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?