General Question

seawulf575's avatar

Why is the narrative around Rittenhouse calling him a white supremacist?

Asked by seawulf575 (13115points) 1 week ago

Throughout the entire episode of the Rittenhouse case, many in the media, Democrat politicians, and celebrities are trying to say he is a white supremacist and that his getting off shows the justice system is skewed in favor of white supremacists. But there is not one ounce of evidence that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist, and all the people he shot were all white, like him. Why are these people/groups pushing the narrative this way?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

98 Answers

JLeslie's avatar

Wasn’t Rittenhouse there with his big dangerous weapon, because of protests regarding a white officer killing a Black man? From what I understand he did an interview with a WS group posted on their website about why he was there.

He’s a stupid young man sucked in by the WS messaging and probably is clueless about what it all really means.

The question now is does he take his acquittal and change his outlook so he never goes through that process again, or does he feel justified and continue on the road of wanting to feel powerful by listening to paranoid hate groups.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie There are a number of things that are wrong with your statements. Rittenhouse did not go there as a counter protester. He was not part of a WS group. He had been scrubbing graffiti off of buildings when he got a call to help protect a car dealership. None of that had anything to do with WS.

The police did not kill a black man. Jacob Blake was indeed black. He attacked police with a knife and they shot him. But he is quite alive.

I never heard of any interview on a WS website. Do you have a link to that? I’d be interested in seeing that. I do remember the hoo-haw about Rittenhouse “flashing the white power sign”. You have to look at that episode to get the real picture. He had just gotten out of jail on bail and was happy. Him mom took him to a local bar. There were some people there that were supposedly from the Proud Boys who recognized him and celebrated his release. At one point they asked him for a picture. He gave the “OK” sign in the picture which everyone says is the hand signal the Proud Boys co-opted as some secret sign. And I think if I remember right they even asked him to make the sign and he didn’t know how…they had to coach him into it. So that doesn’t really scream that he is part of their group.

But your answer shows exactly the impact of the media. You are laboring under all sorts of misconceptions because the media puts them out over and over again. But the question is why?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Ok, thanks for where you corrected me. I actually have barely watched anything regarding this case. Has Rittenhouse made a statement specifically saying he is not racist and not associated with WS?

Who is he to take the law into his hands? He is not law enforcement. Why does he own that weapon?

I found this article, here’s a quote: Before the shooting, the conservative website The Daily Caller conducted a video interview with Rittenhouse in front of a boarded-up business.

Kyle Rittenhouse testified before a jury Wednesday about the moments he opened fire on three people during unrest in Kenosha.

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business,” the young man said. “And part of my job is to also help people. If there is somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle — because I can protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit.”

Source: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/these-are-the-victims-killed-in-the-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-in-kenosha/2689489/?amp

Do you think he’s not tied up at least loosely with listening to these militia groups? There is tremendous crossover with WS groups and Americans who just think they are patriotic Americans trying to do the right thing. A lot of people seem to not understand they are being manipulated by hate groups and foreign governments.

chyna's avatar

Who called him to help?

JLeslie's avatar

Sorry for another post. I made a wrong assumption about the Black many being killed, I don’t think that was reported incorrectly by the media, That was me not keeping up with the details of the story.

You asked why. Because the media wants ratings and money. Also, because parts of the media are afraid the country is going into the hands of WS sympathizing politicians and uneducated citizens who are groomed to hate and want to destroy the country. I realize people in both groups think they are trying to save the country, but the leaders of the WS, I mean what the hell are they going to do when they get into power? They are using people like pawns. Like this article quoting Flynn wanting one religion in the US. Crazy terrifying talk. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/14/opinions/michael-flynn-one-religion-comment-obeidallah/index.html?fbclid=IwAR06jePM5yFrA0UukQs4hw8zZDotDZiSj4um5VhtAxWv4FDiuCakwoPPYBo Let him go to Saudi Arabia if he wants one religion.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Whether Rittenhouse is a white supremacist or not, it should be noted that the right wing is claiming the exoneration is a victory for right wingers:

article 1

article 2

article 3

If it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, tastes like a duck, and swims like a duck, there is a really good likelihood it is a duck.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

There simply are not hordes of white supremacists out there. That’s a lie. They are minuscule in numbers. The media has to manufacture them in terms of scale to keep things stirred up and their ratings high. In doing so they are making more of them. At this point I do believe that the media is literally fueling hate from every direction. We all should be furious.

janbb's avatar

@Blackwater_Park January 6th ring a bell?

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Were those all white supremacists @janbb ? I saw far right wingers on Jan 6th. They’re not all one in the same. That’s the false narrative that all right wingers are racist. Even some of the nutty new world order conspiracy fringe prepper types are not even racists.

mazingerz88's avatar

Because this is what white supremacists would do. They don’t need to wear white hoods or ID. All they need to do is pretend they were there to protect property and clean graffiti ignoring the cause of the protest.

White supremacists think black men shot by cops as inferior humans. So instead of joining the protest, peacefully, they come with guns and willing to shoot anybody including white people. Rittenhouse is the breakdown in society not those people who destroy property out of anger in protests who are desperately screaming enough is enough!

Idiotic white supremacists like Rittenhouse can clean the graffiti after the protest. If he was really being honest about wanting to help. This should be easy to comprehend. But beyond any white supremacists understanding. Their hate of black men shot by cops is just too much.

flutherother's avatar

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie The citation you gave is just referencing Rittenhouse’s testimony. Nothing there says he was part of any WS group. He was armed because he was in a dangerous area and felt he needed the protection. It ended up he was right.

As for the media and others stating Jacob Blake was killed, this from the head of the DCCC, this from ABC, and the list goes on and on. They have also been reporting he was unarmed when he admits he had a knife in his hands.

This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. “Rittenhouse is a WS!” no evidence. “Jacob Blake was killed” a lie. “Jacob Blake was unarmed” another lie. Why are they lying so much? It seems like they are TRYING to stir up anger and hatred.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@mazingerz88 You can believe that if you want. I will posit that the actual breakdown in society is what each and every one of us has done in the past and is doing much more of now. Framing the narrative. What you’re saying is no different than the right wing narrative that says all the protesters are there just to loot and burn things.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^Are they using that narrative? White supremacists would be having a field day then.

Demosthenes's avatar

The narrative that he was a WS makes no sense and there is no evidence for it but you won’t get any left-wingers here to admit it. Sure, some of the groups who defended and courted Rittenhouse were WS, but there’s no evidence that he himself was one.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@mazingerz88 Have you never turned on Fox news?

chyna's avatar

@seawulf575 You didn’t answer my question. Who called him to help?

jca2's avatar

Kyle Rittenhouse may as well join the white supremacy movement now because he’s going to need their protection. I predict he’s going to be beaten to a pulp within a few years.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 Other than your opinion of how white supremacists think, do you have any evidence he was a WS?

seawulf575's avatar

@chyna From what I can find, the series of events that led up to him being in Kenosha was a friend of his in Kenosha called up and asked him to come out so they could see the results of the rioting the night before. Once they did, they offered to clean graffiti off the local school. Later on, his buddy said they should go protect the car dealership…apparently he knew the owners. Rittenhouse even texted the owners asking if they needed protection but he never got a text back. They went anyway and at one point the police stopped to talk to them and told them they were glad they were there.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie I already addressed that. It was a chance meeting after he got bailed out. The Proud Boys were trying to celebrate his actions…he was just happy to be out of jail. He was not a part of that group.

But you make my original question even more valid. Why is it being presented as something it was not? Why is the narrative trying to be made that this was somehow a WS thing?

Jonsblond's avatar

“The Proud Boys were trying to celebrate his actions…he was just happy to be out of jail. He was not a part of that group.”

Any sane person who isn’t racist would pose for a picture with white supremacists. This kid did, so…

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 No one
Is pushing any narrative, that is what people think and how they see Rittenhouse. You need evidence, more evidence…they don’t. Maybe Rittenhouse should say he isn’t one, he just did something that white supremacists see as something right and worthy of celebration but he is not one of them. He just took financial help from them.

jca2's avatar

Kyle Rittenhouse should denounce the white supremacy movement, verbally, and that would help. I think he doesn’t denounce the WS movement because he realizes he needs them now. I’m sure they’re all calling him and congratulating him, and inviting him to meetings.

I wonder how much his legal costs were? That’s an unrelated question to the question asked here, but I just am curious. After his mom paid that big legal bill, it’s a lesson to him, keep your ass out of trouble, be grateful you got off, and next time, stay home.

Demosthenes's avatar

I think I linked to this article before, but it’s very interesting and goes into detail about the groups that courted Kyle after the shootings (and how he didn’t necessarily want anything to do with them afterward). Kyle was very pro-police, many far-right groups are anti-police (which is something the police themselves don’t realize) so that was a factor as well.

chyna's avatar

Thanks wulfie.
What I didn’t like about the after math of him getting bailed out of jail was he was in a bar (at age 17) with a t-shirt that said “free as fuck”. No matter the reason I shot and killed someone, i wouldn’t be out like that. I would be having a breakdown.

seawulf575's avatar

@Jonsblond I, too, thought a bar was an odd place to take your kid after getting him bailed out, but I’m not his parent. Maybe they were good friends with the owner or something. As to celebrating being bailed out, I’m thinking I would be happy too. He was not a flight risk, he had no prior convictions on anything, so really bail being set at $2M was a bit excessive anyway. He’s a kid. But they managed to get enough to raise bail and he was out. If you WEREN’T happy under those circumstances I’d say something was wrong with you.

And if you just got out of jail and walked into a place and a bunch of people started cheering you and celebrating with you would you ask if they were white supremacists? I wouldn’t. By that point you are pretty well known in the area so it could be anyone that felt what you did was self-defense cheering you on. So then they ask you to take a picture with them. Ok. And they tell you to make some silly hand sign. Ok. It has no meaning for you so who cares, right? Unless you are elbow deep in with white supremacists, you are unlikely to know what the signs are and you would likely be unable to identify them by their look.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@jca2 I don’t think he needs the white supremacists at all.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 Of course there’s a narrative. At what point was Rittenhouse EVER a WS? Never. So why are they saying time after time after time that he is? That is trying to create a narrative. You keep hearing “He crossed state lines…” That too, is part of the narrative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with crossing state lines. Nor is it illegal to carry a gun across state lines, even though he didn’t. Yet all you hear is “he crossed state lines…”. But they don’t mention all the protesters that crossed state lines to riot and burn stuff and loot. So there IS a narrative. You can watch CNN, ABC, MSNBC, read the NYT or the WaPo and you will see the same silly tripe over and over again. And you can even see on these pages that jellies have bought into the lies. So why is there a narrative?

filmfann's avatar

I did not hear him referred to as a white supremacist.
I did hear him called a gun nut who talked about his wanting to shoot looters.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 I’m not saying he’s part of a WS group. I’m saying he’s likely influenced by them. He might not even realize who is influencing him. If he’s not WS he should outright say something to defend himself and denounce them.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie So if people started calling you a racist for no reason, would you feel it necessary to denounce racism just to clear your name? When someone does that they are defaming you. When you try defending yourself against it, they double down. Look at @mazingerz88‘s comment earlier. “Because this is what white supremacists would do. They don’t need to wear white hoods or ID. All they need to do is pretend they were there to protect property and clean graffiti ignoring the cause of the protest.” It doesn’t occur to people like this, the ones that swear he IS a WS, to consider that anyone would want to protect property and clean graffiti…those are the things WS do to create an alibi. Imagine if Rittenhouse came out today and said white supremacy was horrible. Do you really believe it would stop the narrative? Remember Trump? He said WS and Neo-Nazis were very fine people, right? Except he didn’t. In that same exchange with the press, as he said that I denounced WS and N-N. Twice. Yet the media ignored that part to push that he was a racist and a WS. More of the “narrative”. It isn’t reporting anymore. It isn’t telling what happened. It is now giving your interpretation to make the story you want.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Didn’t Trump also tell the Proud Boys to stand by? WTF was that about?

mazingerz88's avatar

It’s the narrative that property destroying people during protests like that one are bad guys should be the narrative that bothers people. It’s that narrative that got that idiot Rittenhouse to shoot and kill people. The WS couldn’t be happier.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Thank you for making my point. Do you remember that actual exchange? Some reporter asked him if he denounced white supremacists and he said he had, numerous times. The reporter asked about the Proud Boys and Trump asked something like “Who are they, what about them?” And the reporter continued pressing so Trump asked “What do you want me to say?” The reporter said “you should tell them to stand down, to stand by”. So Trump said “Ok, They should stand down, stand by”

But the media went crazy with it. “Look! Trump is telling the Proud Boys to stand down and to stand by!”. Even now people that don’t know where it came from, such as yourself, where it came from.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 so are you saying that people that riot, commit arson, loot, and beat and kill others are NOT bad guys? You support all those actions?

mazingerz88's avatar

They’re not bad guys. They’re angry guys who want white cops to stop shooting black guys. Support stopping that and maybe it will happen and then you will not see protests or looting in protests anymore. It’s really that simple.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: It was not “some reporter.” It was during one of the debates. It was the debate moderator who asked him and he hemmed and hawed.

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 So, if I claim to have some grievance, I can do whatever I want and it’s okay? That is what your statement is saying. As long as I have a grievance, I can do whatever criminal act I want and it’s okay. And I can continue doing those acts until they give me what I want.

I guess the rule of law is out the window, eh? THAT must be why you can’t accept Rittenhouse’s verdict…because in YOUR mind, the criminals were not criminals…they were righteous in whatever they did. And anyone that stood up to them or dared to protect themselves are the REAL bad guys.

Jonsblond's avatar

I wouldn’t be out celebrating if I just killed people. No sane person would.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 So let’s look at the exchange:
“Chris Wallace: “Are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we’ve seen in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland?”

President Trump: “I’m willing to do that, I would say almost everything I see is from the Left-wing not from the Right-wing…I want to see peace… Give me a name. Who would you like me to condemn?”

Joe Biden: “Proud Boys”

President Trump: “Proud Boys? Stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what… somebody’s gotta do something about ANTIFA and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a Left-wing problem.””

So what do we see there? We see Chris Wallace asking Trump to condemn WS and to tell them to stand down. Trump says most of the violence he is seeing is coming from the left, says what he wants to see is peace, and asks who they want him to condemn. BIDEN says “Proud Boys”. So Trump tells them to stand back and stand by…pretty much exactly what they wanted him to say.

But now we get to the interesting part of things. He just condemned Proud Boys but he is saying someone needs to do something about Antifa and the left. Neither Chris Wallace nor Joe Biden would say boo about that. More of the narrative. Can’t call your storm troopers out for that actions they are doing for you, eh?

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@mazingerz88 “They’re not bad guys. They’re angry guys who want white cops to stop shooting black guys.”
That’s another issue people don’t get. There are two groups, those out protesting and then those “protesting.” Some really do care about getting police to be more accountable and then there are those who seize the opportunity to create chaos. While there may be some bleed over there is not much. Not denouncing the ones causing trouble is a major misstep the left is making.

Jonsblond's avatar

^ “That’s another issue people don’t get. There are two groups, those out protesting and then those “protesting.” Some really do care about getting police to be more accountable and then there are those who seize the opportunity to create chaos.”

Most of us do get that. We had rioting here in downtown Madison, WI. We had the peaceful protestors and we had a small group who came to seize the opportunity to do damage. Two young white girls from out of town were arrested for breaking in to a business. It took days to find them but thanks to social media they were found. They happened to be Trump supporters.

All the peaceful protestors in our city denounce the violence. Our local activists put out calls to stay calm. It’s a small minority who do harm.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@Jonsblond It’s going to be obvious to those there who see it first hand. If you’re getting your information from CNN or FOX news like too many Americans are then it’ll be painted and framed differently. Many people I talk to are only seeing it in black and white. I’m reading a lot of that here too.

Demosthenes's avatar

So does the accusation of white supremacy come only from the photo with the Proud Boys?

Jaxk's avatar

I would think that there is more evidence that Rosenbaum Is a racist than there is that Rittenhouse is one. Rosenbaum used the n-word according to testimony.

All the arguments against Rittenhouse are based on speculating what he thought. It was pretty obvious that Rittenhouse was attacked and pursued. He was carrying a legal weapon and would likely be dead if he had not. No one wants to address the violence or the intent of the mob. If you want to assign blame to Rittenhouse, it makes it easier if you paint him as a racist or WS. The Media is biased to report controversy and that is what they do. No one wants to report facts because they tend to less controversial. The rioter were the bad guys in this and all the sgouting about Rittenhouse won’t change that. Even the shooting they were protesting was wrong. The police did not shoot an unarmed black man, they shot a black man that was attacking them with a knife.

A few facts would clear this up but nobody wants to know the facts they just want to scream and shout. Maybe burn down a town, no big deal.

cheebdragon's avatar

Why are they pushing the narrative? Because they know most people are too dumb &/or lazy to fact-check anything they report.

Jonsblond's avatar

@Demosthenes Wisconsin is a racist state. The people who were counterprotesting last year are racists. Rittenhouse put himself amongst those people.

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575. No. They may not be bad guys. But they are wrong and in my view should be put to jail for a year for every car they burn. Or six months for every window they break. What is not right is for idiots like Rittenhouse to go there touting a gun baiting them to attack so he can shoot them.

cheebdragon's avatar

Someone should’ve told him not to run away from a predator. ~

Blackwater_Park's avatar

@mazingerz88 Do you really believe he was out to shoot someone that night?

Jonsblond's avatar

https://newrepublic.com/article/159524/wisconsin-became-bastion-white-supremacy

White guys who live in northern Illinois love Wisconsin and come here in droves for three reasons:
1. It’s natural beauty.
2. Lax gun laws.
3. It’s whiteness.

Rittenhouse was a wannabe cop walking around with his assault weapon trying to intimidate the BLM movement.

We call northern Wisconsin Wississippi.

Demosthenes's avatar

@Jonsblond Interesting. I was in Madison this summer for a wedding. Loved it. Might end up moving there. But it’s a college town so that’s a bit different.

Jonsblond's avatar

^Madison is a different world compared to the rest of the state. Black people still experience racism but it’s not as often as in other areas of the state. (I’m never moving. I absolutely love it here.)

mazingerz88's avatar

@Blackwater_Park Yes. That is white supremacists’ wet dream. Shoot BLM supporters who destroy property. Their hearts break every time a window gets broken.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

Well, I don’t believe that. I don’t believe he is a white supremacist either. I think he is a dumb kid who wanted to feel tough and important but generally had good intentions that night despite being a complete jackass bringing an AR15 around with him. I don’t think he wanted to kill anyone.

SnipSnip's avatar

In a word, stupidity.

product's avatar

Maybe it was his murderous support of racist institutions. ¯\(ツ)

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 So you know many white supremacists? Do you socialize with them often? Are you, possibly, a WS then? I mean, if you socialize with them and know a bunch of them, it is likely you are influenced by them, right?

JLeslie's avatar

Rittenhouse reminds me of George Zimmerman. They don’t know where the line is to leave things to authorities. They listen to people who encourage them to do dangerous and sloppy things. They want to feel powerful, so I guess they feel weak.

My girlfriend who was a JAG lawyer for years and is horrified by what has been happening in the country the last 6 years wrote the below about the case.

1. Unfortunately, under our justice system, you can’t convict someone for gross stupidity and just being a supreme a-hole if that behavior doesn’t rise to the level of the elements of a crime.

2. However, my personal (not legal) opinion is that I don’t think self-defense should apply to someone who was essentially hunting for a situation where he could kill someone who looked threatening, and then claim self-defense. (Although in this case he probably wasn’t thinking anything that sophisticated. He thought he was defending other people’s property, which is frankly worse in a way.)

3. The people really responsible for creating this situation are Rittenhouse’s mother and the informal posse groups that form whenever there could be trouble. And then they’re the ones that create worse trouble. These guys thinking that they’re “helping” the police need to be stopped. Also the idea that property needs to be protected with armed force by amateurs is dangerous and warped. It’s just property. Why risk killing people or losing your own life over property?! I’ll never understand it.

4. The judge in this case acted highly inappropriately on several occasions. It was shocking. The outcome probably would have been the same regardless, but his behavior was so unprofessional.

5. The reason that everyone is angry: Guy straps on a gun and goes looking for a situation where he might get to use it. He finds and/or creates such situation. Consequently two people are dead and one person lost his arm. Guy with gun is unharmed. Guy with gun gets away with the shootings, claiming self-defense. It just doesn’t seem right because it’s not. Sometimes what is “legal” is not what is “just.”

mazingerz88's avatar

@seawulf575 I have a feeling you know enough about WS. Their feelings, thoughts and their motivations etc. I remember there was a thread a few years ago where I seemed to have gotten that impression. So if you have some knowledge about them maybe you could enlighten us.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I had this same comparative discussion with @jca2 one day. She came to the conclusion that if Zimmerman had just stayed in his car like the cops told him to, none of the rest would have happened. So I asked…if the rioters had obeyed the curfew and cleared the streets like the cops told them to, would any of the rest happened? She couldn’t actually admit that. Didn’t want to is probably more accurate as it doesn’t support the narrative to say so.

But look at both cases and you do see similarities. In both cases, Zim and Rit were armed. In both cases they were doing something that was harmless, but was something the cops were more appropriate for handling. In both cases they were going away from trouble when they were attacked. In both cases they were beaten, and threatened before using their guns. In both cases it was the ones that initiated the physical confrontation that were shot. With Zim, he had lost sight of Martin and was heading back to his car. Martin came up from behind him and attacked him, beating him pretty badly before Zim shot him. With Rit, he was trying to get out of the area altogether and people kept chasing him down and attacking him. If the big, bad, bully with the gun is running away, why do you chase him down and attempt to beat him?

seawulf575's avatar

@mazingerz88 You remember a thread from a couple years ago, where you got the impression I understood them. That is specific. Now let me give you my view of your inundation into their culture:

“Because this is what white supremacists would do. They don’t need to wear white hoods or ID. All they need to do is pretend they were there to protect property and clean graffiti ignoring the cause of the protest.

“Are they using that narrative? White supremacists would be having a field day then.”

“That is white supremacists’ wet dream. Shoot BLM supporters who destroy property. Their hearts break every time a window gets broken.”

White supremacists think black men shot by cops as inferior humans. So instead of joining the protest, peacefully, they come with guns and willing to shoot anybody including white people.”

All those statements are yours from this thread. Apparently you know exactly how a WS thinks. Either that, or you are just spouting crap in an effort to be divisive. And that is part of the narrative too, I think.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^You did not answer my question. So you have no idea how WS think or you do have some? Also, expressing hate towards WS is divisive. Please enlighten us why.

seawulf575's avatar

Well, to start with, you asked no question. All you did was dodge when I asked you 4 questions:
“So you know many white supremacists? Do you socialize with them often? Are you, possibly, a WS then? I mean, if you socialize with them and know a bunch of them, it is likely you are influenced by them, right?”

You didn’t even attempt to answer that, all you did was to dodge. You didn’t ask a question, all you did was to try make a statement that you sort of remembered something I wrote one time that gave you the impression I was a WS. So, care to actually go back and answer the questions I did actually ask you? You answer those and I’ll be more than happy to answer yours. If you choose instead, as I suspect you will, to try dodging again, I will assume you are indeed either a WS or someone that is set on spewing division into society.

mazingerz88's avatar

Did I say I remember you were a WS or that you know enough about WS? Why is hating on WS, crap and divisive?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Both men put themselves purposely in a possible dangerous situation. They knew it and still did it. Why?

Why was Rittenhouse there?

Protestors during BLM were there to support the movement. Rioters and looters who were there, were there for a different reason, they were being destructive and causing chaos. Two different groups.

Why were white people with BIG visible guns present in Kenosha? He says to help, but there are police for that. If he had to be there why a rifle and not a pistol?

Do white men not realize they look like WS if they are carrying those guns? That they are being antagonistic and are terrifying. I would assume a white man with a rifle walking the streets wants to kill me. They are the boogie man to me my entire life.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t think it was appropriate for him to be carrying any weapons to be clear. I don’t even think he should have been there. He wasn’t protesting, if I understand correctly, he felt he was helping to protect the area.

JLeslie's avatar

Sorry for another post. I just saw this on Facebook written by someone else, not my JAG friend that I posted above

From a military legal worker:

I’m seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I’m going to set the record straight from a professional legal position… as well as from a former military position. I’m going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don’t realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven’t made any violent threats or actions towards harming you.

This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your “Castle.” There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force.

However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home… the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you’re afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

He fired INTO A CROWD, and it’s a miracle he didn’t hit more people. More people that hadn’t thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country.

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

The fact that the police didn’t arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I’m going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being “criminals so they deserved it.”

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender’s registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend’s house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

Rittenhouse’s victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn’t have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because “that person was a criminal.” Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don’t like the constitution and bill of rights, I don’t know what to tell you.

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I’ve worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney’s Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I’d be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from “mainstream media,” and I am not brainwashed by the left. I’m an independent progressive.

May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie In both cases, they were looking out for their society. With Zimmerman, there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, by black guys wearing hoodies. He was part of a neighborhood watch. When he saw a black guy wearing a hoodie…a guy he had never seen in the neighborhood before, he began following him to see if he was up to no good.

With Rittenhouse, by his own testimony the initial travel to Kenosha was at the suggestion of his friend (possibly relative, not sure of the relationship). They were going to scope out the damage from the riots the previous night. After looking at everything, they decided to help cleanup the city. They started by scrubbing graffiti off the walls of the school. As evening came, they reached out to the car dealership to see if they needed anyone to help guard it. They didn’t get an answer back, but thought they’d help out anyway. The police saw them there and thanked them for coming out.

BLM protesters and rioters are ostensibly different groups. But it has gotten to the point that at every BLM protest, rioting breaks out and BLM does not discourage nor denounce it. So at some point, they really become the same thing in people’s minds. Especially when there is such organization surrounding the riots…food trucks, medical assistance, etc all there to support the rioters.

Rifle instead of pistol. It is easier to buy a rifle than a pistol. The guy that bought the rifle knew the headaches associated with buying the pistol, especially when he wanted to give it as a present when Rittenhouse turned 18. There are also other laws about 18 year olds owning pistols that make it less appealing to buy as a present.

But your comment about looking like a WS really does support my question about the narrative. How many actual WS groups are out there? Not many. There really aren’t many white people that buy into that sort of racist mindset. Yet you, yourself, have this picture that any WHI person carrying a gun is a WS. We are starting to see the impact of “the narrative”. And it is very divisive. People carry guns for a number of reasons…mainly for self-defense or possibly the defense of others. That doesn’t have anything to do with race…it has to do with why you might want to carry a gun. The assumption that someone carrying a gun is doing so because of a racist purpose is a created viewpoint. It is what the media has broadcast pretty much 24/7 for the past 10 years. So why? It is divisive. It stokes racial tensions with lies. It attacks the 2nd amendment with lies. It does no good at all. But the public doesn’t call them on it and, in fact, believes what they hear.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Maybe these people trying to help protect the neighborhood need to learn that their job is to call the police when there is danger. It is not their job to be vigilantes. I can bet that my neighborhood watch where I live NEVER tries to confront someone suspicious.

I’m saying the rifle signals to me he might be WS. Like a swastika or a confederate flag. I’m the minority they want to kill. You aren’t. I don’t think someone needs to be a targeted minority to be afraid of them though, anyone can be afraid of a man with a rifle on the street.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie I appreciate your last post. It is always good to get a more professional view on things. But he is off base on a few points. Initially, the point of it being illegal for a 17 year old to openly carry a rifle. That varies by state. And if you remember, there were two charges filed against Rittenhouse concerning this very thing. Both were thrown out because according to the Wisconsin laws, the odd way they were written, he had to meet two specific aspects for that crime to have been committed. Basically, there were two statutes that had to be met for it to be a crime. He met on one…he was under 18. But on the other it specified he had to be 16 or younger. He was 17. That was the weird “AND” that threw them out. The judge reviewed the laws and made the comment that it was a very poorly written and confusing law, but it was clear that it did not, as it was written, apply to a 17 year old.

I neither support nor denounce that application…it is just how the laws were written. And that is where your legal friend’s comments start to fall down. He has good advice, don’t get me wrong, and it is generally apt. But many of these laws vary from place to place.

I do agree with the idea that the pasts of the people that were shot have no bearing on things. The only thing that MIGHT have bearing would be if Grosskreutz was a convicted felon. He had a charge in his past of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, but that is a charge. It didn’t say if he was ever convicted of a felony or not. If he WERE a felon and had a gun, he should be thrown in jail. As your legal friend said, you can’t illegally carry a gun and then claim self-defense when you use it.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie – Your post above must have been written before the trial because it uses a lot of misinformation that was reported prior to the trial. The gun used by Rit was not illegal. That chage (the sixth charge) was dropped by the judge prior to closing arguments because it was not illegal. Rit did not shoot anyone in the back. In fact if you look at the drone video Rit was running away from Rose and Rose was pursuing him. The powder residue shows that Rose was within inches of the gun when Rit shot. Rit tried to retreat and it was only when he couldn’t get away that he defended himself. Basically your friend doesn’t know what he’s talking about and shows the danger of trying a case in the media.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Ok, thanks. My JAG friend wrote me this when I asked her about it, it was in two posts:

First post:

I’m confused myself as to why the gun charges were dropped. I don’t trust the judge, so perhaps they were dropped so that self-defense could be back on the table. Also, I’m not sure, but I think the gun charges would have been misdemeanors anyway and so wouldn’t negate self-defense.

This person correctly describes the overall scheme of self-defense in this country, but my understanding is that Wisconsin has one of those ridiculous stand your ground laws which eliminates the need to retreat in public.

The poster is spot on about the treatment of the victims. It’s incredibly frustrating to me that the judge didn’t allow them to be called victims, but did allow them to be called rioters. The effect on the jury of that kind of language is very damaging.

Second post:

Oh yeah, now I remember. He only had one gun charge, possession of a deadly weapon as a minor, and it was a misdemeanor. But Wisconsin, a big hunting state, has an exception for long-barreled rifles, so that charge was dropped. There is disagreement over how to read that statute, but that’s the ruling.

seawulf575's avatar

The issue of the terminology for the people that were shot is interesting. In a case where it is either murder or self-defense, to call those shot “victims” has a direct bearing on the case. Calling them rioters is not an assumption…they were there for the riot. It, also, has no bearing on the case since why they were there is insignificant. Just like any criminal histories are insignificant.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie – You seem to be grasping at straws, trying to find a way to say he was acquitted on a technicality. That’s not the case. The gun charge was dropped because the AR-15 was not a short barreled gun not because it was a misdemeanor. The ‘stand your ground’ law has no relevance since Rit did not stand his ground. He fled, he ran away from Rose and Rose chased him.

As fae as the victim ruling, I doubt that had much impact but realistically, that was what the trial was all about, who was the victim.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Not at all. I’m not concerned so much about his acquittal. I think he was and likely still is wrong in the way he thinks in general, that’s what bothers me most.

I saw Democrats in the media saying he cried fake tears when testifying and he did a poor acting job. His upset looked real to me, I saw a clip of it, even though I didn’t watch the trial for the most part.

I’m guessing you don’t walk around with a rifle or go looking for trouble. This kid is on a bad road, I assume listening to idiotic bullshit about a twisted version of patriotism and America.

Jaxk's avatar

One more little detail for those that want to argue that Rit should have let himself be beaten because deadly force is not possible if the attacker is unarmed. According to crime statitics More people are beaten to death with hands/feet (662) than are killed by rifles (455).

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Why was he attacked?

JLeslie's avatar

Regarding that statistic, I’d want to know how often someone dies as a percentage to the type of assault. Is it 10% of the time someone dies in the case of an assault with no weapons and 80% when shot? I’m making those numbers up as an example of what I’m getting at.

Jaxk's avatar

@JLeslie – It is not possible to rationally depict the motives of a mob. There is no doubt in my mind the rioters were a a mob looking for trouble. I undrstand your point about he shouldn’t have been there and we should just let the rioters riot. But as I recall we did that in many cities across the country (Seattle comes to mind) and all we got was death and destruction. Turning a blind eye is not an effective strategy.

JLeslie's avatar

@Jaxk Oh, I’m not for turning a blind eye. If you go back to fluther discussions about Chicago, Portland, even all the way back to the initial protesting and rioting in Minneapolis regarding George Floyd’s death I was against destroying the businesses and setting fires. I think rioters should be arrested. Although, setting the police department on fire in Minneapolis I had empathy for (not approval, but understanding) but I had zero empathy for destroying the businesses nearby.

I also supported curfews to deter rioting.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

He was attacked because Rosenbaum was an angry lunatic who decided he did not like Rittenhouse. Video of Rosenbaum before being shot clearly shows his belligerent demeanor.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie Why was he attacked? I don’t know. Why was the 70 year old attacked? All he was doing was trying to keep the mob from destroying a historical building. He was ALMOST beaten to death. But just out of curiosity…if he had fought back and injured one of the mob, would you say he was the guilty party?

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
jca2's avatar

This morning on the Today Show, they showed a clip of Rittenhouse on FOX news giving an interview, saying he supports BLM and this case was not about white supremacy.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

That interview is supposed to be at 8 tonight. How he conducts himself is going to further form my opinion about him. I hate that it’s with Tucker Carlson. I think it was a mistake to give the first interview to him.

jca2's avatar

I agree @Blackwater_Park. I would have liked it better if he went with something more middle of the road, like NBC or ABC or 20/20.

Blackwater_Park's avatar

I’m now watching the Ahumaud Arbery case. Those guys are guilty as hell. Now if They walk then that’s something to protest.

jca2's avatar

If they walk then it would be truly inexcusable and all hell will and should break loose.

JLeslie's avatar

I’ll have to Google that Tucker interview. I wonder if Tucker thought to ask if he would do it again. If he would go with a rifle into a protest or riot situation.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: Well, if he does it again he’s a total idiot, because maybe next time he won’t end up coddled by the court system. Maybe next time he’ll get his ass kicked or end up dead.

mazingerz88's avatar

This killer-idiot is doing propaganda for Fox News now? I wonder if he gets paid for his work.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 He might very well be a total idiot. The attention from the media, like Fox News, is probably reinforcing his misguided thinking. Just another pawn in the ratings cycle.

cheebdragon's avatar

How was he coddled by the court system? The court system didn’t decide his fate, 12 jurors found him not guilty after reviewing the evidence and listening to witness testimony for 2 fucking weeks.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther