There are many sides to any story. In the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, we can look at the prosecution’s case, the defense’s case, the case of the lying media, and a few others. My initial take back in 2020, when the shooting incident became a story, was that it was a clear case of self-defense. I couldn’t believe that he was even put on trial in 2021. Still, I think we need to give our justice system a chance, and reserve judgment until we know more facts. Perhaps there was more we didn’t know about this incident in 2020 that would be revealed during the trial.
For the sake of the truth, I am compelled to dig into the facts a little more deeply, to determine whether my initial take was actually valid or not, and to try set the record for the few of you who have stumbled upon my own account. We should all be willing to change our minds after more facts are revealed. Unfortunately, like most events today, too many folks stick to the narrative that suits them best, usually the narrative they first settled on. If you have an open mind, please read on. Maybe you will learn information you didn’t know previously, and hopefully you will realize the narrative many are trying to stoke is not based on reality.
There is a plethora of information regarding the Rittenhouse trial: transcripts and videos from the trial itself, videos from the night of the events, and much commentary from all points of view. After doing research, my take today is that the liberal media yet again does not appear to care to seek or know the truth, but is instead more interested in convincing us all that Rittenhouse deserved a horrible fate for having pushed back on those instigating the BLM riots of 2020 (only they call it a “BLM rally” or “a mostly peaceful protest” ignoring the fact that billions of dollars in property were destroyed and more than 20 people died during these so-called protests). Also, it seems clear to me that the District Attorney in Kenosha was dealt a bad hand and should have seen there was not much of a case, but he went forward anyway, perhaps to make a name for himself.
But why do I still think this is so? Why did the trial not substantially change my mind? Why do I not see this as a miscarriage of justice as many others say it is? Is it because I want to believe a narrative (a white supremacist narrative, perhaps?) or because I have taken the time to look at the evidence? Read on to see if I can actually support the conclusions I have come to.
Let’s start with the basic facts which should not be in dispute. On August 23, 2020, protests which eventually turned into riots began in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the wake of the shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha police (some may object to calling them riots, but there was more than $50 million in property damage just for this one medium sized American town; 100 businesses were impacted, and 40 went out-of-business for good).
On August 25, day three of the protests/riots, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, armed with an AR-15 rifle, took to the streets of Kenosha, ostensibly to protect the property of Kenosha local businesses much of which had been damaged or destroyed the prior two days. During the night of August 25, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three men during encounters with protestors. Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber died of their wounds. Gaige Grosskreutz survived his injury and later testified at Rittenhouse’s trial. Rittenhouse shot at a fourth person who was not injured. The next day, Rittenhouse turned himself into the police; he was later arrested and charged with murder and attempted murder. He spent 87 days in jail and was eventually released on bond. In all, Rittenhouse was charged with six counts.
- first-degree reckless homicide, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years (for killing Joseph Rosenbaum)
- first-degree intentional homicide, punishable by a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole (for killing Anthony Huber)
- attempted first-degree intentional homicide, punishable by imprisonment of up to 65 years (for shooting and injuring Gaige Grosskreutz)
- first-degree recklessly endangering safety (two counts), punishable by imprisonment of up to 17 years and six months per count, one count for endangering Richard McGinnis and one count firing two shots that missed at a man who jump kicked Rittenhouse
- possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, punishable by imprisonment of up to nine months (dismissed)
- failure to comply with an emergency order from state or local government, punishable by a fine of up to $200 (for breaking the 8 p.m. Kenosha curfew, dismissed)
The weapon possession and curfew violation charges were dismissed by the judge before the trial ended. Rittenhouse was acquitted by a jury of the other counts on November 19, 2021.
A Few Links:
This story was unique in that all events took place in front of hundreds of people and there are numerous video accounts of the events. You can listen to what others say about events or you can watch much of it yourself. I recommend gathering the relevant facts yourself and then making your own decision about what happened. I share some good resources to aid you below.
In my account, I quote from both the prosecution and defense attorney’s closing statements. Full transcripts are below:
Wikipedia also has some basic facts, mostly without embellishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest
Rittenhouse has also made the media rounds since his acquittal. I include a link to one such interview, an hour plus interview with Steven Crowder. There are may more others easily accessible.
Below also are a couple accounts regarding Gaige Grosskreutz, the man who was shot but not killed. Further below, I also include an interview of Mr. Grosskreutz on Good Morning America following his trial testimony.
Let’s look next at each of the players in this tragedy separately.
The first man killed on August 25, Joseph Rosenbaum, threatened to kill Rittenhouse, per Rittenhouse’s testimony during the trial.
On another occasion, Rosenbaum told the two males, “I’m going to cut your f***ing hearts out and kill you N-words,” Rittenhouse said on the stand, claiming that Rosenbaum did not use the term “N-word” but used the real racial slur. Speaking to prosecution, Rittenhouse said the threat, from his understanding, was made directly to him and his friend.
The teen noted that he did not know Rosenbaum prior to the threats.
As highlighted by The Daily Wire, social media influencer Koerri Washington testified last week that he has seen videos of Rosenbaum hurling the N-word and yelling “shoot me” near a Kenosha gas station on the night of August 25, 2020.
The following video shows Rosenbaum confronting a group of armed men, including Rittenhouse, who were in Kenosha to protect property. You get a sense of the kind of person Rosenbaum was just from this video. I would say he and his colleagues that night were not happy that some regular folks were present to put the brakes on their looting and rioting. The video link below does not completely corroborate Rittenhouse’s testimony above, but it is consistent with Rittenhouse’s account of Rosenbaum’s actions.
But what else do we know about Mr. Rosenbaum? What kind of man was he? The judge decided that the jury did not need to know about the more seedy aspects of Mr. Rosenbaum’s life, but we are not bound by the judge’s restriction and I believe you should know the kind of people Mr. Rittenhouse was in the company of that night. Mr. Rosenbaum, who the media affectionately dubbed Jo-Jo, was unemployed and a registered sex offender with a long criminal record. He was a very troubled individual.
- Rosenbaum, Who Was Born in Waco, Texas, Had an Extremely Troubled Life
- . Rosenbaum Served Prison Time in Arizona for a Child Molestation Case & Was on Bail for Assault in Wisconsin
- Rosenbaum, Who Was Homeless for a Time & Known as ‘Jo Jo,’ Was Released From the Hospital the Day of the Shooting
- Witnesses Described His Belligerent Behavior That Night, Including Using a Racial Slur
- The Rosenbaum Shooting Is Captured on Graphic Videos
What was an individual like Mr. Rosenbaum doing in Kenosha that night? In his closing argument, the prosecuting attorney, Thomas Binger, talks about Mr. Rosenbaum’s activities that night.
Oh, let me tell you all the awful things Joseph Rosenbaum did. He tipped over a porta potty that had no one in it. He swung a chain. He lit a metal garbage dumpster on fire. Oh, and there’s this empty wooden flatbed trailer that they pulled out in the middle of the road and they tipped it over to stop some bearcats and they lit it on fire. Oh, and he said some bad words. He said the N word.
Mr. Binger used a sarcastic tone as an attempt to convey this is no big deal, not stuff worthy of getting shot and killed– as if it is sort stuff many of us do every day. Mind you, this is the prosecution’s closing argument, not the defense’s. Mr. Rosenbaum also was accused of saying he would kill Mr. Rittenhouse that night if he found him alone. Add all this up and you clearly see he was just an ordinary guy out for an ordinary night of rioting. What’s the big deal?
Mr. Rosenbaum was also diagnosed as bipolar and was on anti-depressants. Per the defense attorney:
He’d been off his medications, according to Ms. Schwartz for seven to 10 days. We know that he was acting like somebody who wasn’t on their proper medication. He was not acting normal.
But what about the fatal encounter with Rittenhouse that occurred later in the night? Here is a summary from Wikipedia:
Video footage showed Rittenhouse being pursued across a parking lot by a group of people. Rosenbaum threw a plastic bag containing socks, underwear, and deodorant at Rittenhouse. A bystander named Joshua Ziminski fired a shot into the air, and then Rittenhouse stopped running and turned towards the sound of the shot. Rittenhouse testified at trial that prior to being chased by Rosenbaum, he heard another man tell Rosenbaum to “get him and kill him,” but also knew that Rosenbaum was unarmed. Rittenhouse testified that he aimed his gun at Rosenbaum to deter him from pursuing him further.
The shooting was captured by a journalist and other folks in the vicinity as well as by FBI drone video (apparently, the FBI was monitoring the riots via multiple drones). It is clear from video evidence that Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and that Rittenhouse was attempting to flee. Richard McGinnis, the journalist who captured a video of the event says that Rittenhouse shot when Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, went after Rittenhouse’s gun.
The Defense also contended that Mr. Ziminski (the one who fired a shot in the air) and Mr. Rosenbaum were working together to ambush Rittenhouse. Mr. Ziminiski is also facing criminal prosecution for his actions during that night.
Finally, remember too that Mr. Rosenbaum is a white man. It will matter when you listen to the media account of events.
Anthony Huber was the second man shot. What kind of man was he and what was he doing in Kenosha that evening?
1. Huber Was Remembered as Smart, Kind & a Semi Professional Skateboarder
2. Graphic, Disturbing Photos Show the Moment Rittenhouse Shot Huber
3. A GoFundMe to Help Huber’s Partner Describes Him as a Hero Who Stood Up for a Cause
4. Huber’s Parents Decried the Verdicts, Saying There Was ‘No Accountability’ for Rittenhouse
5. Huber Had a Serious Criminal History
Mr. Huber was 26 when he died, yet I can’t find an account of any profession for him other than skateboarding. Like Rosenbaum, he had a criminal record and suffered from bipolar disorder. None of these means that Huber deserved to die that night or that he was a bad person. However, someone who is 26, has a six-year-old-son, and is known mainly for skateboarding and agitating at BLM protests, seems like a wayward soul to me. As a father, I would have hoped he would be more concerned about doing what’s best for his family instead of stirring up trouble on the streets of Kenosha.
Here is the Wikipedia account regarding Huber’s encounter with Rittenhouse:
Various people in the vicinity chased Rittenhouse as he ran away after shooting Rosenbaum in self-defense. Rittenhouse fell down and shot two men, Huber and Grosskreutz, as they confronted him, one armed with a handgun. He then walked away with his hands up at times to the police. He was not arrested by the local police at that moment, but turned himself in to police in his hometown of Antioch, Illinois the next morning.
What was Huber doing that night and how did he get caught up in events? Here is an account from the Defense closing statement:
Mr. Huber, he’s a rider. Pushing a dumpster lit on fire, going to the barricades to pick up pepper balls, throw them back, pointing his middle finger at the police. He’s assisting Rosenbaum at the gas station. Hits Rittenhouse two times with the skateboard and attempts to disarm him. You’ll see it all in the slow motion video later are on. And Kyle Rittenhouse is running away from Anthony Huber. The state wants to call my client an active shooter. And the reason they want to do that is because of the loaded connotations of that work.
Huber strikes him in the head and arm the first time. Jump kick man comes in, kicks him in the face, spins his body 180 degrees. And Anthony Huber comes in for the second lick to the shoulder, neck area, trying to take his head off. And when he does that, his other hand goes grabbing for the gun, his bare hand onto the gun and pulling it away from Kyle Rittenhouse. Mr. Binger wants Kyle to sit there and hope and pray to God his strap works and Anthony Huber can’t get the gun. We don’t know that. We’ll never know that as he’s running away from him, a shot as the gun is being separated from his body. And you’ll see the butt way far away when the shot is finally fired.
And he is coming in with a loaded Glock. And we asked Mr. Gaige Grosskreetz about it. He wouldn’t even admit that there was one in the chamber. That’s why we had to put on the officer to talk about the unfired shell casing. McKowski talked about clearing the weapon and a live round coming out because Grosskreetz won’t say anything that puts him in a bad light. Grosskreetz, the person who has 10 million reasons to lie. And we all know he did lie because he never gave a new interview, after giving his statement, saying he dropped his gun going down the street.
Huber takes a swing at him with the skateboard like that. Kyle blocks and the skateboard’s knocked out of his hand. He doesn’t turn around and shoot him. He keeps running and falls from the two hits. He’s run that far. And yet somehow he fell over on his own.
Mark Richards: (24:27)
As soon as he is on the ground, they’re there attacking him. And you see the people. The law is self defense. You’ve seen it. You’ve heard it. Now, I’m going to go through the witnesses.
Huber is shot after he strikes Rittenhouse twice over the head with his skateboard, and another man, working in tandem with Huber, kicks Rittenhouse while he has fallen to the ground. Rittenhouse shoots Huber, while on the ground and under attack from these two individuals who appear to want him dead.
Mr. Binger, the prosecuting attorney, would have us believe that Rittenhouse acted prematurely and should have waited until a third and perhaps fatal blow was delivered by Mr. Huber’s skateboard or possibly he should have waited to see what assault Mr. Huber’s sidekick was planning next. This does not pass my smell test. Wait until you there is a more telling and serious assault before finally using your weapon? Might it be too late at that point?
The prosecution would also have you believe that Huber and the others who chased down Rittenhouse were concerned about an active shooter after having witnessed him shoot Mr. Rosenbaum. It is possible they actually believed this, but it is equally possible they thought up this explanation after the fact. However, from Mr. Rittenhouse’s perspective it does not matter what his attackers thought; he certainly saw this second incident much in the same way as the incident with Mr. Rosenbaum: unprovoked attacks on him-or at least two men out to intent on killing or disabling him for whatever reason.
If you doubt Rittenhouse’s story, ask yourself: what would have happened to Rittenhouse if he had not shot Huber and Rosenbaum? Would he still be alive today? I think Rittenhouse would be dead if he hadn’t defended himself in this manner. He might have been just another casualty of the 2020 riots whose death remained a mystery.
Finally, remember too that Mr. Huber was also a white man.
The prosecution’s main witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, the man shot but not fatally injured, actually made the case for the defense. We know him a little better than the others because we have heard his own side of the story directly from Grosskreutz himself. Many people may have only heard his account on Good Morning America.
“I was allegedly pointing my weapon at the defendant”, says Grosskruetz with an eye roll.
Michael Strahan then asked: “So you were not pointing your gun at the defendant?” Grosskruetz confirmed that was correct. This appeared to be the main takeaway for the folks on the set. “Hmm. Very interesting.”
However, when under oath a few days earlier, Mr. Grosskreutz told a different story. He testified for more than an hour-and-a-half, but the most damning damning testimony came from one short exchange during which Mr. Grosskreutz completely contradicts his TV statement to friendly media.
Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”
Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”
He said he was “closing the distance between the defendant and I,” when Rittenhouse shot him. He was trying to “do something to prevent myself from being killed and shot.” He said Huber had “just tried wrestling the gun” from Rittenhouse. “I was never trying to kill the defendant,” Grosskreutz testified. “I was trying to preserve my own life.”
The defense also pressed Mr. Grosskreutz for failing to inform the police that he was armed during the incident with Rittenhouse. Apparently, he was not feeling well that day, so he just forgot. Michael Strahan also conveniently forgot to ask about this oversight during the Good Morning America interview. In addition, Grosskreutz’s concealed carry permit had expired, so he could have been charged with illegal possession of a firearm, but to his benefit this was overlooked.
The police detective who testified during the trial said the following of Grosskreutz as well:
“There is definitely discrepancies between what the video showed us and what his original statements to [the officer] showed us,” Police Detective Ben Antaramarian said.
What else do we know about Grosskruetz? What was he doing during the night of August 25, 2020?
1. Grosskreutz Approached Rittenhouse With a Loaded Gun
2. Grosskreutz Has a Prior Gun Offense
3. Grosskreutz’s Gun had a Bullet in the Chamber; He Is Affiliated With a Protest Group Called the People’s Revolution & Is a Medic
4. Grosskreutz, Who Lost 90% of His Right Bicep, Is Suing Kenosha
5. Grosskreutz Described It All as ‘a Lot to Process’
Mr. Grosskreutz does not have a long criminal record like Mr. Rosenbaum and Mr. Huber, and he actually was gainfully employed, unlike the other two gentlemen. He did appear to have connections with a shady group called the People’s Revolution, although he denies any serious role with that group.
However, instead of looking at his past, we can discern a good deal about Grosskreutz’s character from his behavior after the incident. He appears to have a good deal of trouble telling the truth about the events of that night; his story under oath does not match up with his story to the police or the one he told the Good Morning America crew. During his TV interview, he also delivered a low blow to Rittenhouse when he mocked him for breaking down on the stand during the trial. However, Mr. Grosskreutz said the following about his own situation:
“Words are difficult right now, it’s a lot to process,” Grosskreutz said to the television station. “At no point, regardless of the topic, whether you are for or against the topic that is being protested, nobody should fear for their safety,” Grosskreutz said. “Nobody. Regardless of your opinions. Nobody should lose their life over voicing their opinion.”
Despite asking for understanding for his own difficult situation, he cannot seem to fathom that Rittenhouse might also have a “lot to process”, namely that Rittenhouse might be genuinely upset about recalling the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber and his role in them, or that Rittenhouse almost certainly feared for his own safety that night, or that he has had nightmares ever since, or that he and several in his family are seeking therapy, or that he might be suffering PTSD, or that he is still only 18-years-old and has been through more than most kids his own age.
The defense attorney also mentioned Grosskreutz “had ten million reasons to lie”, referring to the $10 million civil suit that he has filed against the city of Kenosha. He doesn’t seem to accept much responsibility for his own role in the incident, although if he had not confronted Rittenhouse with his pistol in hand, perhaps Mr. Huber would still be alive today.
Also, it should be noted that Strahan and the others on the Good Morning America crew said nothing about the low blow to Rittenhouse, nor did they ask any tough questions about the inconsistencies in Grosskreutz’s story, nor any questions about his possible motivation for telling his (slanted) story publicly. It is clear whose side the folks at ABC are on in this instance.
Finally, remember also that Mr. Grosskreutz, just like the other two gentlemen, is a white man.
If it were me, I would have done everything I could have to stop my teenager from going to Kenosha that night. He was too young for this. He did not belong there. One of the witnesses during the trial said of Rittenhouse “he was out of his league” and “his assailants would take advantage of that”. Clearly, a couple of hardened criminals did, in fact, try to take advantage of Rittenhouse who they may have seen as an easy target.
In the end, however, Rittenhouse was not so much out of his league when it came to defending himself. If he had made a different decision at any point that night he would likely be dead; those attacking him were not the kind of people to have mercy on someone they believe is pushing back on their attempts at agitating. Furthermore, I believe Rittenhouse’s motivations were good and he did not come to Kenosha for the express purpose of killing BLM protestors as the media likes to tell you. The facts just don’t back up that narrative; the prosecution certainly tried but never proved that case either.
Let’s compare to Rittenhouse to the three individuals he shot. He certainly got himself into a bad situation and was indeed probably out of his league, but he doesn’t seem like a bad kid, and when we compare him to the others he encountered that night, he stacks up pretty well:
- His expressed intent was to help. The day before the fateful night, he spent cleaning graffiti from businesses impacted during prior nights of riots. That evening, he said in an interview with media, that he was there to help to protect businesses from further damage (something that state and local authorities should have take a more active role in, but sadly were asked to stand down by irresponsible political leaders).
- Unlike the other men, he had no criminal record.
- He worked as a lifeguard, which gave him as much or more work experience than two of his three assailants.
- He attended a firefighter and EMT academy for youths. While in Kenosha he said he was there to help others if injured. He was not actually a licensed EMT, but he did have some training in this area.
- He is now a student at Arizona State University. His stated goal while in college is to help others by becoming a criminal defense attorney. The older men, especially Rosenbaum and Huber, still appeared to be wandering aimlessly. At least, Rittenhouse has found a purpose for his life.
You can legitimately say Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there that night, especially at his tender age. But what do you say about the others? Should they have been there? What was their purposes and motivations that night?
We should definitely care about the individuals who died that night. Perhaps they would still be alive if Rittenhouse hadn’t been there, but they might also be alive if they hadn’t acted as they did. I also care about a young man who should not have had his life ruined by this. Let’s stipulate it was not the best choice for Rittenhouse to be in Kenosha that night, but once there, he had a right to defend himself. There were others too armed like him, some like him trying to protect businesses, and some like his assailants who were there to agitate and set the city on fire. Whatever wrong decisions Mr. Rittenhouse made that night, they were not ones that should send him away for prison for years.
Lies about Rittenhouse
The real problem with this whole incident is the lies being told by the media and echoed by our know-nothing celebrities and politicians. Here are a few of the ones that have been told on a loop:
- He went out of his way to travel from out-of-state to Kenosha. Rittenhouse actually had a job in Kenosha and he had family in the city. The distance he traveled that day from Antioch, Illinois was about twenty miles. One of his assailants actually traveled significantly further than he did, but that’s not something you hear about in the media.
- Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a gun. The gun was not his own as is made clear in the prosecution’s closing argument: “This is a case in which a 17-year-old teenager killed two unarmed men and severely wounded a third person with an AR-15 that did not belong to him. ” The man who provided Rittenhouse the weapon is actually under indictment. The rifle was purchased in Wisconsin and never actually crossed state lines, yet I have repeatedly heard this statement regurgitated from a dozen media figures. It matters because it implies Rittenhouse’s actions were pre-meditated and are damning to his case of self-defense, but the statement simply is not true.
- Rittenhouse was illegally carrying a weapon. Wisconsin state law allows for the weapon he had to be carried openly. Minors are restricted from carrying shorter barrel weapons, but the rifle he carried was within the allowable limit for minors. He was originally charged with possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18, but this charge was dropped as it was determined he was actually complying with the law.
- Rittenhouse was pointing his rifle at others throughout the night. No evidence was provided that he pointed his weapon at anyone other than those who were attacking him. There were tons of video evidence, including FBI drone videos, and if there was any shred of even the grainiest video evidence to support this narrative, it would have been splashed all over the media. Still, without evidence to back it up, the narrative lives. The media has seized on anything that put Rittenhouse in a bad light; they make up evidence, as in this instance, but so far no video was ever produced showing him recklessly endangering others with his rifle.
- Rittenhouse was a vigilante. This is a subjective statement that goes to his intent. He says he was there to help others and there is no evidence to point to any bad intent either before the incident (when he was interviewed by Mr. McGinnis early in the evening) or from any particular action during that night that would show he was taking the law into his own hands.
- When he took the stand he put on an act with a fake cry. You can watch the video evidence for yourself. What is there to show he had no feelings about the deaths of the two individuals and that he just put on a show to gain sympathy with the jury? If you believe he is guilty and totally irredeemable, as most of our media does, you will immediately come to the conclusion he is acting. If you have a heart yourself and look at this whole event in context, I doubt you will come to such a conclusion.
- Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. Even the president made this claim. Rittenhouse shot three people that night. All of them were white. How is it that these incidents had anything to do with race? If there were actual evidence of racist tendencies from Rittenhouse’s social media or even hearsay from acquaintances, it would have been plastered all over the media. Rittenhouse turned his phone over to the FBI. There was no evidence whatsoever that he had any sort of racist tendencies as was noted by his defense attorney in his closing statement: “If we had something to hide, they never would’ve gotten in that phone. They took the phone. They made a copy. They searched it. Low and behold, nothing of an incriminating nature in it, nothing militia, white supremacist, any of that.” Mr. Rosenbaum, on the other hand, used the N-word during the night of the riot (per the prosecutor’s closing statement). Maybe the media is labeling the wrong guy? Again, the media makes up this charge despite not having any evidence to support it.
- Rittenhouse was an active shooter. It is plausible that some believed Rittenhouse an active shooter after he shot Rosenbaum, maybe even some of his assailants believed this, but then they did the very thing, vigilante justice, that they Rittenhouse is accused of. Furthermore, as the sequence events unraveled it became clearer that Rittenhouse was fleeing in the direction of the police, evidently to turn himself in and find some protection from further attacks (as it turned out, the police were unaware of what happened and chose not to detain Rittenhouse at the time; as was noted above, he later turned himself in the next day).
Interestingly, the charge of racism was applied to the judge as well. That charge was loosely based on the evidence that his cell phone played a Lee Greenwood song when called, the same song used by President Trump as a theme song; therefore, the judge likes Trump, Trump is a racist, and the judge by extension is a racist. Further evidence of the judge’s racism was a ruling in favor of the defense. This meant the judge was a racist, because he is siding with Rittenhouse, another known racist. They believe the case against the judge is air-tight. Such is the ridiculous and facile logic of one-channel media.
How Can you Live with Yourself?
Joe Biden, the guy my liberal friends tell me is way more honest than Trump, labeled Rittenhouse a white supremacist. Based on what? His spokeswoman, Jen Psaki is asked, but refuses to comment: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/psaki-refuses-to-explain-why-biden-labeled-rittenhouse-a-white-supremacist/. Biden commented last year when he thought it would get him some votes. Why stop talking now? Everyone in the one-channel media says it is true, so surely there must be some very strong evidence that you could point to?
The Good Morning America crowd who interview Grosskreutz ignored all the inconvenient facts I provided above and focused in only on the fact that Grosskreutz said he never pointed the weapon before being shot, in direct contradiction to in court testimony. They asked no difficult questions about his own actions and gave him an opportunity to unfairly attack Rittenhouse. It should be clear they were only interested in supporting a narrative involving racism. Any evidence to contrary was ignored or dismissed.
But it doesn’t matter if it is ABC, NBC, CNN, Washington Post or any of the rest of the one-channel media. They all sing from the same playbook. The MSNBC video below is another representative sample. The host opened by saying the verdict was another “gut punch to justice”. Rittenhouse, per this story, was “inciting violence”. The folks who they say were murdered were “attending a BLM rally”, not a riot. Even the prosecuting attorney admitted the dead men were stirring up trouble. Watch this video and ask yourself how their view of things squares with any of the facts I presented above?
The one-channel media wants to tie Rittenhouse’s actions to Jacob Blake, the black man who was shot by a white police officer last August, the incident that sparked the Kenosha riots. In the Blake case, at least you had two different races involved and they had some fig leaf of evidence for their claim of racism. However, Mr. Blake was another man with a long criminal record and police showed up when he violated a restraining order and assaulted his former girlfriend. He was shot by police only after reaching for his knife. He wasn’t shot because he was black.
The police had just cause for shooting Blake. The circumstances in the Blake case were nothing like the George Floyd case, but that doesn’t stop the media from lumping every instance of white policeman shooting a black person as more evidence of racism. Even if you believe the Blake case was about race (a huge stretch based on no evidence), you shouldn’t make the connection to Rittenhouse. They are separate incidents.
The MSNBC host says this is “a return to normal after the Derrick Chauvin conviction”. But the one-channel media conveniently ignores the Ahmaud Arbery case which was decided within days of the Ritenhouse verdict. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/24/us/ahmaud-arbery-killing-trial-wednesday-jury-deliberations/index.html
In the Arbery case, which at least on the surface better fits the narrative of white vigilantism towards a black man, three white men were convicted of Arbery’s murder. However, it is convenient to ignore the Arbery decision because the narrative they want to push today is that black men cannot find justice in America’s courts. So, instead they say the Rittenhouse case is reflective of the problems black Americans face, a massive stretch when there were no blacks involved in the Rittenhouse case. At the same time, they ignore the Arbery case that would argue against that narrative. The sad fact is that they want the narrative; the narrative is good for business.
I listen to the comments from Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, and others in the video above, and I ask how are their words in any way relevant to the facts of the Rittenhouse case or the reality of race in America today? Their comments are vitriolic, divisive, racist, and full of lies and ridiculous statements. The real problem we face today are people like these who want to incite people to hate their fellow Americans.
Let me also tie their actions, their words, and their shameful behavior to an event a few days later, an event the media refuses to comment on because it too doesn’t fit the narrative.
Shortly after the Rittenhouse decision, a man driving an SUV killed a half dozen people at a parade in Wakesha, Wisconsin, not too far from Kenosha. This story has a potential racial angle as well and may have been a reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict, but it has been largely ignored or soft-pedaled. The one-channel media doesn’t want to play up the racial angle on this one because the perpetrator in this instance is black, the victims were all white, and the perpetrator’s social media is full of racist commentary towards whites.
Perhaps this individual’s actions in killing six people were racially motivated, or perhaps not. I don’t know and we won’t be allowed to learn more about it because of what might be revealed. Certainly, there is more prima facie evidence for racism in this case than there is in the Rittenhouse case, so why doesn’t the media run with it? Why are they downplaying this individual’s racially motivated social media?
I am not suggesting we need to turn the tables and play up the racial angle in every instance involving whites and blacks. In fact, I think the opposite. I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the media race baiters. Almost all the notable cases the last dozen years are used by media to make judgments about the society at large.
Here is my remedy: forget the racial angle and stop using these folks as proxies for us all. The interaction between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin or between George Floyd and Derrick Chauvin or between Kyle Rittenhouse and these three men, is not representative of all race relations in America. They are all flawed individuals in unique circumstances. We cannot say that one of them is entirely in the right and the other is entirely in the wrong. Nor should the rest of us be stand-ins for those individuals who are of the same race as us. The media needs to stop saying that that Derrick Chauvin, George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse represent all whites or that George Floyd, Trayvon Martin, or Jacob Blake represent the experiences of all blacks. They represent themselves and nobody else.
Nevertheless, ordinary folks are influenced by the racial narrative. The media wants to attack their opponents for their own political advantage, but then they ignore the fact that they are influencing people in a very negative way, a way that is dividing our citizens and damaging the fabric of our country. You want to know why we are divided nation and why we have so many people like the one below who laments the fact that this individual didn’t drive his SUV into a Trump rally instead? It is because of people like Sharpton, Reid, Biden, Binger (the Rittenhouse prosecuting attorney), and others who lie about events like the Rittenhouse trial in order to sell their own racial narratives or advance their own political interests. These folks are the real problem.
My LIberal Friend’s View
Finally, I end with a few comments from my liberal friend whom I have debated in the past. He has some words of wisdom regarding the Rittenhouse case.
My Liberal Friend: The man, who was just a boy at the time (under 18) showed up at a rally with a long gun to do some vigilante protection and ends up killing some of the protesters. In other discussions you’ve said that killing another person is one of the worst things one can do in this life, except certain situations like self-defense. Rittenhouse killed 2 people and almost killed a third. Maybe you think it was self-defense, but what do you say about a person that puts himself into a situation that has a high probability of turning violent?
Me: Can we say the same about Rosenbaum, Huber, Ziminksi, Grosskreutz, and others? Did Rittenhouse know the kind of people he would encounter? Probably not. Was his decision to go to Kenosha that night a good one? Probably not. But was he a vigilante? Can you really discern his intent? You think his intent was bad from the start, but I don’t.
My Liberal Friend: Whether you agree with what was being protested, or even if it was a protest is immaterial when it comes to Rittenhouse. Take the social and politics out and look at what he claimed he was doing. He was there to supposedly protect a car dealership. The owners of the property are claiming they had never asked or paid for protection. I haven’t heard of anything showing otherwise. Rittenhouse and his friends have a photo with the owners, and they weren’t asked to leave the area, but I am not aware of a specific request. This means they were doing it on their own and this wasn’t exactly in their neighborhood; it was 20 miles away. Vigilante protection, not in their neighborhood, guns, underage, untrained, this sounds like a bad combination and nothing good was likely to come of it.
Me: I agree with you when you say the Rittenhouse case should stand on its own. It has nothing to do with race, but the media can’t help but make it about race, and this is why the whole situation has been distorted. Rittenhouse is a political pawn, something I sure he didn’t bargain for and certainly didn’t deserve. He has suffered for his actions, and probably will the rest his life.
I have to also dispute some of the facts. You are repeating what you have heard from the media “authorities”. It was his neighborhood. He worked in Kenosha and had friends and family there. Some of the assailants traveled even further than Rittenhouse to arrive in Kenosha, by the way.
But I also agree it was not a good combination. It is not a stretch for you to say “nothing good was likely to come of it”. But what about the people Rittenhouse encountered? They were folks with criminal records, two of them suffering from bi-polar disorder, and one who discontinued his medication; they brought guns and chains and revolutionary ideas to the event; they started fires; they obstructed police. Who knows what other damage they had done in the preceding nights? They were not a good mix to the situation either, and I would argue a far more toxic element than Rittenhouse.
My liberal friend: One last thing regarding the Rittenhouse trial. Both Black and White people supporting social justice have been the targets of violence in the past and I don’t think it is a stretch for it to be the case in the Jacob Blake case.
Me: Perhaps then we can agree that Rittenhouse as well has been a target, both by the people he encountered on August 25 and by public figures who have unfairly attacked him during the last year?