This fellow needs to go.

For those who do not subscribe, a data breach at a Christian crowdfunding site has lead to the disclosure that the head of the Norfolk Police Depart Internal Affairs unit sent money and words of support to the vigilante who traveled to Wisconsin with his assault weapon and ended up murdering two people.

The poor judgment and twisted values of a senior police official who would lend his support to the actions of a murderous vigilante are disqualifying of any police employment and doubly so in an area as sensitive as internal affairs. IMHO.

Maybe it is just me, but I find it instructive that a site styling itself as “Christian” would be funneling money to a killer. Shows how corrupted words can become.

Here is the original story in The Guardian.

53 thoughts on “This fellow needs to go.

  1. RE: “The poor judgment and twisted values of a senior police official who would lend his support to the actions of a murderous vigilante are disqualifying of any police employment and doubly so in an area as sensitive as internal affairs. IMHO.”

    Your poor judgement and twisted values in making this post are disqualifying of having the privilege to do so. IMHO.

    The police officer donated to Kyle Rittenhouse’s legal defense fund, an act which anyone is entitled to do for any reason. Moreover, a person’s private thoughts, expressed in a legal manner, are not inherently disqualifying for employment.

    I’m almost inclined to ask: Why do you hate America?


    1. Of course, the officer had a legal right to defend a murderous vigilante with money and with words. That is not in question. However, his doing so is evidence that he should not be working in law enforcement. How can the public trust someone who says a murderer has done nothing wrong to act as a restraint on illegal and unprofessional police behavior which is the role of internal affairs? The answer is . . . we can’t. He needs to go.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Since Rittenhouse hasn’t even been tried yet, you calling him a “murderous vigilante” and a “mUrderer” might be construed as slander.

        Why do you hate America?


        1. Uh, the facts are clear – he is a murderer. He had no business being there. He had no business bringing a gun. He had no business killing people. Self-styled “real Americans” can defend this creep until they turn blue. He will still be a murderer.

          As for “hating America” you clearly have no idea how preposterous that is coming from a Trumpkin like you. That is really how clueless you are.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “Uh, the facts are clear – he is a murderer.”

            In America we believe a person is innocent until proven guilty. You show no respect for this core value.


        1. If you think there is a “party line” about the suitability of armed White Power militias patrolling the streets or gathering with weapons to confront political protests then you are an idiot. And that is putting it kindly so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.

          As always you are very quick to use words like “liquidated” when all that I have suggested is he be removed from a sensitive senior position with the police for very sound reasons. Supporters of White Power militias and armed vigilantism have no place in the police force. Your compadres on this forum compared this legitimate suggestion to the lynching of Emmett Till. Really, what is the matter with you people?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. If you were going to stand between a violent mob and the property they intend to destroy, would you do so unarmed?

            No one attempted to confront protestors. They guarded property that RIOTERS, not protestors, intended to destroy.

            The video I linked makes the point that Rosenbaum may have attacked Rittenhouse in a case of mistaken identity because he was angry at a man dressed similarly who had earlier followed him around with a fire extinguisher putting out the fires Rosenbaum had started. But whatever the motive, Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse, not the other way around.

            What should be upsetting you is not that a young man took it on himself to defend businesses from arson, it is that the police left that duty unfulfilled.


          2. “No one attempted to confront protestors”

            Did you read the definition of “vigilante?” Read it again . . .

            “vigilante : a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”

            Maybe no one planned to confront the looters because a decision was made that human lives were more important than property. Or maybe the authorities were just incompetent. It does not matter. It does not exonerate the lethal actions of those who took it on themselves to do the work of the police. It is vigilantism. Period. And it is unacceptable.

            This murderous punk is the kind of person we have in mind when we say that rhetoric of Trumpish politicians and the lies of propaganda news outlets have real world consequences. YOU might not travel with your gun to another state to attack BLM protesters but Rittenhouse was not like you. He did. He believed the overblown rhetoric and the exaggerations about BLM and acted on them. His chance to defend “real Americans” and to show those BLM types who is boss.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. Why have a defense fund if you have already convicted him. Get on with the lynching.

    Rittenhouse acted in self defense against those who initiated violence against him.

    It’s not his fault idiots brought cans of soup and skate boards to a gunfight.


    1. Is it self defense to borrow a rifle, drive several hours to another state, walk around waving said rifle at people you disagree with, then shoot several of them because you tripped and fell?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That’s why he needs a defense fund, you and Paul have convinced yourself he is guilty not based on facts but because you want him to be guilty.

        No one is required to allow himself to be made defenseless and be clubed to death.


        1. It was the cop himself who presumed guilt or innocence by saying, “keep your head up, you did nothing wrong.”

          If this is strictly about the right to a stout defense and not the particulars of his case, I’d be curious to know if the cop also donated to any of the bail funds set up to assist any of the numerous civil rights activists and journalists arrested In Minnesota and Wisconsin last year.

          Does this cop just want everyone to have a well funded legal defense or is there something about this kid’s actions that he supports?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “Does this cop just want everyone to have a well funded legal defense or is there something about this kid’s actions that he supports?”

            What business is it of ours? Are you an advocate of thought crimes?


          2. It’s my business because I live in Norfolk and my taxes pay his salary. If someone who can legally kidnap or murder me with impunity thinks there is “nothing wrong” with a minor crossing state lines with a rifle he couldn’t have legally acquired with the stated purpose of “defending” a community he wasn’t a part of from protests against police brutality, that’s something I’d like to know.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. RE: “It’s my business because I live in Norfolk and my taxes pay his salary.”

            Is that a fact? Another person’s thoughts, THOUGHTS, are fair game because you are a taxpayer? That doesn’t sound like America to me.


          4. Not another person. A cop. An armed agent of the state who is empowered to end my life or freedom any time he chooses.

            Will you please explain to me how you square the circle of being a small government conservative and your craven obsequiousness police authority?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. RE: “Will you please explain to me how you square the circle of being a small government conservative and your craven obsequiousness police authority?”

            No need, because your comment assumes too much.

            I only point out that the cop in question did nothing illegal or immoral and it’s morally and practically wrong to sanction him for thoughtcrime.


    2. “It’s not his fault idiots brought cans of soup and skate boards to a gunfight.”

      Remarkably stupid remark. But by making it you are confirming that the supposed “self-defense” defense is bullshit.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Rittenhouse was in a place he was legally allowed to be, and was attacked with a heavy object that could easily have rendered him unable to defend himself against further assault. After he shot his attacker, others pursued him with the same intent.

        If you attack a person he has the right to defend himself, Beng visibly armed does not deprive him of that right.

        Swinging a can of soup in a plastic bag an certainly disable a person and leave him unable to defend himself from further assault or murder.

        Committing a potentially deadly assault aganst an armed person is certainly stupid.


        1. Who was defending himself? The man brandishing a gun or the man with a can of soup in a bag. Unlike you, I guess, I have a little common sense and I do not buy this self defense bullshit from this gun-toting pinhead.

          Again you get high marks for consistency. You are following your usual pattern of bending over backwards to justify violence if the person committing the violence is white.

          But no matter how the final deadly incident went down, it shows extremely bad judgment for a senior police official to condone and support vigillantism in ANY way.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Rozenbaum attacked Rittenhouse, not the other way around.

            Defending private property is not vigilantism.

            If he were chasing down vandals after the fact you would have a point but standing guard is not unlawful and really is the duty of citizens.


          2. “Defending private property is not vigilantism.”

            When it isn’t YOUR property, it certainly could be. Especially when Mr. Rittenhouse went UNINVITED by ANY property owner in a different state.


          3. “Defending private property is not vigilantism.”

            You are beyond help. This person took it on himself to exercise police powers. That is the definition of vigilantism.

            “vigilante : a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”

            “Vigilante” is generous for this clown – it was not his community. He travelled across state lines looking for trouble and an excuse to use his deadly toys. He is a dangerous criminal and should be locked up NOW. If he were not white he would be.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. What police power do you think Rittenhouse usurped?

            Did he try to arrest anyone?

            If you see a mob coming to burn down your house, are you exercising police powers to arm yourself and stand in their way? How about if it’s your neighbor’s house? How about if it’s a place of business?

            Citizens have no power to initiate violence, but they have the right to defend their lives and property.


        2. Who said it was a can of soup in the bag? The man had just been released from a psychiatric hospital that day and the bag contained hospital stuff according to some reports.

          Rittenhouse was strutting around like he owned the street when people saw him with his gun. Several shots were fired from unknown sources and the only gun visible was Rittenhouse’s. So people tried to take out the probable active shooter.

          And he shot three of them, two fatally. Then went home. Cold and calculating don’t you think?

          He played vigilante and killed two people.

          And you think he is a hero?

          Warped perspective in my view. But he is a White kid, so not much will happen. If he had been Black and the police saw him strutting towards them with a gun after shots fired and people yelling, he would have been mowed down like a rabid dog.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Hero? Not sure, but within his rights? Absolutely.

            I initially thought it was a brick in the bag but I was assured here that it was a can of soup, but just from the video you can tell it was in that weight class.

            As far as any doubt about gunshots, have you ever been around a rifle fired at night? There would not be any confusion about whether he had fired or not.

            I had not heard Rosenbaum had been in a mental hospital earlier that day, but it certainly makes sense.

            All he had to do was to go burn someone else’s business. But he chose to chase Rittenhouse around a car swinging a heavy object at him. That’s pretty crazy.


          2. You have obviously not seen the videos. The chaos around the area of the murders coupled with echoing urban buildings could make careful analysis of gun shot quality and direction difficult if not impossible.

            Rittenhouse was the only person visibly armed. Reckless but brave men tried to disarm the man. He killed two of them, wounded another and strutted his stuff home. He was not hired by or authorized to protect any businesses. So why was he parading around with a high powered weapon? Obviously expecting to shoot something or someone. And he did. The gun was a straw purchase also.


            Liked by 2 people

          3. I have seen the video. Rosenbaum pursued him as he tried to retreat and swung that bag at him. Rittenhouse never advanced on anyone.

            As far as anyone mistaking where the gunshots were coming from, the muzzle flash from an AR at night is like a Press 25 flash’s big brother. If he had been firing, everyone nearby would have known for sure.

            Rittenhouse’s attackers were neither brave nor reckless, they were drunk on hate and mob frenzy.


          4. I disagree but you knew that.

            BTW there was no mistaking the source of the murderer’s bullets when he killed people. But you are assuming the crowd was rational and clear thinking when shots are heard.

            “ Wisconsin law stipulates that “any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.”


            Plus it was a straw purchase. You are up in arms about Hunter Biden and his background application, yet no problem for a rambunctious teen obtaining and carrying illegally then murdering folks.

            Hypocrisy in my book.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. So, lets get this video straight. We cannot find Rittenhouse guilty because it was a war zone. And why was it a warzone? Uh, that would be because a bunch of Proud Boy shitheads crossed state lines armed to the teeth to confront BLM protesters armed – according to you – with soup cans. Reminds me of the defendent who killed his parents asking for mercy from the court because he was an orphan.

            You people can swoon in admiration for this punk, but the simple truth is if he had stayed home in Illinois where he belonged nobody would have died. But, is he to blame? He is barely an adult and is obviously emotionally and intellectually stunted. Maybe we should blame supposed adults who encourage, excuse and glorify such gun violence but have enough sense to leave the execution of the violence to others?

            Liked by 2 people

  3. Where do get off making a court of Paul’s verdict that he is guilty or a man who donated a whopping $25 to his defense should be fired? Perhaps the police have a better insight into legalities than you? Your comments are so full of self serving leftist extremist bullshit it isn’t funny. Your lynch mob awaits your leadership, go please them with more psycho babble.


    1. RE: “Your lynch mob awaits your leadership…”

      That’s exactly the right way to put it. Based on his comments, Mr. Murphy could have been the one to put the noose around Emmett Till’s neck, but for skin color.


      1. Emmett Till.

        Removing a senior police officer for incredibly bad judgment and for condoning violent white supremacist vigilantism is not a lynching. Your comparison with the murder of Emmett Till and your insulting and ignorant accusation that I would take part in such a crime marks you as a real jackass. Have you no ability to edit stupid thoughts when they pop into your diseased mind? It really appears that you don’t.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Removing a senior police officer for incredibly bad judgment and for condoning violent white supremacist vigilantism is not a lynching.”

          Yes, it is.


          1. Uh, the police officer is alive. Rittenhouse’s victims are not.

            Your flippant use of the word “lynch” is not even close to reality.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Your flippant use of the word “lynch” is not even close to reality.”

            I say it is.


  4. Kyle Rittenhouse is connected with a known White Supremacist terrorist organization. This aspect of the case was extremely well publicized after the killings.

    A senior police officer with an ounce of sympathy for such people and who justifies their crimes needs to be gone. He cannot be trusted. Not just for his corrupt values but for his bad judgment in acting on them which have now had the predictable effect of discrediting the Police Department he works for.

    And, if there is any doubt about the nature of the Proud Boys . . .

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Ha, ha, ha, did you even read your article? The prosecution is making false claims of association with white supremacist groups and making bond modification requests to make a show and inject race. The defense says Rittenhouse has had all social media, email probed, had a vulcan mind scan and even his hind end probed for any association and not a speck has been found so go for it, who cares!!


      1. Regardless, Rittenhouse is accused of murdering two people with a gun he got and carried illegally.

        That his actions killed people, plus his confession, is not in question. It is a matter of determining his right to do so in the guise of self-defense.

        At best, he was a young kid acting impulsively and illegally who extinguished two lives. Justice demands that he pay a price just like any other person shooting strangers to death.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Hmm. Who am to believe – you or my lyin’ eyes. I will go with my eyes where I see him celebrating with Proud Boys and flashing the White Supremacist hand sign along with them. That is a bit more than a “speck.” And, of course, the point is with that proven association and the actions of gun-toting pinheads and racists to lionize his “courage” it was beyond bad judgment for a senior police officer to offer support. he needs to go.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Whie there may be some White Supremacists who identify as Proud Boys, it is not a terrorist organization nor is it white supremacist. There are Black members.

          More properly, it is western civilization chauvinist.


          1. As a diehard supporter of Donald Trump you have become master of the innocuous euphemism to replace the ugly truth. “Western Civilization chauvinist” is another good example of your skill in that regard.

            The Proud Boys have “won” the designation of being a TERRORIST organization in Canada and described as such by the Trump-appointed head of the FBI. The essence of terrorism is the attempt to influence political processes through violence and the threat of violence. Your denying the obvious merely shows how sympathetic you are to their diseased values.

            Whatever you want to call them they are a stain on our society, have no place policing the streets nor confronting political protests brandishing – and now using – military weapons. Is that really so hard for you to understand or are you so absorbed in your fantasies of overthrowing our democracy that you cannot agree?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Stating your intent to defend yourself if attacked is not threatening or terrorism.

            Where have the Proud Boys, as an organization, stated an intent to INITIATE violence to gain a political end?

            Openly carrying a firearm is not ‘brandishing’ Brandishing requires a threat.

            Concealed and open carry both have their places. Concealed carry is useful when you wish to maintain the element of surprise, so a criminal does not perceive a need to take violent action without warning.

            Open carry is a statement to potential attackers that you are prepared to resist if attacked.

            Guarding property is one of the cases where open carry is preferred so that is no uncertainty and to avoid some madman attacking you with a can of soup.


          3. Sorry, if those traitors attacked the capitol, which they did, they are scum.

            Western civilization chauvinists they may be in your eyes, but they are traitors, seditionists and criminals in most Americans eyes. Yes, patriotic Americans who really care about our country and not gang members who want to overthrow it.

            Liked by 2 people

        2. How do you know he wasn’t just saying “I’m/It’s Ok”? The first time someone tries to throw that phony Ok sign crap narrative in my face, I ‘ll just tell them to pack sand. You included.


          1. My oh my. Touchy subject. For some reason.

            Uh, the fellows he was illegally drinking with are known members of the Proud Boys. That is how anyone who is not a fool knows that this gesture flashed by all of them in that context was a shout out to fellow “European civilization chauvinists” which is Tabor’s phrase for Jews will not replace us assholes.

            By the way, try to keep up. The usurpation of the OK gesture by White Supremacists is the simple fact of the matter. Not a “crap narrative” at all.


            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s