolutely at your (and your allies) feet. Own it

    1. Kyle did not like what he saw and decided he would "call the manager" to make things right. Although in his case, he decided to pick up a gun instead. It's the same impulse. He sees something wrong happening and he decides to do something about it, even if it means interfering with other people's lives. He's trying to be a savior.

      And this isn't 2015 anymore, the whole "the libs made me do it!" schtick just doesn't resonate quite the same. Is Kyle Rittenhouse responsible for his own actions, or isn't he? Regardless of whatever Team Blue did or did not affirmatively want, or what the protestors did or did not affirmatively want, Rittenhouse made his own decisions about what he would do.

      1. Not to have to explain the internet zeitgeist to you, but a Karen usually has the qualities of a nosy, weak, nagging, busybody who puts her nose in others business. Karens, by their nature, are weaklings who would never be able to fend off a mob attack.

        What happened was Kyle was assaulted by 3 karens, and he reminded them that they are (were) in fact, the Karens in this situation. Karens dont back up their talk.

        Kyle was defending his neighborhood from assault by a bunch of rioting criminals. If anything, this will serve as a wonderful reminder to far left white liberals of their place in the food chain. And that is on the bottom. They are bottom feeding, nagging, self righteous pricks that can only hope to win a fight by mob violence. Let it be a lesson to them, for the next time they decide to fuck with someone with a set.

        1. busybody who puts her nose in others business

          Which describes Kyle to a tee.

          I am not surprised you are unable to look beyond the masculinization/feminization of the term and see how the impulse is the same for Kyle. Even if Kyle was a muscled bodybuilder (which he isn't, btw), he's still a Karen in this situation.

          1. Ya, you missed the point on that one junior.

            The dichotomy was clearly the strong and capable vs the weak and nagging. They could have all been girls and Kylita would have still been the Kyle and Antonia Huber, Josephina Rosenbaum, and Georgina Grosskreutz would still be the Karens. Karens dont back up their talk, they get put in their place. Try and keep up.

            Your gender-studies approved deflection scores a 1/5 "zirs"

            1. You are focused on the "strong" vs. "weak" thing. I am focused on the essential characteristic: a Karen is someone who buts into a situation where the person isn't wanted and doesn't belong, and pretends to know what is THE correct choice of action at that moment. It isn't about being strong vs. weak. It isn't about being a man or a woman. It isn't about being a "nag". It is about being an unwanted busybody. A Karen can absolutely be "strong and capable".

              1. a Karen is someone who buts into a situation where the person isn't wanted and doesn't belong, and pretends to know what is THE correct choice of action at that moment.

                Yeah, you don't get it. A Karen is someone who demands that other people accept their viewpoint as the correct viewpoint despite all evidence that it is not correct. Full stop.

                Scrubbing graffiti and putting out fires is not the action of a Karen. Screaming and attacking a person who they fear will interfere with them pushing a flaming dumpster into a gas station is the action of a Karen.

                You don't get to make up your own definition of a well established idiom to suit your argument.

          2. Karens are criticized for enforcing nitpicky rules. So it's revealing that he thinks burning down someone's business is such a minor issue we should let it go.

            1. Karens are criticized for enforcing nitpicky rules.

              See my response above. Karens are typically criticized for demanding enforcement of rules that don't logically apply in the situation at hand and escalating when their demand is not met.

              A good example would be a store with a policy to take all manufacturer's coupons and Karen demanding to see a manager when told by the cashier that they can't accept expired coupons. She would then demand that the store accept her expired coupons because the policy says 'all', even though the store would be unable to recover the discounted amount from the manufacturer, which is the stated intent of the coupon. An unreasonable demand that Karen has no power to enforce other than through her sheer obstinance.

              It is characterized by a complete unwillingness to see a situation from anybody else's perspective.

              If you are using it to mean 'nitpicky', you are doing it an injustice.

              1. Hmm, do coupons apply during looting? Steal one, get one free?

      2. "Kyle did not like what he saw and decided he would "call the manager" to make things right. Although in his case, he decided to pick up a gun instead."

        Wow.
        This is hilarious.

  23. The good news is that public opposition to Black Lives Matter continues to grow, and has surpassed public support for the group of racist, marxist and violent revolutionaries.
    https://civiqs.com/results/black_lives_matter?annotations=true&uncertainty=true&zoomIn=true

    Unfortunately, most Americans under 50, most women and the vast majority of Democrats still support BLM.

    After Rittenhouse's acquittal and BLM terrorist Darrell Brooks' murder of six whites and his attempted murder of dozens in Waukesha, support for BLM will continue to decline.

    1. I'm surprised the bigots at MSNBC are not pushing the "privilege" line as in "the dead were privileged to be run over by Darryl who was aspiring to be a rapper/MD/Physicist and was very kind to his multiple children from six wonderful women.

  24. You do not debate facts.
    Men are men.
    Women are women.
    Science.

    1. There you go again with your white-supremacist screed. You probably killed at least 10 vulnerable POCs just by typing that.

    2. Chairs are chairs. Cats are cats.

      Why do we even need science, when everything's so obvious?

      1. We definitely don't need (or embrace) science when it contradicts some delusional progressive justice feelings.

        1. If you think science has any position on justice, or cultural gender norms, you need to go back to science class.

          1. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-health-protests-301534
            "In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.”
            - Jennifer Nuzzo, Johns Hopkins epidemiologist

  25. "Rittenhouse, then 17, said he brought a rifle to the protest because he wanted to defend local businesses from vandals, looters, and arsonists."

    Really? When? On the stand, he said he brought a rifle because the prior day someone was attacked while putting out fires. I believe his primary goal was to put out fires and render first aid. If his main goal was to protect property, he would have stayed on the roof.

  26. The jury rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case.

    The jury didn't say 'the prosecution failed to prove it's case'.

    The jury said Not Guilty

    Learn it. Understand it. And hold tight to that understanding and maybe you might catch sight of liberty once more.

  27. The unrest in Kenosha followed a police shooting that left a black man, Jacob Blake, partially paralyzed.

    What better way to criticize obfuscation of the facts of the case with legally irrelevant considerations than by starting your piece pointing out an illegally irrelevant consideration.

    1. Dude, don't you even justice?

  28. Once again it has been proven the only thing to stop a violent criminal is a good guy with a gun. The AR-15 could tame the streets and eliminate the riots, looting, arson and destruction of small businesses if used to defend against the criminals involved. If more good men would turn out and take charge when the government fails to do their job. All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

  29. BIDEN’S LATEST POSITION ON WAUKESHA: “I have no comment as I haven’t sniffed her yet.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.