Are the social justice thugs unaware that everyone in the Rittenhouse incident is white?

Screen shot form drone video showing Rittenhouse being chased just before turning and opening fire

Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people. The first two died. It’s interesting to see who they were. The backgrounds of these guys is not determinative of Rittenhouse’s guilt or innocence – there’s no open season on creeps – but it’s relevant in piecing together the story of that deadly night.

The first who was shot served 14 years in prison for raping a child and then for dozens of in-prison disciplinary violations. He was a registered sex offender and was found guilty of assault, arson and narcotics crimes. He was wanted at the time of the shooting for bail-jumping and domestic abuse, and had been released from a hospital for a suicide attempt a few hours before the shooting. He was chasing Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse turned around and shot him.

The second was an “avid skateboarder” with a “quick wit” according to his obit. This quickwit had been convicted of domestic abuse and disorderly conduct a few years ago and served time in 2012 for choking his brother. He was swinging his skateboard at Rittenhouse, avidly, at the time Rittenhouse shot him.

The third, who survived, was armed with a handgun for which he had a concealed weapons permit – which was expired. He testified and the video shows that he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him.

Here’s one thing the three guys who were shot were not: They weren’t black.

Nonetheless, the media and the social justice warrior thugs who periodically burn Democrat-controlled cities frame this as three blacks getting shot by a white supremacist. How can that be?

There are several possible explanations. One is that many of the SJW thugs are unaware that the guys who were shot were white. I personally had assumed from the media fuss that they were black. After all, black lives are the ones that matter, right?

A second possibility is that the SJW thugs mistakenly assumed from the criminal records of the shot guys that they were black. I think they’re wrong to equate criminality to blackness, but I have to admit that they know more about crime than I do.

A third possibility is that we haven’t had a white-kills-black incident for a while, so the media had to fabricate one from the closest thing they could find, namely a white-kills-white incident, with the hope that viewers wouldn’t notice the discrepancy.

It’s something like the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme that the media foisted onto us a few years ago. Investigation proved that the man shot in that incident never spoke those words or anything like them, but in the meantime the media had already made the meme into folklore. What matters to the news media is not whether “news” actually happened or not; what matters is whether it serves the narrative. See Trump, Russian collusion.

Speaking of the media, I should mention that MSNBC has admitted to stalking the jurors, apparently for the purpose of doxing them if their verdict is “wrong.” For that, expect the rest of the media to award them a Pulitzer Prize.

There’s also the possibility that the media and SJW thugs concluded that Rittenhouse is a racist because he’s a conservative. And since he’s not just a conservative but a conservative with a gun, that makes him not just a racist but a white supremacist.

A final possibility I’ve seen from the left is the theory that this incident illustrates our systemic racism. “Systemic” racism, for those of you not yet woke, is the kind for which there’s no evidence of anyone actually being racist. That makes it particularly insidious because in the absence of evidence it’s hard to stamp out.

This theory goes like this: If Rittenhouse is acquitted, it’s only because he’s white. A black defendant would be found guilty.

But the premise to this theory is that accused whites are always guilty and accused blacks are always innocent. Since the subject here is racism, it seems to me this premise that a person’s guilt or innocence is determined by his race is a bit racist.

And a bit unworkable. To guard against this contention that when a white man goes free it’s only because he’s white, are we supposed to convict every white defendant regardless of the evidence? And free every black defendant? Is the trial just for the purpose of determining the defendant’s skin color?  

In truth, this tragedy and trial have nothing to do with race. The left can only contend that it could have been evidence of racism if only the evidence were different. But it’s not. Instead, the evidence is what it is.

Saying the evidence is what it is falls short of even saying 2 + 2 = 4, something the left now disputes. It just says 2 = 2. Does the left now dispute even that?  

37 thoughts on “Are the social justice thugs unaware that everyone in the Rittenhouse incident is white?

  1. The math question is already being answered , incorrectly,, ( gasp),in the new math curricula being imposed in many states, in which seeking the correct answer is now ” rascist”,
    and espousing that there can be 2 right answers, if the person coming up with the factually incorrect answer has ” tried hard enough”. Of course, if the white kid comes up with the wrong answer despite trying hard, dont expect said individual to be given a passing grade. That would be evidence of ” white privilege “.

  2. ‘Tis a tale told by Aeschylus, full of Furies who cannot prevail in a trial by jury under the aegis of Athena, Western Civilization’s “Lady Justice.”

  3. Glenn, now that he has been found not guilty on all counts, does Kyle Rittenhouse have grounds to sue any member of the media for slander or libel? I thought it was interesting that the msm (or at least those I viewed on youtube) were careful to not show Rittenhouse’s heartfelt reaction to the verdict.

  4. Update: Rittenhouse was found “not guilty” on all counts this afternoon.

    To be clear, what Rittenhouse did was stupid — brandishing a semi-automatic weapon at a demonstration is looking for trouble. To my readers, I say please don’t do stupid things like this.

    But stupidity is not a crime. (If it were, we’d have to impeach Joe Biden. Come to think of it, we might have to anyway.) With regard to the crime for which Rittenhouse stood trial — murder — my read of the evidence is that the verdict was correct.


    • I agree with the brandishing bit, but a ” demonstration “?
      Looked to me like the city was burning, and the average citizen living there was fearful for thier lives, with almost NO police intervention.
      Just like numerous other cities the past year wherein average Joe’s caught in the open were pummeled.

  5. I’m pretty liberal and read the NY Times daily. I haven’t seen anything in the Times about racism in regard to Kyle Rittenhouse. He certainly showed bad judgement when he put himself into that situation, but macho stupidity is not illegal and based on everything I read in the “lefty” NY Times, I would have voted the same as that Jury. Rittenhouse may be a thug, He may be a nice kid looking for a place in life. Maybe he is racist. Regardless, I don’t think he broke the law that night. If anything, this case shows that this time at least, our jury system worked the way it’s supposed to.

    • IF the NYT did NOT disparage ANY aspect of Rittenhouse, they are the ONLY Liberal Media member NOT TO DO SO! Please, review what MSNBC et al. had to say! Fox News was the only one to show all sides, AND INSIST that there should NEVER have been a trial in the first place. ALSO, let’s not forget what our POTUS said about him!

  6. From a left-leaning but fair-minded web site – at University of PA.

    Bogus Kenosha Claim Goes Mainstream
    On Nov. 13, actor and comedian D.L. Hughley shared an image on Instagram that made this false claim about the gun that Kyle Rittenhouse used in a fatal shooting of two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin:

    “Why are we just glazing over the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse’s mother put her minor child in a vehicle, drove him across state lines and dropped him off in the middle of a riot armed with an assault rifle,” the image reads. “Why is she not behind bars?”

    A day later, Rep. Karen Bass made a similar remark in a CNN interview:

    “Here, you have a 17-year-old boy who was driven by his mother across state lines with an automatic weapon — frankly, she should have been detained for child endangerment — to go to a protest where he says he’s going to help the police,” the congresswoman said. “I mean, it was ridiculous.”

    But, as staffer D’Angelo Gore writes, that’s not what happened, based on the available evidence.

    According to court testimony and police records, the AR-15 style rifle that he says he used in self-defense during confrontations with the men had been stored at a friend’s house in Kenosha and was not with him in the car when he made the roughly 20-mile drive to Wisconsin from his home state by himself.

    Where did the California Democrat get her bogus information about Rittenhouse’s mother, Wendy? D’Angelo asked, but a Bass spokesperson did not respond.

    • Like many Democrats, they always claim to know the facts and evidence, when in actuality, they are the ignorant ones.
      The left operates primarily off emotion first, it drives thier narrative.
      The average person on the right tends to do more research before arriving at an opinion.

  7. Heh … I’m having some fun watching all of the pissing and moaning while changing back and forth on CNNMSNBC after the five Not Guilty verdicts were returned.

    They are repeatedly saying that if Kyle Rittenhouse was black then he would have been convicted.

    To this garbage I would reply … this is why Lady Justice is BLINDFOLDED, holding the scales of justice in one arm and the sword of justice in the other, while standing over the slain Serpent. And also … let’s not forget about O.J. And how about all of the criminals who are neither investigated nor prosecuted during the regular weekend bloodbaths of shootings in cities like Chicago or Baltimore?

    Truth be told though … I think Lady Justice is a babe.

    Anyways … the CNNMSNBC assclowns are further pontificating that the trial judge, Judge Bruce Schroeder, put his thumb on the scales, so to speak.

    Personally, I thought he should of used his gavel to knock some sense into the prosecutor (Binger) who was obviously trying to incriminate the defendant before the jury for invoking his 5th Amendment rights during the investigation.

    Then there were a few other issues, like the low quality video provided to the defense vs. the HD video the prosecution had. Another MSNBC hack is right now bloviating from her piehole that the Judge should have let the prosecution describe the three shot (and two dead) rioting thugs as victims. The judge correctly prevented the state from this as it was up to the jury to decide if one or all of the shot rioters were indeed victims or if their violent acts contributed to their own deaths and injuries, thereby giving Rittenhouse his right to self-defense.

    Ha! Now that jackass Al Sharpton is pissing and moaning too … the assclowns are all out and about!

    Anyways … a good day for Lady Justice, you Foxy Lady you!

    • Thanks for the Classical Porn! It’s not just a figure of speech to say that this foxy lady is a goddess, having been engendered straight out of the mind of Zeus.

      It is often noted that women are attracted to men who wield power, but it works the other way around as well. More than other Christians, Catholics apprehend “the terrible beauty” of Mary, who, having delivered the incarnation of Divine Justice into the world, will never abandon Him. If the U.S. bishops — a plurality of whom are gay — perceived her “feminine mystique,” they wouldn’t be serving Joe Biden instead of Christ.

      • It seldom works the other way, Chad. Men are not nearly as attracted to powerful women as women are attracted to powerful men.

        The reason is that women by nature are looking for a man to father and rear their children. Such men tend to be not just virile but powerful. Men, on the other hand, seldom look for that in a woman, because powerful women are typically too old to bear children. What a man looks for in a woman instead is fertility. Fertility in women is almost always associated with youth and beauty, not power.

        I know this is politically incorrect, but note that most middle-aged women would agree with it. With a big, sad sigh.

      • Glenn, I think you’re drawing overly much on the conventional wisdom of sociobiology. I’m not interested in Loren Boebert’s fertility, but in the fact that, as you noted, she’s packing heat, metaphorically as well as literally.

    • “Lauren,” not Loren. Here I love the woman and can’t even spell her name right.

      Incidentally, the woman with her foot on the head of The Serpent is Mary, not Athena. DogByte’s Lady Justice is multicultural, by God.

  8. At some point it must register that objective truth is not a concept that the left recognizes. If it does not suit their political purpose, a fact is simply ignored. If, conversely, a fact suits their narrative, then it becomes “reality,” as they define same. Just as the left ignores the “fact” of a jury finding of acquittal by means of self-defense and continues to write and speak about Rittenhouse as a racist murderer, they (and by “they,” I mean specifically the current administration) write and speak about the budget-busting, inflation-inducing “infrastructure” plan as if it will reduce the budget deficit, create new jobs and benefit the tax-paying class. They don’t actually believe any of that, but lying and prevaricating is merely what they do because it gives them pleasure to think that they have made the rest of us accept their lies. To them, we are all Havel’s Greengrocer.

    • The Left reminds me of that cartoonish Queen of Hearts in the Alice in Wonderland fable. As a matter of fact, the thought processes of the Left very much follow down that weird rabbit hole ending up at a Mad Hatter Party.

  9. So here’s the interesting legal question: Do you forfeit your right to self defense by stupidly placing yourself in a situation where it’s quite possible that people will illegally attack you?

    The answer as a matter of law is no. There’s no “assumption of the risk” principle to invalidate the right to self defense. Even people who stupidly put themselves in situations where they’re likely to be criminally attacked have the right to defend themselves against that attack.

    I believe the law is correct in that regard.

    That said, Rittenhouse was not helping matters that night. He was hurting matters. He killed two people (albeit criminals) and nearly lost his own life. Don’t do this at home.

    • Glenn … what you just mentioned reminds me (somewhat) of a proverbial rape victim who was assaulted … and then further victimized by those who said she was asking for it because of her mini-skirt or risqué clothing. Or, of a well-to-do drunken man who stumbles out of a bar at 2:00 am and is clocked and robbed of his thick wallet and Rolex watch.

      Just because some people don’t make the best decisions or dress provocatively doesn’t mean that they should be ripe for criminal assault and robbery. Thugs who target and roll rich drunks are a menace to society, regardless of the foolhardiness of the drunks.

      Kyle Rittenhouse made a seemingly foolhardy, albeit apparently noble, choice in going out that night, Yet he didn’t deserve to be attacked by a mob for acting like a Boy Scout by putting out fires with an extinguisher and bandaging injured people.

      I would humbly suggest to any would be Antifa/BLM agitators out there, if you see somebody extinguishing fires, painting over graffiti, and bandaging injured people while slinging a rifle during civil unrest … then leave him alone and give him some respectful distance. He, or she, is not hurting you.

      If you are truly peaceful then you should have no qualms about people acting like Boy Scouts while the police are commanded to stand down.

      • Exactly. As demonstrated fully last year, leftists thugs made it thier job to attack anyone that displayed an opposing viewpoint peacefully, or even having dinner at a sidewalk Cafe.
        They simply search for victims they think they can overcome.
        Hence the record forearm sales, and over 20 million who have obtained CCW liscenses.
        What would Glenn ,or the prosecution have said had Kyke been a possessor of a CCW?


      • As to your question, Richard, of “What would Glenn . . . have said had Kyl.e been a possessor of a CCW?” my answer is that a concealed weapon would have been preferable because it would not be as provocative as a AR-15.

        But we’re quibbling over small points. As I said at the outset, R made a foolish judgment. But the bigger point is that foolish judgment does not deprive him of the right to self defense. I think the jury verdict was correct.

  10. I agree , Glenn, however its not a small point, as SCOTUS seems to be backing the idea that the 2nd Amendment means, what it says when we have the right to bear arms, even openly. If I draw a pistol, legally, am I ” brandishing ” ? Does its display mean a prosecuter may infer I was the agitator in the face of a threat ? Even today, some prosecuters , as well as the media and public would attempt to make such a case, wrongly in most cases, despite evidence to the contrary.
    Thanks heavens for honest juries.

    • Yes, but of course that doesn’t give you the right to open carry on private property such as a store or mall or restaurant. That’s as it should be. Private property owners should and do have the right to condition your entry on complying with their rules.

      • Glenn:
        I would agree, BUT, what if criminals disregard the rules? Wasn’t it in your state where some moron entered a theater, armed, via a back exit door, and the reason he entered the theater was because it was a “no gun zone?” IF a business is not going to allow LEGAL CC, then, why don’t they at least post armed guards at all entrances/exits? Just a thought!

  11. I agree, its my understanding such exclusions must be posted, or spelled out in law.. Recent Colorado cases involving university carry, even demonstrated that thier policy against such, wasn’t legal.
    The myriad of conflicting laws, and attempts by some to “make up” policies involving CCW
    and open carry really require one to be very fluent in current regulations.
    CCW insurance and said companies do a bang up job educating carriers as to how to be aware.
    Enjoy your writing.

  12. I want to say something, and I am very serious about. Kyle Rittenhouse was legally not guilty of the crimes he was charged with but he should not have been there. The authorities, apparently nationwide and possibly under some national guidelines issued by who knows what entity, made the decision to avoid casualties attributable to the authorities. To put it in plainer language, if there choice between casualties and let-it-burn, they would let it burn if that is what they had to do to avoid casualties. This, in fact, might have been the wise choice.

    Whether it was the right choice or not, no one on the street was going change that. even the Second Amendment says that armed individuals and groups have to submit to the control of the authorities. That’s what the militia clause means. It means, your right to keep and bear arms does not extend to unregulated militia activity or the right to form militias not subject to public authority.

    • Let me see if I can condense your comment: “Kyle Rittenhouse should not have had to be there and would have been home in bed if the spineless, leftist authorities had been courageous enough to do the job they were elected to do.”

      Did I get close? If not I have no idea what you are saying…

      • Don’t play pretend. You know exactly what I said. You’re an armchair incendiarist and a armchair instigator. Volunteer to let it be you next time instead of letting some naive eenager stand in for you, and mean it. You don’t understand the consequences of having casualties the authorities are responsible for. Or you pretend you don’t.

    • To take you up on your analysis, should “the authorities” determine (as they did in this and many other instances wherein left-wing, anti-Trump and racist mobs were allowed “space to destroy,” as per the execrable former Mayor of Baltimore) that your house was part of the “let-it-burn” strategy, you would be required to submit in order to “avoid casualties”? And you would support such a choice? If the answer to that inquiry is affirmative, even in the slightest, I suggest you need to reflect long and hard on your priorities, not to mention your sanity.

  13. It’s not hard to understand why the individuals who were shot at this “black life’s matter” mostly peaceful demonstration were white. The vast majority of those who attend these events are white, consisting of guilt ridden female social justice warriors and footloose thugs out for a night of rioting, looting and burning and leftist rabble rousers. Photos of the crowds show very few black people, I assume because they have better sense than to participate in these activities at least in their own neighborhoods…

  14. Pingback: The SKIM – Black & Blonde Media

  15. Media, esp. Jonathan Turley, believe that Kyle has no case against the vicious liars on MSNBC, etc. because he is a “public person.” My response is that he is public only because the media made him so, and had no part in that process. It is a bit circular for the media to publicize someone with vicious attacks and then claim immunity because he/she is now “public.”

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s