The Rittenhouse Verdict: Media's "Social Justice" Delusions Versus Actual Justice Backed By Facts

Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Nov 18, 2021 - 12:16 PM

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

By now, most people know the basic facts of why Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial.

He either "provoked fatal shootings" in Kenosha, WI in the midst of racial-justice protests by pointing his AR-15-style weapon at people last year or he simply acted in self-defense in shooting two people while trying to be a good Samaritan, putting out fires and offering medical aid to those engaged in violent and volatile protesting.

It all depends on who’s telling the story. Here's two lines from closing arguments at his trial that sum it up:

"When my client shot Joseph Rosenbaum, he feared for his life," Rittenhouse's lawyer said in closing arguments.

"When the defendant provokes this incident, he loses the right to self-defense. You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create," the prosecution's attorney said.

And while these statements appear to represent two arguments that both have merit, the Rittenhouse trial proved that the objective truth sides far closer to the defense’s narrative than the prosecution’s. In fact, when Gaige Grosskreutz, the third man shot by Rittenhouse and the only one who survived, testified, he responded “correct”, when defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked him: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him … that he fired, right?”

For many, that was the end of the trial. It was a stunning and eye-opening admission that seem to solidify the case for self-defense in Rittenhouse’s favor.

Former New York City prosecutor Julie Rendelman told Fox News the defense “hit it out of the ballpark” with the admission. Even self-proclaimed Democrats who had “gotten the wrong impression” about Rittenhouse were forced to walk back their preconceived notions about what took place that night.

Even self proclaimed Democrats who had “gotten the wrong impression” about Rittenhouse quickly made public mea culpa’s. Take, for instance, billionaire Bill Ackman who quickly posted a Tweet thread stating that he found Rittenhouse to be a ‘civic-minded patriot’ who acted in self-defense.

“We found him to be a civic-minded patriot with a history of helping his community as an EMT and fireman in training, in his removing hate graffiti earlier that day from a local school, and ultimately in volunteering to protect a business during the night of August 25th in Kenosha,” Ackman wrote.

His thread continued: “Our first hand impressions of Kyle were materially different from those we had previously formed based on media reports and opinion pieces that we had consumed.

“I have always been frustrated to read an inaccurate press report about a subject I know well, yet somehow I continue to believe other articles in the same newspaper about subjects I know less well. Media and political bias are dividing our country and destroying lives. While we have not heard the entire trial, based on our assessment of Kyle on the stand, we believe that he will be found innocent by the jury.

He concluded: "Kyle Rittenhouse’s life is at risk. Justice demands a fair trial. Society would benefit greatly if politics did not enter the court room and convict innocent people."

Unfortunately, that Tweet thread was quickly followed by a Tweet showing exactly how skewed, political and biased our media has become. Ackman wrote:

"Just got a call from the media asking if my Twitter account was hacked. That is, the reporter couldn’t conceive of the idea that I could believe that Kyle is innocent because I am not a right winger. Crazy."

As the case progressed, not only did it become clear that Rittenhouse was likely innocent, but it also emerged that the prosecution was engaging in tactics that warranted them admonishment by the judge.

Here’s one such incident where the judge took exception to the prosecution’s line of questioning:

A second questionable incident from the prosecution came to light just hours ago when it was discovered that video evidence provided to the defense was not of the same quality that the prosecution had access to. This prompted the defense to request a mistrial:

Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorneys asked the judge to declare a mistrial even as the jury was deliberating Wednesday, saying the defense received an inferior copy of a potentially crucial video from prosecutors.

Judge Bruce Schroeder did not immediately rule on the request, the second mistrial motion from the defense in a week.

At issue was a piece of drone video that prosecutors showed to the jury in closing arguments in a bid to undermine Rittenhouse’s self-defense claim and portray him as the aggressor. Prosecutors said it showed him pointing his rifle at protesters before the shooting erupted.

Rittenhouse attorney Corey Chirafisi said the defense initially received a compressed version of a video and didn’t get the higher-quality one used by the prosecution until the evidentiary portion of the case was over.

The difference in the quality of the video evidence was stark:

Source: Twitter

And as the case progressed even more myths about Rittenhouse were proven to be incorrect, one by one.

In preparing my own thoughts on this matter, Bari Weiss did a great job of laying out several of these in her article this morning which I encourage everybody to read:

First, she dispels the notion that Rittenhouse was somehow a "white supremacist":

There was zero evidence that Rittenhouse was connected to white supremacist groups at the time of the shooting. He was a Trump supporter, yes, though he wasn’t old enough to vote. He was an admirer of police and firefighters, also true. He was a lifeguard. He’d been part of a “police explorer” program, and was also a firefighter/EMT cadet with the fire department in Antioch, Illinois, where he lived with his mom and two sisters.

Then, she points out his connection to Kenosha, which much of the media questioned:

In addition to having a job in Kenosha, Rittenhouse testified that much of his family lived there: his father, his grandma, his aunt and uncle, and his cousins. He also testified that on the morning of the shootings, he went downtown with his sister and friends to see the damage done by rioting the night before, and spent about two hours cleaning graffiti off of the local high school.

Finally, she dispels with the rumor that Rittenhouse drove across state lines with a gun to oppose protests that night:

This was a line that we heard constantly—never mind that Antioch, Illinois, is about 20 miles from Kenosha, Wisconsin. As the trial has shown, Kyle Rittenhouse did not travel to Kenosha to oppose protesters. He testified under oath that he had traveled to Kenosha for his job the night before the shootings, and was staying at a friend’s house. Rittenhouse didn’t bring the gun to Kenosha. The gun was purchased for Rittenhouse months earlier by a friend and stored in Kenosha at the home of that friend’s stepfather, as then-17-year-old Rittenhouse was too young to purchase it.

Or that it was illegal to have the gun:

That is not true. Under Wisconsin law, 17-year-olds are prohibited from carrying rifles only if they are short-barreled. The weapon Rittenhouse was carrying was not short-barreled. Which is why, during closing arguments, the court threw out the charge.

Or that he was "looking for a fight":

Unless there’s evidence we haven’t seen, there’s no clear indication that Rittenhouse sought to kill anyone. What we know is that he showed up with a first aid kit and an AR-15-style rifle. Video evidence, and Rittenhouse’s own testimony, indicates that he offered medical assistance to protestors and ran with a fire extinguisher to try to put out fires—and that later, after being pursued, he killed two people, Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and severely wounded a third.

Her piece goes on to wreck the mainstream media's narrative even further and I would recommend a full read of it here, as well as subscribing to her superlative blogCommon Sense.

But predictably the two entities not doing damage control after the facts came to light were politicians and the mainstream media, who constantly referred to Rittenhouse as some type of white supremacist and portrayed him as such every chance they got. And this nonsense isn't new to me: I've written about the media's bold lies when it comes to everything from inflation to ivermectin, from Hunter Biden's laptop to hospitalization data

Kyle Rittenhouse suspected of flashing white supremacy sign at bar

In the case of Rittenhouse, there has been a conspicuous absence of correcting the record from media outlets who went into this trial with a clear bias and angle toward walking Rittenhouse to a guilty verdict.

Left leaning politicians don’t seem much concerned with the truth, either. Even Press Secretary Psaki, when confronted about President Biden’s spin of Rittenhouse, shied away from questions on the issue from Fox News’ Peter Doocy last week:

Q: And then just something tied to an ongoing court case. Why did President Biden suggest that Kyle Rittenhouse, on trial in Kenosha, is a white supremacist?

MS. PSAKI: So, Peter, what I — I’m not going to speak to right now is anything about an ongoing trial nor the President’s past comments.

What I can reiterate for you is the President’s view that we shouldn’t have, broadly speaking, vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons. We shouldn’t have opportunists corrupting peaceful protests by rioting and burning down the communities they claim to represent anywhere in the country.

As you know, closing arguments in this particular case — which I’m not speaking to; I’m just making broad comments about his own view — there’s an ongoing trial. We’re awaiting a verdict. Beyond that, I’m not going to speak to any individuals or this case.

Q: But the President has spoken to it already. And his mom now — Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom came out saying that the President defamed her son and that claims — she claims that when the President suggested her son is a white supremacist, he was doing that to win votes. Is that what happened?

MS. PSAKI: I just have nothing more to speak to an ongoing case where the closing arguments were just made.

Waking up to the agenda of the media isn’t an easy task, especially for those who have been brainwashed for decades. But this headlines like this one:

“There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night,” President Biden had Tweeted about the incident in September of last year.

Given all of the new information that we had access to at trial, the Rittenhouse case should help to serve as a Nick Sandmann-style brick in the wall as to how many in the media have a serious problem presenting the objective truth over whatever narrative they are currently trying to peddle.

Unfortunately, I already fear that the verdict in Rittenhouse case is not heading in the right direction - the jury is taking too long of a time to deliver what, in my opinion, should be a relatively quick “not guilty” verdict after the entire world was treated to exculpatory evidence during the trial.

While I can only hold out hope, if Rittenhouse is made to be the enemy and ultimately winds up convicted after what can only be called a circus of a trial and laughable media coverage of an event where he appears to have not, objectively, been in the wrong, it’ll be a tragic commentary about how far our media’s war on “social justice” has gone to influence actual justice in the country and how broken our nation truly is.

*  *  *

This was a free look at paid subscriber content from QTR's Fringe Finance. If you enjoy and want to support my work, I'd love to have you as a subscriber. Zerohedge readers get 10% off a subscription for life by using this link.