Why was this such a huge deal? For US Citizens, the right to defend yourself was on trial. Thank God, JUSTICE, common sense and decency won over hyperbole, lies, and authoritarianism.
I literally thought the people he shot were black until this trial started up a few weeks ago. News organizations still go out of their way to point out the race of Jacob Blake and not the people Kyle shot.
I think their real goal is to get re-elected. If they have to gas up the natives to make sure they the outsiders still get elected, what do they care? Its not like Nancy Pelosi lives in Watts.
It's also swept under the rug that Blake was taking the children without the custodial parents permission. Any divorced Father knows that taking the children without the custodial parents permission is kidnapping.
Or to put another way, they are violent criminals so they can win the approval and adoration of the Democrat party, who protects them against the police.
And Jacob Blake assaulted his girlfriend and violated the restraining order she had against him by going to her house. That's what started the whole mess. "He shouldn't have been there."
Agreed. And now the (stupid, horrific, race-baiting) tweets are coming in - De Blasio, Coumo... they're pandering, and I just hope to God, that African Americans don't buy into this crap.
African Americans are not buying it as much as they used to, and that is why the Democrats are in a panic. You can tell they are in a panic because of the extremes to which they are going to cast this as a racial event.
Bro its easy $ for the media because both the right wingers defending Kyle are engaged, and the left wingers who think everyone is racist are engaged. Also the DNC allies get re-elected on this crap.
The left doesn't give a shit about any of their constituents. If they did, they would have had meaningful progress in every urban center in America that they have controlled for 60+ years.
Its a huge deal because yet again the DNC's white leaders can use it to justify minorities continuing to elect them despite their repeated statements that all white people are racist. But its only conservatives, they swear.
Not only that, but this was a rebuttal to mob justice, and to the MSM that has lost its purpose in finding the truth and holding those in power in check. Now, the MSM serves the side of the corrupt and the powerful and crushes the powerless. We need new organizations to defend civil liberties. It will take time to restore justice and liberty for all in America, but this verdict was a small step in that direction.
The fact that a trial like this got so politicized is the real issue. The facts made this a clear self-defense case. This case never should have made it to trial, and the prosecutors engaged in conduct that is certainly unethical, and possibly something that will result in them being summoned before the state bar to explain themselves.
The rule of law matters. Even when the person it protects made some questionable-but-perfectly-legal decisions.
Under reported fact that Rosembaum was released from a mental institution in Milwaukee that same day. Mr. Rosenbaum was convicted of raping several young boys.
Justice will not be completely served until and unless the people that rushed to judgement and those that politicized the event to accuse this young man of being guilty of racial hate-backed murder... are punished for what they have done.
I assume that trial attorneys are lining up for a barrage of civil suits. CNN, MSNBC and Joe Biden should be the first defendants.
What I find disgusting is MSNBC even more then CNN, but also some left wing sites as well, creating a pretrial environment which pronounced him guilty as charged and using misinformation to do it. They repeatedly stated he crossed state lines for no other reason then to enter the fray, and he had no business being there. They never acknowledged it was a mile from his home and many relatives including a grandmother and dad lived there. He also had worked as a life guard that August in Kenosha. Over and over these news outlets prove to be nothing more then propaganda machines to make money and operate with no sense of morality . They're disgusting when you think their propaganda has hurt so many, assisted in pushing our illegal wars, assisted in removing an elected president, and have repeatedly undermined our democracy.
Kind of like Russiagate, eh? The MSM is now not a free press, but rather a mouthpiece for the mega-corporations that own the media. Thank Bill Clinton for that one - 1996 Telecommunications Act. When will the so-called Left learn that neoliberalism is anything but progressive, liberal or left? The right was tricked with family values and the Bible to support the neo-Cons and the left was tricked by Identity Politics to support the neo-Liberals. Both were the same beast dressed in different costumes. At least those tricked by the neo-Cons are starting to see the light of the deceit, while those tricked by the neo-Liberals are showing themselves to be enemies of humanity and freedom - the very thing that the Left is supposed to represent. The modern "left" is fascist, not socialist, communist or progressive. Time to get our terms right.
It's maddening isn't it? But I think the problem is that many who WERE the left, after Trump was elected, abandoned their left values and went totally NEO-liberal and no longer are left, liberal or progressive even if they still try to call themselves this. I'm talking about people who previously would have supported HRC or Biden became their biggest shills after Trump. I agree completely that these people are NOT the left!
I always defined myself as a liberal, and still do. However what passes as liberal today seems quite the opposite since one is not allowed to fall out of line with their defined sense of right and wrong. There is no middle ground, everything is black or white, no shades of grey, and they do come across as very authoritarian.
Fran, "what passes as liberal today" IS NOT liberal" and you (and the rest of us) should just STOP accepting that somehow it is. IT'S NOT! So, please start standing up for your beliefs and calling it what it is - NEO-LIBERALISM, which is absolutely not what Liberal even is, much less the even further views of "left".
When I say I am a liberal I am not defining myself by today's standards where one has to adhere to the dogmatic principals set forth by others. Let them change their description and call themselves a bunch of dogmatic authoritarian monkeys where they demand a monkey see, monkey do mentality where one simply imitates another's actions, and beliefs in a mindless, automatic way.
Of course, Fran; I think we shouldn't give them the satisfaction of erasing us, coopting OUR labels and corrupting them to make us seem like asshats. We need to keep telling them, at every reasonable opportunity to do so, that they ARE NOT LEFT when they do these things. At the very least, make them THINK about it...
I agree with all you've said. I am encouraged, though, that it didnt work. When both sides have competent counsel juries do a pretty good job of cutting through the bull and reaching a just result under the law. In this case the defense had competent counsel, even though they made a mistake or two. The state had competent, though unethical, counsel. By having 12 jurors who live in that county decide the case, all the outside left media bull was cut through. Especially in a murder case most jurors feel the weight of their responsibility, both to the community and to the defendant. Juries are one of the key factors in maintaining our democratic republic.
True!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a bit scary on how they are going to handle the outcome of this trial because they are always looking to stir up more friction, more violence. I don't remember this growing up since news outlets were more objective and saw themselves as purveyors of truth which served the public interest. Now the news, corporately owned, seems more interested in sowing division which is a money making operation, and maybe they are complicit in a government that now uses that division to gain greater power.
War makes money for the big wigs...they don't care how many of the common folks get hurt or die. Biden scares the be-jeezus out of me because he has been frothing for war, be it a civil war or a world war at least since 2008. Right now, he is moving us into the same situation that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis back in '62. Sick man and TRAITOR to the Constitution of the USA. Traitor to the human race, in fact. Of course he is only a figurehead, but he consented to sign his soul to the devil to betray everything the United States is supposed to stand for.
"Biden scares the be-jeezus out of me because he has been frothing for war" - I don't think it's Biden per se, he just happens to be at the helm at the moment. Whoever it is they don't decide. The whole situation slides towards that. Like a century ago. No single president whoever it is can do anything about it.
I'm at a loss to see how people miss this. But it wouldn't be the first time.
I have looked at it that way too, especially during the Trump years. I was always a registered democrat although not loyal, since sometimes I didn't vote, or voted for a third party candidate. I thought their treatment of Trump was sowing the kind of division you reference, the northern elite verses those "dummies" down south. I saw it expressed on Facebook by second cousins who referred to Trump's base as an uneducated lot and amoral. An extreme and extremely prejudicial statement for so called liberals to make. Think of Texas who is now in the process of setting up it's own wall and calling on the national guard to protect their borders. That's quite a division between state and the goals of the US government.
agreed but one would hope that he will retain a good lawyer, perhaps the one who worked with the Covington students, to extract some hefty settlements from these media corporations. It won't teach them a lesson but it will at least pay for his college and his private security that he and his family are going to need thanks to the hysteria they whipped up.
Had a conversation earlier in the week with a former law partner—an otherwise bright and decent guy—where I mentioned some of the prosecutorial missteps and evidentiary issues in the case. He looked aghast and sneered, “what are you rooting for Kyle Rittenhouse now?!?”
ROOTING?!?! Who is actually “rooting” and picking a side in a situation where two men are dead, one severely injured, dozens of small business owners wiped out who will never afford to rebuild, on top of an 18yo kid (even if a seriously-misguided one) who’s probably now completely PTSD from killing two people and being on trial for his life AND marked for life as a homicidal, white-supremacist nutjob. No winners, only tragedy, in this fact pattern, so, really, what is there to root for?
Worst of all, the competing takeaways among large segments of our population will be (x) that it’s a not a terrible idea to go around in public heavily armed in case called upon to use lethal force in defense of property (mindless the fact that provable self-defense against death/serious bodily injury was the ONLY reason Kyle walked today) or (y) that everything in our entire system is so irredeemably racist and broken that the rule of law is no longer required.
For the diminishing cohort of those of us who actually think (rather than just letting emotions do the work), the real positive upshot of today’s verdict is that, against all odds, the criminal justice system worked--strictly on the specific set of facts and circumstances presented in this particular case—nothing broader than that.
There no longer is any hope for America's justice system. The prosecution intentionally withheld the name of Maurice Freeland and didn't call Joshua Zaminski as a witness. The Biden Justice Department will probably still go after Kyle, Bill DeBlasio, and Andrew Cuomo will continue to incite mob violence. The best that can happen after this clusterf$@ck would be that Kyle Rittenhouse ends up like Nick Sandmann, a traumatized millionaire.
It certainly looks dire (and I may be naive), but what's the alternative to staying on top of things and working to hold people to account, giving up entirely?
All left-wing commentary on this case - from the start - has made it a proxy for politics in general. The idea of treating it as a one-off - an individual case to be judged on its individual merits - is right-wing.
Good morning, Art. I suspect that most of us do not understand what the term "neo-liberal" means. Whatever it means, it is not mutually exclusive of the more familiar word "leftist". CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc., etc., as everyone knows, have become platforms for the Democrat Party. Whatever is presented as "news" on those networks (and, of course, in the NY Times) represents the opinions of the Democrat (i.e., the Big Government Leftist/Socialist) Party.
"it is not mutually exclusive of the more familiar word "leftist"."
AH, but it _is!_
The Democratic Party ceased being "left" during Carter's term and this was proven by Bill Clinton's first term - even before he was inaugurated, his choices for cabinet spelled out he is a Republican who likes blue and the letter D.
As for those media outlets, they're just tools of the ultra-rich and do what they're told.
As for understanding neo-liberalism, I recommend starting here; this article has a lot of material in it and ONE topic it covers is the rise of neo-liberalism:
You have certainly provided a lengthy essay with a surfeit of words; but is any of it more necessary than Ze and Zir?
Forgive me for saying so; but isn't "classical liberalism" simply open-mindedness and the willingness to consider new concepts and solutions?
I was always taught that socialism denigrated the needs of the individual in favor of the desires of the majority in a given society and that fascism was a totalitarian concept whereby the government colluded with industry and the media to control the masses.
"Left" always meant the desire for Big Government and control of the masses - thereby encompassing aspects of both fascism and socialism. Using that traditional compass, the current administration is very much "left".
"Right", in my mind referred to those thinkers who believed in a smaller, less controlling government.
I see no need to dispose of these traditional terms that actually have meaning for most people. As I imagine it, social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation would be examples of neo-liberal policies; but I fail to see how any of these Programs can be seen as anything but "leftist".
As society has changed, as worker protection became more affordable, I recognize the need for these neo-liberal (?) programs. I even accept that universal health care, while not a constitutional requirement, should be a part of any modern government policy. Yet none of these social-protecting Programs need be fascist (or as I would say DNC) policies.
I believe there are many conservatives like myself who conceded that social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation benefits are beneficial. That being said, I believe the US government has become a badly-tuned version of fascism, with the media controlled by the Leftists and corporations bending to the demands of our arising totalitarian government.
Why is there any need to discuss neo-liberalism and how does it impact modern society any more than libertarianism?
"isn't "classical liberalism" simply open-mindedness and the willingness to consider new concepts and solutions?"
Surely that's what I was taught as a child, but then I got an education and learned that its history begins during "the Enlightenment." In short, merchants began using their power, based on long-distance trade, to convince the Church and the Aristocracy / Royalty to make way for them to exploit the population for their own wealth, and thus liberalism was born as neither right nor left, not a part of the Royalty or Church, not part of the general population, either.
"I was always taught that socialism denigrated the needs of the individual in favor of the desires of the majority in a given society"
That sounds like someone against or afraid of socialism would say. What socialism is really about is the opposite of denigration. It would be fair to say that socialism's aim is to "be a good Christian," here meaning to actually follow the teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels, such as housing the homeless, shoding the shoeless, feeding the hungry. But it recognizes that, just like when in a commercial jet airliner how if the oxygen masks appear, you're to put your own on first before trying to assist others since, and here's the key point, you can't help others if you can't help yourself. The idea here is that the wealthiest can afford "a few crumbs" to help ensure we don't have people dying in our streets for want of basic resources. And, we as a whole are stronger for it.
"...and [was taught] that fascism was a totalitarian concept whereby the government colluded with industry and the media to control the masses."
Yeah, that's pretty much it; the WWII generation (the ones who birthed the Boomers) would have told you it's the merger of state and business power, however achieved.
Here, though, you deviate considerably from the traditional definition of left:
"'Left' always meant the desire for Big Government and control of the masses - thereby encompassing aspects of both fascism and socialism."
That's what the ultra-rich want you to believe - the propagandized definition. The original definition, from inception through to FDR's day, was that The Left is literally The People. So to be for the left is to be for the people - and that's the definition I use because it's the only definition that helps make sense of our world since the propagandized definition loops back on itself in a crazy, tangled way. AND, accepting the propagandized definition wipes out the genuine left as there's nothing remaining in the vocabulary to describe the group who really cares about The People. In addition, the propagandized definition also has the effect of redefining the right.
Remember, the Right is the establishment - government, the church, oligarchy / aristocracy / "elite," etc. At least it always has since inception of the term. And it's this association with the church, always a part of government in "the west" since the Roman Empire went "Christian", is what attracted what are now self-described "conservatives", even though the leaders of the right are pretty much the natural enemies of The People and therefore the conservative laity. And this is why many on the right are so damned angry that they put so much effort into the right only to not have any of their goals met. Well, I'd tell 'em, better re-evaluate who you're in bed with!
"'Right', in my mind referred to those thinkers who believed in a smaller, less controlling government."
Well, that's partially correct in that it's an aspect of many on the right, but it's hardly definitional. ... The ultra-rich want you to hate government and "too much government" because government is the only thing that can constrain their rapacious desires, and they don't want to be constrained, even when they're screwing up the lives of everyone around their operations. ...For example, we can thank government for giving us clean air and clean water which the industry the capitalists control are dead-set on polluting their proverbial assess off, cancers and other harms be damned - THEY don't live near these processes, so who GAF? Certainly they don't!
If they can get The People to destroy their only too to constrain the ultra-rich, the ultra-rich win a huge victory they cannot win on their own. So, the "small government" people are being rather short-sighted. ...Rather than worrying about the "size" of government, I think we should be focused on the <u>effectiveness</u> of it.
"I see no need to dispose of these traditional terms that actually have meaning for most people."
Trouble is, like the proverbial frog in a pot of water on the stove, the slow but gradual transition of these terms from their original meanings to something else is hard for many to notice and you'll be a cooked frog before you know what's happening.
And now, by the way, the neo-liberals have come in the last 25 years or so and screwed the whole place up but good, trashing the definitions even further with hard right-wingers like Hillary Clinton claiming to not only left but progressive?! LAUGHABLE. She may not be YOUR version of "right", but she's solidly in the camp that supports the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else.
"As I imagine it, social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation would be examples of neo-liberal policies"
No, those are traditional left policies, not neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism didn't even exist when those programs were enacted. And, those policies are there to help protect The People from the rapaciousness of raw capitalism.
"As society has changed, as worker protection became more affordable, I recognize the need for these neo-liberal (?) programs. I even accept that universal health care, while not a constitutional requirement, should be a part of any modern government policy. Yet none of these social-protecting Programs need be fascist (or as I would say DNC) policies."
Indeed, here we agree - except for the "neo-liberal" bit, of course. Yes, these are left, pro-The-People policies and I'm glad you support them.
As for the DNC, they're just another part of the right-wing establishment that pretends to be left. The media - and even Glenn, VERY unfortunately - falls for that crap. It's just another tool the ultra-rich use to manipulate all of us, just like they use the Republican Party, too - two arms of one pro-fascistic party.
"I believe there are many conservatives like myself who conceded that social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation benefits are beneficial."
Thanks for that, we agree.
"I believe the US government has become a badly-tuned version of fascism, with the media controlled by the Leftists and corporations bending to the demands of our arising totalitarian government."
Again, this is pretty much spot on except for one error; they're not leftists. But otherwise, that's correct. Again, they're neo-liberals. But whatever you call them, they DO NOT represent any interests of The People, what the genuine left is all about. And yep, it's as fascistic as hell.
By now, I think I've addressed the first part of this pretty well:
"Why is there any need to discuss neo-liberalism and how does it impact modern society any more than libertarianism?"
As for libertarianism, well, that's whole 'nother dialogue!
I wish I had noticed this earlier, Charles as you ask some reasonable questions and put forward your reasoning and it deserves a better response than I have time for at this moment. ... I'm saving a copy of this so I can respond to it properly. In a couple of minutes, I've got to head out, and most likely won't be back until "coffee hour" tomorrow AM.
The only black person involved in this very sorry affair was "jump-kick man" a/k/a, Maurice Freeman....who is black. Everyone else involved is WHITE!
Mr. Freeland joined others and chased down Rittenhouse. Once Rittenhouse was on the ground, Freeman kicked Rittenhouse in the back of the head. Freeman then turned and again came at Rittenhouse trying to kick or punch Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse was on the ground. When Rittenhouse saw Freeman coming at him, Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Freeman in self-defense. Freeman saw Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Freeman and Freeman immediately backed off.
As a result, Rittenhouse did NOT FIRE at Freeman.
But, if Rittenhouse is such a 'white supremacist' protraited in the media, why didn't Rittenhouse immediately BLOW FREEMAN away????
The reason it is seen as a black or white issue is that had Rittenhouse done what he did with black skin he probably would have been shot dead on the spot, a fate that even completely innocent and unarmed black people face.
This is not what the narrative was for over a year. It was that Rittenhouse is a racist white supremacist. There is vitriolic hatred for this young man on the left. The fact that blacks may be treated different in the criminal justice system doesn't provide any reason to hate this kid.
That's fair, but you can also acknowledge that in the context of mass protests and riots around police killing black people, when armed white person decides to deputize himself to join in suppress ing a protest/riot and gets away with repeatedly using deadly force in entirely avoidable situations, it is systemic racism that is protecting him. He took sides with the police during protests against racist police killings, and for that he was protected.
Actually, if he was black he would have been released without bond so that he could go on to beat up his black girlfriend and kill some more black kids.
"He took sides with the police during protests against racist police killings, and for that he was protected."
This statement bears absolutely no relationship to the reality of what occurred. Those he shot were not protesting. They were rioting and committing arson. All three of those shot had violent criminal records, and acted violently against Rittenhouse. Had they not done so they would be alive and unmaimed today. He did not shoot anyone who did not attack him first.
Rittenhouse was not taking sides with the police. The evidence was he was there to help protect a small business - Car Source - from further destruction by arsonists. He was also there to render first aid to any who needed it. Your comments reflect the woke MSM narrative, which is not based upon the facts. Clearly you do not know the facts as they came into evidence.
I understand the facts. What I Iack is the emotional identification and investment with far-right vigilante murders, killing human beings to protect private property. I don't think that any of those crimes carries a death sentence, and certainly each one pales against the seriousness of double homicide.
It is strange that you can't understand that an active shooter, after having killed one person, is going to be seen as a threat to those around him and people will try to disarm him to save lives. If trying to disarm an active shooter is grounds to legitimate murder this will be a boon to mass shooters everywhere.
Your continued rendition exposes the fact that you do not know the facts. You are just spouting the woke left party line. He wasnt a vigilante killing people to protect property. PERIOD. That's simply bullshit. He also was not an active shooter. I know I don't get through to you so I'll end it there. But if you really want to know the facts go back and watch the testimony or read summaries of it.
Look at what you typed, Ian. You said that if Rittenhouse had had black skin and had defended himself against a black mob, he would have been shot dead on the spot. Who would have shot him? The police were two blocks away when he was repeatedly assaulted.
Look at what the Democrats need to do to make this a race issue: They need to create a narrative that doesn't actually exist ("If Rittenhouse had been black....), and then claim it's a racist narrative and somehow blame White people for their concocted racist narrative that doesn't exist.
The cops killed some crooks that were breaking the law and resisting arrest. That is what cops do, and thank them for it. Maybe not being a crook and not resisting arrest might be a way to avoid being killed by the police. I think that goes for everyone, no matter what their race.
I want to find common cause with the dems, but damn they make it impossible. The hatred, the contempt, the utter denial of the destruction wrought in the name of social justice, the lack of belief in the American system of government... There just isn't anything there anymore.
The flag burning, the kneeling at the National Anthem, they accuse this country of systemic racism, they rage at those who carry a flag or express love of this country. They support anything that increases chaos and they express disdain for anything that defends against chaos.
Expressing that your country has substantial problems that need to be addressed is a PATRIOTIC thing; my country right or wrong is ANTI-Patriotic because it shows no concern for the country itself.
That may be true, but the premise of the "substantial problem" must be true, otherwise you're just a crook/fool/tool, which is the case with bla/antifa/systemic racism.
...Says someone who _obviously_ is white and therefore doesn't experience systemic racism and who is either cloistered or clueless enough to not see that they have white privilege, etc.
Remember, "riots are the voices of the unheard." (And while that's not always true, King's point was spot on.)
Expressing that your country has problems can be done peacefully and without disrespecting the country. The Woman's suffrage movement is a good example, as was Martin Luther King's non-violence movement. But watching millionaire washed up football players and rich Hollywood morons disrespect the country just tells me that they are full of hate. When you Democrats need to manufacture problems, it means that problems don't really exist.
"Expressing that your country has problems can be done peacefully and without disrespecting the country."
Yes, like kneeling instead of standing with your hand over your heart for the playing of the national anthem, but look how that worked out for a particular football player!
It worked out fine. He had his protest, and now everyone with any sense thinks he is a nut. That's what happens when you protest a country people are literally dying to get into.
Yes. The Democrats said 911 was America's own fault. Barak Obama's own religious leader said so, as did many other Democrat professors and politicians.
The confused reaction of those who disagree with the verdict may be the most informative aspect of this entire exercise. Those people are clearly either lying, tribal before American, and/or completely addled by drugs and/or MSM.
Tribal before American. They hate this country and the people that created it. They believe it racist, evil, and "unfair". They want to watch it burn to the ground so it can be recreated in their image.
A personal victory for Kyle, and thank God that he was exonerated. But in a way, it's a defeat for several traditional principles:
1. Innocence until proven guilty. There was massive unfair and deceitful coverage by people who had a political agenda. They would happily see an innocent man tossed to the wolves.
2. Self-defense. It was blisteringly and devastatingly clear that Rittenhouse acted strictly in self-defense, full stop. He fled his attackers, tripped, and was physically assaulted with dangerous weapons, and only then did he resort to deadly force in self-defense. Yet, he was tried for murder.
3. Right to bear arms. AR-15, the most common rifle in America since the early 1900s, is no more an assault weapon than a kitchen knife. Yet, it is labeled as such by a manipulative, sensationalist press seeking to whip the public into a frenzy for more page views. Millions of ignorant Americans including my own wife, despite my best efforts to educate her, believe the AR-15 is a military assault weapon that should not be in civilian hands. They further believe that NO CIVILIAN SHOULD EVER CARRY A GUN FOR ANY REASON. This is a clear failure of our educational system.
4. Right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers etc. etc. The jury and judge were intimidated by outside forces -- Antifa thugs, most likely. Their pictures were taken and at least one juror reported threats. The judge and his family were also threatened. So yes, it was a victory in the sense that the outcome was fair despite the threats. But the fact that there were threats, indeed the fact that the boy was even on trial in the first place, and that the jury took so long to arrive at the simple obvious conclusion, is highly disturbing and bodes ill for future such situations.
The lessons one can derive from this mockery of justice, despite its happy ending, is that either (1) you are better off not defending yourself or (2) you must indeed use deadly force, make sure your attacker is dead, and make sure you are not identified. Out west, they call it the Three S's: shoot, shovel, shut-up. I suspect the latter practice will become more common.
Bernie Goetz, the subway shooter in 1984, turned himself in and subsequently spend time in prison for defending himself from four attackers. Had he not turned himself in, had he not believed in the fairness of the U.S. criminal justice system, he would have remained free. He was forced into prison by a malicious prosecution that had decided citizens must be punished for using deadly force to fight off muggers. Random New Yorkers agreed: "We can't just have someone going around shooting people," said one woman on camera. Meanwhile, New Yorkers fled and are still fleeing the city to escape the lawless elements rather than fight back as Goetz did.
Somewhere along the way, Americans lost their will to fight, and have become the kind of weak, spineless fools that Theodore Roosevelt spoke about in his 1910 speech in Paris: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
We are, today, a nation of cold and timid souls. The few heroes among us are torn down and destroyed. I pray that enough people will wake up before it is too late.
People upset at this jury verdict are obviously okay with Kyle Rittenhouse becoming another Reginald Oliver Denny. Because it is clear that it would have happened had he not defended himself.
People satisfied with this jury verdict want everyone... even those upset with the verdict... to never become another Reginald Oliver Denny.
Yes, the innocent man who was pulled from his truck and savagely beaten, during the Rodney King riots. Then the mother of one of the main perps declared to national cameras that her son was a good boy.
Had Kyle Rittenhouse been found guilty and thus martyred on the alter of Progressive political ideology (i.e. anything including burning down communities and killing children and innocent bystanders is permissible, providing BLM or any other Progressive icon is being supported), it would have been at a terrible long term political cost to the Left, but it also would have been a terrible injustice.
Rittenhouse was innocent. The three adult thugs who chased him down had previously been convicted of a variety of child molestation, and/or battery and other illegal behaviors. The entire prosecution/persecution was a travesty. I only hope there is sufficient proof of libel and/or slander so that Rittenhouse can successfully sue various media outlets and individuals. I hope Kyle Rittenhouse gets awarded millions and millions of dollars.
"... had previously been convicted of a variety of ..."
They were and remain _victims,_ and victim blaming is just vile. It doesn't matter WHAT they did in the past, it's what happened in their interactions with Kyle that mattered here, and we have reason to believe the trial was reasonably just. Can't you just let it stand at that? And as for their victimhood, well, can you really say Kyle wasn't there to be a vigilante? No, of course not! So, they ARE victims, as well as whatever else. Trying to bring up their past history to try and justify things is just vile.
There was no evidence presented that he was a vigilante, racist, white supremacist, militia member, active shooter or anything other than a kid trying to help his community. It was all media lies. He wasn't aggressive towards anyone until he was chased down by them.
The defense lawyer who stated that he was glad Kyle shot Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was a "bad man". How disgusting is that? He even referred to his mental illness. And victimizing the others, no excuse for that.
Dude was charged with raping 5 kids and pled out to two of them. And had an outstanding charge for domestic abuse. I don't what counts as "bad" in your book but that's not exactly borderline.
Actually, yes, I do on a consistent basis. Do you? My NIMBY neighborhood? That is funny. You have no idea where I live, how little money I make, what do I to make that money, or anything else about me. But your comments, all of them, speak volumes about who you are as a person. Can't you stick to the subject at hand without making it personal and making assumptions about someone you know nothing about?
I think this means that we don't need to watch helplessly as the violent mob takes over the streets and loots and burns with the approval of the Democrat party. We can defend ourselves. And if enough people do, the mob will slink away as the cowards that they are.
Before Biden was elected he referenced Rittenhouse as a white supremacist. I guess he was ill informed as to the race of those that died. Today, after his colonoscopy he said the justice system works, but then said, he was angry and concerned at the verdict like many others. No wonder that during his colonoscopy they found his head up his ass.
Why was this such a huge deal? For US Citizens, the right to defend yourself was on trial. Thank God, JUSTICE, common sense and decency won over hyperbole, lies, and authoritarianism.
Because somehow a white kid shooting white men during a riot is proof of systemic racism. You literally couldn't make this shit up.
I literally thought the people he shot were black until this trial started up a few weeks ago. News organizations still go out of their way to point out the race of Jacob Blake and not the people Kyle shot.
And I doubt they cover the fact that Jacob Blake himself admitted that he was armed at the time police shot him.
Why are almost all the heroes of BLM violent criminals?
The left loves perversion and crime. Their goal is to destroy our society and culture.
I think their real goal is to get re-elected. If they have to gas up the natives to make sure they the outsiders still get elected, what do they care? Its not like Nancy Pelosi lives in Watts.
It's also swept under the rug that Blake was taking the children without the custodial parents permission. Any divorced Father knows that taking the children without the custodial parents permission is kidnapping.
Especially with a knife.
Why else would the Democrats approve of them?
Or to put another way, they are violent criminals so they can win the approval and adoration of the Democrat party, who protects them against the police.
And Jacob Blake assaulted his girlfriend and violated the restraining order she had against him by going to her house. That's what started the whole mess. "He shouldn't have been there."
Which the DOJ investigation confirmed.
Not sure why I have literally stuck in my head at the moment...
That is literally how they mocked it up.
Agreed. And now the (stupid, horrific, race-baiting) tweets are coming in - De Blasio, Coumo... they're pandering, and I just hope to God, that African Americans don't buy into this crap.
African Americans are not buying it as much as they used to, and that is why the Democrats are in a panic. You can tell they are in a panic because of the extremes to which they are going to cast this as a racial event.
Bro its easy $ for the media because both the right wingers defending Kyle are engaged, and the left wingers who think everyone is racist are engaged. Also the DNC allies get re-elected on this crap.
The left doesn't give a shit about any of their constituents. If they did, they would have had meaningful progress in every urban center in America that they have controlled for 60+ years.
Its a huge deal because yet again the DNC's white leaders can use it to justify minorities continuing to elect them despite their repeated statements that all white people are racist. But its only conservatives, they swear.
Not only that, but this was a rebuttal to mob justice, and to the MSM that has lost its purpose in finding the truth and holding those in power in check. Now, the MSM serves the side of the corrupt and the powerful and crushes the powerless. We need new organizations to defend civil liberties. It will take time to restore justice and liberty for all in America, but this verdict was a small step in that direction.
Finally some good news. Courageous jurors in Kenosha.
The fact that a trial like this got so politicized is the real issue. The facts made this a clear self-defense case. This case never should have made it to trial, and the prosecutors engaged in conduct that is certainly unethical, and possibly something that will result in them being summoned before the state bar to explain themselves.
The rule of law matters. Even when the person it protects made some questionable-but-perfectly-legal decisions.
Everyone who was there that night made questionable decisions. it looked to me that the "victims" might have had death wishes, especially Rosenbaum.
Under reported fact that Rosembaum was released from a mental institution in Milwaukee that same day. Mr. Rosenbaum was convicted of raping several young boys.
Justice will not be completely served until and unless the people that rushed to judgement and those that politicized the event to accuse this young man of being guilty of racial hate-backed murder... are punished for what they have done.
I assume that trial attorneys are lining up for a barrage of civil suits. CNN, MSNBC and Joe Biden should be the first defendants.
What I find disgusting is MSNBC even more then CNN, but also some left wing sites as well, creating a pretrial environment which pronounced him guilty as charged and using misinformation to do it. They repeatedly stated he crossed state lines for no other reason then to enter the fray, and he had no business being there. They never acknowledged it was a mile from his home and many relatives including a grandmother and dad lived there. He also had worked as a life guard that August in Kenosha. Over and over these news outlets prove to be nothing more then propaganda machines to make money and operate with no sense of morality . They're disgusting when you think their propaganda has hurt so many, assisted in pushing our illegal wars, assisted in removing an elected president, and have repeatedly undermined our democracy.
Neo-liberals NOT the left.
says the asshat who is mostly focused on my comments - safely ignored entirely.
Kind of like Russiagate, eh? The MSM is now not a free press, but rather a mouthpiece for the mega-corporations that own the media. Thank Bill Clinton for that one - 1996 Telecommunications Act. When will the so-called Left learn that neoliberalism is anything but progressive, liberal or left? The right was tricked with family values and the Bible to support the neo-Cons and the left was tricked by Identity Politics to support the neo-Liberals. Both were the same beast dressed in different costumes. At least those tricked by the neo-Cons are starting to see the light of the deceit, while those tricked by the neo-Liberals are showing themselves to be enemies of humanity and freedom - the very thing that the Left is supposed to represent. The modern "left" is fascist, not socialist, communist or progressive. Time to get our terms right.
again, NEO-liberals, NOT the left. GAWD you peeps are brainwashed on this.
If you’re not anti left, you’re left. 🤣
It's maddening isn't it? But I think the problem is that many who WERE the left, after Trump was elected, abandoned their left values and went totally NEO-liberal and no longer are left, liberal or progressive even if they still try to call themselves this. I'm talking about people who previously would have supported HRC or Biden became their biggest shills after Trump. I agree completely that these people are NOT the left!
Thanks.
I support your entire comment but especially this:
"many who WERE the left, after Trump was elected, abandoned their left values and went totally NEO-liberal and no longer are left"
ABSOLUTELY!
I always defined myself as a liberal, and still do. However what passes as liberal today seems quite the opposite since one is not allowed to fall out of line with their defined sense of right and wrong. There is no middle ground, everything is black or white, no shades of grey, and they do come across as very authoritarian.
Fran, "what passes as liberal today" IS NOT liberal" and you (and the rest of us) should just STOP accepting that somehow it is. IT'S NOT! So, please start standing up for your beliefs and calling it what it is - NEO-LIBERALISM, which is absolutely not what Liberal even is, much less the even further views of "left".
When I say I am a liberal I am not defining myself by today's standards where one has to adhere to the dogmatic principals set forth by others. Let them change their description and call themselves a bunch of dogmatic authoritarian monkeys where they demand a monkey see, monkey do mentality where one simply imitates another's actions, and beliefs in a mindless, automatic way.
Of course, Fran; I think we shouldn't give them the satisfaction of erasing us, coopting OUR labels and corrupting them to make us seem like asshats. We need to keep telling them, at every reasonable opportunity to do so, that they ARE NOT LEFT when they do these things. At the very least, make them THINK about it...
I agree with all you've said. I am encouraged, though, that it didnt work. When both sides have competent counsel juries do a pretty good job of cutting through the bull and reaching a just result under the law. In this case the defense had competent counsel, even though they made a mistake or two. The state had competent, though unethical, counsel. By having 12 jurors who live in that county decide the case, all the outside left media bull was cut through. Especially in a murder case most jurors feel the weight of their responsibility, both to the community and to the defendant. Juries are one of the key factors in maintaining our democratic republic.
They are disgusting. They are our enemy
Than. The word is than, not then. Apologies for the pedantry but you did that three times in one short post! Agree with the sentiment, though!
You're right. I have to more careful about that. Thanks.
True!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a bit scary on how they are going to handle the outcome of this trial because they are always looking to stir up more friction, more violence. I don't remember this growing up since news outlets were more objective and saw themselves as purveyors of truth which served the public interest. Now the news, corporately owned, seems more interested in sowing division which is a money making operation, and maybe they are complicit in a government that now uses that division to gain greater power.
Which organizations are funded by, or have ties to, the CCCP??
War makes money for the big wigs...they don't care how many of the common folks get hurt or die. Biden scares the be-jeezus out of me because he has been frothing for war, be it a civil war or a world war at least since 2008. Right now, he is moving us into the same situation that caused the Cuban Missile Crisis back in '62. Sick man and TRAITOR to the Constitution of the USA. Traitor to the human race, in fact. Of course he is only a figurehead, but he consented to sign his soul to the devil to betray everything the United States is supposed to stand for.
Tell me REPUBLICAN BUSH did any differently - EITHER of the two Bushes. (You can't, so please stop this tribalism; they BOTH are dangerous.)
Demented, moronic, evil, creepy old man
"Biden scares the be-jeezus out of me because he has been frothing for war" - I don't think it's Biden per se, he just happens to be at the helm at the moment. Whoever it is they don't decide. The whole situation slides towards that. Like a century ago. No single president whoever it is can do anything about it.
I'm at a loss to see how people miss this. But it wouldn't be the first time.
I have looked at it that way too, especially during the Trump years. I was always a registered democrat although not loyal, since sometimes I didn't vote, or voted for a third party candidate. I thought their treatment of Trump was sowing the kind of division you reference, the northern elite verses those "dummies" down south. I saw it expressed on Facebook by second cousins who referred to Trump's base as an uneducated lot and amoral. An extreme and extremely prejudicial statement for so called liberals to make. Think of Texas who is now in the process of setting up it's own wall and calling on the national guard to protect their borders. That's quite a division between state and the goals of the US government.
"The MSM is trying to start a Civil War. "
Don't blame the hammer for the sins of the carpenter.
Who is trying to start a civil war are the ultra-rich. THEY are the funders of all this division between us.
Not sure about a full-blown war, but definitely the MSM is interested in continuing unrest. Riots make for more page views.
Surely all these people who called Rittenhouse a white supremacist, on Twitter, CNN and MSNBC, isn't that actionable?
At the very least, false accusations of bigotry ought to be regarded as more severe crimes than true allegations of immorality.
I think the Alex Jones case sets some good precedent here.
I was thinking of the Covington kids.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Rittenhouse just wanted to put all this nonsense behind him.
agreed but one would hope that he will retain a good lawyer, perhaps the one who worked with the Covington students, to extract some hefty settlements from these media corporations. It won't teach them a lesson but it will at least pay for his college and his private security that he and his family are going to need thanks to the hysteria they whipped up.
I volunteer to hold his beer.
Had a conversation earlier in the week with a former law partner—an otherwise bright and decent guy—where I mentioned some of the prosecutorial missteps and evidentiary issues in the case. He looked aghast and sneered, “what are you rooting for Kyle Rittenhouse now?!?”
ROOTING?!?! Who is actually “rooting” and picking a side in a situation where two men are dead, one severely injured, dozens of small business owners wiped out who will never afford to rebuild, on top of an 18yo kid (even if a seriously-misguided one) who’s probably now completely PTSD from killing two people and being on trial for his life AND marked for life as a homicidal, white-supremacist nutjob. No winners, only tragedy, in this fact pattern, so, really, what is there to root for?
Worst of all, the competing takeaways among large segments of our population will be (x) that it’s a not a terrible idea to go around in public heavily armed in case called upon to use lethal force in defense of property (mindless the fact that provable self-defense against death/serious bodily injury was the ONLY reason Kyle walked today) or (y) that everything in our entire system is so irredeemably racist and broken that the rule of law is no longer required.
For the diminishing cohort of those of us who actually think (rather than just letting emotions do the work), the real positive upshot of today’s verdict is that, against all odds, the criminal justice system worked--strictly on the specific set of facts and circumstances presented in this particular case—nothing broader than that.
There no longer is any hope for America's justice system. The prosecution intentionally withheld the name of Maurice Freeland and didn't call Joshua Zaminski as a witness. The Biden Justice Department will probably still go after Kyle, Bill DeBlasio, and Andrew Cuomo will continue to incite mob violence. The best that can happen after this clusterf$@ck would be that Kyle Rittenhouse ends up like Nick Sandmann, a traumatized millionaire.
It certainly looks dire (and I may be naive), but what's the alternative to staying on top of things and working to hold people to account, giving up entirely?
When I read that the FBI has busted into Hunter Biden's home and arrested him, I'll have confidence in our justice system.
All left-wing commentary on this case - from the start - has made it a proxy for politics in general. The idea of treating it as a one-off - an individual case to be judged on its individual merits - is right-wing.
Exclusively.
AGAIN, just because it's not YOUR version of right, doesn't make it left; the people you're talking about are neo-liberals.
Good morning, Art. I suspect that most of us do not understand what the term "neo-liberal" means. Whatever it means, it is not mutually exclusive of the more familiar word "leftist". CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc., etc., as everyone knows, have become platforms for the Democrat Party. Whatever is presented as "news" on those networks (and, of course, in the NY Times) represents the opinions of the Democrat (i.e., the Big Government Leftist/Socialist) Party.
"it is not mutually exclusive of the more familiar word "leftist"."
AH, but it _is!_
The Democratic Party ceased being "left" during Carter's term and this was proven by Bill Clinton's first term - even before he was inaugurated, his choices for cabinet spelled out he is a Republican who likes blue and the letter D.
As for those media outlets, they're just tools of the ultra-rich and do what they're told.
As for understanding neo-liberalism, I recommend starting here; this article has a lot of material in it and ONE topic it covers is the rise of neo-liberalism:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
You have certainly provided a lengthy essay with a surfeit of words; but is any of it more necessary than Ze and Zir?
Forgive me for saying so; but isn't "classical liberalism" simply open-mindedness and the willingness to consider new concepts and solutions?
I was always taught that socialism denigrated the needs of the individual in favor of the desires of the majority in a given society and that fascism was a totalitarian concept whereby the government colluded with industry and the media to control the masses.
"Left" always meant the desire for Big Government and control of the masses - thereby encompassing aspects of both fascism and socialism. Using that traditional compass, the current administration is very much "left".
"Right", in my mind referred to those thinkers who believed in a smaller, less controlling government.
I see no need to dispose of these traditional terms that actually have meaning for most people. As I imagine it, social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation would be examples of neo-liberal policies; but I fail to see how any of these Programs can be seen as anything but "leftist".
As society has changed, as worker protection became more affordable, I recognize the need for these neo-liberal (?) programs. I even accept that universal health care, while not a constitutional requirement, should be a part of any modern government policy. Yet none of these social-protecting Programs need be fascist (or as I would say DNC) policies.
I believe there are many conservatives like myself who conceded that social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation benefits are beneficial. That being said, I believe the US government has become a badly-tuned version of fascism, with the media controlled by the Leftists and corporations bending to the demands of our arising totalitarian government.
Why is there any need to discuss neo-liberalism and how does it impact modern society any more than libertarianism?
"isn't "classical liberalism" simply open-mindedness and the willingness to consider new concepts and solutions?"
Surely that's what I was taught as a child, but then I got an education and learned that its history begins during "the Enlightenment." In short, merchants began using their power, based on long-distance trade, to convince the Church and the Aristocracy / Royalty to make way for them to exploit the population for their own wealth, and thus liberalism was born as neither right nor left, not a part of the Royalty or Church, not part of the general population, either.
"I was always taught that socialism denigrated the needs of the individual in favor of the desires of the majority in a given society"
That sounds like someone against or afraid of socialism would say. What socialism is really about is the opposite of denigration. It would be fair to say that socialism's aim is to "be a good Christian," here meaning to actually follow the teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels, such as housing the homeless, shoding the shoeless, feeding the hungry. But it recognizes that, just like when in a commercial jet airliner how if the oxygen masks appear, you're to put your own on first before trying to assist others since, and here's the key point, you can't help others if you can't help yourself. The idea here is that the wealthiest can afford "a few crumbs" to help ensure we don't have people dying in our streets for want of basic resources. And, we as a whole are stronger for it.
"...and [was taught] that fascism was a totalitarian concept whereby the government colluded with industry and the media to control the masses."
Yeah, that's pretty much it; the WWII generation (the ones who birthed the Boomers) would have told you it's the merger of state and business power, however achieved.
Here, though, you deviate considerably from the traditional definition of left:
"'Left' always meant the desire for Big Government and control of the masses - thereby encompassing aspects of both fascism and socialism."
That's what the ultra-rich want you to believe - the propagandized definition. The original definition, from inception through to FDR's day, was that The Left is literally The People. So to be for the left is to be for the people - and that's the definition I use because it's the only definition that helps make sense of our world since the propagandized definition loops back on itself in a crazy, tangled way. AND, accepting the propagandized definition wipes out the genuine left as there's nothing remaining in the vocabulary to describe the group who really cares about The People. In addition, the propagandized definition also has the effect of redefining the right.
Remember, the Right is the establishment - government, the church, oligarchy / aristocracy / "elite," etc. At least it always has since inception of the term. And it's this association with the church, always a part of government in "the west" since the Roman Empire went "Christian", is what attracted what are now self-described "conservatives", even though the leaders of the right are pretty much the natural enemies of The People and therefore the conservative laity. And this is why many on the right are so damned angry that they put so much effort into the right only to not have any of their goals met. Well, I'd tell 'em, better re-evaluate who you're in bed with!
"'Right', in my mind referred to those thinkers who believed in a smaller, less controlling government."
Well, that's partially correct in that it's an aspect of many on the right, but it's hardly definitional. ... The ultra-rich want you to hate government and "too much government" because government is the only thing that can constrain their rapacious desires, and they don't want to be constrained, even when they're screwing up the lives of everyone around their operations. ...For example, we can thank government for giving us clean air and clean water which the industry the capitalists control are dead-set on polluting their proverbial assess off, cancers and other harms be damned - THEY don't live near these processes, so who GAF? Certainly they don't!
If they can get The People to destroy their only too to constrain the ultra-rich, the ultra-rich win a huge victory they cannot win on their own. So, the "small government" people are being rather short-sighted. ...Rather than worrying about the "size" of government, I think we should be focused on the <u>effectiveness</u> of it.
"I see no need to dispose of these traditional terms that actually have meaning for most people."
Trouble is, like the proverbial frog in a pot of water on the stove, the slow but gradual transition of these terms from their original meanings to something else is hard for many to notice and you'll be a cooked frog before you know what's happening.
And now, by the way, the neo-liberals have come in the last 25 years or so and screwed the whole place up but good, trashing the definitions even further with hard right-wingers like Hillary Clinton claiming to not only left but progressive?! LAUGHABLE. She may not be YOUR version of "right", but she's solidly in the camp that supports the ultra-rich at the expense of everyone else.
"As I imagine it, social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation would be examples of neo-liberal policies"
No, those are traditional left policies, not neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism didn't even exist when those programs were enacted. And, those policies are there to help protect The People from the rapaciousness of raw capitalism.
"As society has changed, as worker protection became more affordable, I recognize the need for these neo-liberal (?) programs. I even accept that universal health care, while not a constitutional requirement, should be a part of any modern government policy. Yet none of these social-protecting Programs need be fascist (or as I would say DNC) policies."
Indeed, here we agree - except for the "neo-liberal" bit, of course. Yes, these are left, pro-The-People policies and I'm glad you support them.
As for the DNC, they're just another part of the right-wing establishment that pretends to be left. The media - and even Glenn, VERY unfortunately - falls for that crap. It's just another tool the ultra-rich use to manipulate all of us, just like they use the Republican Party, too - two arms of one pro-fascistic party.
"I believe there are many conservatives like myself who conceded that social security, OSHA, and Workers' Compensation benefits are beneficial."
Thanks for that, we agree.
"I believe the US government has become a badly-tuned version of fascism, with the media controlled by the Leftists and corporations bending to the demands of our arising totalitarian government."
Again, this is pretty much spot on except for one error; they're not leftists. But otherwise, that's correct. Again, they're neo-liberals. But whatever you call them, they DO NOT represent any interests of The People, what the genuine left is all about. And yep, it's as fascistic as hell.
By now, I think I've addressed the first part of this pretty well:
"Why is there any need to discuss neo-liberalism and how does it impact modern society any more than libertarianism?"
As for libertarianism, well, that's whole 'nother dialogue!
Again, I hope you'll read this:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
I wish I had noticed this earlier, Charles as you ask some reasonable questions and put forward your reasoning and it deserves a better response than I have time for at this moment. ... I'm saving a copy of this so I can respond to it properly. In a couple of minutes, I've got to head out, and most likely won't be back until "coffee hour" tomorrow AM.
This is NOT a black v. white issue.
The only black person involved in this very sorry affair was "jump-kick man" a/k/a, Maurice Freeman....who is black. Everyone else involved is WHITE!
Mr. Freeland joined others and chased down Rittenhouse. Once Rittenhouse was on the ground, Freeman kicked Rittenhouse in the back of the head. Freeman then turned and again came at Rittenhouse trying to kick or punch Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse was on the ground. When Rittenhouse saw Freeman coming at him, Rittenhouse pointed his rifle at Freeman in self-defense. Freeman saw Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Freeman and Freeman immediately backed off.
As a result, Rittenhouse did NOT FIRE at Freeman.
But, if Rittenhouse is such a 'white supremacist' protraited in the media, why didn't Rittenhouse immediately BLOW FREEMAN away????
Again, this is NOT a black v. white issue....
The reason it is seen as a black or white issue is that had Rittenhouse done what he did with black skin he probably would have been shot dead on the spot, a fate that even completely innocent and unarmed black people face.
This is not what the narrative was for over a year. It was that Rittenhouse is a racist white supremacist. There is vitriolic hatred for this young man on the left. The fact that blacks may be treated different in the criminal justice system doesn't provide any reason to hate this kid.
That's fair, but you can also acknowledge that in the context of mass protests and riots around police killing black people, when armed white person decides to deputize himself to join in suppress ing a protest/riot and gets away with repeatedly using deadly force in entirely avoidable situations, it is systemic racism that is protecting him. He took sides with the police during protests against racist police killings, and for that he was protected.
Actually, if he was black he would have been released without bond so that he could go on to beat up his black girlfriend and kill some more black kids.
(Rodney King comes to mind.)
"He took sides with the police during protests against racist police killings, and for that he was protected."
This statement bears absolutely no relationship to the reality of what occurred. Those he shot were not protesting. They were rioting and committing arson. All three of those shot had violent criminal records, and acted violently against Rittenhouse. Had they not done so they would be alive and unmaimed today. He did not shoot anyone who did not attack him first.
Rittenhouse was not taking sides with the police. The evidence was he was there to help protect a small business - Car Source - from further destruction by arsonists. He was also there to render first aid to any who needed it. Your comments reflect the woke MSM narrative, which is not based upon the facts. Clearly you do not know the facts as they came into evidence.
I understand the facts. What I Iack is the emotional identification and investment with far-right vigilante murders, killing human beings to protect private property. I don't think that any of those crimes carries a death sentence, and certainly each one pales against the seriousness of double homicide.
It is strange that you can't understand that an active shooter, after having killed one person, is going to be seen as a threat to those around him and people will try to disarm him to save lives. If trying to disarm an active shooter is grounds to legitimate murder this will be a boon to mass shooters everywhere.
Your continued rendition exposes the fact that you do not know the facts. You are just spouting the woke left party line. He wasnt a vigilante killing people to protect property. PERIOD. That's simply bullshit. He also was not an active shooter. I know I don't get through to you so I'll end it there. But if you really want to know the facts go back and watch the testimony or read summaries of it.
"killing human beings to protect private property" - human beings were killed when they attacked a physical person.
I'm going to include you in a troll category. You cannot be possibly this dim.
No, it is the law of self defense that protects him.
Good point, maybe that’s why blacks tend to refrain from reckless maniacal behaviour with guns
Have you checked the murder rates in Chicago lately?
No, but I have watched The Closer
BS. Shot dead by whom?
Black skinned people kill thousands of people a year in the US, the overwhelming number of them are not shot dead on the spot.
Quit clutching those pearls.
Look at what you typed, Ian. You said that if Rittenhouse had had black skin and had defended himself against a black mob, he would have been shot dead on the spot. Who would have shot him? The police were two blocks away when he was repeatedly assaulted.
Look at what the Democrats need to do to make this a race issue: They need to create a narrative that doesn't actually exist ("If Rittenhouse had been black....), and then claim it's a racist narrative and somehow blame White people for their concocted racist narrative that doesn't exist.
The cops killed some crooks that were breaking the law and resisting arrest. That is what cops do, and thank them for it. Maybe not being a crook and not resisting arrest might be a way to avoid being killed by the police. I think that goes for everyone, no matter what their race.
Not what Ian said.
Possibly you could rephrase it for me, Art. That's what I interpreted has babbling to mean.
Class and culture vice race and gender
Seems Brandon is upset over the verdict. LET'S GO BRANDON !!!
Brandon's campaign fund is going to be settling a large lawsuit shortly.
FJB
I want to find common cause with the dems, but damn they make it impossible. The hatred, the contempt, the utter denial of the destruction wrought in the name of social justice, the lack of belief in the American system of government... There just isn't anything there anymore.
The flag burning, the kneeling at the National Anthem, they accuse this country of systemic racism, they rage at those who carry a flag or express love of this country. They support anything that increases chaos and they express disdain for anything that defends against chaos.
Tribe over nation. It is pathetic, and well organized.
Expressing that your country has substantial problems that need to be addressed is a PATRIOTIC thing; my country right or wrong is ANTI-Patriotic because it shows no concern for the country itself.
That may be true, but the premise of the "substantial problem" must be true, otherwise you're just a crook/fool/tool, which is the case with bla/antifa/systemic racism.
...Says someone who _obviously_ is white and therefore doesn't experience systemic racism and who is either cloistered or clueless enough to not see that they have white privilege, etc.
Remember, "riots are the voices of the unheard." (And while that's not always true, King's point was spot on.)
Expressing that your country has problems can be done peacefully and without disrespecting the country. The Woman's suffrage movement is a good example, as was Martin Luther King's non-violence movement. But watching millionaire washed up football players and rich Hollywood morons disrespect the country just tells me that they are full of hate. When you Democrats need to manufacture problems, it means that problems don't really exist.
"Expressing that your country has problems can be done peacefully and without disrespecting the country."
Yes, like kneeling instead of standing with your hand over your heart for the playing of the national anthem, but look how that worked out for a particular football player!
It worked out fine. He had his protest, and now everyone with any sense thinks he is a nut. That's what happens when you protest a country people are literally dying to get into.
Should've been flippin' the bird.
How about 9/11? Was that too disrespectful?
Yes. The Democrats said 911 was America's own fault. Barak Obama's own religious leader said so, as did many other Democrat professors and politicians.
They were correct.
They are evil destroyers. Stand strong against them
Keep up the great work Glenn!
The confused reaction of those who disagree with the verdict may be the most informative aspect of this entire exercise. Those people are clearly either lying, tribal before American, and/or completely addled by drugs and/or MSM.
Tribal before American. They hate this country and the people that created it. They believe it racist, evil, and "unfair". They want to watch it burn to the ground so it can be recreated in their image.
d.) All of the above. Careful not to drown in their tears.
I'm doing the backstroke.
A personal victory for Kyle, and thank God that he was exonerated. But in a way, it's a defeat for several traditional principles:
1. Innocence until proven guilty. There was massive unfair and deceitful coverage by people who had a political agenda. They would happily see an innocent man tossed to the wolves.
2. Self-defense. It was blisteringly and devastatingly clear that Rittenhouse acted strictly in self-defense, full stop. He fled his attackers, tripped, and was physically assaulted with dangerous weapons, and only then did he resort to deadly force in self-defense. Yet, he was tried for murder.
3. Right to bear arms. AR-15, the most common rifle in America since the early 1900s, is no more an assault weapon than a kitchen knife. Yet, it is labeled as such by a manipulative, sensationalist press seeking to whip the public into a frenzy for more page views. Millions of ignorant Americans including my own wife, despite my best efforts to educate her, believe the AR-15 is a military assault weapon that should not be in civilian hands. They further believe that NO CIVILIAN SHOULD EVER CARRY A GUN FOR ANY REASON. This is a clear failure of our educational system.
4. Right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers etc. etc. The jury and judge were intimidated by outside forces -- Antifa thugs, most likely. Their pictures were taken and at least one juror reported threats. The judge and his family were also threatened. So yes, it was a victory in the sense that the outcome was fair despite the threats. But the fact that there were threats, indeed the fact that the boy was even on trial in the first place, and that the jury took so long to arrive at the simple obvious conclusion, is highly disturbing and bodes ill for future such situations.
The lessons one can derive from this mockery of justice, despite its happy ending, is that either (1) you are better off not defending yourself or (2) you must indeed use deadly force, make sure your attacker is dead, and make sure you are not identified. Out west, they call it the Three S's: shoot, shovel, shut-up. I suspect the latter practice will become more common.
Bernie Goetz, the subway shooter in 1984, turned himself in and subsequently spend time in prison for defending himself from four attackers. Had he not turned himself in, had he not believed in the fairness of the U.S. criminal justice system, he would have remained free. He was forced into prison by a malicious prosecution that had decided citizens must be punished for using deadly force to fight off muggers. Random New Yorkers agreed: "We can't just have someone going around shooting people," said one woman on camera. Meanwhile, New Yorkers fled and are still fleeing the city to escape the lawless elements rather than fight back as Goetz did.
Somewhere along the way, Americans lost their will to fight, and have become the kind of weak, spineless fools that Theodore Roosevelt spoke about in his 1910 speech in Paris: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
We are, today, a nation of cold and timid souls. The few heroes among us are torn down and destroyed. I pray that enough people will wake up before it is too late.
You make a lot of excellent points. Don't let your wife see them. :-D
LOL.
I agree Terry. You stated my sentiments exactly. I am not dancing around the house waving a victory flag.
People upset at this jury verdict are obviously okay with Kyle Rittenhouse becoming another Reginald Oliver Denny. Because it is clear that it would have happened had he not defended himself.
People satisfied with this jury verdict want everyone... even those upset with the verdict... to never become another Reginald Oliver Denny.
Yes, the innocent man who was pulled from his truck and savagely beaten, during the Rodney King riots. Then the mother of one of the main perps declared to national cameras that her son was a good boy.
That you blame those riots on the hapless Rodney King says what kind of person you are - namely: vile.
Had Kyle Rittenhouse been found guilty and thus martyred on the alter of Progressive political ideology (i.e. anything including burning down communities and killing children and innocent bystanders is permissible, providing BLM or any other Progressive icon is being supported), it would have been at a terrible long term political cost to the Left, but it also would have been a terrible injustice.
Rittenhouse was innocent. The three adult thugs who chased him down had previously been convicted of a variety of child molestation, and/or battery and other illegal behaviors. The entire prosecution/persecution was a travesty. I only hope there is sufficient proof of libel and/or slander so that Rittenhouse can successfully sue various media outlets and individuals. I hope Kyle Rittenhouse gets awarded millions and millions of dollars.
You were doing fine until you got here:
"... had previously been convicted of a variety of ..."
They were and remain _victims,_ and victim blaming is just vile. It doesn't matter WHAT they did in the past, it's what happened in their interactions with Kyle that mattered here, and we have reason to believe the trial was reasonably just. Can't you just let it stand at that? And as for their victimhood, well, can you really say Kyle wasn't there to be a vigilante? No, of course not! So, they ARE victims, as well as whatever else. Trying to bring up their past history to try and justify things is just vile.
There was no evidence presented that he was a vigilante, racist, white supremacist, militia member, active shooter or anything other than a kid trying to help his community. It was all media lies. He wasn't aggressive towards anyone until he was chased down by them.
Note the only person in that encounter illegally carrying a firearm wasn't even charged. Which certainly relates to his past convictions.
The defense lawyer who stated that he was glad Kyle shot Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum was a "bad man". How disgusting is that? He even referred to his mental illness. And victimizing the others, no excuse for that.
He raped kids. While having nothing to do with the case, it does indeed make him a bad man.
Dude was charged with raping 5 kids and pled out to two of them. And had an outstanding charge for domestic abuse. I don't what counts as "bad" in your book but that's not exactly borderline.
okay, so Rittenhouse knew that when he shot him? That doesn't even make sense as an argument.
Of course not. He did know he was trying to take his gun though. And the defense attorney's job is to win, not save anyone's feelings.
That is one part of the defense counsel's argument that I thought was ininappropriatand a mistake. It could have backfired.
Actually, yes, I do on a consistent basis. Do you? My NIMBY neighborhood? That is funny. You have no idea where I live, how little money I make, what do I to make that money, or anything else about me. But your comments, all of them, speak volumes about who you are as a person. Can't you stick to the subject at hand without making it personal and making assumptions about someone you know nothing about?
Virtue-signaling up there with the best of the Neo-Liberals!
I think this means that we don't need to watch helplessly as the violent mob takes over the streets and loots and burns with the approval of the Democrat party. We can defend ourselves. And if enough people do, the mob will slink away as the cowards that they are.
Before Biden was elected he referenced Rittenhouse as a white supremacist. I guess he was ill informed as to the race of those that died. Today, after his colonoscopy he said the justice system works, but then said, he was angry and concerned at the verdict like many others. No wonder that during his colonoscopy they found his head up his ass.
Thank you very much for your courageous pursuit of the truth