7 minute read
Press Watch by Our Staff
CampuspresswatCh
Written by our Staff
Advertisement
We know you don’t read the other campus publications, so we did it for you. Original pieces are in quotes, our responses are in bold.
“Judicial systems must condemn white vigilantes like Rittenhouse”, By Julie Ha, Pipe Dream, 12/09/21
“In August 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse, who was 17 years old at the time, joined counter-protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin at a Black Lives Matter protest against police brutality.”
Already one sentence into the article and we already have the first signs of misinformation! Rittenhouse was not a counter-protester; Rittenhouse was in Kenosha after previous nights’ destruction when the protests devolved into rioting, where some of the things he actually did include cleaning up graffiti, protecting a business at the request of the owners (although admittedly accounts differ about this), and providing first aid. To state that he was there to “counter-protest” is
hardly truthful.
“Rittenhouse, hailing from Illinois, was among the group of men who traveled across state lines on the third night of protests, ready to allegedly protect the city’s businesses from rioters.”
He TrAvElEd AcRoSs StAtE lInEs! It’s important to note that Rittenhouse had family in Kenosha, with him traveling across state lines regularly from Antioch (which is only 20 miles away from Kenosha) because of this. The rifle had never crossed state lines; it was in Kenosha. Lastly, again, he didn’t “allegedly” protect businesses, but was seen cleaning graffiti, putting out fires, and protecting a business. Another sign of disingenuous framing.
“Six minutes later, the footage shows a group of protesters, including Rosenbaum, chasing after Rittenhouse when an unknown gunman fired into the air.”
First, you conveniently leave out details such as the fact that Rosenbaum had previously given a death threat while armed with a chain against Rittenhouse and was very belligerent at the time, according to testimonies from the trial. Second (and this is more of a research error), that “unknown gunman” was identified as Joshua Ziminski. He’s currently facing charges as a result of this, in addition to other crimes.
“Rosenbaum is seen lunging at Rittenhouse, who turned toward the gunman [sic] and shot Rosenbaum four times, including a shot to the head. As Rittenhouse fled the scene, a crowd chased after him, shouting, ‘That’s the shooter!’”
Rittenhouse “fled the scene” to turn himself into police. You know…turning himself into law enforcement so that the consequences of what happened can go before court. Not exactly textbook vigilantism. Additionally, the crowd shouted a little more than just “That’s the shooter!”. Some notable quotes include “GET HIM!” and “CRANIUM THAT BOY!” Tell me: does this sound like the crowd wanted to simply find the shooter, or perhaps, dare I say it, to enact justice of their own by “getting” and “cranium-ing” Rittenhouse before he could stand trial? Wouldn’t that be an example of “vigilantism”?
“At one point, Rittenhouse falls to the ground and fires three [sic] shots into the crowd, shooting Huber in the chest and Grosskreutz in the arm.”
Such dishonest framing! No, Rittenhouse didn’t “fire three shots into the crowd.” If you watched the footage, you could see the following sequence of events occurred: as he was running to the police, Rittenhouse was first hit by someone, losing his hat, after which some in the crowd yelled “Get his ass!” From there, he fell and was set upon by three individuals: first, “jump-kick-man,” suspected to be Maurice Freeland, who kicked Rittenhouse in the face, who in response fired two shots, missing him. Next, Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head/ shoulder area with his skateboard twice and tried taking his gun, to which Rittenhouse responded by firing one shot in his chest, killing him. Lastly, Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse after chasing him, but was NOT shot when he had his hands up when approaching Rittenhouse. However, only when he put his hands down, aimed his gun at Rittenhouse, and advanced towards him did Rittenhouse ever fire one shot into Grosskreutz’s arm, which Grosskreutz even admitted to under oath. Beyond just getting the number of shots-fired wrong, the only people that Rittenhouse shot at in that scenario (and, really, that entire night) were people who posed an imminent threat to his well-being. He
“In response to the verdict, CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted, ‘I wonder what the verdict would be in the #RittenhouseTrial if the defendant were a Black 17-year-old from another state who killed two people with an illegal assault weapon?’ Toobin’s remark sums up many frustrations with the jury’s verdict, as Rittenhouse’s open support for Blue Lives Matter on social media seems to offer him protection, and research continues to prove racial disparities in criminal convictions.”
If the circumstances had been exactly the same and the evidence was as clear as this, he would be found innocent. It was not Rittenhouse’s race or support of Blue Lives Matter that “offered him protection,” as you cynically put it, but rather the extraordinary amount of evidence that served to exonerate him.
“People following the trial have criticized U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder over seemingly sympathizing with Rittenhouse after he called for a break due to Rittenhouse’s emotional breakdown on the stand and for questioning the legitimacy of the prosecution’s video evidence.”
Heaven forbid the judge allow a break while the defendant is having an emotional breakdown! Also, the issue with the specific video evidence had to do with the defense not being given the same quality of footage, hence a later motion for mistrial was filed.
“In a proceeding about the rules of the trial, Schroeder ruled that prosecutors would not be able to refer to the men fatally shot by Rittenhouse as victims, calling it a ‘loaded, loaded word.’ However, Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys were given permission to refer to the men shot as ‘looters’ and ‘arsonists’ so long as these actions were consistent with the evidence.”
cause it carries with it a presumption of guilt. He only allowed the use of “looters” and “arsonists” IF the defense could provide evidence for it.
“Regardless of whether or not the men shot by Rittenhouse were engaging in violence, the terms ‘looting’ and ‘arsonists’ may incite misconceptions in the jury that Rittenhouse would have inevitably been harmed at the Kenosha Black Lives Matter protest, thus necessitating that Rittenhouse bring his assault rifle for protection.”
Translation: even if the evidence suggested that the attackers were “looters” and “arsonists,” the “victims” were “victims” because this would otherwise harm the overall movement.
“In deciding to prohibit the use of the term ‘victims,’ Schroeder presupposes that ‘looters’ and ‘arsonists’ who were shot or wounded cannot also be victims of Rittenhouse’s irresponsibility. Establishing mutual exclusivity supports the idea that those who are tired of political games and turn to protests to demand civil protection can not only be killed with impunity but also are undeserving of the jury’s sympathy.”
Or… it could be wildly irresponsible to attack a 17 year old with a gun who was simply protecting himself from the specific people that attacked him, not that all protestors can just be killed with impunity. Who on Earth would come away with that message?
“Ironically, Rittenhouse was able to victimize and gather sympathy for himself from the jury on national television, as he described fears of his life being in danger while crying on the stand.”
I…I don’t even have a response for this one. This is just kinda gross on the part of the writer…
“However, looking past the white boy tears, Rittenhouse had no respect for the rule of law himself. Even if shooting two [sic] men was a case of self-defense, Rittenhouse drove many miles from Illinois to “protect private property” and create order, assuming the role of law enforcement.”
“White boy tears.” This writer is gross. To reiterate: he was there to help his community as outlined by both the trial and by us previously, and was attacked by the THREE men he shot (not two).
“Rittenhouse, Zimmerman and all three of Arbery’s killers were valorized by the right as heroes acting in the best interest of public safety, despite Arbery and Martin not having committed a crime before their deaths.”
While there is a case that there is a bit of idolization going on with Rittenhouse and Zimmerman (which is obviously not okay, and should stop immediately), we have no idea what “valorization” is being given to Arbery’s killers (who were all found guilty, FYI) by the right. Another empty assertion.
“Yet, Rittenhouse’s victims were held at different standards of the law than he was, and Biden’s tone-deaf statement proves it.”
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HE SHOT ACTUALLY ATTACKED HIM AND THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVES IT WAS SELF-DEFENSE!
“Unless politicians fix the way the rule of law applies to different populations — in court, policing, prisons, etc. — they need to express the same disdain for white vigilantism as they do for violent protests.”
