47 thoughts on “Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted On All Charges”

    1. LOL!

      You NEVER fail to disappoint.
      Now one of YOU people is throwing out a charge of “racist?”

      You want “racist” – here you go. . .

      “Conservatives” say that the black law officer defending the Congress is a “murderer” for killing a rioter and ought to go to jail.

      “Conservatives” say the white vigilante punk is a “hero” for killing rioters and ought to be set free.

      Now THAT is a racist double standard if ever there was one.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. The killing of Ashli Babbett was unjustified murder before we knew the shooter was Black.

        Rittenhouse missed the only Black attacker he fired on(Head Kick Guy)

        Race had nothing to do with either shooting.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “Race had nothing to do with either shooting.”

          Uh, yes, that is true. I did not say that race was involved DIRECTLY in either killing.
          But race has everything to do with how “conservatives” view the two incidents.

          Black police officer shooting rioter attacking the Congress = murderer.
          White punk shooting rioter attacking some property maybe = hero.

          Of course, this is just my opinion. I am sure there is some difference between these events that allows “conservatives” to tell themselves that race has nothing to do with their attitude. Please share. What is that difference? I see a policeman doing his duty in the face of a murderous mob versus street punk with a gun looking for trouble. What am I missing that has nothing to do with race?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          2. A cop shoots a rioter and its murder. A young vigilante LEAVES his STATE, uninvited, and takes a gun to a protest and shoots three people, 2 dead, and it is self-defense.

            I do not have a big yellow bullshit flag big enough to throw on that concept.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. It’s not that hard a concept.

            A cop shoots a rioter who is unarmed, petite and no threat to him or anyone else, and yes, it’s murder.

            A kid who is at worst unwise, is repeatedly attacked by a mob and shoots some of his attackers to stop the attack, and yes, it’s self defense.

            Like

          4. “No threat to him…”

            She was at the head of a rabid, murderous, armed attackers calling for the killings of our VP. The mob had already beaten 100’s of police, sending many to the hospital.

            He was one man, the last line of defense between the lynch mob and the people he was sworn to defend. Until she was shoved forward through the broken door by the “brave” rioters, then it look very likely that the defender would be overwhelmed and probably killed.

            That is a lot more justifiable defense than the Rittenhouse case. After he killed the first one and left the scene, he was no doubt the active shooter and brave men tried to disarm him.

            Simple to understand if one is really trying to find justice.

            A lot of tap dancing if one is not.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. So, next time there’s a BLM protest and some people back in the crowd are throwing bricks, it’s OK to mow down any women and children in the front of the crowd to get at them?

            Regardless of who might have been further back in the crowd, Babett was no threat and was not attacking anyone.

            Like

          6. If that is what you believe, that is what you believe.

            If she had succeeded in accosting the officer, with the mob behind her, could he have shot her then?

            Or, more interesting, what would you have done as the last man standing as the mob charged through towards the chamber. Assuming you were not beaten half to death.

            Could you defend yourself?

            Rittenhouse shot three people with fewer attackers, not a rabid mob. A rabid mob with weapons and a trail of blood.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. ” . . . she was petite and no threat to him or anyone else . . . blah blah”

            Is that nonsense the best you can do?

            It is not a persuasive explanation for the manifest double standard on display.

            Your pattern in this forum is crystal clear. This double standard when justification is at issue is NOT new. Over the years every single black victim of police violence was – according to you – responsible for their own fate. They brought it on themselves. Every single white killer was fully justified. Only in this ONE case do you side with the victim of a police killing – the one where it was a black officer who was CLEARLY defending himself and others from a rampaging mob. Him you call a “murderer.”

            Liked by 2 people

        2. “The killing of Ashli Babbett was unjustified murder before we knew the shooter was Black.”

          Bullshit. “Conservative” media tried to make that death racial from day one. They accused Liberals of hypocrisy and asked why they condemn police violence but not in the case where the officer was black and the victim was white.

          The fact that you still refer to the law enforcement defense of Congress from people bent on mayhem an “unjustified murder” tells everyone who stops by and awful lot about you. And none of it is good. In fact, it is very bad. I will not elaborate so as not to hurt your delicate sensibilities.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. You never fail to deliver…racist. Your side’s race mongering is quickly losing its political appeal as a talking point since more and more blacks are turning their backs on left wing patronizing and plantation life. Keep it up along with the Trump, Trump, Trump drumbeat…its a sure win strategy…wink, wink

        Like

        Reply

        1. Race mongering?
          Uh, you were the first to bring up a “racist” charge in connection with this verdict.

          The immediate problem presented by this outcome is the legitimization of vigilantism. It is a dangerous path we should not go down.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  2. Now, does the policeman who lost his job for donating to the defense get is position back?

    Does President Biden apologize for alleging Rittenhouse to be a white supremacist?

    Like

    Reply

    1. I believe the policeman used an official email address for his personal donation. So probably not.

      Acquitted or not, whether he was a White supremacist is kind of moot. Though the video of him drinking illegally and carousing with the Proud Boys while on bail seem to indicate his coziness with militias.

      He is a lucky young man. Few people killing 2 and maiming a third would be absolved of all responsibility unless they were defending their home and family. And even then chances are decent that you might get some punishment. Just ask the poor fellow the police railroaded in the raid in Chesapeake about a decade ago.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. Under age and obtained through a strawman purchaser because he was not legally allowed to possess the weapon?

            One of your biggest mantras when it comes to gun issues is to control strawman purchases, but here you defend it.

            H-Y-P-… Heck. You know the rest.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. There is a disconnect between Federal and Wisconsin law, but at least under WI law it might be a straw purchase, though not under Federal. If so, WI is welcome to prosecute him for that.

            But it changes nothing in the self-defense case. In that case, the gun could have been borrowed or even stolen and it would make no difference.

            Like

          3. “It wasn’t illegal, that’s why the judge dismissed the charge.”

            As usual, not exactly true.

            The judge dismissed the charge because the statute was so poorly written as to be unenforceable. And, being only a misdemeanor it was not particularly worth pursuing. While the letter of the law was muddy, its intent was clear – juveniles should not be carrying dangerous weapons.

            Like

        1. Again, you choose to deliberately ignore the context. In the context of celebrating with a group of Proud Boys he IS flashing the white power gesture.

          The connection between the people who turned up to attack the BLM demonstration in Kenosha and White Supremacist social media calls to do so is direct and causal. The word went out. Armed people turned up. Rittenhouse was one of them.

          In response to Trump refusing to condemn White Supremacists and calling on the Proud Boys to “stand by” the Biden campaign produced a video showing armed militia. One of the militia images was of Rittenhouse who we saw above CELEBRATING with Proud Boys. Kenosha was mentioned by the moderator, Chris Wallace. Here is the ad in question . . .

          There is nothing to retract. Rittenhouse was there with his gun killing people. Period.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. “Angry and concerned”?

      What Biden should be doing is apologizing for characterizing as a White supremacist during the campaign and thsnking him for his service to the community doing the job the woke police would not do.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “Service to the community?”
        “Woke police”

        Good grief.

        Whatever you think about the law enforcement reaction to the civil unrest following the gunning down of yet another unarmed black man, it is THEIR job to deal with it. Not yours. Not the Proud Boys. Not Kyle Rittenhouse’s.

        Without the intervention of these ignoramus vigilantes, there would have been property damage but no loss of life. THAT would have been a better outcome than the tragedy that occurred.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    2. Yes, the verdict has left Stumble Joe “feeling angry and concerned,” as we all must be. But make no mistake, he stands ready to crush the throat of any dissenter who doesn’t share his subtle sensibility. His foot, reanimated after colonoscopy today, is already in the jackboot.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “as we all must be . . .”

        Decent Americans ARE “angry and concerned” that our courts failed to punish murderous vigilante violence. You do not have to be and will not be punished nor have your throat crushed for your views.

        “Crush the throat? ”
        What “jackboot” are you referring to?
        When are you people going to learn that over-the-top rhetoric and “alternative facts” are dangerous.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. No. Decent Americans are content with the acquittal, and justifiably disgusted with people like you who persist in character assassination.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “Decent people” agree with what President Biden said. Decent people ARE concerned and angered that vigilante murder goes unpunished and mourn with the families of the VICTIMS. Decent people agree that we all should accept the verdict. Decent people agree that no one should act on their anger at the verdict with violence.

            You chose to show your disagreement with the President with your childish and ignorant name-calling and your fantasy bullshit about crushed throats and jackboots. That is YOUR character on display.

            FWIIW, in my book, anyone who celebrates or encourages street violence and non-judicial killing is not a decent person.

            The verdict of Not Guilty says NOTHING about the character of Kyle Rittenhouse. His “Free as Fuck” tee shirt and celebration with Proud Boys does.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “The verdict of Not Guilty says NOTHING about the character of Kyle Rittenhouse.”

            No, it doesn’t, and it shouldn’t. Even people of bad character have the natural right of self defense.

            It is you who is making an issue of KR’s character. Inappropriately and disgustingly.

            Like

          3. What “issue” of KR character? There is no “issue.”

            FWIIW, in my book, anyone who COMMITS, celebrates or encourages street violence and non-judicial killing is not a decent person.

            Like

          7. Uh, sheep do not vote.

            But hey I get it. You are laying claim to being some sort of advanced person with superior knowledge and advanced ability to think for yourself. Especially compared to, say, me. Well, Mr. Roberts, I am sure that you think so. I will not try to disillusion you. That would be unkind.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. …”he stands ready to crush the throat of any dissenter who doesn’t share his subtle sensibility. ”

        I know I am going to get the “Not everything is about Trump” for this, but the hypocrisy of this statement alone is enough to send the sensible screaming into the night concerning the right wing idiot train.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          1. I called out your hypocrisy. PRESIDENT Biden reacted cooly and calmly to something he disagreed with. He didn’t say there should be 2nd Amendment to solutions to decisions you disagree with.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Maybe you should take your own advice as far as keeping up. A judge did dismiss Sandman’s lawsuit against The Post but later, after narrowing the scope, reinstated it. They too settled out of court.

          Like

          Reply

Leave a comment