Adam SerwerThe Atlantic
20 november 21
[Editor’s note: When I ran across this on RSN (Reader Supported News, a familiar left-wing website), I thought it was poorly reasoned and seriously distorted with regard to the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the criteria for self-defense. So I thought I would engage. Not warmly received. Still going on.]
It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on the law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions.
The United States is a nation awash in firearms, and gun owners are a powerful and politically active constituency. In state after state, they have helped elect politicians who, in turn, have created a permissive legal regime for the carry and use of firearms, rules that go far beyond how courts originally understood the concept of self-defense.
These laws have made it difficult to convict any gun owner who knowingly puts themselves in circumstances where they are likely to use their weapon—that is, anyone who goes looking for a fight. It should come as no surprise then, that Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges after shooting three men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 2020, killing two of them. Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber were killed; Gaige Grosskreutz was injured but survived to testify against Rittenhouse at his trial.
According to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse need not have proved that he acted in self-defense—rather, the state had to prove that he did not. Even if Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha with a firearm because he wanted to put himself in the position to use it, as David French writes, “the narrow nature of the self-defense inquiry is one reason people can escape responsibility for killings that are deeply wrongful in every moral sense.” Under some circumstances, Wisconsin law allows an individual to provoke an attack and still claim self-defense.
It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse’s actions. Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don’t see the killings as “wrongful” in any sense, instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies.
The shootings took place across the backdrop of protests and riots in Kenosha that followed a police officer’s 2020 shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year old Black man, in the back and side, and the nationwide protests over the murder of George Floyd. Rittenhouse’s critics contend that his intentions were racist, because he showed up armed in anticipation of protests on behalf of Black rights, while his advocates maintain that he was defending the city from rioters and point out that his victims were white.
The ideological battle lines recall the 2013 George Zimmerman trial. In Zimmerman’s case, prosecutors said he assaulted 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s defense claimed the then-29-year-old had been attacked by Martin, whom Zimmerman had been following. Even though Martin would have had reason to be concerned about a grown man following him, the law was designed to accommodate people like Zimmerman, who was armed, and his defense attorneys were able to create enough reasonable doubt among the jurors to secure his acquittal.
Conservatives saw Zimmerman as a martyr who acted in self-defense, unfairly vilified by a liberal press. Martin’s supporters saw him as yet another Black teenager perceived to be menacing both by authorities and by those who consider themselves adjacent to the authorities, as one of many Black children never extended the benefit of the doubt to which others are accustomed. But Zimmerman wasn’t simply acquitted; some on the right embraced his actions as the fulfillment of a violent fantasy.
Few people ever use a firearm in self-defense—doing so is rare even for police officers—so the extreme elements of right-wing gun culture have to conjure the specter of impending catastrophe in order to maintain their political salience. Sometimes this manifests in deranged reveries of armed revolution, sometimes in overt fantasies of murdering urban minorities, and sometimes in the make-believe of resisting a supposedly tyrannical government. Right-wing gun culture is not unlike the wellness industry, in that it requires the cultivation of a sustained insecurity in its audience in order to facilitate the endless purchase of its products. You can never be too skinny, and you can never have too many guns to stop the impending communist takeover.
Not content to maintain that Zimmerman was innocent of murder, some of his supporters lived vicariously through his gunning down of a Black teenager. People bought Trayvon Martin shooting targets. Right-wing pundits marked his birthday with jokes, and spread falsehoods about his background in an attempt to retroactively justify Zimmerman’s killing of him. Some people turned Zimmerman into a hero, because he killed the kind of person they liked to imagine themselves killing. The fact that then-President Barack Obama empathized with the fear of many Black parents, that their children will be seen not as children but as dangerous threats, by saying that if he had a son “he’d look like Trayvon,” only added to the fantasy’s appeal.
The legal questions in the Rittenhouse trial—like those of the Zimmerman trial—have become entangled with the political ones. In the aftermath of the January 6 attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, some conservative media have escalated their justifications of political violence. In this context, Rittenhouse has become a folk hero for the same reason Zimmerman became one—not because they see him as a scared child who acted rationally in a frightening situation, but because they see him as a soldier in a war against the enemies of America as they want it to be. Like Zimmerman, Rittenhouse killed the kind of people some on the right like to fantasize about killing.
As the historian Caroline Light writes in Stand Your Ground, English common-law traditionally held that self-defense could be invoked only as long as one attempted to retreat, if possible. There were important exceptions such as defending one’s home, a concept known today as the “castle doctrine.” In the aftermath of Reconstruction, American courts began expanding the circumstances under which certain men could invoke the right of self-defense; an Ohio court determined in 1876 that “a true man, who is without fault, is not obliged to fly from an assailant, who by violence or surprise maliciously seeks to take his life, or to do him enormous bodily harm.” In the 21st century, state legislatures passed legislation such as “stand-your-ground laws” that extended the circumstances under which “self-defense” could be invoked further. But from the beginning, such laws were bound up in the perceived social morality of the invoker, and those whom the right was being invoked against. The “true man” could take his castle anywhere.
Consequently, which acts of violence are considered legitimate self-defense has always been highly political. For most of American history, white men alone had a right of self-defense that included both their persons and property. Although the concept of armed self-defense is not inherently racist in the abstract—many 1960s civil-rights figures bore arms when not protesting—in practice the American legal system has tended to see certain claims of self-defense as more legitimate than others. “Our embrace of lethal self-defense has always been selective and partial,” Light argues, “upholding a selective right to kill for some, while posing others as legitimate targets.”
Zimmerman had a right to defend himself; his supporters could see Martin only as the sort of person the right of self-defense was meant to be invoked against. In Georgia, Travis McMichael, on trial for murder after he, his father, and a friend chased Ahmaud Arbery through their neighborhood, before pulling guns on him, has similarly sought to justify his actions as self-defense. “It was obvious that he was attacking me, that if he would’ve got the shotgun from me, then it was a life or death situation,” McMichael testified. “And I’m gonna have to stop him from doing this, so I shot.” Even the white nationalists facing a civil lawsuit over their 2017 riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, have sought to invoke their right to self-defense.
There is a paradox of fragility here, in which a moment of fear—perhaps one imbuing the deceased with supernatural strength—is invoked to justify homicide, and the dead who would be alive but for this moment of terror subsequently become a symbol of the frightened man’s valor. At a certain point the logic of this sort of “self-defense” becomes indistinguishable from a custom that simply allows certain people to get away with murder. This is the legal regime that a powerful minority of gun-rights advocates have built—one in which Americans are encouraged to settle their differences with lethal force, preferably leaving as few witnesses capable of testimony as possible.
The fact that Rittenhouse has become a folk hero among Republicans points to darker currents within the GOP, where justifications for political violence against the opposition are becoming more common. The party finds the apocalyptic fear of impending leftist tyranny useful not only for turning out its supporters, but also for rationalizing legislative attempts to disenfranchise, gerrymander, and otherwise nullify the votes of Democratic constituencies. Engineering the American political system so that Republicans’ political rivals are unable to contest their power is a less forceful solution than killing people, but the political goal is similar: to never have to share power with those they disagree with.
For this reason, the party defends those who engage in rhetoric threatening violence against their political enemies and silences those who denounce it. Whether it’s Donald Trump justifying his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Republican members of Congress threatening their colleagues, or Fox News hosts praising Rittenhouse for “doing what the government should have done,” the desire to kill your political opponents is a sentiment no longer confined to the dark corners of the internet. The principle that canonizes Rittenhouse as a saint for defending his city from rioters, and the mob that stormed the Capitol as martyrs, is the principle that the slaughter of the right’s enemies is no crime.
“At this point, we’re living under corporate and medical fascism. This is tyranny,” said an attendee at an event held by the conservative group Turning Point USA in October. “When do we get to use the guns?” The audience responded with applause. “How many elections are they going to steal before we kill these people?” Most of this is idle bluster from keyboard gangsters on social media. But the more it is encouraged by mainstream political leadership, the less likely it is to remain mere talk.
Rittenhouse’s trial was a matter of law, and the outcome should not have been dependent on the political questions raised by the events that led to his indictment. But his acquittal will be seen by some on the militant right as a validation of the sentiment that someday, perhaps soon, they will get to kill all “these people.” No one they would listen to will tell them otherwise.
Post a comment on “Of Course Kyle Rittenhouse Was Acquitted”
Anonymous
It’s embarrassing that you have published an ideological defense of the Rittenhouse prosecution, where three members of the same family–the Mayor, the DA, and the Detective–appear to have conspired against Kyle to deny his legal rights.
Kyle took a citizen’s commitment to defend property and human rights more seriously than the Kenosha police, who stood down while looting and rioting was taking place. He sought to provide medical assistance for which he was attacked.
A meticulous legal analysis by Andrew Branca provides a thorough and detailed exoneration on every count. That’s why the prosecution now wants to include lesser charges: they know they have no case!
Kyle was kicked in the face by one rioter. Another tried to break his neck with a skateboard. A third admitted he had a handgun and was pointing it at Kyle, who shot him in the arm. They, not Kyle, were the aggressors.
It’s insulting for anyone to suggest that he was acting as a “vigilante” and patrolling with “illegally obtained guns”, neither of which appears to be the case. On the contrary, Kyle’s actions were heroic.
His father lives in Kenosha, where he worked as a lifeguard. He had been invited to help to defend a car dealership. He was not looking for trouble and each of the thugs he shot were trying to kill him.
As a former Marine Corps officer who supervised 15 DIs and 300 recruits through basic training, his performance was admirable. The attacks were imminent and deadly. His actions were reasonable.
The media and its allies must attack Kyle because his example of self-defense is inspiring. And he showed the world why an AR-15 might make a difference for the public good. He deserves our admiration.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
midwestDick
I imagine that you approve, as well, of Dylan Roof, a disciplined and well trained shooter defending against the impending slave revolt, or what about the determined and resourceful Steven Paddock who stood his ground against country music.
Apparently, you trained men who went into the jungles and deserts and caves of the peasant peoples of the world and took target practice on them and called it defending freedom. Not surprising that you laud Cryin’ Kyle.
We have been told, we have been sold, the idea that this sort of asymmetrical violence protects our freedom. We have lived with this lie for all of our lives. No wonder we cannot see what is laid right in front of us so plainly. And that is this; an active shooter went on a rampage, killed 2 and wounded another. Instead you are blabbering about self-defense. If only it was just you, if only! But, in fact, an enormous number of Americans are right there with you, drooling like Pavlov’s dogs, incapable of thinking their way past the insane idea that roaming far from home to take target practice on distant people is justifiable defense.
Anonymous
Well, when you can’t deal with the question, change the subject! Remarkable example here of someone who wants to pretend he has answers when he has no idea what he’s talking about. In relation to Dylan Roof, who is said to have shot up a church in Charleston, SC, the video of his entry at 0800 means it was shot at 8 AM, when the shooting took place around 8 PM. And the first thing the cops did when they arrested him was take him to Burger King for a Whopper!
The Las Vegas situation, where Stephen Paddock is alleged to have shot and killed 60 (by the Wiki narrative), was something else again. They used a prerecorded sound track and special visual effects to create the impression of a mass shooting. But it was a movie! Nobody died with the possible exception of the purported shooter. I have laid it out in detail in one of my presentations with Brian Ruhe, https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=HX7MN2B91HBK
Now I don’t claim to be infallible, so if you can find something wrong, let me know. I have my email address in all but my first post here. But come to grips with the evidence! I taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years before my retirement as a professor of philosophy in 2006. I see no indications of any of the above in the article I am critiquing or the comments that have been posted. You have to do better to understand what’s going on here.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
midwestDick
Well Doc, I stand corrected. You have proved with geometric logic that the strawberries were stolen. Don’t be modest. You are infallible and the families and friends of the seventy or so people you have brought back to life should worship you.
Anonymous
Your attitude IS the problem.
Glenn I. Henricksen, BS, STB, ThM, PhD
Anonymous
Glenn,
Glad you have the balls to sign your name. What are you implying? That respect for the law and evidence is wrong? If you think I have something wrong, then S-P-E-L-L I-T O-U-T. What do I have wrong and how do you know? I am open to and welcome serious criticism. Be specific.
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.ed.
Anonymous
We don’t need vigilantes running around with AR15s. We have police – and if citizens believe the police aren’t doing an adequate job then a reasonable citizen encourages their politicians to provide better police.
Anonymous
Glad you rose to the occasion. He was not a “vigilante”, though you and the author here might like to portray him as such. He was a civic-minded young man who was willing to shoulder responsibilities that the Mayor had not, where he even appears to have order the Kenosha police to stand down.
The Democratic Party has been on the wrong side of a series of issues that have eroded confidence of the American people. “Defunding the Police!”, for example, was an incredibly stupid platform, where now many cities, including Minneapolis, Seattle, and New York, are reversing course.
That prominent figures such as Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, and even Nancy Pelosi were publicly encouraging the rioting, looting, and arson across the nation did not improve the party’s image. And discrediting the conscientious efforts of the jury in the Rittenhouse case damages your image.
It’s not just that you are siding with three goons with lengthy criminal records (including convictions for pedophilia, child rape, domestic abuse and burglary) but that the prosecution filed unwarranted charges, suborned perjury, and withheld evidence in violation of its obligations to judicial systems.
They were pursuing Kyle; he was not pursuing them. He was trying to evade them, but they would not let him get away and aggressively assaulted him. Joesph Rosenbaum, 39, for example, had threatened to kill him if he got him alone and ambushed him in the car lot, where Kyle was boxed in.
You might think Rosenbaum was unarmed, but more parties are killed in the US by being beaten or strangled to death than die from gun shot wounds, where the overwhelming who are shot are shot by handguns, not by rifles. And most murders in America are blacks killed by other blacks, not by whites.
Anthony Huber, 26, repeatedly assaulted Kyle with a skateboard, which was a deadly weapon. And, in case you are unaware, Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, admitted under oath that Kyle did not shoot him when his hands were up but only when he points his pistol at Kyle’s head. Do you know that?
There are five elements to self-defense, namely: (1) innocence; (2) imminence; (3) proportionality; (4) avoidance; and (5) reasonableness. The jury had to determine whether his plea of self-defense was or was not applicable to each of the five felony charged against him. They found that they did.
So the suggestion that we should not be surprised by his acquittal because the gun lobby exercises influence simply does not apply here. They took four days to ascertain whether, in each instance, Kyle was exonerated by satisfying those five criteria with respect to the charges brought against him.
There seems to be a tendency by Democrats to believe their own propaganda. Terry McAuliffe went down to defeat because he could not appreciate parents concern about what their children were being taught in the public schools, while Glenn Youngkin understood and appreciated their concerns.
All McAuliffe had to offer was (vague) allegations of racism and attacks on Donald Trump, who was not on the ballot. Indeed, one might have thought Democrats would celebrate the election of a black woman as Lt. Governor and of an Hispanic as Attorney General. But they were of the wrong party!
Americans see though the hypocrisy. I myself voted for Bill Clinton (twice) and for Barack Obama (twice), but when the choice was between a woman with a history of corruption and a popular guy who was not part of the Washington establishment, it was an easy call. Actually, a “no brainer”!
The party appears to be in denial about what happened in Virginia and New Jersey, but I guarantee that it’s going to happen again and again. And disenchantment with how Biden/Harris are handling the pandemic with mandates are not strengthening your cause. Even the Courts are rejecting them.
Preoccupation with race and gender is unAmerican and divisive. Removing statues and renaming schools who were honoring some of the greatest figures of American history are mind-boggling to those of us who understand what’s going on. And trying to take our guns is an entirely lost cause.
Didn’t you realize that, if you defund the police, there will be less police and the public will realize that, if we cannot defend ourselves, we are lost? It appears to many that Democrats have become ideologues and zealots completely disconnect from the realities of lives. You have lost your way.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Anonymous
Is the problem that people have the right to self defense and to possess the means to do so, or the fact that the laws are unequally and subjectively applied so that some people do and some don’t? Do we want anyone except a few select people to have the right to defend themselves, or only a select few to have that right? On what basis is the decision made and who gets to make it?
Anonymous
A reasonable question, but the suppression of the Anthony Weiner laptop to keep it from harming Hillary by James Comey and of the Hunter Biden laptop to protect Joe Biden by Christopher Wray are such stupendous illustrations of bias on behalf of Democrats that no one has any doubt about who is and who is not bending the law for politics. Hint: It’s not the GOP!
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Anonymous II
Basic training? This was a real circumstance, with real, and devastating outcomes. How is anyone to tell who is a “good guy,” and who is a “bad guy” with a gun? In this case, either the harmed and dead citizens could be called good guys, and acting as if under threat–because they were. The initial person this adolescent shot was declared a harmless nutcase by another “good guy with a gun” prior to his encounter with Rittenhouse; some years and some experience further would likely have resulted in “Kyle” acting the same way he did By the way, I also have a Ph.D., but feel little need to add it to my name to enhance any opinions I may spout.
Anonymous
Look, I was an artillery officer in the Marine Corps but served as a Series Commander at USMC Recruit Depot in San Diego. I don’t quite get what you think you are talking about, but the point I was making is that I have familiarity with weapons and training. That this 17 year old could handle himself so well under those circumstances was very impressive. I don’t like smug or arrogant, where you exemplify both. You are a perfect example of one of these zealous Democrats who think they know everything and have nothing to learn. Kyle Rittenhouse set an example that (non-ideological) Americans found inspiring. You can trash him and discount what happened here at your peril. And I notice you do not give your name or your email address, which suggests you are too embarrassed to admit it. If I were in your shoes, I might do the same. You demonstrate why your party is going down.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Anonymous
Glad you had the sense to vote for Clinton and Obama. Not glad that you think it is okay for 17 year olds to show up to protests with AR15s.
Don’t make this into something political. If the evidence supports acquittal then that is fine. It is justice. Don’t promote the solution is for snot nosed kids showing up at high stress environments with semi automatic weapons. A little common sense Marine.
Anonymous
My comments are in response to an incredibly politically slated piece suggesting why the Rittenhouse case should be viewed as political, when it was a case of self-defense. That Democrats are still trying to sell their gun control agenda when they are defunding the police and supporting riots, looting, and arson may explain why they are going to be wiped out in 2022–assuming they don’t steal the election as they did in 2020. And look at what Biden/Harris have done for American in less than a year? The border is out of control, inflation is soaring, the economy is a mess, we are energy dependent again! If you thin the American people like any of this, think again; Biden at 38% Harris at 28%. And dropping.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Anonymous
Here’s an excellent video record of what happened in Kenosha that night with Kyle & Company: https://www.sovren.media/video/new-kyle-rittenhouse-footage-36.html Compare this account with the commentary published by RSN and the other comments here. Just think it through.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
forest walker
What happened to the old ‘equal force’ bit? Did the dead men have guns?
Anonymous
Are you reading my posts or just shooting from the hip with whatever pops into your mind. I wrote:
“They were pursuing Kyle; he was not pursuing them. He was trying to evade them, but they would not let him get away and aggressively assaulted him. Joesph Rosenbaum, 39, for example, had threatened to kill him if he got him alone and ambushed him in the car lot, where Kyle was boxed in.
“You might think Rosenbaum was unarmed, but more parties are killed in the US by being beaten or strangled to death than die from gun shot wounds, where the overwhelming who are shot are shot by handguns, not by rifles. And most murders in America are blacks killed by other blacks, not by whites.
“Anthony Huber, 26, repeatedly assaulted Kyle with a skateboard, which was a deadly weapon. And, in case you are unaware, Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27, admitted under oath that Kyle did not shoot him when his hands were up but only when he points his pistol at Kyle’s head. Do you know that?
“There are five elements to self-defense, namely: (1) innocence; (2) imminence; (3) proportionality; (4) avoidance; and (5) reasonableness. The jury had to determine whether his plea of self-defense was or was not applicable to each of the five felony charged against him. They found that they did.”
I just don’t get it. None of you seem to be thinking things through. You are embarrassing yourselves.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Anonymous
The attitude that “self defense” justifies killing anybody you disagree with has made our country a most dangerous place to live.
Anonymous
This, like other recent comments, is just dumb. He was taken to court and prosecuted. If he had not acted within the law by defending himself from imminent threats to his life, which he did his best to avoid, he would have been convicted. Study the law, He did nothing wrong. But childish remarks like yours and others here which reflect a puerile approach to a serious issue are discrediting each of you.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
jfetzer@d.umn.edu
It was all on the up-and-up and the politics were preposterous for a “false flag”. Nothing benefits the bad guys from this. It’s all to the good. States Prof.Fetzer.
1. Who’s the bad guys in this scenario? The Democrats and Republicans are all the same.
2. The divide and conquer ploy is still in play.
3. And is Kyle Ritterhouse really setting a precedent for his actions?
4. A multinational cabal is still in charge of our country affairs and his verdict doesn’t change nothing.
The rise in hate crimes will continue until more chaos is spewed across the country.
I saw a video today from Kyle’s trial that showed green screen drop out. WTF? Reminded me of the same lame CGI from the space station. You know the hundreds of videos from NASA that show tell tale sings of fakery. If you have never used green screen video FX before – also known as chroma key – it’s pretty simple, really. or it can be more complex. The first time I used it was with two scuba diving videos of big schools of fish. I projected a second video of the schooling fish on a different school swimming and it had a psychedelic effect. Watch the examples of chroma key from Kyle’s trial and other examples. It’s all bets are off scenario with reality verses fakery. See what you think. It’s getting to the point even a fifth grader can chroma key videos. https://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-green-screen-malfunctionkyle-is-actually-a-crisis-actor-baby-noah-sandy-hook-2679599.html
No. I’ve seen it. I can’t explain it all but I am certain that this was a real trial of a real guy with real charges. I am not persuaded.
I agree with Salty Sailor’s points. To me, the major purpose of this event was to SOW DIVISION, not to champion one side or the other. It certainly did continue the Soros/New World Order process of sowing division in America. At the very least, something is fishy here. The players seem to be programmed pawns, playing an expendable role. Close study reveals that Rittenhouse flashed white supremacy signs, he wandered arounds the area after his first kill, seemingly still looking for trouble, not surrendering after this first kill as he did after the third shooting. He impresses one as a young boy approaching manhood trying to prove the latter when he only proves what an immature dupe he actually was. Indeed, the vast majority of the participants were ignorant pawns, although one certainly has more sympathy with those who aspired to protect their community and did show some discipline in doing so, rather than those who aspired to raise hell and be seen as cool by their ignorant peers. (I remember 1969, when as a teenage runaway I dropped a big Gallo gallon of wine on a riot cop’s foot on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley during the People Park protest when he ordered me to drop the bottle — ah, youth!) The good news: most people are actually trying to be nicer to each other nowadays, as far as the lockdown will let them, even beyond race or political persuasion. The outer conflicts of the few mindless zealots, the Soros/BLM/Antifa pawns, seems to produce inner spiritual awakening for humanity. So maybe it’s all good, in the long run. The problem, reaction, solution here is: The Tyranny of the New World Order, produces awakening and revulsion on the part of humanity, which causes us all to try to take back our society one way or another. Evil people often underestimate the power of the good. Let’s hope that is their fatal flaw.
Thanks Joseph for the reply. And I do agree with your ignorant pawns comment , that is the expectation of those pushing this reset thru a scamdemic.
Jim… those gremlins on your web-sight, the POP-ops that blocks the whole page. I assume they are being worked on? Since I’m a regular I don’t need updates. Your site was working great until after the latest “dark-out”. I heard you speaking of the dark out on a show, what made it go dark again? can’t remember.
Reading the first paragraph made me feel like the Maximum 5 minutes I can watch main stream new; before I become enraged by the lies. Kyle’s trial reeks of Rotting Denmark. in a nutshell, they put self defense on trial. But why didn’t they pick a more murky case? That mystifies me a bit. The actual prosecution pales in comparison to the Media “tar and feather him” coverage. Maybe that was the plan. Don’t be concerned with how valid the prosecution is; use it as a template to blacken the eye of the second amendment. The bias against Kyle was so in your face. Impartiality in the news died a log slow death to the point now there’s no facade. All the networks are Communist News Network and how many people do they lose on a daily basis? Wasn’t there a mainstream news bailout in the “infrastructure” bill?
People keep screaming ”AR 15″ like it is some monster used on a battlefield.
Consider the photo I posted here.
Attachment
Here’s a quick article and an excellent suggestion to Rittenhouse. I hope he reads it and heeds it. It would serve this nation very well. The essence:
But there’s another approach I’d like for you to consider. You’re going to win several such settlements, and have the opportunity to win many more. What I and American patriots nationwide would like to see is for you to demand that the most egregious offenders *******issue very public, very precise apologies to you and to the American people. They will say “here’s the money; take it and run”. We’d like for you to say “I’ll take your money together WITH A PUBLIC APOLOGY, or we’ll see you in court.”
The article:
https://thebluestateconservative.com/2021/11/22/another-open-letter-to-kyle-rittenhouse/
Personally everyone I’m not buying the whole Kyle Ritterhouse verdict or shooting . It reeks of a November surprise psychological operation and I’m shocked that you Prof. Fetzer hasn’t seen the anomaly with this well promoted made for TV drama.
1. There were too many ‘drone’ videos of the whole event. It reminded me of the Charlottesville,Virginia psychological operation of Heather Huner ,tiki torches and a well driven muscle car plowing thru a crowd.
2. As our good Professor Fetzer has stated that Ritterhouse demeanor as a civilian and a non combat trained young gun owner was exceptional to say the least. Has any police officers or range instructor come forward and mentioned that he regularly trained with them ? And then there’s the ‘let’s run up and attacked a young man with a fully loaded AR-15 ‘ Let’s say he had on a Army National Guard uniform ?
3. Order out of Chaos is the times we live in now and all televised dramas is just a distraction from our reality.
I would love to get some feedback or ideas on what y’all thought this event was?
Well, I have friends who agree with you; but living in Wisconsin and having followed this extremely closely, it was real, the trial was properly conducted (thanks to the Judge, who displayed great courage and integrity), and the politics are all wrong for a false flag. His targets were white, he acted in self-defense, and he was acquitted. What’s to benefit Democrats from that? The points I make in this RSN debate apply to your stance as well. The problem has been fake news coverage implying they were black and that he was acting in a lawless fashion as a “white supremacist”, which appears to have inspired the (very real) truck attack that has just taken place: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/11/21/mass-casualty-event-as-suv-intentionally-drives-into-crowd-during-christmas-parade-in-waukesha-wisconsin-person-of-interest-identified/#more-220541
Thanks for the reply Prof. Fetzer. I know Wisconsin very well myself and one of my favorite places in America is Door County in the fall and kayaking around Washington island. I keep a bottle of death door gin in my pantry. I had an ole dear friend of mine from Kenosha whom played cello for the Milwaukee symphony and she died over ten years ago. She was black and her husband was German American and they both loved Kenosha because of it being a quaint lakeside diverse town to raise their daughter. I guess a lot has changed in twenty years?
Anyway I digress, I still think it was a psychological operation on steroids for the American public and even the Brits fell for it.
https://off-guardian.org/2021/11/20/kyle-rittenhouse-anatomy-of-a-divisive-distraction/
Don’t forget the BBC predictive statement on Building #5 before it’s implosion.
And the scamdemic vaudeville shows will continue.
Salty, I have to agree with Jim here. The best I can say is that it just seems real. I just cannot imagine their going to the detail that has been part of this entire event and it being staged. There have been a few videos from 153 that have presented the opposite (Toni and I had an exchange), but I did not see enough evidence to go along with the ff scenario. Is it feasible they have learned from previous ffs and turned it into an art form? I would say yes. But I don’t see it here. And if it is a ff, they deserve several Oscars for their performances. Would the state allow their courtrooms and officials to participate in something of this nature? Possibly. Although, from start to finish it just seems too realistic.
Thanks Will. They’ve gotten a lot of scamdemic money to hire better script writers and crisis actors.
Salty…see what you think of this interview:
https://generaldispatch.whatfinger.com/kyle-rittenhouse-speaks-to-tucker-carlson-in-first-tv-interview/
I watched it last night. A few surprises, but he comes across as remarkably mature for a (now) 18-year-old kid. That he supports BLM might surprise some, but his sincerity and strength of character shone through. I admire him as a national hero.
Same here, Jim….I sense no insincerity or attempt at fraud. This is not the nature or demeanor of someone involved in a false flag.
To be fair, Jim…(I had to listen again) Kyle believes with BLM’s right to protest, but not with their using violence.
Of course, I don’t remember BLM never using violence and even their painting Black Lives Matter on the streets of DC at the least is destruction of property and at the most, violence of it different sort….along with their destruction and removal of statues.
In FF trials, cameras are never allowed…only sketch artists, if that. This case on trial was filmed in its entirety.
IMO there is no evidence that this was a FF.
Don, I completely agree. If there was some “green screen”, what would have only been because cameras were not allowed all over the courtroom and they had to improvise. Using green screens is among the ways they have to compensate. It was all on the up-and-up and the politics were preposterous for a “false flag”. Nothing benefits the bad guys from this. It’s all to the good.
Yes Will I did see the interview with Tucker and I’m still not convinced that it’s was genuine. I still go back to that famous saying ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste’ and in this narrative it was created and the boys in blue were told to stand down and paid for rioters was running like roaches with bricks.
Keep in mind that these degenerates that run American has had a 100 year plan and theirs actors are groomed from children.
I’ll put out a rabbit hole for you. The United State Federal government has had a black budget since the 1940’s and every federal agency had their own spy agencies who do you think is working to destroy the Republic on the sidelines ?
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-21000-witness-security
Rome nor Greece were destroyed by outsiders.
You have a white guy defending himself with the (demonized) AR-15 and taking out bad guys (also white). He was a good citizen, not a white supremacist, which contradicts the preferred Democrat narrative. They want to take our guns. This is a great example of why we might need them, including the AR-15. That’s why they have to fake the narrative to make him out to be a white supremacist who killed blacks. If it were staged, they would have made it the way they wanted it. Sorry. These were real events.
Salty, let me ask you this…When (and it seems quite likely at this point) Kyle sues the hell out of the media (and I hope that includes Whooppi )and possibly Biden (more unlikely), will that also be a part of the staged scenario? I guess what I am asking is how far can it go?