A lot of people thought they were actually black.
Posted on 11/11/2021 11:40:15 AM PST by Heartlander
The country was treated yesterday to an unusual spectacle as Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand in his trial for first-degree murder. This maneuver is generally considered a bad idea, or a sign of desperation, but in this instance the defendant seems to be acquitting himself admirably. Rittenhouse, only 18 years old, handled aggressive questioning about a complex incident with remarkable poise and calm, despite breaking down in tears at one point.
Close observers seem to agree that the prosecutor’s case against Rittenhouse is weak and falling apart. Testimony by Rittenhouse’s surviving victim revealed that he had indeed leveled a pistol at Rittenhouse right before he was shot by him, which appears to many strongly to support Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense. Efforts by the prosecution to tie Rittenhouse to alleged extremist ideologies or groups were suppressed by the judge in pre-trial hearings.
The defendant in this case is white, as are all the people he shot in the midst of several days of looting and arson in Kenosha, Wisconsin last August. So it’s weird that the Rittenhouse case has taken on the same racialized overtones that bear on all controversial trials or investigations nowadays. From George Zimmerman to Derrick Chauvin and everyone in between, the narrative of white impunity for the murder of black people stands as the ground before which the story plays out in all its particular details.
The Rittenhouse killings happened in the days after the shooting of a black man by a white police officer, so the specifics of what happened are subsumed by the broader narrative. The people Rittenhouse killed, in the minds of liberal advocates and media figures, are black by proxy, and as such, whatever it was they were doing before they were killed is largely irrelevant. The same way that Jacob Blake’s reaching for a knife, or Mike Brown grabbing for Darren Wilson’s gun, or Trayvon Martin banging George Zimmerman’s head against the ground are beside the point and do nothing to cancel their essential innocence, the fact that Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz were attacking Rittenhouse when they were shot is not pertinent.
The idea that Rittenhouse is a vigilante who set out to commit murder is echoed in the constant insistence that he “crossed state lines” in order to commit violence. It is true that Rittenhouse lives in Illinois, but his town is about a half-mile from the Wisconsin state line. Talking about state boundaries in this case indicates a desire from left media figures and other advocates for federal charges to be brought against Rittenhouse, out of frustration that a state court might stick too closely to the rules of evidence and procedure and acquit him. Federal courts, it is widely understood, are much more likely to charge deplorables who manage to get not guilty verdicts with broadly defined civil rights conspiracies that are impossible to wiggle out of.
The prosecution is doing its level best to imply that Rittenhouse, if not an out-and-out vigilante, was certainly looking for trouble. They have amplified the social media criticism that his actions were meddlesome and that he ought to have minded his own business. He ought to have stayed at home; he ought not to have brought a gun; he ought not to have left the car lot he was supposedly protecting; he should have let fires burn instead of putting them out; he should have let bleeding people bleed; he ought to have called 911 if he was worried about events in the streets; he ought not to have spoken to angry protestors; he should have let people beat him up. It is better, in this line of argument, to be killed than to act in defense of one’s person or community.
That’s why the Rittenhouse trial is provoking so much discussion and controversy at this moment. Many look at him and see someone who, perhaps naively, thought he could protect a community he knew (his father lives in Kenosha) and help people who were suffering. But many others—including his President—see Kyle Rittenhouse as the embodiment of white supremacist violence and entitlement, though there is no evidence that he harbors any racially-inflected views. White supremacy used to mean disliking nonwhites. Now it’s defined by who nonwhites don’t like.
BLM and Antifa are stockpiling their torches for the post-verdict riots.
Soros is busing illegals into urban areas to participate in the chaos.
re: “What’s Really on Trial in the Rittenhouse Case?”
Self defense.
Change my mind.
Whether the state media can fabricate a story and convict someone one it.
A lot of people thought they were actually black.
The 2nd amendment.
The right to bear arms.
Change my mind.
Western civilization.
IMO..thought is that the prosecution knows they have lost. So they have switched to defending the rioters.
The persecution does not rest. Self defense may soon be the default position for everybody. On trial or not, it shall be our last line of defense.
When seconds count, a call to 911 may become an endless exercise in futility, as there shall be no police to respond, given the current assault on historic means of keeping order.
I hope this trial encourages many more people to escape the progressive / propaganda media bubble
The failure of “progressivism” is becoming obvious to some people.
From what I have seen the shootings were self defense and he should be acquitted.
What bothers me here is the failure of parenting which allowed the 17 year old to be in harms way. Why did Rittenhouse’s parents allow a 17 year old to cross state lines with a rifle to a town to become involved in a riot? As a parent I would not allow a minor to leave the house at night with a rifle to go to a city where violence was occurring in the streets. The 17 year old, male or female, would have stayed at home and the gun would have been under lock and key. Why would any parent allow a minor child to become involved in dangerous street violence?
He was young , inexperienced and one would assume untrained but he only fired when he absolutely had to - when he was microseconds away from death himself.
I can easily see why the Left chose to go after him: they want to conduct their criminal actions without the fear of armed folks stopping them. Our Right to Bear Arms got in their way.
I agree. Self defense vis-a-vis owning a firearm.... Right to keep and bear arms....
Bingo.
The 2nd amendment.
The right to bear arms.
Change my mind.
The truth is not eligible for editing.
and all of the rioters were from Kenosha? Doubt it.
You apparently have not been paying much attention to many of the details of the case.
If you go back and try to understand Kyle Rittenhouse and his life and motives, etc., you might have the answers to some of your questions.
I seem to recall that he crossed state lines without a rifle. The rifle was already in state at a friend's or relative's house, where he picked it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.