He endlessly threatens to launch clownsuits against everyone who ever said anything mean about him, meanwhile fundraising on it.
20 Likes
If he’s the one saying mean things, does that give them the legal right to ‘defend’ themselves with an AR-15 too?
19 Likes
The strangers Rittenhouse killed were white, they were just marching in solidarity with people who have dark skin.
25 Likes
According to a Wisconsin Court, it gives them the right to kill people on the spot.
But only if you are a right winger and you can find something to smear the victim for.
15 Likes
Nah, he wanted to engage in his power fantasy. He hadn’t actually considered consequences.
Yeah, gee, he got all sorts of apparent offers from right-wing congresscritters - gosh, were all those “offers” actually just performative and empty?
16 Likes
I guess little scumbag has learned from the “best”, big scumbag (bit of a throwback but this was the best-titled article I could find on the topic from a quick search):
11 Likes
GETTING A RIDE FROM MOM
12 Likes
Maybe if the GOP names its official anthem after him he’ll go away.
10 Likes
Speaking of, have his victims’ families’ opened civil suits?
9 Likes
Which in the GQP universe is the same thing.
12 Likes
“I was in fear of my lifestyle.”
13 Likes
The acquittal was garbage from a public policy perspective and from a moral perspective.
But from everything I’ve read it was the correct legal conclusion, given the shitty state of the law in Wisconsin. The judge seems to have been a bit of a doofus, but most of the points in your comment are objections to relatively normal things that American criminal courts do to give defendants the benefit of the doubt, no matter how big an asshole the defendant is. And at the end of the day, he doesn’t seem to have committed a crime under Wisconsin law. Hence the acquittal was correct.
I still have very, very little sympathy for him.
I don’t say “no sympathy” because I have a tiny bit of sympathy for the fact that he doesn’t seem to be very smart and clearly has some really shitty people giving him really shitty advice. But he still has agency. And he has clearly chosen to go the asshole-right-wing-grifter route when he had other options.
Imagine how powerful it would be for Kyle Rittenhouse to travel the country speaking about the remorse he feels for what happened, and how our laws should be changed to prevent it from happening again. Instead he’s chosen to become an inspirational speaker on the ammosexual fantasy circuit.
5 Likes
Yet the people who were actually gunned down in the street were not given that same benefit of the doubt because the Defense was allowed to call them “looters.”
21 Likes
“I’m afraid I’ll never be able to work or get a job because an employer may not hire me.”
Translation: I haven’t actually approached anyone for a – you know – job job because I’m still waiting for right-wing media to wise up and offer me a criminally over-paid position as a one-note talking head.
15 Likes
The laws governing self defense and reasonable use of force in Wisconsin are very much in the vein of assuming the person claiming self defense is telling the truth if they claim they were in fear for their life. It sucks, in my opinion. The law there should change. It won’t because Wisconsin is trying very hard to be North Florida. Referring to the victims as looters instead of victims didn’t actually have any bearing on the verdict in this case. I agree that was some bullshit, but the verdict would have been the same regardless. In many other states, Rittenhouse would not have been acquitted because the laws surrounding self defense are different. The verdict was not correct morally, ethically, humanly, or any other ly you want to throw out there except one. Legally, it was the “correct” verdict. In Wisconsin. IMO, Rittenhouse is a murderer, and I wish the law had allowed that verdict to be reached. Sadly, we live in the bullshit timeline.
3 Likes
If the Jury had nothing to discuss then they wouldn’t have deliberated for over 27 hours.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that there was no legal basis to find Rittenhouse guilty on even the lesser charges like reckless endangerment. If the law didn’t allow for him to be charged for these crimes then the court wouldn’t have allowed the case to go to trial at all.
15 Likes
I concur.
Those self defense laws are complete bullshit. They hinge on the split second that the murderer pulls the trigger, same as with cop shootings, and give no consideration to all of the choices that led the murderer (cop or Rittenhouse) to be in that moment. They should be held accountable for the decisions that brought them there.
I mean, imagine if murderers like this were treated at all similar to victims of sexual assault, who are regularly blamed for being where they were, wearing what they wore, saying what they said. It’s so fucking unjust. 
14 Likes
That only covers the 2nd and 3rd people he shot, though. The first person he murdered only said mean things. There is no state in which it’s ok to murder someone for saying something mean.
After the first murder, it seems like a weird flex to call people trying to stop someone from doing more murder “attackers” and claiming self defense.
Compare this to the BLM protester who shot and killed a counter-protester in Portland last year. The counter-protester had pulled a canister of pepper spray on the BLM protester, who shot him. He was charged with murder and when the “posse” tracked him down they just executed him without even identifying themselves. He had way more claim to self defense than Rittenhouse.
21 Likes
