The Rittenhouse Verdict is Only Shocking if You Followed the Last Year of Terrible Reporting

“We’ve seen Die Hard- level indifference to social consequence from the beginning of this case. The context of the Rittenhouse shootings involved a summer of protests that began after the police killing of George Floyd, and continued in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake. We saw demonstrations of all types last summer, ranging from solemn candlelight vigils and thousands of protesters laying peacefully on their backs across bridges, to the burning of storefronts and “hundreds” of car thieves stealing “nearly 80” cars from a dealership in San Leandro, California. When the population is on edge, and people are amped and ready to lash out, that puts an even greater onus on media figures to get things right.”


They’re broken, it’s as simple as that. Getting people to rage click is now the only thing that generates enough ad revenue to cover their overheads.

You’ll be able to sit back now and watch them seamlessly pivot to headlines proclaiming that the Rittenhouse case was symptomatic of a legal system that is broken and needs to be reformed. If the media keeps the pressure up with a little luck enough people will snap and go postal and then they can report that a “contentious verdict” led to further violence. And on and on it goes…


But what happens when those who’ve bought the line being sold by the liberal media see this “obvious murderer” acquitted?

I guess we should expect to see parts of American cities being burnt to the ground in another round of “mostly peaceful protests”.

Yet somehow the lie is sold that it is Trump - and his renegade supporters - who pose the biggest threat to the rule of law.

America, truly, is broken.


The media are off to the races already…


The Guardian used to be a little more balanced…

1 Like

Oh for crying out loud.


Innocent until proven guilty?
Guilty until proven innocent? or
Guilty even though proven innocent!
Unfortunately, if there is so little trust in the system of justice, then the only justice is thru retaliatory violence, trying to keep it as peaceful as possible.


Not that it necessarily is evidence for the defense of ‘self-defense’, it seems hardly coincidental that the two guys who ended up dead were felons, formerly convicted of violent crimes, and apparently out in Kenosha prepared for violence,

Demonstrators? Provocateurs?


This is why I sign petitions, but don’t go to protests. People in groups intent upon an ideological cause are scary. It’s why some police forces started using infiltrators to instigate from within, as a means of discrediting movements which the powers-that-be found objectionable or dangerous. If people in groups couldn’t be ‘hacked’ by group dynamics then the tactic wouldn’t work.

British police were trained to spot crowd instigators by facial expression. Hatred and/or disgust can spread through a crowd like wildfire.


If people living in blue cities want to discourage vigilantism they have to elect mayors who will appoint police chiefs that fulfill the basic responsibility of government: maintaining order. Although I don’t necessarily agree with Rittenhouse’s decision to insert himself into the chaos that was engulfing Kenosha, I completely understand his reasons for being there. Violent protests must not be permitted regardless of the cause motivating the rioters. If the police won’t stop the madness, private citizens will. I fully acknowledge that preventing violence and stopping it once the first punch is thrown can be very challenging: heavy-handed tactics on the part of authorities often backfire, intensifying the resistance. But giving free rein to protesters to loot stores and burn down police stations sets a dangerous precedent which all but guarantees more destruction in the future.


But isn’t this outcome also a consequence of the ‘freedoms‘ entailed in the second amendment?
One’s right to free speech does indeed have its limitations in the US when it’s unsafe to protest…

1 Like

Are you joking? Rittenhouse was assaulted by protestors. Had guns drawn on him. Had a skateboard swung at his skull. Received a jump kick to the head. The protestors that you so obligingly want to protect are deranged. Cities also over this country suffered untold damage including physical injuries by the protestors themselves.

Rittenhouse may have displayed poor judgment, but he was well within his rights to protect himself from deadly force with deadly force.


Relax, I’m relieved the kid got off as he should have. His actions are a direct result of gun culture. I’m simply saying that it being perfectly legal to attend protests with an assault rifle isn’t very conducive to free speech.


Fair enough, @Ella-B. Thank you.


Well in South Africa we saw widespread looting and vandalism that is now being positioned as racist killings of black people by the Indians protecting their local communities.

Welcome to the Anti-Racist religion.

Black people are like pets who can do no wrong.


I love you again, @Schopenhauer despite our differences. Thank-you for being at least centrist or perhaps thinking for yourself.


This is what happens when you infantilise a population predicated on historical injustices. In the case of South Africa it seems they’re hell bent on becoming Zimbabwe 2.0, who do they blame then?


Nope. His actions were a direct result of the breakdown of state duty to protect the local business community for whom he worked.

He was wise to take a gun to protect local businesses, because if he had not had that personal protection then he would have had his head kicked in by misguided losers.

As a former lefty I do have a huge problem with the concept that any actions are validated because they are “on the right side of history”.

Bullshit. People burning and breaking have no right to do so a priori.



It’s all whities fault always.

This is sooo disempowering.



Yes. Speech is not vandalism and burning.

What part of “fiery but peaceful” protest do you not understand, @Ella-B?

Every fire was burning a local business down. That each was a tragedy for someone regardless of race.

Magical thinking does not replace that, Bella!