WHY we must fight the left's lying narrative on the Rittenhouse verdict

[Calypso Jones]

The media and leftist politician lies must continue and that will trickle down into the low info supporters. We have to counteract those false narratives...and do it starting now.

Three Narratives that MUST Be Debunked Following the Rittenhouse Verdict - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. Today, for at least a part of it, we celebrate. Justice was not swayed by the ugly demands of mob rule or threats of domestic terrorism as Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges, just as he should have been. As many...

thelibertydaily.com

False Narrative #1: This Is About White Supremacy​

False Narrative #2: If Laws Couldn’t Convict Kyle Rittenhouse Then Laws Must Change​

False Narrative #3: “Mostly Peaceful Protesters” Who Are “Rightfully Outraged”​

 

[Calypso Jones]

False Narrative #1: This Is About White Supremacy

The left has been able to accumulate some of the most talented magicians in the world. You can take a deck of cards and no matter how well you shuffle it, magicians on the left will somehow always be able to pick out the Race Card to play.

Kyle Rittenhouse is White. The two men he killed were White. The other man he shot is White. The only racial factor in any of this is that the predicate for the riots in Kenosha last year was the shooting of Jacob Blake, who is Black. Blake went to the home of one of his sexual assault victims, resisted arrest, presented a weapon, and was shot by police as a result. His situation was clearly not racially biased either.

 

[Calypso Jones]

False Narrative #2: If Laws Couldn’t Convict Kyle Rittenhouse Then Laws Must Change​

This is the gungrabbing play that I’ve been concerned most about for years. Any shooting event gives Democrats a platform upon which they can try to convince people their right to self-defense in opposition to personal or government tyranny can be superseded by someone else’s right to not feel uncomfortable. The latter is not a right, of course, but the left really wants us to believe it is.

It was the proper adjudication of a young man based on the laws that led to his acquittal. That does not mean the laws are in need of fixing, but the left will try to paint it as such. They will say something to the effect of, “If a 17-year-old can murder people on the streets with no consequences, then the laws must be changed.”

This false narrative is one that will be hammered by mainstream media for weeks. Democrat lawmakers are already screaming about it in an attempt to focus verdict-inspired anger towards a tangible recourse through new gun laws. It will be successful to some extent; we can expect new laws to pop up at the local level if not higher. How many and how severe those new laws are can be affected by how adamant our opposition to them is.

This case has always been about a combination of social justice and putting the 2nd Amendment on trial. They “lost” this round but don’t think for a moment that they’re not pleased by this “loss.” They were banking on it. They’ve prepped us for the last two weeks with a combination of mainstream media propaganda and Big Tech censorship. They want the narrative of “vigilante justice” to be in everyone’s mind so they can use it against our right to defend ourselves. We must not let them make this narrative stick.

 

[theHawk]

We need to shame them for their lies and keep exposing them for the frauds and Commie faggots that they are.

 

[Calypso Jones]

False Narrative #3: “Mostly Peaceful Protesters” Who Are “Rightfully Outraged”​

The domestic terrorists are going to come out tonight in cities across America. They will be there over the weekend. They will try to be there all next week and they will do whatever they can to turn the Rittenhouse verdict into a greater predicate for violence and mayhem than the death of George Floyd.

I don’t know how successful they will be, but even a modicum of success will have mainstream media plugging away at their defense. They won’t use the tainted term “mostly peaceful protesters” anymore. Instead, they will claim that the violence that comes is “righteous” based upon the “understandable outrage” among the people.

Their outrage is not understandable. It’s manufactured. It isn’t righteous. It’s evil. The destruction of property and violence that ensues must be called out for exactly what it is: Domestic terrorism. We won’t get help from many politicians as even most Republicans will avoid calling the terrorism what it is. Some will, and their words should be echoed. As for the rest of us, we must make sure the proper characterization of the domestic terrorism that is coming is spread far and wide.

 

[Concerned American]

​

Kyle Rittenhouse, acquitted on all charges. Justice has been served.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Concerned American Leftists do not give up. EVIL never sleeps. I don't mean to say that most of our leftist friends here are evil...but they are being manipulated by leftist media and leftist politicians that if the scales dropped from their eyes..they would see plainly that they're being used and lied to.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Don't let ANYONE get away with repeating these lies. Set them straight every time.

 

[Rigby5]

The trial was obviously biased and the judge deliberately ignored the law.

Kyle was a minor in possession of a rifle, so clearly was guilty of violating WI statute 948.60.

There are about 3 exceptions that can allow a minor to be in possession of a rifle.
They include things like being at a range, being supervised by an adult, or hunting while in possession of a valid hunting license.

But the clearly biased and racist judge ruled that the statute did not apply because the barrel was not short.
And while the statute does have an exception for short barrels, that is to apply a different statute with stricter penalties.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

 

[theHawk]

The trial was obviously biased and the judge deliberately ignored the law.

Kyle was a minor in possession of a rifle, so clearly was guilty of violating WI statute 948.60.

There are about 3 exceptions that can allow a minor to be in possession of a rifle.
They include things like being at a range, being supervised by an adult, or hunting while in possession of a valid hunting license.

But the clearly biased and racist judge ruled that the statute did not apply because the barrel was not short.
And while the statute does have an exception for short barrels, that is to apply a different statute with stricter penalties.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

Cry harder.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The media and leftist politician lies must continue and that will trickle down into the low info supporters. We have to counteract those false narratives...and do it starting now.

Three Narratives that MUST Be Debunked Following the Rittenhouse Verdict - 🔔 The Liberty Daily

If you love the news, check out The Liberty Daily's homepage. Today, for at least a part of it, we celebrate. Justice was not swayed by the ugly demands of mob rule or threats of domestic terrorism as Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges, just as he should have been. As many...

thelibertydaily.com

False Narrative #1: This Is About White Supremacy​

False Narrative #2: If Laws Couldn’t Convict Kyle Rittenhouse Then Laws Must Change​

False Narrative #3: “Mostly Peaceful Protesters” Who Are “Rightfully Outraged”​

I don't have anyone of these so called narratives. My takeaway is the defendant suffered a Zimmerman Syndrome. And, if Rittenhouse were black the outcome would have been different.

 

[lantern2814]

The trial was obviously biased and the judge deliberately ignored the law.

Kyle was a minor in possession of a rifle, so clearly was guilty of violating WI statute 948.60.

There are about 3 exceptions that can allow a minor to be in possession of a rifle.
They include things like being at a range, being supervised by an adult, or hunting while in possession of a valid hunting license.

But the clearly biased and racist judge ruled that the statute did not apply because the barrel was not short.
And while the statute does have an exception for short barrels, that is to apply a different statute with stricter penalties.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

That is one big pile of shit. Stop lying.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I don't have anyone of these so called narratives. My takeaway is the defendant suffered a Zimmerman Syndrome. And, if Rittenhouse were black the outcome would have been different.

oh. narrative number 1. Racism.

 

[Auld Phart]

and Nadler wnat to bring federal charges.

Dem Nadler Calls on DOJ to Review Rittenhouse Verdict

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the Justice Department to review the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."

freebeacon.com

 

[Calypso Jones]

You knew one of them would bring it up.

 

[Concerned American]

and Nadler wnat to bring federal charges.

Dem Nadler Calls on DOJ to Review Rittenhouse Verdict

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called on the Justice Department to review the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, calling it a "miscarriage of justice."

freebeacon.com

Fuck Nadler. What gives him the right to question the TWELVE jurors. That piece of garbage wasn't able to identify a miscarriage of justice thrice before when he was instrumental in TWO scam impeachments and a SCAM censure. The election of 2022 can't come soon enough. Time for all of these communist globalists to go.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Nadler pushed a debunked claim about Rittenhouse in his call for the federal review, saying that the teenager was "armed" when he crossed state lines to attend a protest in Kenosha, Wis., where he fatally shot two men and wounded another.- from article

They don't give a damn about the truth...push the lie because many low info democrats will buy it. I'll wager the feds will go through the motions.

Regardless. I'm waiting for Christmas shopping to begin tonight in Kenosha.

 

[Flash]

The trial was obviously biased and the judge deliberately ignored the law.

Kyle was a minor in possession of a rifle, so clearly was guilty of violating WI statute 948.60.

There are about 3 exceptions that can allow a minor to be in possession of a rifle.
They include things like being at a range, being supervised by an adult, or hunting while in possession of a valid hunting license.

But the clearly biased and racist judge ruled that the statute did not apply because the barrel was not short.
And while the statute does have an exception for short barrels, that is to apply a different statute with stricter penalties.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The charges against Kyle having an illegal weapon was dropped by the judge because it was legal for him to have it. The Prosecution even agreed. That has been explained to you in other threads. You have peanut butter in your ears and don't want to know the truth.

Even if he was not suppose to have the weapon that is not a reason to deny him the right of self defense.

If you had listened to the trial and the motions you would know that the judge gave the Prosecution more of the objections and motions than he gave the Defense. For instance, allowing that doctored photo.

What evidence do you have that the judge is racist? Be specific.

You are only calling the judge racist and biased because Kyle was not found guilty and that makes you a turd. Grow up Moon Bat.

 

[2aguy]

The trial was obviously biased and the judge deliberately ignored the law.

Kyle was a minor in possession of a rifle, so clearly was guilty of violating WI statute 948.60.

There are about 3 exceptions that can allow a minor to be in possession of a rifle.
They include things like being at a range, being supervised by an adult, or hunting while in possession of a valid hunting license.

But the clearly biased and racist judge ruled that the statute did not apply because the barrel was not short.
And while the statute does have an exception for short barrels, that is to apply a different statute with stricter penalties.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

Wow.....did you not read the actual statute........he didn't break the law.....

There is a reason they actually measured the rifle in court.......

Here......read this...slowly...maybe have someone read it for you...

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction. He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse

If the jury gets instructions that accurately reflect the actual statutory language, I think Kyle’s in good shape even on this gun possession charge, Count 6 in the criminal complaint. But 'necessity' will not be a defense to this charge.

legalinsurrection.com