Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense
September 6, 2020 11:15am
If you have an opinion on the innocence or guilt of Kyle Rittenhouse but have not read the actual criminal complaint against him, then your opinion is meaningless. You're entitled to it, of course. This is America, so you're free to pull opinions out of your ass if you want to. But any opinion not based upon facts is worthless. And the so-called "news" media has not reported the facts. Even worse, the facts are being actively censored.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY)
Whether it was wise for Rittenhouse to be out that night in Kenosha is debatable. He certainly violated the curfew that had been imposed (as did the two decedents). And Rittenhouse might be guilty of carrying a firearm in public while under 18 years old (a misdemeanor). But even that charge may not stick if it is successfully argued that he had to flee the private property (where he was legal) to avoid being harmed by the rioters who assaulted him.
Joseph Rosenbaum, the first guy shot by Rittenhouse assaulted him in the car lot. Anthony Huber, the second guy shot by Rittenhouse had hit him in the head with a skateboard. And Gaige Grosskreutz, the third guy shot by Rittenhouse (but did not die) had a pistol in his hand as he attacked Rittenhouse.
The charges against Rittenhouse, which include the district attorney's detailed account of the three shootings, are viewable at https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html?fbclid=IwAR1DvVDMYuF99hUx6I5UYMUTTd-kTAY6VMjCQ6xDGxBEz93_oMU7Vgx9Pb8. Despite the document alleging First Degree Intentional Homicide and other crimes, what it describes is clearly lawful self-defense by Rittenhouse.
I am 100% certain Rittenhouse will not be convicted on any of the five felonies for which he's been charged. This prosecution/persecution is purely political. And that's disgraceful.
Don't take my word for any of this. Go read the district attorney's description of the incident, and make up your own mind. But I have an important question to ask; should my educated and informed opinion, which is based on my knowledge of the law and of what transpired that night, be censored from public view? Should the Stalinist censors at Facebook delete comments that explain why Rittenhouse's shootings were lawful self-defense?
That is exactly what Facebook has done with other posts that don't support the "Rittenhouse is a cold-blooded killer who went out that night hoping to murder somebody" narrative. Facebook, Inc. has concluded that Kyle Rittenhouse is a “mass murderer" (their words), and that any comments defending his actions must be removed from the social media platform. Is that really the role of Facebook or any corporation? To determine what people can and cannot say about an issue that is vitally important to this nation? Keep in mind that any posts denouncing him as a murderer remain intact. So this is all one-sided censorship.
Such censorship is a very dangerous threat to our Republic. I would say the same thing if Facebook was removing posts and comments that attack Rittenhouse and only permitting those in support of him to remain.
But it's not just Facebook. Twitter suspended the account of Rittenhouse's attorney because he tweeted facts about the case that Twitter's censors didn't want the public to know.
Oh, you haven't heard about Facebook's censorship of open discussion about the Rittenhouse shootings? That's because there is an active effort to censor that information also. Most Big Media knows; they simply choose not to report it. But here's a piece about it in The Wall Street Journal. www.wsj.com/articles/facebooks-rittenhouse-mistake-11599260134
Big Tech's censorship must stop! "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech." - Benjamin Franklin