Saturday, November 20

Kyle Not Guilty!

Yay! Kyle Rittenhouse, the Kenosha teen who shot three very bad, violent criminal, grown white men during the BLM riots in that town 14 months ago was found not guilty by virtue of self defence.

The facts were 100% clear, backed by video evidence, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict. There was no crime committed. But there's so much misinformation out there (still) about this case, that I'll describe it for you. I watched the whole case unfold on Rekeita Law livestream.

The background was that a black man named Jacob Blake was shot by police. Blake had a long criminal history, including illegal firearms possession, brandishing firearms, and resisting arrest. He had an outstanding warrant for his arrest and a restraining order from his ex-girlfriend whom he repeatedly raped.

Police were called by his ex-wife when Jacob broke into her house, and then wanted to make off with one of their children. Police attempted to put him into custody, tasering him twice, to no effect, and attempting to wrestle him into custody, to no effect. Blake disobeyed police instructions, went into the footwell of his girlfriend's SUV, pulled out a knife, and an officer shot him multiple times. The shooting was reviewed and the officer was cleared of any wrongdoing. The entire incident was caught on video. Blake is alive but in a wheelchair.

The left went wild and unjustly protested the shooting. Rioters from around the country, but especially Chicago, came into Kenosha to loot and riot. During three nights they terrorized the downtown, caused tens of millions of dollars of property damage, and burned down a big chunk of downtown. The left stayed mostly silent during this, and the leftist state Governor and mayor held police and fire back from intervening, and did not deploy the National Guard, allowing the city to burn.

Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17-year-old kid and a native of Kenosha, Wisonsin, living in a suburb of the town with his Mom that happened to be just across the state line in Antioch, Illinois. His Dad and grandparents lived in Kenosha and his Dad operated a business there. Kyle worked as a lifeguard there and considered it his hometown.

Kyle's friend kept a rifle paid for by Kyle in his Dad's gun safe in Wisconsin that they used for hunting and target practice.

After the second night of the riots, Kyle was filmed cleaning graffiti off the city with a number of other citizens during the day.

At night, an acquaintance organized a group of armed citizens to be present at a local used car business to deter vandals and arsonists. Kyle joined the group. Kyle was also trained in first aid (both as a lifeguard and as a cadet member of the fire department), and brought his medical kit with the intent of rendering first aid to anybody injured.

Kyle was interviewed earlier in the evening and clearly indicated his intent.

When asked about his rifle, he indicated it was for self-defense in case anybody attacked him as he was entering into harm's way. Later in the evening there is video evidence and eyewitness testimony that he was rendering first aid to random protesters. At no point did he brandish his firearm in a threatening fashion, or shoot it except directly to defend life-threatening attacks against him.

Later in the night, a white man, Joseph Rosenbaum, a multiply convicted child rapist released that same day from a mental institution and off his meds, took issue with Kyle when Kyle extinguished a fire he had set.

This man was found guilty of anally raping about a half-dozen young boys aged 6-11. This is one of the "victims" the left is currently defending. Unbelievable. Do you really think he was there as a "peaceful protester", setting "mainly peaceful fires", attacking children, all in the name of black rights? Yeah right.

Rosenbaum swore at Kyle and promised he would kill him if he got him alone. He had said he had been in jail and was not afraid to go back again. Soon after, Rosenbaum hid behind a car as Kyle passed him, jumped out from behind it, chased Kyle, cornered him, swore at him, and lunged for Kyle's gun. Immediately before that, another rioter had shot a pistol nearby. Kyle shot the child rapist Roosenbaum four times in 0.75s, killing him. All caught on video. Physical evidence shows Rosenbaum had his hands on the barrel of Kyle's gun as he was shot. Eye witnesses testified to all of this, including Rosenbaum's violently enraged mental state.

A mob began descending on Kyle and so he ran towards the police lines several blocks away to turn himself in. An unidentified rioter ran up behind him and hit him a glancing blow in the head with a rock in his hand. Kyle stumbled and fell. A different unidentified white man ran up to him as he was sitting in the street and jump-kicked Kyle in the head, spinning him around. Kyle shot at him but missed.

Another white man, Anthony Huber, a felon previously convicted of assault and battery, attempted to seriously injure or kill Kyle with a big skateboard to Kyle's head (he managed to hit him twice).

Then tried to wrestle Kyle's gun away from him. Kyle shot him once in the chest, killing him.

Another white man, a Marxist BLM organizer and convicted felon with an illegally possessed and concealed pistol, Gaige Grosskreutz, advanced on Kyle and pointed his Glock pistol at Kyle's head, whereupon Kyle shot him in the arm.


All of that happened within the space of 5 seconds. Had Kyle not defended himself, there is little doubt he would be dead, as were many others during the looting, rioting, and arson during that summer. His assailants were all grown men with violent criminal histories, attacking a 17-year-old boy.

Throughout the evening, Kyle threatened zero people with his rifle, maintained good gun safety (barrel pointed down, finger off trigger, safety on), and used his rifle only when he was on the very verge of being seriously injured. The surviving assailant Gaige Grosskreutz testified that when he momentarily stopped and put his hands up, Kyle did not shoot him, and only shot him when he again lunged forward and pointed his pistol at Kyle's head. The pistol was loaded with a bullet in the chamber. A friend  posted on Facebook that Grosskreutz told him he wished he had emptied the clip into Kyle's head.

Those are the facts presented to the jury. No laws were broken by Kyle, and he was accordingly found not guilty on all counts.

You may disagree with the laws that allow citizens to carry weapons and to defend themselves with them, and think it was not wise for a seventeen-year-old to put himself in harm's way. Those are some form of valid disagreement. You cannot disagree that no laws were broken. The evidence is clear.

Kyle was charged very soon after the incident with no meaningful investigation. It was clearly a political move. Even a cursory look at the copious evidence indicates there is no basis for a charge.

Joe Biden and countless other leftist politicians and mainstream media outlets defamed Kyle right after the incident, lying about the facts and labeling him a white supremacist, for which there is no evidence at all, despite extensive searches of Kyle's social media.

During the investigation, detectives had a search warrant for Gaige Grosskreutz's mobile, but for very flimsy reasons (that do not apply) did not serve it and did not get evidence from his phone. As well, the interview with Grosskreutz is, suspiciously, the only one not recorded.

The detectives and the DA's office intimidated a witness filming video, and attempted to get him to change his sworn statement after the fact.

The prosecution's case was rambling throughout the trial, with no clear direction. Their own witnesses were the best possible defense witnesses. They made numerous very serious legal errors, and were repeatedly chided by the judge. We suspect they were going for a mistrial as they were clearly losing so badly. This is prosecutorial misconduct of the highest order, with the life of a 17-year-old (at the time of the incident) on the line.

Very mysteriously, midway through the case it turned out that the FBI had been flying drones over Kenosha and had HD footage of the Rosenbaum shooting. The defense was inexplicably provided with a low-resolution version which was only discovered as the evidence was being presented. It was claimed by the prosecution that hyper zoomed in video (about 12-pixels high) shows Kyle raising his pistol before Rosenbaum closed on him, which they claimed was some sort of provocation. The defense objected to the evidence and called it that "Hocus Pocus Out-of-Focus" video.

Even after the just verdict came in, the leftist mainstream media and leftist politicians are still trying to misrepresent facts and smear the process. Disgraceful.

Thank goodness justice was done in this case. Kyle seems like a lovely young lad, civic minded and courageous to a fault. He has been suffering from pretty bad PTSD since the incident and we pray for his recovery. It melts my heart to see that poor child treated as he has been by these soulless leftist monsters. I hope he sues the pants off them!

Kyle and his Mom after the verdict

114 comments:

  1. A standing ovation for you. Thank you for sharing the facts in your blog...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Julie,
    You are Canadian, correct?
    I would (politely) suggest that you address Canadian social injustices before attempting to cure US social issues.
    First Nations school discrimination/child abuse?
    You are probably aware of more of these problems then I am.
    You might want to work on those issues first. (And you will have a good shot at being more effective then ranting on US issues)
    OK, I am done.
    Have a great evening.
    Rog

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi rog, thanks for the advice, but I'll comment on whatever I choose to. I take it you disagree with what I posted in some way? Why don't you express yourself and make a cogent point of some sort?
      First Nations child abuse at residential schools was a terrible thing, but it's a very different topic.

      Delete
  3. It's a different topic because you don't want to talk about it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha! If you know me, you know I'm happy to discuss anything. Feel free to send me an email on that topic and we'll keep this comment section to the Kyle topic.

      Delete
    2. Yup, don't talk about what happens in other countries. Just let the Chinese go on with the Uighur genocides, and I am sure Hitler thanked Neville Chamberlain for his reticence. What might have happened if someone spoke up after Kristallnacht?

      Delete
    3. Yes, everything in the world connects nowadays and it's all our business.

      Delete
  4. I must agree, he just did what he was forced to

    ReplyDelete
  5. Far better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

    The very fact that Rosenbaum, especially, was even at liberty to be in Kenosha that night is a damning indictment of dereliction of duty towards those in authority. How many more prepubescent boys would he have had to rape before he was put away for good?

    I was amazed that the porky prosecutor actually had the gall to say "Everybody takes a beating" during closing arguments. Nobody is obliged to just accept someone whaling on them with intent to inflict grievous injury. I hope he's not in charge of prosecuting domestic violence cases!

    But as usual, the corporate media showed themselves to be absolute vermin. They STILL can't get basic facts right. There were multiple articles claiming Rittenhouse shot 3 black men, which is just outrageously false. They STILL haven't fully figured out that Jacob Blake is still alive. There were multiple hysterical journos (and the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee...) screaming about Blake being dead when that's simply and demonstrably not true. The day the corporate media and their CCP overlords are crushed is the day a new era of peace and harmony dawns.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm shedding no tears for the guys that died and glad Rittenhouse is free, but the whole thing is just an indictment of America's approach to mental illness and gun control.

    People in mobs are angry and panicked and forced to make split second decisions. Rittenhouse seems like a nice, community minded kid. He probably never expected to come face to face with a tough, mentally unbalanced child molester. But that's the risk you take when you join an armed militia, and though I believe he had the best of intentions he was undoubtedly naive.

    It's terrible he put himself in the position where he had to shoot an unarmed man, and a other using a skateboard as a weapon. He doesn't deserve jail time, the terrifying experience, injuries, and guilt he'll have to carry will be more than enough punishment.

    I notice you fail to mention that the police shot Blake in the back. Also, you think people came from all over the country to loot and riot, like some sort of crime-based mini-break?

    I don't like your graphic labelling the three guys as Antifa/BLM. You write that Rosenbaum was incarcerated in a mental institution up until earlier that day and was off his meds, and that you don't think he was a peaceful protester. So why are you labelling him as a BIG supporter. Also, what relevance is there to Grosskreutz being Marxist?

    As per usual, I agree with the basic sentiment of your article, but you always seem to pepper in some weird anit-leftist sentiments along with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's impossible for a kid to expect anything, but he did his duty as he saw it.

      The police credibly believed Blake was going for a gun (it turned out to be a knife) and were not waiting to find out.

      I was being sarcastic in my description of Rosenbaum. But he was tolerated and egged on by others in his destructive violence.

      BLM is a Marxist organization, Grosskreutz is an organizer of "protests" (riots) like this one. He also happens to be a violent felon with a concealed handgun who attempted to murder a 17-year-old kid who did nothing but try to defend himself. I think that says a lot about those behind the so-called "protests" that turned violent every single night.

      The reason I'm ant-leftist is because of their ideas, but more specifically their tactics, such as burning down cities and using lies and violence to make their point.

      Delete
    2. Of course people tolerated/egged on the musclebound lunatic arsonist; people in mobs are scared and stupid and develop a them vs. us attitude. The kid who was brave enough to stand up to him was ambushed, chased, and cornered. Can you imagine how psychotic you'd have to be to do that to an openly armed teenager, and then to try to steal his weapon? You think anyone around him was trying to calm him down, or do you think they were probably terrified of him.

      Black Lives Matter, Inc, is not a Marxist organization, though one of the founders believes in Marxism. They're an incorporated company. No one organisation takes ownership of the entire Black Lives Matter movement, which aims to end targeted violence towards black people, whether from the state, or from armed militants.

      The majority of BLM protests don't end in violence, and most leftists aren't being violent or burning down cities. As for lying, all politicians lie, but you can't tell me with a straight face that any of them lie more than your beloved Emperor Trump!

      Like I said, I believe Rittenhouse was innocent, though it should be illegal for a seventeen year old to be walking around crowded streets with a rifle. If he wasn't there as part of the protest he should have stayed off the streets.

      Delete
    3. Your assertion that it is not a Marxist organization despite the founders being "extensively trained in Marxism" is a distinction without a difference.

      Your assertion that most BLM protests are not violent is perhaps technically correct, but the sheer number over that summer that ended in riots is again perhaps a distinction without a difference. No coincidence that it was an election year and we see much less of it now. It was egged on by Democrats and Democrat-favouring media.

      Trump directionally exaggerates. Other politicians outright lie.

      I think it should be legal for citizens to possess firearms for self-defense, and Kyle, a 17 year old, was very responsible with his, so that's not a great argument for not allowing 17 year olds.p to do it.

      Delete
    4. Very responsible? He took it to a volatile situation and ended up shooting three people.

      I've read that one founder, of Black Lives Matter, Inc., which is not the same as the Black Lives Matter movement, believes in Marxism. What does being extensively trained in Marxism even mean? Do you really think most protesters and BLM activists are communists? I don't consider it a distinction without difference.

      I also think that the overwhelming majority of BLM protests didn't end in violence, riots, or looting. The protests in Portland took place every day for seven months. How much city do you think there is to loot? It was mainly people going out and making their voice heard until they were moved on, then coming back to do it all again the next day.

      Trump exaggerates, sure, sometimes, but he also makes shit up off the top of his head or lies about the facts leaving his colleagues to scramble to his defense and explain "what he really meant." He doesn't care, and that's part of his schtick. If you can't concede that them there's no point discussing it, you may as well try and convince me that four and five make ten.

      Self defense is a terrible reason to own a firearm; the statistics consistently show that if you bring a gun into your home the odds are way more likely it's used to shoot a member of the household than anyone else.

      Delete
    5. Tank:

      Why are you so defensive about BLM/Antifa and marxism??? I have no problem with someone taking a position on what they believe to be a better or different path to a more peaceful world. But, an organization that openly funds and encourages violence and destruction are not that path.

      There are 3 crimes that you really don't want to end up in prison for; one is child molestation, one is rape, and the other is arson. It's sad that even those who are incarcerated by the "state" have a ranking system for their peers based on basic beliefs between right and wrong. Yet, for some reason, some members of our society(upon consuming enough media/social-media kool-aid) decide that it's acceptable to riot, loot, burn, throw explosive devises, etc. Know and understand the difference between a peaceful protest, standing up for your values or beliefs, and a riot.

      Furthermore... When was the last time you were within arms reach of a violent felon who was either armed or attempting to arm themselves with a deadly weapon while you are tasked with their control or apprehension? The question is rhetorical because your ignorance of the dynamics of a violent encounter is clear based on your statement regarding blake getting shot in the back. You sir/ma'am are an absolute fool!!!

      Delete
    6. Tanky: it was a famous quote from the 3 organizers "we've all been extensively trained in Marxism" - but I might have gotten it wrong. The one who is definitely a Marxist you're referring to is the one who bought themselves multiple homes with all the money she made shilling BLM 😂 .

      Do a basic Google search (ok, well, Duck Duck Go) to find the totality of all the BLM inspired vandalism, violence, looting, arson and killings that went on that summer "for George Floyd". Again, a distinction without a difference.

      Happy to take Trumps supposed "lies" one by one, starting from his worst in your opinion, and refute them for you one at a time while throwing in unrefutable lies from Biden (not exaggerations directionally accurate, 100% bald-faced lies).

      You don't get to determine how another man chooses to protect himself.

      Anony: right on, except Tanky is a smart guy.

      Delete
    7. If you truly believe that Black Lives Matter Inc. is bankrolling violence and destruction them I don't really care what your opinion of me is.

      Here's a rhetorical question for you: how is failing to apprehend a criminal after tasering him twice, letting him out of your control and then shooting him in the back twice because you're scared he might be reaching for a gun "controlling or apprehending?"

      Maybe you should take a look at your own values and beliefs before lecturing me on what I should "know and understand," asshole.

      Delete
    8. I'm with anony on the use of force thing. They knew about Blake's criminal history and firearm brandishing history, and when he dove for something on the floor of his SUV I'm not waiting until I'm shot to find out it's "only" a knife!

      Delete
    9. We'd be here all night trading lies back and forth, like I said it's an all politician thing, not just a leftist politician problem. I'd love it if politicians were held accountable to their promises, but they're simply not. We feel that more than anyone over here as Brexit proves to be the shambles we should have seen coming a mile off.

      I don't get to determine how another man chooses to protect hinself, but "by having a gun in the house" has been statistically proven as an ineffective way of doing that.

      The police failed to apprehend him when he was unarmed despite tasering him twice. When you taze someone the probes break the skin and stay embedded so you can repeatedly shock the victim until they submit. I believe that carrying firearms and knowing they face no formal repercussions for using them probably makes police officers less effective at controlling and apprehending civilians. Why bother trying to de-escalate the situation when you can just pull out your gun and demand to be obeyed?

      Delete
    10. Ok, settle down Karen!!! I mean Tank, Tanky or whatever... Seriously though, until you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you really have no idea WTH you are talking about. Julie, I am sorry for calling someone a fool on your blog. By saying someone is foolish doesn't mean they lack intelligence or education, it's more indicative of a choice to think or behave in a manner that is not prudent or contrary to what's right. What is prudent or would have been prudent in Blake's situation would have been immediate compliance with the officers' instructions. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm guessing he would have been taken into custody without incident. However, instead of placing blame where it lies, which is with the suspect (who's actions by the way dictate the behavior of the officers), it must be someone else's fault. Any idea how many other folks those officers had contact with over the course of their careers? Any idea how many of those other contacts resulted in the use of deadly force by the same officers? Just asking...

      So, I'll leave you with this thought. Please take a few hours of your day at some point in your life and attend a force on force training class (which always contains forms of de-escalation elements), and when you're done let me know how you do. Also, consider doing a ride along with a police department somewhere in the US (not sure where you live, but I'd imagine policing policies are different in different countries) whose jurisdiction is includes heavy crime ridden areas of responsibility, or attend a citizen's police academy. It may help you make less foolish comments in the future; but I doubt it.

      Finally, regarding your last point, if you really want to experience what control and apprehension is like just get with 2 friends of reasonably similar stature, age and experience. Pick one to be your partner, and one to be the suspect. Tell the suspect to resist allowing you to place him/her in handcuffs to whatever level is necessary to avoid being cuffed; street rules apply here because that's what we are talking about, right? The next step is simple. You and your "partner" do your best to control and apprehend the "suspect" and place him/her into custody using what you think to be appropriate arrest procedures. Good Luck!!!

      Finally, let's assume that when the taser was deployed both probes did in fact remain in tact, in the suspect, not just his clothing. Let's also assume that the probes had a good enough spread between them to cause a disruption in the suspect's neuromuscular response system then the officers may have been able secure him while the taser was "under power". I'm guessing this didn't happen though. Then you suggest that the taser be used as a punitive/pain compliance device... Shock suspect. Request his compliance. If he complies, great; if he doesn't shock again, and repeat until he does. I'm pretty sure that folks on your side of the fence would have a huuuuge problem with that. Especially if the suspect is lit up on speed and ends up having a heart attack when his heart is stressed from the combination of dope and electricity. OMG the officers should have known better. They shouldn't have tased him! They shouldn't have tased him multiple times! Where exactly does this end??? Fact is there is a small portion of our society that believes that if officers would simply summons a unicorn fart any time there is conflict all would be well. Unfortunately, that is not reality.

      Anyhow, I've given enough of my time to this cause. I wish you well and hope you that you have the desire and opportunity to take advantage of at least one of my recommendations, it may give you a different perspective. If not, at try to wake up every day and do something productive for your community. In other words, be more like Kyle and less like Karen!!!

      Good day!


      Delete
    11. Send the social workers, yeah, that's the ticket. ;-)

      Delete
    12. Listen cocksnot, you don't get to arbitrate what is prudent or right. You have no idea who I am or what interactions I've had with the police over my life.

      You're not even using the Karen insult right - it applies to the sort of privileged white women who will call the police because they're intimidated by black people having a barbeque or getting to close to their dog, not the type of person who believes in tighter gun control and defunding the police. If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks then at least do it effectively, otherwise you look like a fucking moron. The same goes for saying "I'll leave you with this thought," then starting two paragraphs with "Finally," and then tacking on an "Anyhow." Your post had so many unnecessary endings it was like watching the last Lord of the Rings!

      I don't know how many folks those officers had come into contact with over their careers, no, but I believe in taking punitive measures against officers that do a terrible job, paralyse a member of the public out of cowardice, and incite protests/rioting/looting/whatever, not applauding the ones that do the job they're paid to do. Though maybe there should be an incentive program for cops that can go a month without doing anything overtly racist, turning a blind eye to the "few bad apples" that poison the barrel, refrain from using excessive force, and keep their bodycams/dashcams on at all times. There could be a ceremony, and cake, and little certificates! Assuming anyone accomplished that.

      I haven't been on any police ride along or attended a citizen's police academy, but as you suggest it will help me then immediately doubt that it will then I'll save myself the effort. I have attended a self-defence class and was a volunteer with St Johns Ambulance for about three years, so I know a thing or two about first aid. The very first thing they teach you when you approach a possible patient is to assess the danger around you so you don't worsen the situation by causing yourself harm or endangering others around you. Was Kyle doing this when he antagonised Rosenbaum by putting out his fire? Was he doing this when he decided to bring a firearm to a protest he wasn't even a part of? Or did he make the situation worse?

      Delete
    13. About your cops and robbers game; am I allowed to equip myself and my partner with all the non-lethal deterrents available to the police - pepper spray, tasers, maglites in excess of 300 lumens? Am we allowed to train in control and apprehension until we're proficient enough that a senior member of the police force certifies that we're able to do it? Because then yeah, I fancy our chances, knucklehead.

      I object to your straw man argument dismissing my argument because you think "folk on my side of the fence" would disagree with me. I speak for myself and myself alone. It's sad that you think de-escalation and non-lethal force is as unattainable as unicorn farts; how do you think we manage in countries where the vast majority of the police don't carry guns? I know you don't have a crystal ball, but imagine the George Blake scenario had happened here in the UK, where the responding officers weren't relying on firearms to do their apprehending for them. Do you think Blake would have murdered both cops and kidnapped his child, or do you think he would have been subdued without being paralysed?

      You don't know anything about my situation or what I've done to help my community, so keep your condescending recommendations to yourself and live your life how you want to live it. Though I believe he had the best of intentions, and I'm glad he's not doing time, Rittenhouse is no role model. Just look at how being like Kyle worked out for Kyle, and what it led to. You may not approve of how I've lived my life, but I've caused zero deaths and been responsible for zero riots; I think I'm doing okay.

      Since you have such a boner for the police: Imagine you're the parent of a seventeen year old. Your child phones the police and tells them that there's looting and rioting happening in their hometown, and that they're thinking of arming themselves and joining a group of other armed citizens in an attempt to deter vandals. They ask if that's a good idea or whether it's a bad idea and they should simply stay at home instead. What do you think the police would tell them?

      Anyhow, I'll finally leave you with this thought: Good day to you, fuckwad.

      Delete
    14. Julie: you may be interested to hear that some cities; notably Minneapolis, Portland, Philadelphia and Seattle, have refunded the police and found that crime hasn't risen. Now they've started allocating more funds into schools, housing, and social programs. It's yet to be seen whether this will reduce crime, but looking at other cities around the world that have focused on investing in these areas it seems likely it will. They have shown that the number of police doesn't affect the number of criminals.

      My last interaction with a member of the police was when I overdosed back in 2018. My father had a key to the outer door of the flat I was squatting in, but couldn't open the inner door at the top of the stairs that led into the actual apartment. He called the police and an officer came and opened the door, found me in my room, and told them my parents and my employer were worried about me. He reassured my father that I was okay, then privately told me not to take any more pills, gave me his card, and told me about a church-run "cafe" in town where I could get a cheap meal.

      I let my dad know I was okay and he spoke to the cop in private, then I was left alone to call my boss. Later that week we agreed I should leave the company until my health improved. I didn't look for any further support until the dole office set me up with some, weeks later. I went on to try half-heartedly to kill myself a second time, and avoided becoming street homeless by a matter of hours.

      Although the policeman was well-meaning, kind, compassionate, professional, experienced, and fundamentally decent, he wasn't equipped with the tools he needed to help me. If my dad was able to send a social worker to investigate what was happening in my flat then maybe my life wouldn't have imploded quite as badly as it did.

      Delete
    15. The funny thing is that I think everybody is actually agreeing with one another here. Everybody wants a mix of police and social workers and wishes to apprehend without using lethal force when possible, but does not want to endanger cop lives.

      Delete
    16. This is why I enjoy talking these things out with you, because we can exchange views and celebrate common ground rather than prescribing how one another should act and resorting to childish name-calling (which is funny, because on your subby posts we both enjoy when I make suggestions for how you should be punished and call you a horny little sub slut!). I think you'd have to be incredibly naive, sheltered, or ignorant to believe there wasn't serious need for change in the majority of American police forces.

      Delete
    17. Agreed. And it may take the form of more pay for cops, attracting higher quality recruits, more aggressively weeding out psychopaths, no more "blue wall of silence" sort of thing for cops clearly breaking laws, more money on training and equipment, more budget for cops, less red tape, and so on. And it certainly means celebrating the 99% of good policing out there now.

      Closing down mental institutions and eliminating the ability to put crazy people in institutions was a mistake, in retrospect.

      Delete
  7. Joe2 here,

    I watched the pertinent videos on Youtube less than 24 hours after the event. It was an almost textbook example of lawful self-defense. In each attack, he was attempting to flee until the attackers forced him remain in place. In each attack, it was obvious that the attackers were going to do serious bodily harm to Rittenhouse. There is no state in the U.S. where you have to wait until you are hurt before you can defend yourself. Rittenhouse was using full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets, which are the least effective (but most available) rounds for stopping a person (The military uses FMJ due to international treaties). So if he "wanted to be an active shooter," he probably would have used better ammunition. Please note that I have a concealed pistol permit from my state and read a lot about self-defense, so while I am not an expert, I am knowledgeable.

    The "unidentified person" that stopped Rittenhouse from reaching the police, was identified after the trial. He like the others is also a felon. Now if all four attackers were/are felons, what does that say about the composition of the rioters (They had little to lose.)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The organizers of the BLM "protests" are the same people encouraging riots and egging on criminals to come and wreak havoc.

      Delete
  8. Whilst I do think, in the end, the right decision was made here... the optics are really, really bad and this will only end with more unrest now. What do I mean by optics? Everything from the biased judge (evidenced by throwing out the only real charge Kyle should have been found guilty on, the weapons charge, verbally berating the prosecution etc), to the inept prosecution (literally point me to a single moment in this trial the prosecution acted with any sort of aptitude for their role) to queries of evidence being ruled inadmissible without merit... it's bad. There could have been such a better result for Kyle, for the victims and for the city of Kenosha if there had been a fair trial and he was found not guilty (which I absolutely believe he would have).

    It's sad all round.

    -Kasey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The gun charge should have been thrown out much earlier as it did not apply (it applied only to easily concealed weapons: handguns and short-barrelled shotguns and rifles). That was plain as day from the start with a simple reading of the law. Waiting so long to throw it out is evidence of bias in the opposite direction.

      In terms of verbally berating the prosecution, they were in contempt of court if you ask me and deserved it.

      ANY prosecution that would have argued the case would have by definition been inept, as their role is to see Justice is done, not prosecute an innocent kid, and there was no evidence of crime from the start.

      Yes the trial was unfair, and Kyle won despite that.

      Delete
    2. Uh... The firearms charge wasn't about conceal? It was about age. Besides, if it were about conceal, Kyle never attempted to conceal. In 1987, Wisconsin banned minors from having pistols. The Governor at the time, who was Republican, then expanded the law to cover, quote, "short barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars and nunchakus." Then years after *that* expansion, he expanded even further to disallow minors from carrying any firearm. The technicality applied by the judge was that minors could carry a firearm as long as it was a hunting rifle with a barrel was at least 1 foot long. No one on earth believes that Kyle believed his gun was only appropriate for hunting, if he had done, he wouldn't have taken it into a heated situation to use for self defense. It was literally the only charge he had even the slightest chance of being found guilty on, and the judge tossed it as a technicality.

      -Kasey

      Delete
    3. I agree with everything you say, and I don't know the intent of the law, but there is pretty universal agreement amongst legal experts that the law does not apply owing to the barrel length. However, the law is written badly in a confusing fashion, and that alone is enough to make it not prosecutable. I don't consider that a "technicality".

      This phobia of the AR-15 is unwarranted. It's a semi-automatic rifle, like many other rifles. Any weapon useful for hunting can also be useful for self-defense and vice-versa.

      Delete
    4. So... okay hold on. lol. I need a second here. You agree with everything I say, the law is what it is, it is flawed but there was an obvious attempt made and that attempt was to stop minors from wielding firearms UNLESS they were hunting rifles meant to be used for hunting. The judge dismissed this without the jury even considering it simply because the barrel exceeded 1ft. The judge never even spoke to the point that the gun needed to be, in theory, a hunting rifle. He dismissed it on the technicality that the barrel exceeded 1ft in length. That's the technicality here, nothing else. He overstepped on something a jury of Kyle's peers should have negotiated and this overstep was on the only thing Kyle could have possibly be found guilty of... that's bad optics. Very bad optics. To argue the definition of a hunting rifle is not up to the judge, to dismiss on the fact that the barrel exceeded a certain limit is even LESS of the job of a judge. It was 100% a technicality. I'm sorry Julie, I'm usually on your side, I'm usually very kind but for you to claim that this was not overstep is crazy to me. Especially when Kyle would have been found innocent of literally everything else if it went to a fair trial with an unbiased judge.

      Delete
    5. We only disagree that it was thrown out on a "technicality". Kyle demonstrated excellent knowledge of gun laws and self-defense laws, and based on his understanding of the laws he believed what he did was legal, and the vast majority of the legal profession seems to agree. Juries don't get to decide on laws that clearly do not apply. I guess we can agree to disagree on this, and if the judge was biased or not. I don't see it, you do. That's cool.

      Delete
    6. I actually agree, 100%. It's not up to the jury to interpret law, but it's equally not up to the judge to do so either. There is no precedent in his ruling, nor is there any law edging toward his interpretation being the correct one. He made a decision based on his own whims and now this is precedent for all cases to come before judges across the state, if not the land. This is not his job. He is a judge at the county level and his impact will be felt at a state, if not federal level. He should have acted on precedent which was NOT to rule on one side or the other. He took it upon himself to act differently and this will have a cascade affect. That's the issue here. A biased judge, a judge willing to be non-partisan who will overstep their authority and change the judicial landscape. Again, realise, you and I agree Kyle is innocent on the murder charges, this is simply the weapons charges. The judge, a supposed neutral, shut even this down due to personal biases. It's not right.

      Delete
    7. I live-streamed the trial and there was a panel of dozens of rotating lawyers sitting in and none of them made the point you're making (that it's not up to the judge). They felt it was his duty given the prosecutors brought it.

      I've searched Google just now and I don't see any of the usual suspects making the case you are making. Have you a reference to a legal analysis somewhere that argues this point?

      There is a clear prohibition for those under 16 possessing long guns, and it's clear those over 18 can, so another argument is that they were trying to get Kyle on a technicality given he happened to be 17.

      But in the end, they brought MURDER charges against the kid!!! Who cares about this misdemeanour technicality one way or the other? He was also driving without a license, btw, perhaps they should have thrown the book at him for that and given him the maximum possible to appease the mob?

      Delete
  9. Bravo Ms. Julie!!!!@ It was a trial that shouldn't have ever happened....clearly self defense.....
    The political left is unbelievably still trying to make this a racial case....
    I agree with you about suing the pants off of all of the disgusting media that tried to paint him as a "white supremacist" without a single shred of evidence....
    And some of the politicians should have to defend their bogus accusations in court too....starting with Sleepy Joe Biden...
    Forget everything else and imagine yourself as a seventeen year old kid....on the ground....with people attacking you....what else could he have done?
    You're probably going to catch some serious leftist nonsense for this post....but I love the way you've always handled it before!!!
    Thanks for a good rundown on the facts....not the crap the media has been peddling!!!
    Kisses
    Kaaren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's sad that a spanking blogger does a better job of reporting the facts than most of the media. And it was not hard in this case.

      Delete
  10. I had not followed this in any detail, so I appreciate you presenting a narrative.

    I can see my 17yo self doing what Kyle did. My adult self would know that it would not end well. I am not being critical of Kyle, just saying that putting myself in the mix with a bunch of crazies is asking for trouble.

    We travel in a motor home about half the year. We have self defense weapons plus target pistols and rifles. We know that if we had to defend ourselves in some states, the aftermath would depend on the county DA. We would, no doubt, not be convicted, but legal expenses would be hefty.

    Kyle did nothing wrong, but I suspect the trail will haunt him through his life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt asking for trouble, but when the alternative is to let your hometown burn to the ground at the hands of arsonists, I applaud his decision.

      Delete
  11. Julie, Not only are your adventures and stories an amazing DD life many of us wish we could be able to live in our real lives.
    You are very thoughtful and intelligent we are lucky that you chose to share your views as well as your kink life.
    Have you ever thought about doing pod casts you would be a natural. Every morning I visit your blog as I drink my first cup of coffee ☕. At my age it usually gives me my first hard on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! ☺️
      I enjoy the written word as it allows me to consider and organize more before expressing.

      Delete
  12. One other point, BLM is mostly a slogan. Most supporters are law abiding and, if they protested, did so peacefully.

    Yes, there were too many rioters and criminals mixed in.

    I would support the law mandating protests only in daylight hours.

    But I do think BLM is a legitimate movement that needs support.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BLM is an organization that collected a lot of donations that were funnelled to Democrat politicians. It's a mechanism to turn hyped up outrage into political contributions.

      Of course black lives matter, is there anybody on the opposite side of that proposition? The very framing of the phrase is racist (by definition), and I think that is problematic. How about a movement that demands better policing period (regardless of the race of the involved party).

      Delete
  13. Agree with what you took the time to bring out. My only question is why this 17 year old kid, with an AR-15 would even get involved. This age is my question, 17 and an AR-15, why would anyone at that age need such a weapon. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People in the US who believe in the 2nd amendment (which was intended for self-defense) find nothing unusual about having kids of legal age learn how to handle a gun safely. Kyle used his weapon very responsibly and effectively, which is a tribute to his training.

      Delete
    2. Clearly he needed it, otherwise those rioters would have murdered him.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the Second Amendment was intended to allow each state to have it's own 'State Army'(a 'well regulated militia' as it's written)and it's not until after the American Civil War around 1865, that an United States Army was created. General Lee was the Commanding General of the Army of Virginia and my great,great grandfather enlisted in the Army of New York.

      At age 17, Kyle was not of legal age to vote or sign a binding contract. He should not have been in possession of an assault rifle.

      One needs to separate out the peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, from the criminals and rioters who mixed into the protests, so they could commit crimes like looting and arson.

      Delete
    4. I quote from Wikipedia: "The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state."

      When you say "should not" that is your opinion of what the law ought to be. The law says no such thing, as just demonstrated.

      Yes, but... if people are rioting in the name of your cause you have an extra duty to vocally speak out against it and do everything you can to shut it down. That did not happen in any significant way.

      Delete
    5. Sorry Julie but Wisconsin law actually says:

      https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

      948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

      948.60(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; { Remaining text omitted for brevity }

      948.60(2)
      (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
      (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
      (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

      The Judge threw out the gun charge.
      Didn't his father allow him to have the rifle?
      The State probably won't try to prosecute that charge.

      Delete
    6. That's a dishonest reading!

      There's a 948.60(3) that goes on to say:
      c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

      941.28 speaks about barrel length.

      The law is confusing, but there's really no other way to read it in the end. Besides, a general principle is if the law is so confusing you can't make it out, it is not prosecutable.

      Why you try to lie to me?

      Delete
    7. "Well regulated", in 1776 terms, merely means well armed, as if a "regular" soldier. It has nothing to do with any government regulations. Comments from the "anonymous" person regarding the Second Amendment only point out the lack of proper education one receives in American public schools. Julie, your blog post and related comments are right on. Disregard the ileducated naysayers.

      Delete
  14. Julie, your narrative is a better and much more accurate reporting of what actually occurred than the biased, slanted trash that the Left Wing mainstream media spewed out on this. Bravo! America needs more people like Kyle Rittenhouse. He went on a mission to help others and (wisely, I think) brought along a weapon because he realized he might need it to defend himself. As it turned out, he did. The police were not allowed to do their job stopping the criminals. They were ordered to stand down by corrupt politicians who were in sympathy with the rioters! In this situation, people have God-given rights to defend themselves when government refuses to do its job.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Another well informed and accurate opinion piece Julie.
    I suspect there will be more to come with lawsuits against Biden and the media for unfairly commenting on the case while it was being tried.
    Even Biden's written statement after the verdict , doubled down by stating he did not agree with the verdict.
    Irresponsible behaviour for a President.
    He made the statements before becoming President so he can still be sued.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, the first statement was libellous in the usual sense, his statement just now beggars belief for a sitting US President (but who are we fooling, really, somebody else put out that statement without his knowledge, almost certainly).

      Delete
  16. Well, the only thing I am surprised in, is that more people did not accuse you of being a nazi extremest. you are right on target. The charges should never have been filed in the first place. The law in the Wisconsin is that one need not retreat. Kyle did his best to retreat when in fact he did not need too. Some states mandate retreat. Wisconsin does not. The persons sympathectic to the ones Kyle shot never bother to ask. 1. Why would an unarmed person chase a person with a rifle? (The answer is obvious...the person chasing, has no fear that the rile will be used.) The law is that one may use reasonalbe force to prevent 1. Serious bodily injury or death. (One need not take a beating that 1. Could result in serious bodily injury such as broken skulls, broken arms, legs, noses etc. Concusions are also serious bodily injury and if one is armed and loses the weapon one can easily be killed. If self defense is justified then it negates all crimes charged including lesser included crimes. Kyle was charged with 1st degree Murder. The prosecution threw as much shit against the wall as they could hoping something would stick. 2. Did any of these attackers, jump kick man, skate board dude or pistol packing Gaige know why they chased him? The answer is clearly NO. I submit to you that a kick to the head can not only cause serious bodily injury it can cause death. A blow with a heavy skateboard can casue serious bodily injury or death. and point a gun at me, you better pull the trigger faster than I pull mine because guns definitely can cause death and serious bodily injury. Skateboard man and Rosenbaum if alive could testify to that and Pistol packin Gaige did testify to that. The kid is not guilty of anything except being in the wrong place and the wrong time...and folks that aint a crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too am surprised I am not getting the usual volume of leftist hate. I think this incident is so transparently clear that they can't sustain their usual level of outrage. Some even may have been shaken out of their mainstream media induced stupor and have woken up by the utter bald faced lies spewed by the media and leftist politicians.

      Delete
  17. Kyle is innocent.
    BLM is an openly Marxist group.
    An AR-15 is just as capable of hunting small game as it is of killing Marxist, rioting scumbags.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true statement 😊

      Delete
    2. AF,

      I’m opposed to rioters and believe they should be jailed in accordance with their offenses. I hope you’re not in favor of killing them as you comment suggests.

      I’m also not a Marxist. But we all have ideologies based on what taxes should be levied and where the money should go. Marxists are simply at an extreme end.

      Finally, very few protestors are linked to the BLM organization; rather they support the general cause.

      Rosco

      Delete
    3. I, for one, and certainly not in favour of shooting Marxists indiscriminately. However, if they come at somebody armed with the intent to seriously injure or kill, I have no problem with it.

      My frustration with those supporting BLM cause is their relative inactivity in the face of all these violent riots in their name. Yes, a few half-hearted pleas for peaceful protest, but not strong measures such as calling out the national guard t restore peace.

      Certainly if I were protesting for a cause, and my protest was hijacked by violent rioters, I would absolutely stay home the next night and speak out over the top strongly against people rioting in my name. We don't see a lot of that from leftist politicians and media. They sweep it under the rug. Just compare the outrage from the left over the relatively benign 1/6 versus an entire summer of rioting that saw hundreds of injured and dead.

      Delete
  18. Julie, really? I agree with your representation of the facts. I'm surprised at your editorial comments. The "left" isn't an organized anti-gun group. Only the right-wing fascists led by the insane former president are a little organized.

    My problem isn't with the verdict. I agree that Kyle acted in self defense. That begs much more serious questions: Why did a 17-year-old kid own a AK semi-automatic weapon? Why was he allowed to join an obviously violent riot?

    When I was 18 I worked for a major network and covered riots as a sound engineer. I saw all of this stuff close up. I understand how the kid could have gotten himself into all this trouble. If his mother made him stay home, none of this would have happened. If he wasn't able to buy an assault rifle, things might have been different.

    Worst of all, you somehow make it ok to kill the men Kyle shot because they had criminal records. They were clearly in the wrong attacking Kyle. However, you use a trick the Trump squad uses a lot. You try to make it OK to kill people because of their pasts. That's beneath you. Your post would have been much stronger if you simply stated the facts. None of your extraneous comments about the character of the dead men helps the commentary.

    I am appalled at BLM. It is a more violent version of the "right to life" people. How is it that just black lives matter? White, yellow, green, and pink matter too. Who benefits by having less police? Not innocent black people. Criminals benefit.

    I'm someone you would characterize as "left." I believe people should help others. (That's the real difference between the Trump right and the evil "left.") I am 100% against BLM and what it demands. I want a police force that responds quickly if called. I'd prefer they didn't kill innocent people of any color. But I don't want less of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not ok to kill them because they have criminal records. It's ok to kill them because they were intending to kill Kyle. I mention their criminal history in case there was any doubt as to their intent and capability in that regard. Where did I make the statement you claim I did?

      I think Trump has broken you somehow, you are so vitriolic. It's absurd that you characterize 50% of your country who happen to support Trump as "fascists" and people unwilling to help others.

      Delete
    2. Sadly, Trump is the latest example of people willing to encourage the basest behavior. Half of the country don't necessarily subscribe to the lunatic's ravings. They do believe that America should take care of its own and disregard the rest of the world and the climate. This isn't new. Isolationism is a longstanding theme.

      My problem is that when a leader like Hitler in the 30's, encourages people to act on their worst instincts, terrible things happen. Am I comparing Trump to Hitler? No, not in the sense that Trump is willing to practice genocide. I am in the sense that he happily marginalized any Americans who didn't support him.

      The 2020 election was a perfect storm. The hitherto marginal far right republicans found a giant opening. White, high-school-educated Americans felt marginalized by the deadlocked congress and a weak (minority) president.

      Along came a "businessman" who had no political experience who promised to treat America like a business and make it "great" again. His opponent was a woman who epitomized the power-grabbing stereotype. I couldn't bring myself to vote for her. I voted for Bernie Sanders. The climate was right, the same way it was in Germany in the 30s.

      Through the four years of the former president, enormous effort went in to marginalizing any voices that didn't agree with his. Social media came into its own and "fake news" became way more interesting than facts.

      Mass movements have a life of their own. The enemy of the despots of history has always been truth. Jews didn't drag down the German people. They didn't steal all the money. Democrats don't want to take everyone's guns away. They don't want to turn the country into a socialist welfare state like Canada (you have government health care, right? :)). In fact Democrats can't agree among themselves. Neither can Republicans.

      I have nothing against people owning guns. I don't think teenagers should own assault rifles. I also put BLM people in the same category as MAGAs. Both oversimplify difficult subjects in an attempt to stir up their constituents.

      Your post does a disservice in the sense that you imply that the not-guilty verdict is a victory for the "non-democrats". No, you don't say it, but it is certainly the subtext.

      I am happy Kyle got off. I agree he had a right to defend himself. I don't think the case is a victory or defeat for any political point of view. It was a criminal case that was resolved by a jury. That's great.

      It's way too easy to use it as a soapbox for gun ownership or control. It's even easier to use it to claim it as a victory for MAGA or the former president. It isn't. It's just 12 honest citizens weighing the facts in a murder case and finding the defendant not guilty.

      Delete




    3. Fact - Tony Evers Refused to allow police to do their Job
      Fact - Tony Evers refused to allow National Guard to come in and do their job
      Fact Each person that was shot attacked Kyle and were actively participating in an illegal violent riot, looting and burning.
      Fact Each Person that was shot attacked Kyle in on one way or another before shots were fired.
      Fact - If the government had done their job not to allow the riot to happen to close it down fast this would not have happened.

      Emily

      Delete
    4. I agree, Emily.
      What's so galling is that Democrats and BLM supporters seem to just double down rather that putting out any type of strong message that rioting and looting is not to be tolerated in the name of their cause.

      Delete
    5. Cage, I can't believe there's still someone out there pretending the slogan "Black Lives Matter" is the same as "Just Black Lives Matter." When you respond with white (or yellow!?) lives matter too, you sound like either a whiny kid complaining that their sibling is getting all of Mommy's attention just because they're bleeding, an out of touch fossil that has somehow missed the past six years, or a straight up racist.

      I grant that it's confusing that as well as Black Lives Matter being a slogan and a call for change there's a BLM movement, BLM Inc., the BLM network, and the Movement for Black Lives. I wonder which of them you are appalled by, and which "BLM People" you would categorise along with "MAGAs." When you say you're 100% against it's demands, what do you think those demands are, exactly?

      You ask who benefits by having less police. Well, the police have been defunded in cities including Minnesota, Philadelphia, Portland, and Seattle. Crime didn't increase, and the money that would have been spent on the police was invested in other areas, such as school and housing. So everyone benefits, and innocent black people benefit most of all because as well as reaping these rewards they're not bothered by profiling, unnecessary stop and search, broken window policing, and other discrimination.

      I think you're so used to disagreeing with Julie's political opinions that you've come here and given us another Trump 101 history lesson with no facts or statistics or even a take relevant to what Julie wrote about, just a bunch of dull (in both senses of the word) generalisations. Only this time, you don't know what you're rallying against, and you're showing how out of touch you've become. Even Kyle Rittenhouse has come out in support of the Black Life Matters movement!

      I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who thinks "Social media came into its own" during the Trump administration doesn't have his finger on the pulse of current affairs.

      Delete
    6. Where do you get your crime stats? I've been reading reports of crime going through the roof, e.g., in Seattle: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10191185/Downtown-Seattle-dangerous-city-employees-security-guard-escorts.html

      Delete
    7. I think it was the Portland Mercury, they had a think piece about what could affect the local crime rate, seeing as the number of police doesn't make a difference.

      Delete
  19. "Only the right-wing fascists led by the insane former president are a little organized."
    The Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well.
    Why are all the questions about Kyle and none are about the hundreds of violent riots? Why were they there? Why did they have guns and other weapons? Why do they feel justified in destroying the lively hoods of innocent people? Answer those questions and maybe you will begin to understand why Kyle went there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fact - Kyle was allowed to posses that rifle as a 17 yo in Wisconsin as that rifle is neither an sbr nor a pistol, both of which would be prohibited to him due to his age.

    Fact- Kyle, while perhaps ill advised, had as much right to be there as anyone else. His behavior was video taped for most of the evening and his behavior was good and he de-escalated several possible altercations.
    Fact- He was attacked more than once
    Fact - He tried to run from his attackers
    Fact - Once his retreat was blocked or he was knocked to the ground and still being attacked he had no choice but to defend himself.

    This was legal self-defense, cut and dried.

    While in the heat of the moment, the past of the four assailants was unknown, it was their CLEARLY recorded actions that justified his defense.

    The fact that they are (were) repeat violent felons is merely an interesting bon-mont.

    They fucked around and found out.

    Of course, Kenosha had no riots the next night....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true facts. The more disturbing question is why are all those Democrat politicians and media sources so hellbent on telling a different, fake, narrative?

      Delete
  21. Joe2 here,

    Many people are pretty ignorant about what an AR15 is. Here is a fingernail sketch:

    The AR15 (Armalite 15) was privately developed for military use. It was redesigned and adopted for the US military and designated as the Model 16 (M16) in 1964. Like most new weapons it had serious problems in the beginning. Unfortunately, those teething issues had to be resolved while it was being used in combat-not good. It was a rifle capable of firing semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull) or fully automatic (it would keep firing as long as the trigger was held down until it ran out of ammo). It fires the 5.56mm NATO round. This round is a slight modification of the .223 round which was commercially developed to shoot varmints, i.e. gophers, ground hogs and foxes. The rounds are so similar that you can shoot 5.56 rounds in rifles chambered in .223 and you can shoot the .223 in rifles that are chambered in 5.56.

    The M16 had a major redesign in the early 1980s, which beefed up certain components that made it hardier, more accurate and more reliable. They also improved the 5.56 round (better gunpowder and heavier bullet). It has undergone numerous updates since then, but the current service rifle is basically the same.

    In the 1990s, the patents for the M16 expired and anyone can get the specifications and design standards and make their own semi-automatic version. That version is called the AR15. There are many different manufacturers of AR15 parts and since they are all using the same specifications, you can usually swap out parts regardless of the manufacturer.

    The AR15 is very popular for many reasons: 1) It is relatively inexpensive (a budget model costs at $600). 2) It is very easy to shoot (It shoots a low power round that produces very little recoil (My 5 foot nothing, under 100 pound daughter started shooting her AR15 when she was 14 and is very accurate with it.)). 3) The ammunition is relatively cheap (This is important because you can shoot it regularly without breaking the bank.) My daughter will go through about 100 rounds in a couple of hours. Competition target shooters go through about 10,000 rounds per year.). 4) It is modular, so it is the leggo of rifles (don’t like the barrel- replace it; don’t like the trigger mechanism- swap it out). 5) It is simple to build and maintain (it takes about two hours with a few cheap tools to build one from scratch). 6) It comes in various calibers (If you don’t like the 5.56- swap out a few parts and you can shoot a different caliber. I have owned AR15s in four different calibers: 5.56, 300 Blackout, 7.62x39 and 50 Beowulf.). and 7) It can be very accurate (Target AR15s can easily shoot three round groups of .75 inch at 100 yards, but then the weapon will be more like $1500 versus $600).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joe2! I did not know most of that. Now it makes more sense to me why the AR15 is such a popular weapon (and hence why it is so targeted by the left for bans as an "assault rifle" somehow different than other semi-automatic weapons).

      Delete
    2. Very interesting, and I'm impressed by your knowledge and your passion. You're clearly not a guy to be messed with, so please don't take offence when I say... You must have some very long fingernails!

      Delete
    3. You make an important point Joe that the A in the weapon name stands for Armalite NOT Automatic which is a misconception used by many including our idiot Priminister Trudeau who wants to outlaw it in Canada because he incorrectly thinks it is an automatic weapon.

      Delete
  22. I felt the acquittal was the correct decision but the hero worship of a foolish boy with a gun fetish who put himself in a terrible predicament is ridiculous.

    Roger

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admire his courage and composure under duress.

      Delete
  23. This is white on brand for you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Guilty as hell and should serve life in a maximum security prison. He went to Wisconsin looking to shoot people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cognitive dissonance coming in hard...
      If you're referring to Grabe Grosskreutz, I agree.
      If you're referring to Kyle, he did not "go there", he lived there. It was proven convincingly in court that his intent was only self-defense.

      Delete
  25. Fair and balanced, your intelligence and insight never ceases to amaze me.

    Should Kyle have been there? who knows, a kid trying to do the right thing and get involved.

    but the victims should definitely not have been there, agitators with no purpose or commitment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a tough one. Ideally police should have done it, else men should have done it and kept the kid out of it, on the other hand, Kyle comported himself so well.

      Delete
    2. This is what happens when the Security Forces are not allowed to di their job - anarchy and civil war.
      The National Guard would have shut it down in a day.

      Delete
    3. Yes. But everything BLM was politicized by the race grifters on the left to whip up campaign donations.

      Delete
    4. The only reason you don't see race grifters on the right is because it is no longer advantageous to them to do so. When it was to their benefit, they used every opportunity to race grift. Have you heard of a little known republican policy called the southern strategy, Where republican actively tried to appeal to the white supremacist, so they could increase their political support. The pot calling the kettle black.

      Delete
    5. I think "the southern strategy" has been debunked... like, a lot! Do a bit of research.

      But I don't care about the past for this. Who are the race grifters now (not which party, which people) and let's all condemn them.

      Delete
    6. Ahhh yes my favorite argument of the right keep the past in the past, past polices/actions have a direct effect on the present like how present polices will have an effect on the future. How convenient, you seem to have forgotten trumps "Mexicans are rapists" speech or Obama was not born in the us misinformation. Or are these to far back in the past for you to.
      I know and can admit that the left is full of shit I took off my rose-tinted glasses decades ago, but to suggest that the right is somehow morally superior is laughable. I read throw some of your past post Georgia election fraud, the "insurrection" etc. what stood out the most to me is how you minimize the actions of people on the right. If it had been the left that were involved in the capital riots, you would not have glossed over the attempted insurrection(yes it was an insurrection, just because they half-assed it does not mean their intentions were not clear) you would be fanning yourself with how outrageous it was that left dared enter the halls of the nations capital and how uncivilized and violent these people were.
      You said in your post about climate catastrophe(which I am not even going to waste my time arguing with you) that it was the first red pill you took, well here is another one for you. You have firmly glued on those rose-tinted glasses and are willfully blind. Leaving out or minimizing facts that don't support your opinion after having done "research" does not mean you are calling it as it is.

      Delete
    7. You seem to be blinded by the hoaxes perpetuated onto you by your news bubble and incapable of making a cogent point. I feel sorry for you.

      Delete
  26. Extremely well written! Proud of you!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nothing more dangerous in this world than a dumb person who insists they are actually very smart.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's so easy to tell who actually watched the trial rather than just seeing news coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  29. i admire you for not deleting peoples comments that don't aggre with you. What has puzzeled me is why you desided to post about politics in a fetish blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not selling a product, I'm expressing myself. Most of my fun thoughts are kinky, so I go there. But I have a big (albeit niche) platform, and both wish to and consider it my responsibility to give my take on controversial topics.

      Delete
  30. Generally speaking an ugly story all round.
    I don't have time for a long comment right now, so I'll just make a couple of short points.

    I can follow and accept that some people want to protest when people get killed by cops, either during or after their arrest. There are some ugly stories in the US to support occasional misconduct, but obviously it's not the case every time. When that's said, looting, pillaging, marauding, or any other form of similar illegal action is not OK. Regardless of the reason. Period.

    Should Kyle Rittenhousen have been convicted? In this case I'll agree that it does not seem to be the case. Based on the presented evidence, he did not shoot as a first response, he was subjected to physical attacks by multiple assailants who were older than him. (What other crimes they have committed earlier in their lives, however, are not relevant to the case in question.) Kyle did appear to act in self-defense, and thus got a not guilty verdict.

    With regards to a couple of comments you made Julie, I'll add something I read in a Danish newspaper yesterday. Unfortunately I can't find it at the moment, so I can't provide a link as documentation. But in any case, the two points I'll add are:

    - A video of Kyle shows him stating that he wished that he'd had his rifle with him, at a point where he was observing some looters taking off with stolen goods, because then he would have fired on them. Said video was dismissed in court as irrelevant to the case.
    - While Kyle may not have been a white supremacist, he has been photographed amongst some people who supposedly are, following the incidence.

    Final comment I'll make is this:
    What the fuck is a 17-year old doing with an automatic rifle in the middle of a riot in the first place!? I get that some groups of the US population did not believe that the State was doing enough to try and contain the rioting. I get that people were upset about it, and that some had a desire to try and prevent damage to private property. But for fuck's sake! Having a civilian minor bring a loaded rifle into a violent riot, was a recepie for a disaster like what happened, and like it or not, the kid had absolutely zero fucking valid reason to be in that place at that time! No matter how patriotic or well-meaning he might have been, and nothing good ultimately came of it. (We can argue that a couple of previously convicted felons who engaged in looting during a riot, isn't a great loss to humanity, and their deaths might have been a good thing. But aside from that...)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kyrel, it's a bit inconsistent to point out that Kyle's assailants' criminal records are not germane to the incident, but then bring up a couple of things related to Kyle not at all germane to the incident. You see that, right?

      It was not a "belief" that the State was not going to protect, it was explicit statements and 2 nights of complete inaction while Kenosha burned.

      Saying you might want to do something, and doing it, are two different things, as you know. In fact, when he had the opportunity, Kyle did not shoot lawbreakers except in self-defense.

      The "white supremacist" you refer to are Proud Boys. This is how you know your Danish newspaper is lying to you. Apparently Kyle did not know those guys were Proud Boys. Besides, Proud Boys is not a racist or white supremacist organisation (many POC are part of that group, as is its leader Enrique Tarrio). It's an all-male, western cultural supremacist drinking club started as a joke who wound up showing up where Antifa was and fighting them when attacked. The "OK" hand symbol being a white supremacist sign is a meme started on 4chan where the jokers there tried to convince the wokes that was what it was. It's now considered pretty funny (they also tried to convince the wokes that drinking milk was racist, and almost succeeded).

      I like that there are still men in the world who stand up to injustice as Kyle did. Kyle likely ended the riots in Kenosha completely by his actions.

      Delete
    2. Also, an AR-15 is not an automatic rifle. Are you unaware of the difference? Or just as clueless on a weapon as the DA was, with exploding bullets and waving one around with his finger on the trigger. Or thinks FMJ all go thru people? (many exit wounds on the Violent Left?) Why use FMJ? Guess which is the cheapest ammo.... FMJ...

      Delete
    3. Good point Fiona. A "fully automatic" is a machine gun. A "semi automatic" is what must guns are: one trigger pull, one bullet. The left loves using the word "automatic" to confuse the issue and put an impression in people's mind that the weapon is more like a machine gun, when in fact it's just a normal firearm.

      FMJ stands for "full metal jacket" and sounds scary, but is actually a less lethal form of ammunition than some others that were banned as part of the Hague Convention (although all bullets are designed to kill, FMJ may be just a bit more survivable than an exploding or expanding round depending on where the person is hit).

      Delete
    4. Julie. Neither the ex-convicts criminal records, nor the video and pictures of Kyle was relevant to the case. You brought up the criminal past of the guys Kyle shot, I pointed out that the court threw out a video and some pictures of Kyle. Pls. do note that I did not state that I believe that the vid. and pics. should have been admitted as evidence. I only stated that they existed, and was dismissed as evidence by the court.

      The article I referred to did ID the people in the mentioned pictures as "Proud Boys", and I acknowledge that the Proud Boys, as an organization, isn't a white supremacist movement. However, that in itself does not mean that individual members of the organization can't harbor personal opinions of that nature. Obviously I can't make any educated guesses at whether or not that could be the case, or not. In any case, I did write "supposedly", which I in this case intended to convey the meaning along the lines of "this is the information I came across, but I have not seen evidence to support it, so it's not necessarily true". English isn't my 1st language, so I'm probably missing some nuances of various words and expressions here and there. Sorry if my intended meaning didn't come across here.

      Fiona. I'll willingly admit that I'm no expert on guns. However, Joe2 provided a nice description of the AR15 further up. This quote " It was a rifle capable of firing semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull) or fully automatic (it would keep firing as long as the trigger was held down until it ran out of ammo" leaves me under the impression that the original design was capable of fully automatic fire, and I do not see any reference to the AR15 today not being able to do the same. When I combine this with the information that one of the assailants got shot four times in the span of roughly a second (which I've seen on video), I considered it a fair assumption to refer to the AR15 as an "automatic". If the correct term for the rifle is a "semi-automatic", or something else, fair enough. My bad then. In any case, it appeared to me that the rifle Kyle was carrying, apparently could deliver 4 shots within roughly 1 second. I'm somewhat doubtful that Kyle would have been able to deliver that rate of fire, under the circumstances, if the rifle was only capable of delivering one bullet per pull of the trigger. But granted, I don't know the state of Kyle's training with the weapon, so I can't categorically rule out the possibility that he could have pulled the trigger four times in a second. But I do doubt it.

      Delete
    5. Proud boys have no greater chance of harbouring racist sympathies than other groups, especially as their leader is a POC. There was a photo, but they were strangers to Kyle and the photo was arranged by someone else without Kyle being told they were proud boys.

      A fully automatic weapon is highly illegal in the US and Kyle would have for sure been charged for having one of those. Most modern firearms are semi-automatic and can fire quickly. How many times can you tap your finger on a table in 1s?

      Delete
    6. The AR-15 is based off a platform that COULD shoot full auto, but you have to replace several parts - bolt, sear, add a selector switch, different trigger, hammer, lower receiver... so many parts it wouldn't be called an AR-15 any more. Possession of most of those parts ALONE would be a separate criminal charge. It's like saying will your Volkswagen do 200 MPH? No? Well, if I take the engine, turbo, and transmission out of this Koenigsegg Agera it will. But the resulting car is not a VW.
      If he had a fully auto weapon he is almost certainly facing federal firearms charges. They haven't been allowed to make them (and adapting here counts as making) for civilians since the Reagan administration. There are a few old Vietnam era guns out there, you need a separate federal license for any, couple hundred to even apply, extremely unlikely to get approved, permitting likely a year or more. You'd need a lawyer who could get Stevie Wonder a driver's license. And the gun itself would cost more than many brand new cars.
      If this weapon could shoot full auto, they'd have called it a machine gun at every opportunity and would refuse to call it an AR-15. Probably call it a military M-16. No way at all that weapon could shoot full auto.
      Can you shoot 4 in a second manually? Jerry Michulek, admittedly a pro, has fired 8 from a revolver into 4 different targets, 2 each, in 1.06 seconds.

      Delete
    7. Julie. "Proud boys have no greater chance of harbouring racist sympathies than other groups" - Agreed. Not saying otherwise.

      Fiona. As I wrote, I'm no expert on guns, and I'll take your word for the US gun laws related to fully automatic weapons. I've no doubt that some people would be able to fire multiple times within the span of a second. (Sylvester Stalone and Keanu Reaves appear to be able to pull off some fair trigger speed etc. in some of their movies...assuming there's not too much movie magic involved, which rumors deny though.) However, I imagine that there's a couple of things that will play into it though. Level of training, trigger sensitivity, the weapon type/design, and the circumstances for the shooting will all be influencing the performance I suspect. Anyway, had the weapon been illegal, the court would obviously have referred to it, and it would likely have been a part of the trial. So let's assume that the weapon was of a legal configuration.

      I was wondering if the AR15 could have had a burst fire setting, which would have provided a logical explanation for someone getting shot multiple times within a second, but a quick Google search suggests that both full auto and burst fire is legally classed as "automatic", making the weapon illegal, if I understand it correct. So if the 4 shots in a second is correct, the Kyle is obviously better at pulling the trigger than I would have thought he'd be. But so be it.

      Delete
    8. So nice to discuss things with a rational human being! Thank you for being you, Kyrel. And you made a lot of good points in the thread - it is a bit crazy that a 17-year-old was out there.

      Delete
  31. I think the verdict was correct. I mean if I was in Kyle's place I would have done the same thing. Mob mentality is not to be taken lightly.

    The bigger question though is - what the fuck was a 17 year old doing with an AR 15 in a protest where protestors are likely to be angry/unruly? I mean what kind of parent lets that happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think they knew. He went right from work. Now that he won't be facing punishment from the state, a bit of punishment from Mom might not be out of order ;-)

      Delete