Jaw-dropping testimony in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial should end the case

Source: American Thinker.

On cross examination, a star prosecution witness validates the defense argument.

I’m almost inclined to predict that a not-guilty verdict is inevitable, but I am more concerned about the sham factor on display in this case. Some people complain that the rule of law is insufficient for achieving social justice, but in Rittenhouse social justice isn’t even at issue. Instead we are witnessing a pure breakdown in the rule of law itself.

27 thoughts on “Jaw-dropping testimony in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial should end the case

  1. Rittenhouse never should have been charged in the first place. But now, with the officer in the Jacob Blake shooting exonerated by both State and Federal law enforcement, “social justice” demands someone’s head, even if it is someone clearly innocent’s.

    You are right to fear for the Rule of Law itself.

    I hope the judge has the courage for a directed verdict and doesn’t punt it to a jury influenced by the fear of riots.

    Like

    1. You people are always fantasizing about how you will whip out your little friend to thwart an active shooter. Does your whipping it out prove the innocence of that active shooter? Your pretzel logic is twisted beyond recognition. Now a good guy with a gun turns a bad guy with a gun into a good guy. You cannot make this stuff up.

      The real threat to the rule of law is not a jury decision you do not like. It is the acceptance and condoning of vigillantism by armed pinheads. If Rittenhouse had stayed at his home in another state and let the legal authorities deal with events in Wisconsin, then two young men would not be dead nor a third maimed. That is the simple truth.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. No, Rosenbaum would have gone on setting fires(turns out is was a firestarter log in the bag he swung at Rittenhouse,,) Huber would have gone on clubbing people he disagreed with with his skateboard and Grosskreutz likely would have shot someone with the handgun he had fired more than once already that night.

        And Rittenhouse had every bit as much right to be there as they did. Sure, if we all cower in our houses while Antifa and BLM burn our cities we won’t have to worry about confrontations.

        But violence should be opposed.

        Like

        1. “But violence should be opposed.”

          Yes, it should. By lawful authorities and not by gun-toting pinhead vigilantes from another state.

          Even if the lies of lying liars about the nature of the demonstration that night are completely true, it is a well-established principle of the law that threats to property do not justify deadly violence. You can talk about what MIGHT have happened all you want. What DID happen is clear. Rittenhouse travelled from his home – motivated by the drooling hate rhetoric of the right – to confront BLM demonstrators with his gun and ended up killing people. THAT is criminal. That you – like you always do – admire this criminality does not make it less criminal.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “THAT is criminal.”

            No, it isn’t. We could substitute Murphy’s Law for the rule of law, but that’s exactly the problem at hand.

            Like

          1. FOX news discussion. He was seen earlier with the bag of fire starter logs using them to set fires. He had the same bag with at least one left in it when he chased Rittenhouse.

            Like

          2. So we don’t know what was in the bag, do we? Every reference I have read was that the plastic bag contained the hospital goods he had when he checked out earlier that day.

            Firestarter log sounds like an effort to make him an arsonist so his murder would seem justified.

            Rittenhouse murdered two men and crippled a third and the police loved him. I suppose if he had been Black, the same love would have flowed.

            Maybe if the police had just shot the man in the back once, citizens would not have been so upset. But 8 times? At point blank range. With another officer right there next to the victim. For the same police department to just let Rittenhouse walk away kinda adds salt to the wound.

            To be fair, Rittenhouse was an impetuous, underage kid from another state who sucked up to militia life with a borrowed gun. A huge mistake and I feel empathy for his situation. But I also think he has to pay for his mistakes as two lives are gone and one changed forever. You can’t just show up univited to a volatile situation and kill unarmed people and not pay the consequences.

            Liked by 3 people

          3. The defense has only just begun its case, though the prosecution has done much of the work for them. I’ve never heard a judge call a prosecutor a liar three times before.

            Like

          4. Fire starter logs? Fox News discussion? Good grief.

            Have you ever tried to start a fire with one of those. Spoiler alert – it is not easy. A serious arsonist would have gasoline, not fire starter logs.

            But the point is moot. Using deadly force to protect property is criminal.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Why did he show up heavily armed if not intending to use deadly force to protect property? He was not hired or invited by the businesses.

            Hundreds of protesters and rioters, some with guns, how come Rittenhouse was the only shooter and, consequently, murderer? Once he strutting around, the folks tried to disarm him.

            Well you will probably get what you want. And with all the guns sold in the last 2 years, we can see a lot more bloodshed as people show up at protests armed.

            An armed society is a polite society. Sure it is.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. He showed up visibly armed as a deterrent as was his right.

            If people chose to try to kill or maim him for putting himself in front of property they wished to destroy, that is their bad choice.

            Like

          7. Deter?

            Under the law you are not free to create dangerous situations to justify the deadly use of force. He had zero legitimate reason to even be in the state. He was there looking for trouble and provoked the violence by brandishing his gun. The people he killed and wounded were legitimately were trying to defend themselves in what was to them an active shooter situation.

            Liked by 2 people

          1. Rittenhouse supporters would try to make us believe he threw a flaming axe.

            So we get soup cans (vegetable?), then firestarter logs (Georgia Fatwood?)

            One thing the right wing is good at is creating victimhood scenarios. Babbitt is a martyr as she charged through a broken door to kill Congressmen. So Rittenhouse will be revered as some kind of hero because he killed protesters.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. That what I was told here.

            But now we know he was carrying a bag of firestarter logs and he had at least one left.

            But any heavy object swung in a plastic bag is a deadly weapon.

            Like

          3. I am confused.

            You were told that it was soup cans or you were told it was a fire starter log?
            Or were you told that it was a heavy object?

            Len told you today and in the past that it was hospital goods in the bag – not particularly heavy.
            Whose word are you taking over Len’s. And why?

            According to Reuters the bag contained toiletries.

            https://www.reuters.com/world/us/jurors-see-graphic-videos-men-shot-by-us-teen-wisconsin-2021-11-03/

            Liked by 1 person

          1. If the brand name was mentioned in a FOX forum, that has zero cred.

            Again, if the bag were a deadly weapon, the defense would have brought that up in discovery or depositions. Now they are starting defense since the prosecution has retired so it may come up. But if all they have is a plastic bag with some disposable toiletries, murder starts to look very likely.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. Particularly since those names require proof and court resolution to attach the crime to the person.

        At least “alleged” would be more accurate, but that is a very subjective, inflammatory label since police were not involved.

        When I heard the order from the judge about “victim” I knew the judicial fix was in.

        IMNEAHO

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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