Will people defend this too?

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 12/21/2021 - 10:37pm

Some weeks ago I said the Right-wing is waving the bloody shirt.
For reasons that I won't try to explain, some non-right-wing people bent over backwards to defend a kid that just murdered two unarmed people, and got away with it.

To those people, you need to see this.

What does this mean? It means a whole lot more right-wing people are going to declare themselves vigilantes, like Rittenhouse did, the next time there's a protest that they don't like.
And then some of them are going to do whatever they can to provoke the crowd so that they can get a chance to shoot into that crowd. It's so f*ckin obvious.

Those that deny that this horrible scenario won't happen are kidding themselves on an "I believe in the Tooth Fairy" level, or simply don't understand why any teenager would possibly want sex, fame and fortune just for shooting people that they already don't like.

Tags:

Kyle Rittenhouse

Vote

Comments

Submitted by QMS on Wed, 12/22/2021 - 5:54am

vigilante justice

not just for banana republics anymore

rather than a jury of your peers, law is
replaced with a trial by talking heads

—

question everything

Submitted by Marie on Wed, 12/22/2021 - 10:19am

Confirms that he lied his ass off

on the witness stand and that the criticism of him before the trial was appropriate. Not going to help him in his defamation lawsuits and should have made his attorney cringe.

No bright future for this dumb kid.

Submitted by fire with fire on Wed, 12/22/2021 - 10:52am

What is the point of this thread?

.
.

some non-right-wing people bent over backwards to defend a kid

How has this effort to "defend" this kid manifested itself? As far as I can tell from your threads on this subject, you are referring to posts on internet message boards. Please correct me if you have any other suggestion in mind for remedying this social problem other than telling people to shut up about the Constitution and respect for Trial By Jury and realize that this guy should have been convicted.

This is not a trivial matter. Attacking the rule of law because you disagree with a jury is far more "dangerous" than "defending" somebody who beat a rap. You are not bringing anybody any news about wingnut insanity. Most people who push this line point to things like the "attempted coup" and the "lies" of Donald Trump and supporters, but do not go as far as you do, to demand that other members of this board join with you in your affectless outrage at a guy getting away with what you assure us is murder.

I watched the first few seconds of the video and I saw that the wingnuts are making a hero out of this wingnut twerp du jour. Typical wingnut shit from the people who gave us the Birther Movement and, uh, The McCarthy Witch Hunt. Irony never sleeps, does it?

The best way for "liberals" to facilitate this deification of what you call a "murderer" is to make a "liberal" demand to overthrow the jury verdict. If your retort is that you are not really trying to get that guy convicted in spite of the Constitution, but you just want to straighten out those people on this board who do not sufficiently appreciate how GUILTY this guy really is -- ok, I get it. The jury was wrong.

I did not watch any more of that video for the following reason:
.
.

In his Autobiography, Clarence Darrow said that juries always acquit defendants they like and always convict defendants they don't like.

Drawing global conclusions from individual verdicts is not very useful in my opinion. It happens all the time of course -- I was a member of a Message Board that argued the "merits" of the Travon Martin case for over a year. I was amazed at how many people could ascertain the inner thought processes of the characters in that drama -- and argue with each other about what was "obvious" about what each guy was really up to.

I don't take attacks on the rule of law lightly.

—

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

Submitted by gjohnsit on Wed, 12/22/2021 - 12:06pm

Is that what I'm saying

@fire with fire

Please correct me if you have any other suggestion in mind for remedying this social problem other than telling people to shut up about the Constitution and respect for Trial By Jury

I guess that must have been what I was saying then. /s

Or I could have been referring to people who tried to defend, not the jury decision, but the actions of the kid.
I give partial blame to Jimmy Dore on this. (Yes, I watched his video on it)

You are not bringing anybody any news about wingnut insanity.

Are you sure? Because this is opening up a huge can of worms.
I regularly check the comments on Zerohedge, and they literally can't wait to start killing "liberals". They proudly proclaim it.

what you call a "murderer"

When you kill two unarmed people, you murdered them.

.
.

some non-right-wing people bent over backwards to defend a kid

How has this effort to "defend" this kid manifested itself? As far as I can tell from your threads on this subject, you are referring to posts on internet message boards. Please correct me if you have any other suggestion in mind for remedying this social problem other than telling people to shut up about the Constitution and respect for Trial By Jury and realize that this guy should have been convicted.

This is not a trivial matter. Attacking the rule of law because you disagree with a jury is far more "dangerous" than "defending" somebody who beat a rap. You are not bringing anybody any news about wingnut insanity. Most people who push this line point to things like the "attempted coup" and the "lies" of Donald Trump and supporters, but do not go as far as you do, to demand that other members of this board join with you in your affectless outrage at a guy getting away with what you assure us is murder.

I watched the first few seconds of the video and I saw that the wingnuts are making a hero out of this wingnut twerp du jour. Typical wingnut shit from the people who gave us the Birther Movement and, uh, The McCarthy Witch Hunt. Irony never sleeps, does it?

The best way for "liberals" to facilitate this deification of what you call a "murderer" is to make a "liberal" demand to overthrow the jury verdict. If your retort is that you are not really trying to get that guy convicted in spite of the Constitution, but you just want to straighten out those people on this board who do not sufficiently appreciate how GUILTY this guy really is -- ok, I get it. The jury was wrong.

I did not watch any more of that video for the following reason:
.
.

In his Autobiography, Clarence Darrow said that juries always acquit defendants they like and always convict defendants they don't like.

Drawing global conclusions from individual verdicts is not very useful in my opinion. It happens all the time of course -- I was a member of a Message Board that argued the "merits" of the Travon Martin case for over a year. I was amazed at how many people could ascertain the inner thought processes of the characters in that drama -- and argue with each other about what was "obvious" about what each guy was really up to.

.

I don't take attacks on the rule of law lightly.

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Wed, 12/22/2021 - 6:20pm

I see this issue the way you do gjohnsit. The

lionization of Rittenhouse bodes Ill for the US.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"