RITTENHOUSE Verdict unleashes CELEBRATIONS, on the RIGHT

Yaaaaay!

 

If I can add to your observation, it now appears to me that this trial had somewhat of a "perfect storm," characteristic, of bringing together multiple, strong motivators, for Republicans. The gun rights crowd, is obviously a big part of the reaction we now see, on Political Forum. (As another appendage of this thread, I wonder how representative this is, of the country, as a whole. I would automatically tend to think that it is more representative of the more extreme parts of the GOP. But, then again, those parts are as big as they've ever been).

Also, even though the victims were white, I have heard this incident spoken about, from the Right, as being tied to BLM and Antifa-- another major topic, stirring Republican animus. I think it is a very meaningful statistic, that was just found on a Pew survey of people's intra-Party positions, within the political & partisan spectra, that the most predictive attitude, of whether a person will identify as a Democrat or a Republican, is that person's view of Race Issues. Respondents who thought that much work is still required, in the area of race, were overwhelmingly Democrats; Republicans, predominantly felt that little more work was required, on issues of race.


Some have also claimed this, as a victory for "law & order," even though, in truth, having more civilians showing up at protests, with guns, to "keep order," is going to be more problematic for police.

Lastly, I'm thinking it was also easy, because the various issues involved have a partisan flavor to them, to see this as a cultural confrontation, between the forces of Wokeism, and those of the traditional, America-loving, MAGA movement.


All I can say for sure, though, is that I had not been expecting this verdict to be as powerful of a wedge, as some news media are now presenting it.

 

Hyperventilating media were put in their place by a jury who calmly looked at the facts and rendered a dispassionate verdict. For those on the Right, media humiliations are always an occasion for celebration.

 

That's true, most of them do. Most of them are trying to make life work and take care of their families, and it's really pitiful to watch lawyers twist the truth, and judges act like the rules keep them from knowing it. Most trials are a battle of lies, and justice is about as sure as a coin-toss. The man that goes to a trial thinking the truth is all you need to prevail is a fool.
I prefer to the in the position of expert witness that turns the tables and gets the right thing done. Not always possible.
NO court should ever be under the intimidation of mob rule, and attempting to do so should be it's own crime.
The judge in this case was exceptional; he stuck to the rules and forced the attorneys to do the same. I imagine that inspired the jury to follow suit.

 

Those who don't agree with self-defense have ignored the evidence- and, the track record of the men who attacked Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum had been convicted and imprisoned for raping 5 children, was under restraining order for beating up a girl friend at the time of his death, had a few other charges going too. The other two weren't much better. The only clean one of the four was Rittenhouse. Even the guy who was shot and survived testified that he was pointing his own gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot. The defense of thugs and criminals seems to be common among the left. Explain the logic of that.

Biden now says he is "Angry and concerned " over the verdict, and tells people to "protest peacefully".

What the hell is he doing second guessing the justice system or telling people to protest at all?
And given the examples we have seen of "peaceful protest" in the past, does that mean he is endorsing riots, burning. looting? Does he not know some people will take it that way? NO. He's not that smart.

 

Could you be a little more specific by giving an example(s) of an extreme part of the GOP? I'm assuming you're referring to the GUN RIGHTS crowd as being one such example of this GOP extremism. Would that be what you're referring to? For if it is, may I inform you that the GUN RIGHTS crowd (which includes me) are anything but extreme in our support of our Constitution's 2nd Amendment. Perhaps there's something else you've detected from the GOP that makes you think and or say that we're extreme. Do tell.

 

This was a trial against the right to self defense. Americans who value protecting themselves are justified in celebrating that they can still do so without being made into criminals for it. A nice side benefit is that actual criminals still have much to fear from their potentially armed victims. This great loss to western civilization that was prevented is cause for celebration.

 

You misspelled self defense.

 

Meaning you are not happy he could defend himself?

 

I'm not surprised at all! Look at how many pages have been devoted to the case, even before the verdict. And the more time I spend at PF, the more I realize it is very representational of the different factions of our society.

 

It was, generally, folks from the right who were so concerned about the effects of jury tampering. Perhaps it had an effect - and the innocent verdict was a result of that? We can't ever know for sure.

What I do find interesting is the profiling of the 'victims' of Rittenhouse. I've read, here at PF, all about the misdeeds of these folks - that they were scum of the earth. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me - as it furthers the 'good guy with a gun' narrative. It supports the idea that they deserved what they got. It might explain their actions that night, but their past misdeeds/crimes had nothing to do with this case. And surely, Rittenhouse didn't know about their pasts. But you can be he will be heralded as a hero for killing 2 bad guys and wounding another.

 

Because there should never have been a trial in the first place and wouldn't have been had the left not made convicting Rittenhouse a national cause celebre.

 

It is you, who is being not obtuse, I suspect, but disingenuous. I was asking about what had drawn your interest to this case. If that is not evident to you, my question applies to your initial interest in the case, which it is presumed occurred prior to the verdict. Though your already having changed your story once, does not bode well for trusting your response, I will nonetheless ask you if that is the explanation that you are now suggesting, for my misunderstanding of your post: that you had no special interest in this trial until the verdict was read, and President Biden then commented?

Links??

And here is another sign of an insincere argument, though I am now actually wondering if you cannot grasp what an honest argument is. This ad, that you have been citing, is from the presidential campaign, last year. Biden-- which I apparently must tell you, for your information-- was NOT YET PRESIDENT. Hence, there is nothing wrong, at that point, with him offering an opinion; and it is not even an opinion on the case, it is only Biden's including of a person, coming from out of state, with an AR-15 assault rifle, to watch over a crowd of protesters, who he ended up shooting & killing, as an example of the right wing militia men, that Trump was seemingly courting. Here is the explanation, from your link.

<SNIP>
The video was produced in response to former President Trump's comments during the Sept. 30, 2020 presidential debate.

"There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night," Biden said in a tweet.

"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 saw in Kenosha, and as we've seen in Portland?" the video caption asked.
<End Snip>

If you care to explain how, from that moment, you were intensely focused on this case-- though it was a year in advance of the trial; I'm not even certain if charges had even been filed-- be my guest.

 

I'd love to hear you expound on that.

 

Here's my take.

This case was politicized from the get go. The media constantly portrayed Kyle Rittenhouse as a violent racist extremist that went to Kenosha looking to shoot someone because he hated BLM and was against them. This acquittal, and the trial itself shows this false narrative to be just that, false. So this wasn't just a win for peoples Right to Self Defense. It was also a win against the media's constant false narratives. Did the media outright say these things? No. Not for the most part. But it was pushed. Portraying Kyle as having crossed state lines in a way that implied having to drive hundreds of miles to a place he had no connection to. Claiming he had no family there for instance. Portraying Kyle as having been a part of one of those scary militia's. Portraying Kyle has being a racist just because he happened to go to a bar in which the Proud Boys were at and interacted with them. The only time you heard anything good about Kyle from the media is when an independent site brought it up.

In the end this was a win against Big Media.

 

Simple.

Conservatives watch as false narratives about police brutality resulted in disgusting widespread looting rioting and violence by the biggest losers of our society. We watched as police were blamed, and actions to cut funding were pushed, and we watched as people were put on trial for self defense as the media and the government looked to take away our rights to protect ourselves from these social degenerates.

We won.

End.

 

Unless you are one of the 12 that heard both sides, your view is distorted.

 

You desire a world where political extremists can kill people that get in the way of their terrorism.

 

Wrong.

It's not a symbol of our own political ideology, it's a rejection of yours.

 

Thanks for your input; I will definitely consider you a part of the fierce defender of the 2A contingent. And, granted, there is a gun rights forum here, but we don't typically see a dozen, gun rights threads, on the first two pages of "New Posts," which is why I came to feel that there are additional factors, motivating the supporters of Rittenhouse.

As for your speculation on the news media's motivations, it is w/o a doubt, that they are driven by the desire for ratings which, as this translates to more profitability for their company, no ardent advocate of Capitalism (as I am going to guess, you may be) should have a problem over. The part about their having, not just a slant towards greater gun control regulation than currently exists, and certainly more than a 2nd Amendment purist would think right, but a desire, aside from ratings, to push this agenda, with their programming, is something that, to my mind, would require bearing out with some evidence. While you yourself, admit that you don't know why they feel this way, I will admit, though I can't unequivocally accept that theory as fact, that there may be some truth to it.

 

Thanks for adding your voice, in answer to my question. I already would have expected you to fall in the gun rights camp. I wonder, now, with the way this ruling is being described by you all, if you'd say that, when it comes to this issue, even though this was not a SCOTUS case, or a case that was going to make any ruling whatsoever, on gun rights, that you still think of it as having special prominence, regarding the 2nd Amendment. And, if it is possible, would you be able to walk us through your thought process, as to why this case would have such a heightened importance, relative to others?

 

You still don’t have a clue what self defense means or what happened in this case. Seriously just stop posting about this subject. Your ignorance is just WOW. Not a shred of anything vigilante related occurred here. And no one is wishing to just shoot random people for no reason. You walk up to someone unarmed minding their own business and shoot them and YOU'RE going to jail.

 

Many lawyers were concerned about the 4 days the jury took to come to a decision but it could be a good thing as they took seriously and considered every count. Unlike the 4 hours taken by the OJ trial this engenders more respect for the jury.

 

Those are two ways of saying the same thing. For the last two Democratic Administrations, it has been the primary directive of Congressional Republicans, when they were not in the majority, just to obstruct whatever the President and Congressional Democrats have wanted to accomplish.

I am going to consider your enthusiasm over this ruling, to come predominantly, not from a support for the 2A, though you probably are a supporter of it, and not from a showing-up of the media, though I expect you have contempt for the "liberal media," but as a symbolic victory of Red priorities, over Blue ones. My question to you, is why would you extrapolate its relevance, to such a grand degree, as opposed to seeing this case as only being about a discrete incident, and Wisconsin law?

 

the media really hates guns and the police. that must explain why they fill the airways with good cops firing powerful weapons with pinpoint accuracy. just like real life!

and of course, the violent left, will be burning america's cities as a result of this verdict. civil war ii, and the "boogaloo" race war have long been dreams of the left. lololololololololololololololol

america's right wing. the only patriots on earth who can't wait to secede.