Verdict: Kyle Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty on All Charges

[1dirthawker]

The FBI of course knows who is behind all the burning and looting, both at the street organisation level as well as the ultimate king pin. That they choose not to act in what is clearly domestic terrorism and possibly even a soft coup paints them very badly. Sensible people are watching this.

yup, where do you think the hi def drone video came from? why did they do nothing?

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

 

[Cam Moon]

For you guys that are having a hard time understanding why Kyle Rittenhouse did what he did....... maybe it's because he couldn't sing.
Watch "Am I The Only One" on YouTube

 

[Country]

So glad all our value aren't yet depleted by the left.

 

[1dirthawker]

For you guys that are having a hard time understanding why Kyle Rittenhouse did what he did....... maybe it's because he couldn't sing.

yeah, i can't either. but thats a great song and sure says what i'm thinking some times,

LETS GO BRANDON!!!

 

[rookhawk]

How Big Media turned the tide against Kyle Rittenhouse:

A Wisconsin jury finding Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, when he shot three people at a BLM protest in Kenosha last year, makes more apparent the dangerous powers of Big Tech. Within days of the August 2020 shootings, Facebook labeled Rittenhouse a mass murderer, telling Breitbart: "We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter." It also blocked search results on "Kyle Rittenhouse."

In September 2020, Twitter suspended the account of Rittenhouse's attorney for attempting to raise funds for the teenager's defense. GoFundMe cited its policies against supporting those charged with violent crimes when thwarting efforts to pay for Rittenhouse's legal fees, despite plenty of similar fundraisers remaining live. Only after the verdict of innocence was reached would GoFundMe allow campaigns to help pay for the teen's legal fees and living expenses.

During Rittenhouse's trial, Facebook again blocked search results on his name, leaving users to converse about it only on their profiles or in their subscribed feeds. And YouTube suspended live streams about the trial hosted by independent legal analysts.

In America, alleged criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court of Big Tech social media, however, is anything but impartial. And their actions regarding this particular case should concern us all.

Dan Gainor, VP of the Media Research Center, said Big Tech's attempts to stifle discussions about Rittenhouse proves how much control it has in societal and political issues. “It's dangerous that they have this much power over what can be discussed in a public forum,” he said. “They could prevent free elections in every free country in the world if they wanted to.”

 

[uplander01]

At least Anarchists may think twice about reeking havoc on our streets. He probably should have just stayed home, but he didn't, and now some modern precedents have been set in our legal system. Where there are well armed citizens, there are cordial and polite citizens.

 

[rookhawk]

More memes and pictures to amuse the group:

 

[VertigoBE]

How Big Media turned the tide against Kyle Rittenhouse:

A Wisconsin jury finding Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, when he shot three people at a BLM protest in Kenosha last year, makes more apparent the dangerous powers of Big Tech. Within days of the August 2020 shootings, Facebook labeled Rittenhouse a mass murderer, telling Breitbart: "We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter." It also blocked search results on "Kyle Rittenhouse."

In September 2020, Twitter suspended the account of Rittenhouse's attorney for attempting to raise funds for the teenager's defense. GoFundMe cited its policies against supporting those charged with violent crimes when thwarting efforts to pay for Rittenhouse's legal fees, despite plenty of similar fundraisers remaining live. Only after the verdict of innocence was reached would GoFundMe allow campaigns to help pay for the teen's legal fees and living expenses.

During Rittenhouse's trial, Facebook again blocked search results on his name, leaving users to converse about it only on their profiles or in their subscribed feeds. And YouTube suspended live streams about the trial hosted by independent legal analysts.

In America, alleged criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court of Big Tech social media, however, is anything but impartial. And their actions regarding this particular case should concern us all.

Dan Gainor, VP of the Media Research Center, said Big Tech's attempts to stifle discussions about Rittenhouse proves how much control it has in societal and political issues. “It's dangerous that they have this much power over what can be discussed in a public forum,” he said. “They could prevent free elections in every free country in the world if they wanted to.”

I think Dan Gainor should update what he says...
"They could have prevent(ed) free elections in every some free country in the world if they wanted to."

 

[PARA45]

This was a bar in South Dakota, and could help but to take a picture of it. Humorous is you ask me.

 

[Tam Dl]

As far as the idea that if Rittenhouse was black he would have done badly before the law. Robert Barnes, who had an interest in the case said that blacks use self defense about twice as often as others, and it works just fine for them. Was in the Viva Frei summary of the case Sunday the 21st.

 

[Tam Dl]

I think it is odd that essentially random 17 year olds should be hired as armed guards. Despite all the talk about how well he did, there does not appear to be much history of training. Which doesn't surprise me, contrary to what trainers will tell you, people often perform above the level of their training. But it is possibly going to be hard on the car lot that arranged the guards.

Barnes did a lot of poling and he found that most of the left was pusuaded by the argument of "what was he doing there". And they could not in focus groups be moved by the legal truth that such considerations were irrelevant to the facts under which he exercised his right to self-defense. Facts the jury would still have to weigh. But Barnes also knew that with the right jury sellection it would net out.

 

[Tam Dl]

Assuming some billionaire doesn't write a lot of checks, it would probably not pay to sue Rittenhouse. First of all, he doesn't have a lot of money, and he isn't likely to cash in. His mother could sue for libel, but I don't know how she could be attached. In the trial, the jury theoretically could not consider the record of the perps. But in a civil suit all that comes in.

Kyle is going to have problems sueing because even when you are cleared, your reputation is so sullied, that you normally can't get a lot of money from people who defamed you, because they are not regarded as having added much more damage to your reputation than did the charges themselves.

Barnes, who handled some of the Sandman related suits (I think it was the suits for the other kids), says the proof Sandman didn't get "250 million dollars" is where he still lives, and some other stuff...

Barnes also said Kyle is unlikely to be indicted by the feds, as they have already cleared him, and he does not fall under various federal laws. So for instance police officers as with Rodney King or Floyd, are federally reviewable for some reason.

 

[Tam Dl]

And quite frankly, every European should feel compelled to have an American flag hanging in their house.

That is the damn truth right there!

If you are thinking of the World Wars, the US had it's own agenda, and continues to have, or at least until recently, possibly. That agenda was quite rightly trying to ensure that the no power that could contest it arose in Eurasia. Somewhat different, though, than "hey buddy can I lend a helping hand". This is a good thing, but not necessarily what Hollywood said it was. It wasn't charity, it was real politique.

 

[Red Leg]

If you are thinking of the World Wars, the US had it's own agenda, and continues to have, or at least until recently, possibly. That agenda was quite rightly trying to ensure that the no power that could contest it arose in Eurasia. Somewhat different, though, than "hey buddy can I lend a helping hand". This is a good thing, but not necessarily what Hollywood said it was. It wasn't charity, it was real politique.

Close, but not quite. Our broader national interests are tightly interwoven with our economic ones. And while "competitive" markets may make good press, our system does require open access to a host of trading partners - competitive or not. Continental Europe dominated by either the National Socialists or Communists would have created an intolerable threat to those markets.

Explaining that to the American people was a challenge, and fortunately Hitler chose to declare war on the US four days after Pearl Harbor, simplifying the call to war in Europe tremendously. Those same perceptions of National interest led post war to the Marshall Plan and NATO.

Regrettably, some politicians on my side forget the foundations of NATO and its enduring value to protect our Continental national interests.

 

[Tam Dl]

Hitler, we couldn't have won the war without him...

The US controlling the seas is critical, and the fear of a Eurasian super power means a power that has access to all kinds of ports that at least Germany and the USSR did not enjoy. Germany has tried many times to break out ( and they had their 19th century reasons for it). The Nazis and others were not the threat the first two times. And somehow they managed to both bring to life the Nazis and the Russian revolution, so it all starts to look like one problem after a while.

Anyway, I shouldn't have taken the bait, and if the mods want to pull this digression, I won't be offended.

 

[Tam Dl]

Shody doesn't begin to describe my ability for historic detail, but the "Germans" tried to build a railway to Baghdad; set up a naval base in the south; gain some lands in the general region; poison British interest down there; built terrorist training schools in London, and so on. Circa 1870s and onward. Those were interesting times. Then they tried the attack France and invade Russia thing a few times. They were pretty determined.

 

[rookhawk]

I was terribly worried had the Rittenhouse verdict gone the other way, it would be open season for anarchists to take over this country and strong arm a helpless citizen.

Then I read these. These are actual posts from Antifa organizers in Portland and Seattle. Thank you Rittenhouse jury!

 

[Tam Dl]

Not sure why that is being thought. Kyle had to be attacked before the self defense defense became available. He was attacked by people who knew he was armed, and shortly after the start, knew he had shot someone. I am not sure how that affects their general process of beating on unarmed people, often old, through well controlled tactics. I see how it might given them pause should they be planing to attack armed people.

The problem is that for self-defense to work, you sorta do need a supremacy in society. Not one based on race, but based on the idea that if you act within the law, the law will act to at least protect itself, even if it does not act entirely for the citizen. But in these revolutionary times, the idea is to destroy respect for institutions, so even the law does not act for itself.

Plus Kyle says he is pro BLM, or maybe he is pro blm.

 

[ActionBob]

Watch that interview where he says he is pro BLM. He's shaking his head. During other statements, he is nodding his head. Body language says a lot and often we don't even realize what we are saying.... or that we are saying it