Fisking one of the many Dumb Hot Takes on The Rittenhouse Case

In the aftermath of the Rittenhouse trial there are a bunch of posts like this floating around social media. They all work off the same talking points so they are basically interchangeable. These are all being shared to bamboozle the gullible and shore up the dedicated idiots. I picked this one because of how many lies and distortions it packed into one post. Going into detail on all of his fuck ups would take a book, so this is kind of a turbo fisk, and it’s still long. I know I’ve got a ton of lawyers who read these, so if I screwed anything up let me know.

As usual, the idiot I’m fisking is in italics. My responses are in bold.

From a military legal worker:

– after you read this you’ll agree that’s almost certainly a lie or a bit of exaggeration.

I’m seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha,

– so he’s about to add to it.

and I’m going to set the record straight from a professional legal position…

– as you will see, this is a horseshit. Instead he obfuscates the law to sell a narrative.

as well as from a former military position.

– utterly irrelevant appeal to authority. Military experience has nothing to do with civilian self-defense law. That’s like Neil DeGrasse Tyson syndrome, where you know about astronomy, so obviously we all want to hear your dumbass opinion on every other topic.

I’m going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution.

– Let’s see how that shakes out for him, shall we?

Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court.

– except this trial needed to determine if KR was in fact in the commission of a crime or not. Related, and I’m surprised this guy didn’t bring it up is the claim that the judge was “biased” because he wouldn’t let the rioters be called “victims.” Well duh, that’s because the purpose of a case like this is for the jury to decide if they are victims or assailants.

On that note, since I’m shooting down all the other stupid talking points, here’s a common one. Whenever some prog says the judge was biased, ask how, and then watch them choke. If they respond, it’ll be the “victims” bit, or it’ll be that the judge yelled at the prosecutors for saying that invoking your 5th Amendment rights makes you guilty, or when they got caught not giving the defense the right evidence. But none of that was bias. That was embarrassing levels of prosecutorial misconduct. They didn’t deserve to be yelled at, they deserve to be disbarred, and then sent to jail.

It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.

– as you will see, this guy loves to torture analogies. Too bad they don’t actually apply to this case.

That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense.

– Demonstrably false. He was legally allowed to be carrying that rifle in Wisconsin. So that whole opening argument was moot. The weapons charge was dropped because the Wisconsin law did in fact allow KR to carry that gun, in that way, in that place.

I’m glad he didn’t bring up the whole hE cRoSsEd sTaTe lInEs!! talking point though, because that’s just stupid. He drove in from the suburbs to a place where he works and a bunch of his close family live.

Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine

– thus begins a super long digression into a law which doesn’t really have anything to do with the KR case in an attempt to sound smart to low information types.

Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it,

-More than this jackass, obviously.

as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don’t realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know.

– as in formal legal studies, he means reading tweets from blue check mark dorks on Twitter.

First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven’t made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible.

Wrong. Holy shit, you fucking mope, insanely wrong. The first part is kinda right, but dumbed down, and the second half is just fucking insane. He’s mixing up Castle Doctrine with Duty To Retreat, and most states have no Duty to Retreat.

It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion.

– It’s bullshit.

Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your “Castle.” There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force. However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE.

– Depending on what state you live in, this is also wrong.

And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home… the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder.

-So he went through all of that stuff explaining the law wrong, just to get to a tortured analogy that has nothing to do with the KR case… What that actually was, was an attempt to sound like a big smart legal expert on the internet to bamboozle the gullible.

While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense.

-Sorta, but this porkchop could have just explained how self-defense law actually works rather than his goofy bit about Castle Doctrine, but if he’d done that honestly it would later be clear that clearing KR was the correct decision. How it actually works in most of America (super brief version) – does your assailant have the ability and opportunity to cause you serious bodily harm, and are they acting in a manner that a reasonable person would believe they are an immediate threat?

Here is an article I wrote 7 years ago that goes through all this in a little more depth. https://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/

Note. Nobody who knows the stuff in that article was surprised by this verdict. If you follow our social media our biggest doubts about the verdict concerned jury intimidation, and just how much prosecutorial misconduct Flufferboy2004 and Fatlock would be able to get away with.  

You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb.

True. And at this point I’m actually amazed he got one!

Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized.

-But then right back to the lies. If he was such a legal expert he’d know that it is well established that you do not need a weapon to have ability to cause serious bodily harm. Personal Weapons (hands, feet) are used in more murders in America than rifles.

You MUST retreat.

A particularly galling lie, and also irrelevant to this case because KR did retreat repeatedly. First he ran from Rosenbaum and did not fire until cornered. Then he tried to retreat to the police when he was intercepted by Huber and Jump Kick Man.

If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force.

– partially true, but dumbed down. See above about ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. They can have a knife or a gun, but they also have to be acting in a manner that suggests they are an immediate threat of doing something with it. So no, leftyprog dipshits, your silly memes to the contrary you can’t just attack people who are openly armed. That’s illegal and a quick way to leave the gene pool.

But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you’re afraid of a little scuffle.

– A filthy lie. I guarantee that with my bare hands I could place this individual into a situation where he would have no choice but to use lethal force against me or perish. The Prosecution tried this idiot argument on the jury, with their “everybody takes a beating sometimes”. No. Legally, you do not have to “take a beating”. Fuck off with that nonsense.  

That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense.

– Lie. Rosenbaum had the ability and opportunity and was clearly presenting a threat of serious bodily harm. Rosenbaum made verbal threats of serious bodily harm. KR did retreat. Rosenbaum pursued and then tried to take the rifle. Video, witnesses, and forensic evidence are all in agreement.

The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him.

-Are you an underpants gnome? What happened to the entire middle part of the story, you dishonest fuck?

He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle,

– More lies. There is no evidence from video or witnesses that KR chased anyone. Having a slung rifle is not legally brandishing. The prosecution tried to make the flagging argument, but the only way they could do so was to show a super grainy picture that A. was created using software that is specifically NOT to ever be used for evidentiary purposes. And B. in that AI created picture, KR magically turned left-handed for a second, which is a neat feat considering the rifle was slung (as in attached to his body) RIGHT in every other video.

The prosecution also tried and failed to make the instigation argument, because KR used a fire extinguisher to put out an arson fire started by Rosenbaum, thus provoking the fine and upstanding citizen. HOW DARE HE!?!

because he is an untrained idiot with a gun.

– A profoundly disingenuous argument. Training is awesome (I love taking gun classes, and used to teach some) but training is not a prerequisite for exercising your right to self-defense. Most defensive gun uses in America are done by people with little to no real training. And despite that lack of professional training KR still kept a cooler head and a better hit percentage than many police departments.

The protester was not a threat,

– Another lie. See the link about reasonable man assumptions. You are not required to assume the best about the angry crazy guy who earlier promised to murder you.  

and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line.

– a foul and loathsome lie, because KR clearly tried to run away from Rosenbaum, who CHASED HIM.

He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight,

-Lie. You guys sensing a pattern to these narratives yet?

and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace.

– As established by all the witnesses, his giving first aid, and the putting out fires, he was. And even if he wasn’t, and he was just hanging out, that doesn’t negate his right to self-defense.

He fired INTO A CROWD,

– He did not. He fired at individual targets. Most of whom were at contact distance because they were actively striking or grabbing for him at the time. The only one shot past conversational distance was actively pointing a firearm at KR and admitted so under oath.

and it’s a miracle he didn’t hit more people.

– true of any gun use in a chaotic urban environment, however that doesn’t negate his right to fire the gun in an act of self-defense.

More people that hadn’t thrown a plastic bag.

– note how this dishonest piece of shit once again leaves out the verbal threats, the chase, and the attempted weapon snatch. None of this is in question. Even the prosecution’s own witnesses cop to this. Even the prosecution admitted to the attempted snatch when they tried to make the claim that because the gun was slung KR would be fine… Which just shows that Littlebinger knows as much about weapon retention as he does gun safety. Because someone gets ahold of your slung rifle, and you don’t know how to lock it down, you’re gonna end up as the tetherball.

More people that were just trying to protest police brutality,

– Calling this a lie is too generous. That’s fucking asinine bullshit. I’m sure the decent human beings who were there to peacefully protest bail when the assholes start setting garbage trucks on fire. There is a difference between protestors and rioters, and America is sick of you disingenuous fucks purposefully confusing the two. So take your “fiery but mostly peaceful protest” and shove it up your ass.

which is a real issue in this country.

– Police brutality does happen. And I’d bet that if this guy really is in law enforcement (lol) he would be one of the problems. It’s always the guilty assholes who posture and project the hardest who do nasty shit. His writing shows a clear lack of integrity and character. Anybody with this much ego and dishonesty would have zero problem giving a suspect a little stick time and covering it up later.

And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others.

– More lies and leaving out the inconvenient bits. KR was retreating toward the police. I believe the RIOTERS who tried to intercept him hadn’t seen him shoot Rosenbaum (can’t confirm this though because it appears the prosecutors hid Jump Kick Guy from the defense), they were acting off of the word of the mob, and they tried to intercept him BEFORE HE COULD GET TO THE COPS. He was struck. Kicked in the head. And beaten with a skateboard.

After shooting Huber, Grosskeutz (sp?) got shot. Only he did not get shot until he RAISED HIS PISTOL AND POINTED IT AT KR. He was even dumb enough to say this on the stand. (this was the funniest moment of the whole trial). Afterwards Prosecutor Lunchbox tried to argue that pistols aren’t dangerous when being used one handed. Between that and Flufferboy talking about exploding hollowpoints, all of us gun people got severe migraines while watching this amateur hour shit.

On a completely unrelated note Grosskeutz looks like a Great Value Hunter Biden. And from all the DUIs and falling out of his chair drunk during the pre-trial, apparently parties like Hunter too.

The fact that the police didn’t arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department.

-This is the only inadvertently honest thing this piece of detritus has said. It is a bummer the cops dropped the ball and told KR to buzz off, because if they’d done their jobs then it would’ve killed that stupid lefty nonsense about “fleeing across state lines” (i.e. driving back to the suburbs). But if the police had been doing their jobs that night, Rosenbaum and crew wouldn’t have been out destroying things and setting other people’s property on fire.

I could further dissect this situation, but for now I’m going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being “criminals so they deserved it.”

-Oh, I’m sure he could go on, but if this dreck was what he lead with, I wouldn’t expect more analysis to get any better.

First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender’s registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings.

-A total lie. Rosenbaum has been confirmed to be a total shitbag. I believe he was convicted of forcible sodomy of five boys, aged 5 to 11, and literally got out of a mental ward that morning.  Huber was also a felon. Grosskeutz had an expunged felony and charges pending. Jump Kick Guy had multiple felonies and charges pending. And I believe the others two assholes who were with that crew, and fired the first shots, also had felonies. And none of those felonies were for tax evasion, if you know what I mean. That’s a hell of a ratio and says a lot about the nature of these “peaceful protestors”.

The fun part about all this is that the left has to simp for pedophiles and pretend these dregs of society were heroic victims, even though we all know the real reason the left is upset is they can’t abide the idea of regular people not being too terrified of the system to stand up to their terror mobs.

Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend’s house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent.

-This bit is extra fucking stupid because Jacob Blake wasn’t there, so all that is irrelevant.

Rittenhouse’s victims do not appear to have had any record,

-I am in awe of the investigative abilities of this dolt who is supposedly in law enforcement. If he’s in your jurisdiction, good luck with that.

and even if they did, he couldn’t have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because “that person was a criminal.” Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country.

-He’s actually right here, except in an utterly pointless way. KR didn’t need to know their life stories to know that they were trying to murder him in that moment. That’s what matters. And the judge didn’t allow the defense to bring up their long sleazebag records in the trial, so that’s irrelevant there too. However, in the court of public opinion, the nature and character of those men becomes extremely important. And despite liberals not understanding the difference, the court of public opinion is different than a court of law.

If you don’t like the constitution and bill of rights, I don’t know what to tell you.

-Vote Democrat?

This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work.

-No. It’s an opinion. And it’s a fucking dumb one at that. And shithead knows it too, which was why this is getting shared across the internet with no real name attached to it.

I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal.

-So you fetched coffee for JAG officers who went to actual law school.

I’ve worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney’s Office,

-Chicago? Well that fucking explains it. Once Lori Lightfoot gets her ten thousandth shooting the Red Skull will give her the Soul Stone.

and currently work in federal law enforcement.

-Where? The TSA?

Okay, to be fair, looking at the incredibly shitty state of many federal law enforcement agencies now, this part is probably true. He’s currently waterboarding an 86-year-old grandma for taking a selfie in the Capitol on January 6th.

This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years.

-Pulling this out of your ass would probably be an improvement from where you actually got it from.

But hey, at least he’s passionate in his dishonesty. I guarantee if this piece of shit is a fed he’s the kind who keeps his jackboots polished, and he thought Christoph Waltz played the hero in Inglourious Basterds. To all my LE readers, fed, state, and local, you know exactly what type of motherfucker I’m talking about.

I’d be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it.

-SEND IT, MOTHERFUCKER. All my fisks go viral so you’ll probably see this. Post them in the comments. And also post your actual resume so we all know what jurisdiction to avoid because it’s LE is brain damaged.


I did not get this from “mainstream media,” and I am not brainwashed by the left.

-You lying piece of shit, that was regurgitated blue check mark twitter pontificating with some C- level essay answers about self-defense law tacked on. Mainstream media would be a step up for you, and that’s saying something because Brian Stelter is a potato.

I’m an independent progressive.

-Oh, EXCUSE ME. My apologies when I thought you were “left” when you’re an “independent progressive”, which is apparently a synonym for braindead ass-muppet who faps to Bernie Sanders speeches.

On that note, since so many dumbfuck progs have been saying KR was a mass shooter, if you see a dude with a rifle in a public place the best way to find out if they intend a mass shooting or not is ask them how they feel about Bernie Sanders. If they say they love Bernie, FUCKING RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

May he face justice for what he did,

-And I hope you face justice for being a lying piece of shit, but I won’t hold my breath.

and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit.

-The shit head arguing in favor of fiery riots is upset that the rule of law won out over jury intimidation, and he wants to chide us about “common ground”. We have no ground in common. Your fuckers are the ones who keep lighting the powder kegs, then you get butt hurt when somebody shoots them rather than getting blown up.

This has been my Ted Talk.

-That was a steaming pile of giraffe vomit.  

Basically guys, all the outrage over this trial is because the left is terrified of losing another tool in their toolbox. They love lawless mobs terrorizing you and wrecking your stuff. They love having you too scared of the system to stand up to their dirtbags. So that’s why they are lying their asses off and shedding fake tears for pedophile scum. The jury’s decision didn’t just say Rittenhouse was not guilty, but by extension, it says their useful idiot rioters were guilty, which damages the narrative. And anytime the truth goes against the narrative, the truth gets a bullet to the back of the neck.

The problem the left ran into this time in the court of public opinion was that all of the actual facts of the case were out there for anyone to see. (I really recommend Rekieta Law, who had phenomenal and entertaining coverage with lawyers watching the live stream. I was glued to it for much of the trial). So with the independent media doing the job that regular media won’t, it’s tougher for dishonest fucks like this to spread their lies.

But gullible people still listen to the media and the blue check marks, which was why they were heartbroken on Friday. If you actually believed the narrative nonsense, this case seems like a travesty.

Sorry, leftist punditry. You tried to put your fingers on the scale again, but you failed.

Cope and seethe, you dishonest fucks.

Do I unfairly Paint the left with a broad brush?
Current Events- November 2021

259 thoughts on “Fisking one of the many Dumb Hot Takes on The Rittenhouse Case”

      1. It’s universal truth, that whenever a pontificator spends more than 25% of his post telling you how experienced and skilled he is in his field, you can absolutely take it to the bank that he is actually a loser selling sandwiches at Subway, living with his older brother and hoping to complete his GED this year.

        1. 😂totally!!! Best Fisk of my morning. Enjoyed it with my first cup of coffee. The left’s take on this is a shit storm of stupid so it’s nice to see this call out!

      2. No, he qualifies totally as an idiot. But he’s studying to be a moron, and failing badly. If he didn’t have a dribble cup, his drooling would probably short out the keyboard.

      3. I read this military federal paralegal’s post on FB. People were buying his bullshit and happy an “expect” explained things to them. WOW – gullible, ignorant and lazy. Within seconds I found a record on the guy Rittenhouse wounded. As you pointed out, military law and civilian law are way different. This guy is a paralegal and I assume did not pass the bar. So he can not practice law or give legal advice. Especially in Wisconsin. Apparently he missed the part where in Wisconsin it is the prosecutions responsibility to disprove self defense, not the defenses to prove it. One of the “dictums” did have a gun. Based on his record, probably illegally. One of the others struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard. It does not have to be a firearm to be a lethal weapon. In fact a court specifically declared a skateboard was a lethal weapon. Although not in law enforcement or legal, I work around both everyday. I never hear either make statements about a case, personal or otherwise. IN my opinion either this guy is a complete fake or a complete idiot. An officer lost his job for making an anonymous donation to Rittenhouse’s defense fund. This guy should not only lose his job if he is in legal, but be charged as well.

        1. Yes indeedy this is The Original, including , apparently, a photo of the author in uniform to bolster his expertise. (Apply ” ” marks where desired.)

          How can it be that I, not even a paralegal, knows more facts about the incidents than this pompous phoney?

          Wonder if he’ll make it to the defamation suits list? (If you hear who the lawyers are .. please forward it someone.)

          1. That’s not the original- it even says in there “Well, here’s something *Greg* found on social media today, and I’m trying to find the original source of it, but at least it has the ring of truth and sanity. It’s prefaced “From a military legal worker” so lemme find a pic of a military legal worker, and then let’s hear from them:”
            Also, folks don’t give them the clicks- it’s all the usual garbage you’re hearing everywhere else. ‘Rittenhouse used illegal guns to murder innocent protestors and conservative Trumpies are celebrating…” blah blah blah

        2. If that is him in the uniform, his last name is Kim. He later makes a reference to “Ted” so its not too far of a stretch to assume his name is Ted Kim.

          How long in the military? I wouldnt be showing off my PFC stripes and bragging myself up at the same time.

      1. Unknown. There’s no name on it. (probably because he’s lying about his resume is my guess).
        I’d be happy to provide a link to the original source, but there’s not one. But it’s being widely shared by gullible suckers on Facebook currently.

          1. Nope- that dude just found it online as well. He’s just helping to spread that rubbish. Seriously- why give him the clicks?

        1. A “Greg Diamond” has been commenting in defense of the piece, and refers to this post in one of his comments. I think he may be the author.

          1. At this point he’d have to be incredibly stupid to take credit for that dreck.
            If he had any self awareness at all he’d just keep on walking.

        2. Holy cow…

          Just the fact that this nitwit would put forth himself as a “paralegal” as a qualifier for his “legal opinion” in an indicator of the level of BS to follow!

          Of course, the average person willing to suck up that BS in the first place would latch onto “paralegal” as a qualifier like a drowning person to a lifesaver.

          If only they’d take the 0.12 second search time Google requires to come up with eleventy-billion links on “paralegal education requirements”, they might actually realize this.

          A crack-pipe dream, obviously, as we’ve proven for decades now that literally having vast libraries of information and data at our fingertips will not help the willfully ignorant or the soundboard seekers.

          Just for laughs on paralegal qualifications…and certifications…in one state of the union:

          https://www.paralegal-edu.org/south-carolina-certification/

      1. CRIS — Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome.

        It’s a real thing, most common in Management professionals and PostModern Liberals (as opposed to Classical Liberals, who, sadly, now represent well under 5% of self-identifying “Liberals”

    1. Yeah, the real pandemic is the rampant cases of seemingly untreatable Cranium Rectalitis.

      Thankfully all the times I suffered from this dreaded malady I was able to seek and obtain treatment.

      Not that I was completely cured in every case but at least I was never inflicted with the strain that we are currently witnessing on the left, i.e. Cranium Rectalitis Darwinium.

        1. Funny how DoubleThink takes half as much brains as rational thinking. 😛

          Like believing that the U.S. is a racist, sexist, homophobic hell ruled by White Supremacists practicing lynchings and slavery in all but name — AND that everybody in the whole world has the right to come here illegally to build a better life.

  1. IF this twat works in law enforcement he’s gotta be ATF. If only because e.very other kind of law requires more than an eighth of a braincell.

    Cannot help but hope Kratman see’s this and I somehow am close enough to hear it. So basically anywhere on this quarter of the globe.

  2. What the fiskee is doing is what is often called “credentials stretching”. It’s kind of similar to the guy at the $9.99 Kwick Lube claiming experience about Formula One engines, or the military basic training washout pretending to know about guns.
    Or, as per the Toxic War Monkey’s fisk, Neil Degrasse Tyson & Bill Nye in general.

    1. I really wish he hadn’t mentioned that he was in the military. That grade of stupid reflects badly on the rest of us currently or formerly in uniform.

      1. I knew some of McNamara’s 100,000 and they were smarter than this crayon.

        I bet he never made it past E-3, that’s if he was in at all.

        1. The pic on the original article shows him in uniform as a PFC.

          You know he didn’t make it very far if that’s the pic he uses to convey *muh authority “

    2. Yeah, that credential stretching was especially amusing considering the prosecutorial accusations that Kyle is a liar because he said he was a paramedic. He was acting as one. He never said he was credentialed. It’s a very common phenomenon. We all do it now and then. But sometimes it’s meant to deceive and others it’s meant more innocuously to describe our current state or role. In the above fisked case, I think the former applies. In Kyle’s the latter. I might be biased though.

    3. Ha! I wish I still had a copy of an email I received from Bill Nye. That was many iterations of email addresses ago — back in the day when most people didn’t even have their own email addresses — much less a computer at home. It may have even been in the days of dial-up.

      With some effort, I tracked down a way to contact Nye through the web site for Bill Nye, the Science Guy and sent my email there. Which pointed out a mistake he made on live TV (CNN, I believe) — that I had just witnessed. In the email back to me, he actually acknowledged his mistake.

      My point? If you’re open to the idea that these so-called experts make mistakes or even lie to us all, you’ll catch them doing it.

  3. Rekieta Law rocks! Watched most of the coverage and commentary from there. And your dissection of an asshat was done with the skill of a surgeon. The saddest thing to my mind is there are still so many people out there who continue to buy into everything the mass media puts out. To attempt to battle that, I will be sharing your post, in the hope (some) family and friends actually start to wake up (Hoping for them to rise from the brain dead masses, at this point, is asking for too much.)

    1. He does.

      I mainly caught recaps from Andrew Bianca at Legalinsurrection.com and Viva-Barns. Bars was involved with the case early on and has some good insights

  4. I’ve been keeping track of the stupidest takes on this case I’ve seen. This one, due to its length and the number of ridiculous tangents, might top the charts in terms of total volume of dumb — though in my ranks it still hits 3rd for peak impact stupid. The rest of the Top 3 are:

    2- The fact that none of the other armed men shot anyone that day is proof that shooting was unjustified, and Rittenhouse just wanted to hurt people. (I call this one the, “We went to the same party, and *I* didn’t get raped,” defense.)

    1- Grosskreutz should have shot first, and it would have been legally justified as self-defense if he did so. In fact, he should have shot Rittenhouse **while Rittenhouse was running away** and claimed that it was justified because “he was stopping an active shooter.” Except also Rittenhouse wasn’t running away, because he was on the ground, which is a sign he wasn’t attempting to de-escalate. And that ultimately the main takeaway is that America is an anarchic Wild West wasteland where, legally, you should shoot anyone who looks at all threatening and then claim self-defense, and you’ll get away with it. As long as you’re white, at least.

    I promise, I Am Not Making This Up.

    1. >2- … (I call this one the, “We went to the same party, and *I* didn’t get raped,” defense.)

      Best summation of that one I’ve seen yet. Nice.

    2. Are you implying the guy in the magenta/red SUV, that barrelled through a parade, was acting in self-defense? Maybe someone should ask our VP to bail him out of jail.

    1. The first rule of being a paralegal is that you can’t give anyone legal advice. That should be extended to include legal commentary.

  5. > Grosskeutz looks like a Great Value Hunter Biden

    Okay, this is the part where I was glad I went to the bathroom not long ago, because I would have been at grave risk of peeing my pants from laughter otherwise.

  6. “Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone.”

    this statement went unfisked as it was buried in all the other bullshit. I’ll correct that here.

    NO you do NOT give up your right to self defense if you start the fight by committing a crime. This is an outright LIE. The law SPECIFICALLY IN WISCONSIN states that what happens if you start a fight by committing a crime is that YOU NOW HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT before you can claim self defense. You do not LOSE your ability to claim self defense, you just have to RETREAT and exhaust your options (which kyle did) before you can claim self defense. So EVEN IF kyle had started the fight with rosenbaum by committing some crime it would STILL be self defense because kyle DID retreat and exhaust his options as the law requires in order to claim self defense after committing a crime. Of course kyle DIDNT commit a crime so the point is irrelevant, but if he had he would still be innocent.

    he then proceeded to make up an example of a traffic violation which was almost certainly bullshit. If someone runs a red lite and hits you it DOES NOT become your fault just because your license is expired. Here is the problem with that horseshit. He is claiming that YOU violated the law so everything after is your fault, but the guy that rear ended you ALSO VIOLATED THE LAW! so how come its not all HIS fault? So he is providing made up evidence to support his made up interpretation of the law. Bullshit.

    1. I was thinking that too, though you expressed it better than I could have.

      In regards the asinine traffic analogy, wouldn’t BOTH drivers face legal repercussions? I can remember quite well a traffic court issue one of my relatives went through, regarding a 2-car collision. The final decision was that blame was shared about 20-80 (in my family member’s favor).

      1. Sure. You would have a fine for driving on an expired license. Happens to people all the time, even non-habitual offenders. And I don’t recall that being considered a moving violation. Running a red light and striking another vehicle in the process? Oh yeah, definitely two moving violations, at least.
        You’re right, it’s a stupid and inappropriate analogy.

      2. Yes. Many years ago a relative was rear-ended. Turns out my relative’s registration and inspection were just expired. The rear-ender’s registration was also expired. My relative got tickets for the expired registration and inspection, and the rear-ender got tickets for the expired registration AND for the rear-ending (reckless driving). In other words, the rear-ender got the blame for the rear ending despite my relative’s lack of compliance with registration/inspection.

        Having issued 4 tickets, the cop took the rest of the week off.

    2. Andrew Branca calls it “regaining the element of innocence.” By “retreating” you are trying to call off the fight, and that puts the burden on the other person.

      As to the traffic analogy… not quite right. In many states “fault”* is determined by percentage, and in some the preponderance of percentage makes you responsible for everything. Yes, everyone should get a citation for whatever their offense was, but “fault” will often be something more convoluted. And some of those states do not seem to prioritize the negligence or fault that occurred.

      (* Mind you, “fault” is in terms of civil responsibility, not criminal, generally.)

  7. Still reading through this, but had to jump down to the comments section to add a fist-bump for the deGrasse Tyson comment. THIS IS SO TRUE! (no I don’t feel strongly about this, why do you ask? HAH)

    Thank you for noticing that. I’m still chapped that he and Michio Kaku were interviewed as ‘experts’ on the Fukushima incident. Hey media, here’s a thought: interview a *radiation* physicist about a radiation incident next time, ‘k?

    #rantover

  8. > He is claiming that YOU violated the law so everything after is your fault,

    In other words, “He had an unpaid parking ticket, therefore it was okay for me to anally rape him.”

    YeahNo.

  9. Melon-baller dude wasn’t this stupid.

    I’m not sure *any* of the people you’ve fisked were this stupid.

    (Or shamelessly dishonest, but that’s worse.)

  10. “That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes”

    Which two crimes, supposedly? Did I miss something? The only thing I can think of is the (not actually illegal) possession of a rifle. But then the sentence continues, “and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle” without any pause. So is he suggesting that the carrying of a rifle is OTHER THAN the “two crimes”? Or is he just an idiot who doesn’t know how to write? (Either one is an acceptable answer, to be clear; I’m just curious if someone else interpreted it differently than I did.)

  11. Chuckled at your use of “Littlebinger” for the idiot DA on the trial. He does look like that character, doesn’t he?

        1. Can’t be much of a detective if he was sitting at the DA’s table the whole trail.

          My jaw dropped when he tried to say he saw Kyle raise his rifle on his I pad at home from 1 of the videos.

  12. I still can’t see how this guy can actually believe what he’s saying. I know the whole lefty-ism is a mental condition, but you would literally have to have existed in a complete vacuum to be this wrong.

  13. “It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”

    I am 99.9 percent sure he is wrong here. In this case, you are not at-fault for the accident at all. Were this the case, you could take your POS car and whack the car of some driver you know doesn’t have a license and to him on the hook to fix your car.
    You will, most likely, get tickets for not having a license and driving an uninsured motor vehicle. You won’t have an insurance company to go after the driver to get compensation. I am almost positive you will not be at fault.

    1. This is my field. I have forty years of experience as a litigator and I say 100%. counterexample: if your run a red light and hit an illegal alien it’s still your fault

    2. In 1974, in New London Ct, I was rear ended. Having just gotten back from a 3 month FBM deployment, during which I spent some nights in the tender crew’s berthing where my personal effects were stolen by the usual suspects who mine those areas, I did not have my Washington State driver’s license on my person.

      The idiot that rear ended me was arrested for drunk driving and I was cited for not having a valid license to present to the officer.

      I made a couple of phone calls, and two weeks later my replacement license arrived from Washington State, at which time the one charge against me was dropped.

      Doesn’t much sound like the idiot’s version of the event, does it?

    3. Correct. I got knocked off my motorcycle while riding it uninsured ( I was a stupid kid at the time ).

      The inattentive Suburban driver’s insurance ponied up a large settlement. I got a ticket.

  14. I used to work as an armed security guard. Every six months we would have training. The majority of the training wasn’t with a weapon it was in a classroom, going over most of the things that Larry pointed out. In 2015 I was leaving work. When I went to the Main Office, I always carried. As I was crossing the parking lot I saw a man knock down a female coworker and grab her purse and computer bag. If he had taken off, all I could have done was to give a description. Instead he started kicking her. I got there with my pistol drawn just as he was getting ready to kick her in the head. I told him to stop and he did. A person nearby called the Police, not, because of her being attacked, but, because I had a gun. The Police showed up and enough people backed me up that there wasn’t a problem. I went down and gave a statement and they gave me my pistol back. Three days later the DA’s office called me and said that I was facing no charges. They also said that from the video that they got, I would NOT have been charged if I had fired. Here’s the curveball. Under the law I can defend, I have no obligation to apprehend. If that guy had just walked away, I would have had to let him go. If I had chased him with my weapon drawn and he pulled a weapon and killed me, he could legitimately claim self-defense. I honestly believe that these laws are made to be confusing.
    One of the things that I found interesting is that the Judge said that he had spent considerable time trying to figure out Wisconsin’s gun laws and he couldn’t definitely make a decision except for the ‘short barreled rifle” section. He asked the Prosecutor if he wanted to measure the rifle and the Prosecutor said “No.”
    We were discussing this at the Club last night and a friend of mine , Steve, brought up that the person who provided the rifle for Rittenhouse was charged with providing him with a rifle. Since Rittenhouse legally had the rifle, the charges against his friend should be dropped. Before you think that this was a bunch of drunks sitting around bullshitting, before Steve retired we didn’t call him Steve, we called him “Your Honor”. He was the Senior Judge in our County for over 15 years. He also stated that if this had been brought before him he would have tossed out the case.

    1. Re; Laws made to be confusing.

      Much law is written and/or revised after some extraordinary incident has stirred up public outrage, and is designed to make sure that incident diode not occur again without the ‘guilty’ party getting convicted. This tends to make a hash of more ordinary circumstances.

    2. As to possession and open carry, as best as I understand:
      His possession of a rifle at age 17 was legal (it wasn’t short-barreled and he hadn’t violated the law about hunting licences.)
      The purchase was a straw purchase so it was illegal.
      I haven’t seen a law that makes it clear whether his open carry was legal or not.
      Can you enlighten me any?

  15. Just got back from an fencing tournament and checked Larry’s link on MeWe. Love the fisk!
    Love even more that the jury wasn’t intimidated into sacrificing Rittenhouse. Hopefully any threats against them were nothing more than hot air. But if not, then may they do unto them what Rittenhouse did unto his attackers.

  16. “It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”

    Unlike this genius, I’m a licensed insurance agent. (Yeah, that’s a new career, but my wife with a decade of experience is chiming in too.) This is utter bullshit. The other guy is at fault, period. The guy getting hit is in trouble, but not for getting hit.

    1. Yeah, I was gonna say something about that. My high school driving instructor drilled it into our heads that even if we rear ended a guy on a suspended license who was a felon wanted on multiple charges, we were still legally liable for any damages to the vehicle or their person with the only possible exception being if someone behind us caused the impact which rammed us into them and even that wasn’t certain if the impact behind us was at a low enough velocity that we shouldn’t have hit the person in front of us if we had our foot on the brake.

      1. Having once been involved in a multi-car, chain-reaction, rear-ender accident (I was somewhere towards the front,) the officer that showed up to the scene didn’t even write me a ticket, he just wrote up a report that I was “hit-and-runned” so my insurance would cover the repairs.

        Longer explanation: There were, including me, about 4-5 cars involved, all caused by ONE driver who didn’t see everyone stopping for a firetruck crossing the intersection. Said driver was already getting ticketed for ~3 of the accidents that the occupants could conclusively say the driver did hit them. So the officer was cutting him a bit of a break by not ticketing him for my damages (which were minor, but the paint scrapes on the car matched the paint on the drivers vehicle)

  17. This is a thing of pure beauty! LC hats off to you! Could not have said it better. Even the smallest amount of due diligence would have shown this case was a travesty of EPIC proportions.

  18. I want to highly recommend two podcasts by experienced lawyers that did informed play-by-plays of this case from start to finish, and do them for other well known cases too.

    1) rekietalaw.locals.com

    2) vivabarneslaw.locals.com

    Both of these have some free material and some you have to pay to read. But the coverage of Kyle’s trial has all been free.
    Rekeita in particular took Court TV’s live feed and added to it a video conference of up to 10 lawyers at a time. They called out all of the errors Larry does here, and more. Well worth what it cost me to sign up if you’re into this stuff.

    1. JdGalt1

      Agreed. Add Andrew Branca of Law of Self Defense to the list. He live blogged it at Legal Insurrection Blog, and posted a summary of the day at about 2200 EST.

      Mr. Branca did a fantastic job on the George Zimmerman trial. Listening to his analysis, I think I was more informed about the trial than any reporter. I watched the National and Local News. I do not think they were even watching the same trial. 90% of their reports were completely wrong. I was not surprised by the NOT Guilty Verdicts, but the entire National media was. (For BOTH Kyle’s and George’s trials.)

      I did switch over to Reketia Law after I saw clips of their Rittenhouse Testimony analysis, and read Branca’s Summaries too. . I noticed Mr. Andrew Branca also was on their livestream after the final arguments finished.

      Great Post Larry.

    2. Larry, myself, and about 100k other people watched the trial via the Rekeita Law live stream on YouTube with its rotating panel of lawyers.

      Though they did have on some non-lawyer experts as well like DarthCrypto and The Quartering. If they’d known Larry was listening and what his CV contains, I bet he’d have been invited to join too as a self defense expert.

  19. “It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”

    From personal experience I know this is false. At least it was in Ohio in the 80’s.

    1. It is also false in the three states where I am legally allowed to express this opinion.

      Let’s face it: JAG paralegals are most often ginning up bail bonds, wills, and family law pleadings. Some focus on crimes and a few homicide cases pop up every year but not nearly as many as you might think. Also: trials under the UCMJ are radically different from civil trials in any state.

  20. Some people need killin. Its just the way it is.
    And pedo’s and perverts top that list.
    Then Rapists.
    But commies and the left top all.

    1. Sonny and Cher,
      “Some people need killin. Its just the way it is. And pedo’s and perverts top that list. Then Rapists. But commies and the left top all.”

      I laughed too hard and too long at your rant.
      1. “Some people need killin.” This is known as the Texas defense. “Your Honor, the deceased needed killin’.”
      2. “And pedo’s and perverts top that list.” Like Joe Biden, the pedophile president. Seriously, his handlers need to wrap a shock collar around his balls and slam the button whenever Pedo Joe gets within arm’s reach of a child.
      3. “But commies and the left top all.” Kill a commie for Jesus and kill a Democrat for Saint Paul.

      1. Did you see the picture of the little girl pushing him away over the weekend?

        At this point why would any parent let their kid get near Creepy Joe?

        1. For cultists, being part of the cult is usually more important than anything like individual morality, reason, or judgement. Sacrifice (figuratively or literally) a child for The Cause(tm)? Not even a moment’s hesitation, toss the kid onto the sacrificial altar (again, figuratively or literally).

  21. I haven’t seen such dishonesty since, well, ADAs Littlefinger and Varys the Fat Eunuch’s closing arguments in Kyle’s trial. This fisk target was so dishonest that I’m wondering if it wasn’t one of the Rittenhouse *persecutors* themselves using a pseudonym.

  22. I have been in law enforcement for 30 years, both as a police officer and as a paralegal. This guy claims to work in the legal field, yet seems to have no clue about actual laws. Where did he come up with that BS about the driver with a suspended license is automatically the at fault driver? His knowledge of the law and his knowledge of the Rittenhouse case are both of an equally low standard.

  23. I’ve said it many times now, he’s right about Rosenbaum’s past not mattering and there are plenty of pedophiles on both sides of the aisle, but only one side lifts them up as “heroes.” If a conservative pedophile is killed, either legally or illegally, no conservative would go to bat for him, we’d chalk it up to “he got what he deserved” or “karma caught up with him” (like it did with Rosenbaum!)

    1. Eh, not so fast. Within the past week I’ve seen a couple of conservatives who travel in this very literary orbit making a soft defense of pedophiles.

      1. gmmay70,

        Read the stories about the founder of the Never Trump Lincoln Project, Mr. Weaver. There is a reason they are sometimes called the Nation Man Boy Lincoln Project.

        1. Funny thing about that. In 2010 I was at a lecture held at a Penn State satellite campus. One of the flyers on a bulletin board caught my eye. It was for NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association). It was being held in a meeting room on campus and it had the signed stamp approving it for posting. A little bit later we had the Sandusky mess.

  24. Another unfisked bit, but very minor, is this guy saying, “May he face justice for what he did,”

    He did face justice for what he did. That’s what a trial *is*.

  25. Good fisking.

    Just to note, there are a solid group of honest Leftists out there who stand firmly on the belief that Rittenhouse acted in Self-Defense. Jimmy Dore is one of them. There was a solid documentary I watched on YouTube about it that was put together by a Bernie Bro who supported Rittenhouse.

    Unfortunately, they do not appear to make up the majority. But then again, that could be media gaslighting.

    1. Even Ana Effing Kasparian, of the execrable s***weasels “The Young Turks” has agreed, publicly, and admitted she was wrong. (And good on her for that – probably the most honest public statement she ever made, but credit where credit is due.)

      Only a brain-dead partisan, or a Democrat politician, or an MSM spokeshole (ah, but I doubly repeat myself!) could argue otherwise. Only five options to those arguing the verdict was wrong, unjust, etc.: (1) they didn’t watch the actual trial, and are spouting BS talking points from other libtards; (2) they completely misunderstand the law of self-defense; (3) they are INTENTIONALLY making a bad faith argument for political purposes; (4) they are too stupid to breathe; or (5) two or more of the above.

      Props to the few liberals/”Progressives” who stand up for sanity.

      1. Let me suggest a sixth motive:
        (6) They are possessed by a cultlike belief that, in the same way if you clap for Tinkerbelle hard enough, she will spring back to life, likewise, if you believe in your make-believe reality hard enough, it will become real reality.

        All this talk about Rittenhouse from the left is nothing but Tinkerbelle clapping. They do not actually believe it is real because they make no distinction between real and unreal. Political correctness ignores factual correctness.

        They think they are God, and can create their own personal universe ex nihilo, by Word alone.

        Such is my theory. Prove me wrong.

        1. This is an extremely strong belief in Narrative and we see it all over. It’s not even entirely untrue (as most powerful lies have an element of truth.) It’s possible to create something by believing hard enough that it’s true. Sometimes. For some things. It’s “fake it til you make it” or reciting aspirational stuff about yourself to the mirror every morning. Or it’s self-talk that is negative creating that negative reality in your life.

          And it’s related to the notion of everyone having a different reality that is defined by yourself, a personalized narrative and “Truth”.

          Of course, everyone doing this is going for the option of creating an oppressive reality and hopeless future with lots and lots of enemies.

  26. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t play one on TV. I didn’t even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

    I am, however, capable of recognizing BS when a giant steaming pile of it lands in my feed. Thanks for going through this one and pointing out the many places where it stinks.

  27. because he [Rittenhouse] is an untrained idiot with a gun.

    Could’ve fooled me. Under grave pressure, he outshot the “highly-trained” NYPD and LAPD (low bars, I admit) and probably the FBI. IIRC, KR fired 8 shots total, hitting with 5, and that’s while being winded from a foot chase and lethal attacks from multiple angles, against the chaotic backdrop of a riot! Many “highly-trained” big city police can’t shoot that well on a square range with stationary targets!

    Plus, he didn’t engage rioters who backed off. Self-control under pressure like that is another thing rare among “highly-trained” big city police.

    If that makes him an “untrained idiot with a gun”, sign me up, you pretentious windbag.

    1. Right? KR put on an exhibition of how to do pretty much everything right in a true life or death situation. That wasn’t some simulation or roleplay in a controlled environment, but the real deal. His discipline was off the charts.

      Guy deserved an award instead of a trial.

      1. As I have stated somewhere else, if I’d been in his position I seriously doubt I would have been as restrained in my firing.

        I am seriously impressed with his trigger discipline in fact

    2. I am intensely sick of the left’s worship of all kinds of authority, especially because it’s often very undeserved authority and even when it is justified and they are an expert in their field? That’s just it. They are an expert *in their field* that doesn’t cross over to every other thing they talk about.

      Even with say a physician? I’m not gonna trust the basic bitch pediatrician’s opinion when they run off at the mouth about the mechanism of gunshot wounds, or epidemiology- even if those topics weren’t often, to damn near always these days, politically charged and lots of people who go to college for anything these days are highly brainwashed lefties or just thoroughly ignorant of politic and think the political equivalent of that the sky isn’t blue it’s fucking chartreuse.

      My dad was an airforce mechanic in the late 60’s until like 73 or so. Ignoring how long ago that was I wouldn’t expect him to be an expert on the tactics or equipment of the fucking Army Special Forces. He understood the engines of *some* airplanes in USAF service in the late 60s early 70s. He wouldn’t have even known jack shit about their armaments at the time as that wasn’t his field.

      1. I wouldn’t be too hard on people talking outside of their field — we all have hobbies, after all, and while I’m not a lawyer, for example, I could hold my own in a conversation on self defense — but expertise has to be demonstrated, not assumed, and it doesn’t matter if you have the credentials or not.

        This guy did a very good job of demonstrating that his credentials are worthless, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

        Random thought: if you want to be anonymous, the last thing you should do is drone on about your credentials. They can easily be used to doxx you! It’s best to make your argument, and let it stand on facts alone.

        1. This guy did a very good job of demonstrating that his credentials are worthless, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

          Yes, he did.

          To us, who learn about self-defense law as a personal interest. We’ve done enough deep dives of our own — into both the written law and case law — that we can spot a liar.

          But what about to those who research self-defense and the legalities, not because they’re interested, but because for whatever reason they feel they have to?

          Will someone like that — who cannot spot a liar — listen to the non-credentialed hobbyist? Or will they listen to the credentialed “expert”? If they hear both sides (big “if”) saying opposite things, which will they believe?

          That right there is why I have a problem with know-nothing “experts” spouting nonsense on guns and gun laws. It’s not for me or mine; we know the actual, written law and how cases are really handled.

          My problem concerns the fence-sitters; those wonderful, impressionable folks in the middle who recognize they lack the knowledge to form an opinion, and seek to remedy that. “Experts” like this are doing them a grave disservice by presenting their lies concealed in the cloak of authority. Following their advice, someone’s gonna get hurt, physically and/or legally. It need not and should not be that way.

          To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, it’s not that the anti-self-defense crowd doesn’t know anything; it’s that they know so much that just ain’t so.

          I’d like to fix that problem. Credentialed “experts” like the doofus fisked above seem to want to magnify it.

    3. To boot, one his misses–the jump-kick guy–just might have been a display of incredibly good judgment under pressure. If he’d hit that guy he’d have stood no chance in court.

    1. Just a note about the post Larry has so excellently fisked. Apparently it was originally posted over a year ago, so the author could have had no knowledge of the trial.

      That doesn’t make his arguments (especially the whole “Castle Doctrine” nonsense) any less stupid or wrong, but it does mean he had less real information to go on, and couldn’t have known how thoroughly debunked his “facts” would be by the prosecution witnesses, the videos, the FBI surveillance drone, and the actual laws in Wisconsin.

      He’s obviously still a leftist tool who’s seriously inflating his CV, and pretending to lots of knowledge and understanding he clearly doesn’t have, and his post is still worthy of fisking, given how much it’s being shared around the lefty interwebs…

      1. I realized after that it was written a while ago. I grabbed this one because it showed up repeatedly on Facebook.
        His profound dishonesty and absolute surety about things which were simply untrue was too good to pass up though.

  28. I’m a lawyer. I’ve known a lot of really good paralegals. But there’s a reason paralegals don’t bill $400+/hour for their time.

    This turnip has no earthly idea what he’s talking about. He gives decent paralegals a bad name.

  29. Reading that idiot’s drivel in the original would surely induce brain damage. Fortunately, Larry’s Fisking acts as an antidote.
    ———————————
    Today, every child in America is born $89,000 in debt.

  30. Pray for the People of Waukeha tonight.

    Someone drove through the Waukesha Christmas Parade at high speed in a red Ford SUV. The early total injured are 11 adults and 12 children, and an unknown number of dead.

    The video I saw cuts out and blurs everything as the SUV makes contact from behind with a High School Band member walking on the road in the rear rank and playing a Bass Drum.

    Pray for the injured please. Pray for the dead. Pray for all their friends and families.

    =======
    I really wish Larry could delete this comment for being all lies, and that this did not happen tonight.

        1. And in my correction I got the more recent city name wrong.

          [voice type=”Homer Simpson”]D’OH![/voice]

          (Though, I suppose it is keeping the Usenet tradition that a correction post must contain an error of its own. 😛 )

    1. The videos are horrific.
      And if you really want to lose faith in humanity, just go look at what the sick fuck progs are saying on Twitter about it.

      1. I haven’t lost faith in humanity, I just never had too much to begin with. And the prog-soc nit-twits are rapidly moving themselves into the no-longer human and currently deadly threats to life and limb range.

  31. Rosenbaum spent part of the day screaming that he wasn’t afraid to go back to jail. He made it known to everyone around he was a felon, and his behavior made it clear he was violent.

  32. Smooth brain’s unsaid argument is that in his thing that keeps his ears from falling down his throat opposing a Democratic Party sanctioned mob is a crime. My review is still “At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
    Also I would love to see this waste of space go toe to toe with Popehat.

  33. Hell, in Texas you can use deadly force to stop someone from fleeing the scene of a felony after civil sunset. Not that I’d recommend it for a property crime

    But it shows that even his “you can’t shoot the burglar after he leaves your house” example depends on the laws where you are.

  34. I love the fisking but I hate hate hate reading fiskings of things when there’s no link to the original.

    This is not his original post however, it’s a reproduction of it that some fan, if you can believe that, of his posted on Imgur:
    https://imgur.com/gallery/BN1fsnU

    As for the argument presented by the fiskee that Kyle wasn’t really in danger, people are killed all the time by attacks like jump kick man’s, and it’s taught as a (permanent) finishing technique in military unarmed combat.

    As for the idea that a skateboard is not a lethal weapon, I’ve seen people posting an article about a guy actually beaten to death with a skateboard, probably not the only one, but I didn’t need to see that, I could figure out from the fact that they weigh 7-11 pounds that you could kill someone with them.

    1. I didn’t have a link to the original. All I had was a bunch of idiot facebook shares of it, none of which had an attribution to the author.
      Because, oh believe me, I would gladly share his name and a link to his page with great joy.

  35. Look – the entire piece written by the faux military lawyer was not the wildly mistaken and deluded thoughts of a leftist idiot, but a deliberate exercise in propaganda. However, one needs to accept the fact that there are quite a few people in blue areas who will accept that polemical diatribe uncritically.
    What this means is that we simply aren’t a country anymore. There are millions of people who hate the flag, the constitution, the star spangled banner, and absolutely everything about America, including its heritage and history.
    This will anger more than a few of you, but I’m going to say it – I see no alternative other than a mass Red State secession. It’s already under way informally – red-inclined people are leaving blue states and zones and have been doing so for some years now. Let’s formalize this and give everyone 6 months to ‘switch countries’ hassle-free. Regardless, we’re headed towards real civil unrest and conflict. Every day we postpone a separation simply means that the eventual breakup will be more bloody and destructive. If this idea deeply upsets anyone, that’s not my intention. I really don’t see any other outcome to this situation, though.

    1. Splitting the country Red and Blue is the way to avoid ACW2. But if we did that, what about the San Joaquin Valley in California? The farmers do not vote Democrat. Can we split by county? What about Barstow?
      What about upstate New York? They don’t have the Blue Screaming Meanies.
      What about east Oregon? East Washington?
      All things considered, I think ACW2 and 100 million dead is more likely than a peaceful settlement.

      1. I don’t think two countries is enough. I’d think more like 4-5, possibly even more.

        Sadly, I’m not sure we can do it peacefully. It’s also hard to do across families. What about conservative men married to leftist women? We all know plenty of those.

        (I have been SO grateful these last two years that I am married to a man who hasn’t bought into corona hysteria.)

    2. Not angry, it is bullshit, and bullshit that some of our foreign adversaries would push, thinking us stupid enough to buy it.

      Two key points.

      One, if we can’t coexist peacefully inside of the same nation, we will not coexist peacefully as separate nations. It is slightly appalling that people keep on making this mistake. Succession is no path to peace, it is a path to war, and a war that gives the opposition more resources to hurt us with.

      Secondly, the opposition is seriously trying to rely on violent felons for their major fighting power. That means that they are in a weak position, and know that they do not have widespread support.

      IIRC, last I checked there are something like 2 million people in prison, and 2 million people in halfway houses and community service.

      No where near enough to occupy even a country of 60 million. Okay, France, Japan, UK etc. come off as stump broke, but still…

      They haven’t enough fighters to have any staying power at all.

      Succession leaves them an opportunity to try to get some sort of viable force together. Which won’t be enough, but might drag out the conflict some.

      Killing them instead is a practical, sane, and much more peaceful answer.

  36. Not sure what he’s talking about in the first part where if you don’t have a license or insurance, you’re at fault if you get rear-ended. I don’t know of any jurisdiction where that is the law. I would be surprised. In CA, if you get hit and you don’t have insurance, your damages are limited to your economic damages. IE you can’t get pain and suffering. So he is just a midwit all around. Dunning-Kruger effect in spades.

  37. The ‘He didn’t shoot me until I pointed my handgun at him’ was the mic drop moment. Was that the older, uglier Jonah Hill face palm moment? Anyway, I checkout out at that point, and only returned at the video.

    14.mb for the HD version is still too damn small. I think that wasn’t the original drone footage, it has already be converted. Even assuming it is quite a bit less that modern cell phone storage and resolution, capture rate for SDR 1080p is 8-16 mb/s. So this was WAY less than 1080p. Unless you use handbrake to convert / compress the file … hmm …

  38. I can’t help but think that all of those years spent in accounting were a terrible waste of incredible talent.
    That, sir, was artistry.

    I have to wonder if any of these “independent progressives” considered, however briefly, actually watching the trial. The guy above certainly didn’t appear to have done so. I can see why he didn’t attach his name – I wouldn’t want my career destroyed by such idiocy.

    The Soul Stone remark was awesome I am going to be smiling about that all day.

    As always, thank you.

    1. Yeah, but accounting is what taught me to be this methodical AND it also instilled in me with the boundless rage I need to fuel my creativity. 😀

  39. “It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”

    32 years a prosecutor: Self defense requires that you admit the conduct but prove it was justified and necessary. This analogy is horseshit. For example, let’s say you are driving without a license and you rear end someone. That person jumps out of the car, approaches you aggressively and points a gun at you and then you shoot them. The fact that you didn’t have a driver’s license is completely and absolutely irrelevant to your self defense claim. Full stop. Let’s say you are walking through someone’s field and it is posted “no trespassing” and the owner shoots you and kills you. The fact that you are trespassing is irrelevant, absent any threat by you to that person, to whether that person murdered you. Full stop.

  40. “and currently work in federal law enforcement”

    Given the justifications claimed in the application of qualified immunity (like ‘no one told us it was inappropriate to flash bang grenade an infant I its crib, at the wrong address’) that’s no much of an endorsement…

  41. Larry, the ultimate question is this: Can we continue to live in a country that has people like this counted as citizens who are able to use our warm-body election system to impose their lies on the rest of us by fraud?

    I submit that the answer is NO. Separation is the only solution.

  42. Fortunately, I live in a city where locals actively resisted the influence of agents provocateur after a mass church shooting. When they tried starting trouble in front of the church they got surrounded by locals singing “We shall overcome.”
    Around here, when a citizen with a concealed carry shoots a man running out of a waffle house with a gun in one hand and the cash register under his other arm and gets shot the responding officer shakes the man’s hand and compliments his marksmanship. I used to work with the responding officer who is really a nice guy as well, although he did like to practice his bagpipes in the sex offender unit of the county jail at two AM.
    And you are correct Larry. The more publicly righteous the public face of an LEO (especially command staff), the more contemptible they are in reality. I have been urged to write a book about my experiences and “blow the lid” off the agency I used to work for, but defending yourself from lawsuits is a lengthy, soul-sucking, wallet-draining experience. And if you lose, it’s even worse.

  43. Because the guys KR shot were all white criminals, I’m actually now seeing clips of protesters shouting “All lives matter” (or something very close). After all these years of them saying “YOU CAN’T SAY THAT!” they’re now saying it.

  44. Leftists get brownie points for believing the exact same thing as the next dope trapped in their nonsense bubble as long as they believe it more emphatically. You can trust me when I say that because I’m a noted rocket surgeon with advance degrees in neural engineering of aquatic religion and legal bird migration.

  45. Whenever some prog says the judge was biased, ask how
    You forgot the ringtone. You know, of the song that has meant something to patriotic Americans since the mid-80s. 35 years before Trump used it for some of his rallies.

      1. Richards said it pretty bluntly in his post-trial statement, (paraphrasing) “Judge Schroeder will give you a fair trial, but you don’t want to get sentenced by him.”

  46. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you’re afraid of a little scuffle.

    – A filthy lie.
    Sorta. If you’re only afraid of a little scuffle, that this guy is gonna punch you in the schnoz then walk away with your girl, you can’t shoot him. The problem with his statement is that the folks Kyle had to shoot were clearly not just going to punch him and walk away. They were intent on at least maiming him, if not killing him (from a reasonable person’s POV, if in his shoes).

    There’s some element of proportionality required in self-defense, though not nearly as much as the progs would like you to think.

    1. And, the bold should have ended after “at least” and re-started before “some” in the next paragraph. Sigh. I need an editor.

  47. and it’s a miracle he didn’t hit more people.
    And here, he actually stumbles back into into his “point” about doing illegal things – IMO, Kyle would not have been legally responsible if he had hit any of the rioters behind the cluster of folks directly attacking him, because they were … well, rioting. You join in a riot where violent, illegal acts are being clearly committed, you may suffer the consequences for your foolishness. Anyone directly behind the attackers who was part of the riot had placed themselves recklessly and illegally into a position danger. Wouldn’t be Kyle’s fault at all.

    1. I’m wondering if Zaminski (sp?) could be lawfully indicted for the felony murder of Rosenbaum and Huber. If he was indeed egging on the pursuit of KR, then, well…? Seems like textbook felony murder. KR lawfully defended himself which resulted in their deaths, which places culpability to a degree on Ziminski.

      Hell, he could be charged even if Kyle had been convicted, right?

      Prosecutors, please chime in.

  48. If they say they love Bernie, FUCKING RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!
    I disagree. Shoot them. Because they are a manifest danger to your life and the lives of your family.

  49. This is a beautiful fisking of someone who *earned* that fisking. Thank you.

    That having been said–and I say this with all respect intended–I note that when it comes to conservatives, you have a tendency to (rightfully!) argue in favor of individual accountability; you acknowledge that some people on the right are assholes but correctly point out that the vast majority are NOT. And you have little tolerance when it is implied that the assholes should be taken as representative of the whole.

    When it comes to the left, though, it sometimes feels to me as though you paint with a remarkably broad brush. Speaking as someone who lives in a blue state and who has a fair number of Democrat/Liberal family and friends…’the left’ is not nearly so monolithic as you paint them.

    It’s a mistake to imagine all Democrats to be mustache-twirling-evil monsters, IMO. Are there some assholes on the left? Absolutely! But the vast majority are people that I hope you’d get along with just fine if you were chatting across a table with a beer in hand. In my experience, most are genuinely moral people whose greatest flaw is that their idealism is not tempered by realism. And, yes, that flaw can sometimes present in ugly ways…but I like to believe that such conflicts can be better resolved with conversation rather than condemnation.

    The assholes on the left might be your enemy, but I don’t think that the entirety of ‘the left’ needs to be.

    1. If the majority of the left aren’t my enemy, the burden of proof is on them, because frankly I haven’t seen jack shit from most of them beyond paying lip service to principles, as the rest of their fellows go about doing whatever horrible thing they feel like, and the ones who claim to be moral sit there silently and let them.

      I do paint with a broad brush about the left, because democrats who stand up against leftist insanity are a tiny minority.

      Then I get to listen to people like you, who are probably honestly decent people, tell me that you’re not all insane… Great. SHOW ME.
      My liberal friends (and yes, I do have a few still, though most tossed me under the bus as soon as their was any societal pressure to do so) will constantly chide me about my words, or my attitude, and go tsk tsk, how rude! But then when people on their side go bat shit fucking insane, they sit there meekly and stand for nothing, because they know the beast they fed will just as easily turn and eat them too.

      Besides, as soon as a democrat stands for principle outside of the narrative, they get tossed. Pick any of them in media, punditry, or academia. Any at all. Glenn Greenwald. Tim Pool. Jordan Peterson. Those were all mushy moderates, until they say hey wait, the left is going nuts, and boom, now the left thinks they are the second coming of Satan-Hitler. The party is currently enraged at Sinema and Manchin.

      And I’m not alone in this. Most politically alert non-leftists will tell you the same thing. You belong to a cult which will not abide heresy. You want to show us that you aren’t all authoritarian statist trash, DO SOMETHING.

      1. I would also say, Larry, that part of the issue is identifying as ‘the left’. I have taken to using ‘Progressive’ to more clearly indicate who I mean. Not all Democrats are thoroughly progressive. Heck, not all progressives are Democrat. But there are some who do not really believe all the bs that pours forth from Progressives. (And most everyone in America probably has some Progressive stuff they believe, because it’s been part of our public schooling for 100+ years; it is bound to influence folks somewhat.)

        However, the problem with the ‘red-pilling’ so many get excited about, is that almost all of those folks are still, really, Progressives. They still believe the tenets of that religion, though they may disagree with the Inquisition or the Crusades it sponsors.

        You belong to a cult which will not abide heresy.
        Yes, I’ve been beating the drum about Progressivism being a religion – substituting for, and a corruption of, Christianity – for a long time now. When you understand that aspect, it becomes much easier to see how people believe this stuff.

        1. Prog-Socs are Communists at heart. That’s their ultimate goal, a communist “utopia”. And it really doesn’t matter if it’s Marxism, Maoism, socialist, or progressive; they all eventually degenerate into a variation of communism, and end up killing an awful lot of people, usually after oppressing, starving, and torturing them.

      2. Errr…I said that I live in a blue state, and that I have friends and family who are Liberal/Democrat. I’m fairly certain that I didn’t offer any indication as to what ‘cult’ I supposedly belong to. I did imply my belief that most of ‘the left’ is not insane, but that’s only because the people I’ve spoken to *HAVE* shown me.

        I’m sorry that your liberal friends sit meekly and stand for nothing when the extremists on their side go batshit insane. That hasn’t been my experience. My liberal friends shout at the top of their lungs.

        And that’s why I chose to defend them.

        1. Shouting at the top of their lungs might be cathartic, but it doesn’t change their vote.

          Performative opposition is worse than useless.

        2. Well, good for them. Too bad none of your liberal friends seem to be on the internet.
          My liberal friends are usually less than useless.
          They never seem to show up in public fighting back against insane progs, but they always show up in my space to tell me how they’re fighting the good fight, and then shaming me for being too rude.

        3. “when the extremists on their side go batshit insane . . . My liberal friends shout at the top of their lungs.”

          really? So when blm was torching cities and murdering people did they condemn that publicly? Because I didn’t hear ANY liberals condemn that. BLM literally lit a housing complex on fire WITH CHILDREN TRAPPED INSIDE and then blocked the street to prevent the fire department from rescuing them. I didn’t hear a PEEP out of ANY democrat about this being one of the most evil things anyone has ever done. The police managed to get the fire department to the scene on another route so the children survived, but not a single democrat I have seen ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY has condemned this act.

          So did your friends condemn this? And did they do so publicly or only in private to you?

          1. His good and honest liberal friends totally shout from the top of their lungs all the time. We just don’t ever hear them for some baffling and mysterious reason. AND the rest of the left doesn’t crush them for their heresy either. Probably because they don’t have the internet where he lives yet.

    2. When a man says ‘Hail Molech’, I may paint him with a broad brush when I suggest that he burns infants on a brazen altar.

      And not just because Molechians may not have access to enough infants for every one of them to burn some.

      Being a little bit left is like being a little bit of a Nazi, a little bit of a Cathar, or offering a little bit of a sacrifice to a pagan idol.

      You have taken part in the rituals of a religion, and have formed an emotional connection to it through that engagement. If you are not willing to abandon all trappings of leftism, they will bind you to supporting extreme communism, because there is no left today that is not shaped by communism.

      You, personally, may have some residual values of sanity, perhaps from your cultural upbringing. But, if forced to make a choice, will you choose sanity, or will you choose the left?

      If you do not wish to be treated by us as a monster, incompatible with living peacefully among civilized men, you may find that you need to make a choice, because your ‘fellows’ are pushing us to adopt such practice.

      You would be well advised to search inside yourself, and pull out the roots of leftism.

      Additionally, for the sake of your soul, you should consider making a place for Jesus inside of your self.

    3. Not trying to pile on, but adding maybe another point to the ones already raised. And since you seem to be commenting in good faith, my response is in good faith.

      You raise a seemingly valid issue. The problem comes when we look at *who* is saying what. It’s true that the Right generally disavows their crazies, but who are those crazies? Internet randos, or the chance conservative-ish passerby that CNN managed to chase down in Manhattan. Nobodies, in other words.

      Now, who on the Left is saying crazy, society-ending shit? Major Democrat politicians and sympathetic media figures. They’ve explicitly called for violence (Waters, Harris), uprisings (Pelosi), and re-education camps (more Democrat operatives and media figures than I care to list). The sitting President and VP were spreading distrust about vaccines last year before they took office. The only things they’ve referred to us as since 2008 are racist bigots, and they’re shocked, shocked to find out we’re starting to paint with a broad brush in response?

      And who do the people you’re defending end up voting for? Uncritically. Every single time, no matter the failures, no matter the hate, no matter what crazy racist bilge comes out of their mouths. Your friends and family may not be bad people. I’m sure they’re perfectly nice. But they’re still inflicting these monsters upon us, voting like it’s a team sport.

      Not that I view Republicans favorably, but I’ll take incompetent assholes over people who want to put me in a concentration camp.

      1. And then one just has to look at how the Democrats govern when they have full, unchecked single party power over a city or state. It’s horrific. Just look at California, Portland, Seattle, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or any other number of People’s Democratic Republics where the sidewalks are covered with poop and dirty needles, crime and murder are rampant, and only the richest of the Democratic Nomenklatura can live in peace and comfort.

      2. What gmmay70 said. Absolutely spot on.

        Usually when I get “right wing hate” thrown in my face, it’s J. Rando Dumbfuck, from Somnumbulant Iowa, who has absolutely zero bearing on my life.

        When I get left wing hate, it’s from major media, elected official, government appointees, academia, Hollywood, and the most powerful big tech corporations on Earth, all super powerful or super influential entities who control everything and can ruin your life.

  50. I can generally agree with the jurors’ verdict. but I believe all parties involved were idiots and dumbasses. If I had to be a district attorney I probably would have tried to slap some misdemeanor on Rittenhouse. But then I would have had to slap some misdemeanor on a few members of the protesting crowd: that is too much paperwork. So, I am sort of Happy Rittenhouse was acquitted. he seems like a dumb kid. I do not know what his capacity for becoming more intelligent as he grows up is. But I sure would not want him gaining a position in law enforcement. unless it is a small out-of-the-way place where everyone else is kind of stupid.

    1. Oh, small town folks are dumb, is it? Because I’ll be happy to pit the average IQ of my neighbors in this small out-of-the-way place against the average IQ of Milwaukee or Chicago. In fact the only city I wouldn’t happily take that bet is Huntsville, Alabama.
      As far as being a cop, he handled himself in a confrontation, while being pursued and repeatedly struck, only fired at actual attackers, and more importantly stopped firing as soon as they ceased to be threats, while getting a hit ratio that was far better than the average for most major PDs and the FBI. He never lost his shit in a situation where most adults who are talking trash about him would’ve pissed themselves in fear and shot some bystanders.
      What misdemeanor would you have stuck on him? Littering?
      The only reason that kid couldn’t have a job in law enforcement is politics and media fall out.

      1. I have to agree that he didn’t panic. When he was running down the street and people were throwing rocks and other missiles at him, he could very well have panicked and sprayed the crowd with bullets. He did not.
        As to his going to Kenosha in the first place? I do question the wisdom of that, but even if it wasn’t the wisest choice of action to be there, it does not make him a legitimate target for anyone to assault.

      2. Littering?
        Oh carp! He didn’t police up his brass! Someone could step on a cartridge and slip and fall*! He should be hit with littering and failure to recycle and reckless endangerment!

        (* I’ve actually seen people do this on a range, so that part is only partly a joke.)

      3. It is strange the amount of vitriol, and bigotry that blue collar or rural people seem to earn for earthiness, an unpopular accent or having “plebeian” taste.

        Dumb as a post, you can pass these folks smell test, as long as you speak with enough pomposity and use an “educated” white collar accent. I don’t really get it

        Competency and native intelligence never come into the picture.

    2. Well, it’s a damn good thing you aren’t a DA, since one of his lackeys got slapped down for trying the same bullshit you suggest here.

      From the evidence presented at trial, and your showing here, KR clearly has you beat in the brains department, even if he is a dumb kid.

      Nice job!

    3. Literally the only thing he did which could be regarded in any way as “foolish” was to stay past sunset, when the rioting really kicked off. But even then, I still completely understand his motivations and respect his decision. Why?

      We need more civic-minded young people who want to help their communities, even and ESPECIALLY when the authorities won’t do anything to help. If it was running supplies into a natural disaster zone, he’d be a national hero. Instead it was preventing gas stations from blowing up and offering first aid, while legally armed because he’s not stupid enough to go unarmed into a riot zone. Apparently that’s “idiocy” nowadays.

      I’m not going to cheer bravery and selflessness, and then backstab a young man for daring to believe in it.

    4. Kyle Rittenhouse was not dumb. The kid evidently has more social responsibility than you do. What he has is the courage of his convictions and the will to act on them. What do you have?

      Armed defenders in a riot situation generally do not need to shoot, nor expect to have to. That’s been seen in most instances even going back to the Watts riots where Asians stood on the roofs of their stores and shops with shotguns. The mere presence of armed defenders is usually enough to convince rioters to find a less hazardous place to run riot.

    5. You are a low-grade mentally and morally feeblminded moron, my dear sir, and not fit to tie the latchet on young Mr. Rittenhouse’s shoe. When interviewed by Tucker Carlson, he spoke clearly, crisply, wisely and to the point, in an a disciplined and dignified fashion that puts professional pundits and politicians to shame — remarkable for one of such tender years.

      Let us compare that to the oral fecal matter drooling from your lips, you baboon. You blithely say you would have inflicted a misdemeanor charge on the youth, regardless of guilt or innocence, had you been the judge, merely to make a rhetorical point to discourage those who render aid during public riot or emergency to the wounded, or who seek to stop arsonists from igniting a gas station with a dumpster fire.

      You do not approve of boy scouts rendering aid to those who need aid.

      Go bugger yourself.

    6. The proposition that a 17yo cannot learn as he matures, is kind of dumb in itself. Maybe it says something about your own transition to adulthood?

      While his judgement may not have been perfect, his desire to help his community and his self-control under pressure appear to have been above average. Given appropriate training and experience, he would probably do very well.

  51. In the event your swag store is taking requests, I would love this quote on a T-shirt:

    “If the black or brown teenagers from out of state (i.e. the suburbs) rolled up and kept communist, child raping, grandma punchers from blowing up my local gas station, I’d fucking bake them cookies, you racist pool noodle.”

  52. It’s hard to remember which pravda was in effect when, but at some point last summer, because “Antifa isn’t real” and “BLM is peaceful”, we were informed by the Blue Checkmarks that all the violence was perpetrated by White supremacists working under false flags to discredit the movement.

    Does anyone remember whether this was still pravda on the night in question?

  53. “-You lying piece of shit, that was regurgitated blue check mark twitter pontificating with some C- level essay answers about self-defense law tacked on.”
    I think you are being unfair to C- levle essay answers everywhere.

  54. I was glued to the Rekieta Law livestream through the entire trial. That was an amazing group he put together (“an Invoice of Lawyers” is what they named it, like a Murder of Crows or something), and I refuse to watch any other trial without something similar.

  55. Even Ana Effing Kasparian, of the execrable s***weasels “The Young Turks” has agreed, publicly, and admitted she was wrong. (And good on her for that – probably the most honest public statement she ever made, but credit where credit is due.)

    Only a brain-dead partisan, or a Democrat politician, or an MSM spokeshole (ah, but I doubly repeat myself!) could argue otherwise. Only five options to those arguing the verdict was wrong, unjust, etc.: (1) they didn’t watch the actual trial, and are spouting BS talking points from other libtards; (2) they completely misunderstand the law of self-defense; (3) they are INTENTIONALLY making a bad faith argument for political purposes; (4) they are too stupid to breathe; or (5) two or more of the above.

    Props to the few liberals/”Progressives” who stand up for sanity.

  56. Thank you Larry for making a point that I would like to be made more clearly to these leftists currently in tribal posturing-mode.

    Watching what Binger and Krauss were doing in that courtroom was nightmarish, and not just because their sights were on “our guy”. If they did this to that kid, they’ve been doing this to all sorts of people, whose guilt or innocence didn’t matter to those DSM-diagnosible no-bullshit psycopaths.

    If you were actually interested in engaging us, this would be your golden opportunity to call attention to a serious problem that reasonable people with souls could agree with you on: Prosecutors that act like that make a mockery of justice. The twisted form of legal so-called-ethics in this country that says that a prosecutor’s job is just “to win”, and anything is fair game in pursuit of that goal needs to be uprooted and changed with any means at our disposal. Hyuk, hyuk, “that’s just what type-A go-getters do, and we really need those types in this sort of job.” No! Absolutely not. This isn’t a game.

    None of us like seeing innocent people railroaded. It’s one of the reasons I’m ambivalent about “back-the-Blue”, despite being entirely against the violent assault on our cities last summer that those police are supposed to stand against. (But, in many cases, didn’t really.)

    Instead you decided to bay for the blood of the innocent as some sort of coup-counting tit-for-tat against other unnamed people you hold to be unjustly convicted. To those of you whose brains aren’t overwritten each morning by the hive-mind download, think about this.

    1. Binger and the other two ass-clowns are Soros sock-puppets. They’ve got their orders: Railroad the innocent, and ignore the guilty if they wave the correct flags.
      ———————————
      ‘Progressives’ will do the wrong thing just because the people they hate do the right thing.

    2. Yeah, I was hard line pro cop, and pro prosecutor, because I basically really strongly dislike the criminals.

      Now? Should absolutely not trust them as much as I wanted to.

      Basic problem here, if you have, say, a single professional organization for all accountants, that additionally credentials all accounting schools, and said organization and a lot of accountants out right say “Do not trust us, we are systemically corrupt, and thieving scum bags”, the fact that they say so is going to result in them training accountants that only aspire to being thieving scum bags.

      ABA, AMA, some others, and hopefully /not/ the accountants, have contaminated their own drinking water with feces, rotting corpses, toxic heavy metals, radioactive heavy metals, etc.

      ABA and LAw Faculty are basically now blidn to the fact that the American formal legal system has long had issues getting subcultures to buy into it, and needed to get them to buy into it. See, forex, Italian Americans and the Mafia. Okay, right now, most living Italian Americans buy into it as much as most Americans do, but when that was a serious issue shouldn’t even be past living memory.

      When the formal criminal justice system is discredited in lay eyes, vigilantism is likely to result.

      That is the key thing that the silly buggers are over looking with their ‘expert’ games.

      Vigilantism /sucks/.

  57. Don’t you love how social media will allow brain dead posts (like the one that Corriea just fisked) to go viral, but posts like Corriea’s are actively deleted and shadowbanned? I eventually quit trying to post comments on the RH trial because they were all deleted.. apparently citing the exact WI statutes and politely explaining how the law applied was hate speech.

  58. Dude Ficked himself…”Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can’t even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren’t even legally allowed to be driving.”
    ALL of the people he claims were “victims” had prior convictions, pending cases, and were under some form of parole/probation/judicial control…IE: Criminals, who were participating in “Criminal activities” at the time,hence “Automatically at fault”, curfew applied to them too..”They shouldn’t have been there”…ALL of them traveled further to get there than KR did. Huber and Grosscrotch were Riot Regulars, in several cities, several states..Grosscrotch had been to various riots for 75 days straight. Had been arrested twice at the local PD building trying to photograph cops and their private vehicles to dox them. Many of the other “Protesters” had traveled from Chicago. Much of the gun crime in Chicago they blame on “Guns illegally crossing state lines”. Yet they do NOT prosecute those people for it, seldom prosecute the people that use those guns to shoot other people, just recently declined to prosecute an all out BATTLE with 100’s of shots fired half a dozen wounded, because all of the gang affiliated shooters were engaging in “Mutual Combat”, right in FRONT of cops.
    “Liberal Hypocrisy, The only constant in an ever changing world”

  59. PS: I was permabanned from ALL social media right after this event occurred, because I made a Meme. two screencaps from the initial video…Huber bashing KR with skateboard labeled “Cause”, Huber clutching chest labeled “Effect”, it went viral…I was immediately blocked/banned/ removed. Appeal rejected, Violations of Community standards, “Promoting/Glorifying violence”
    I wonder if I and, others banned for posting it will be returned now that it has been adjudicated “True”

    1. Surely you jest. Even now these idiots won’t admit they were wrong all the way. Do you really think they have some sort of ethics or morality – other than that which Larry rightly attributes to them?

  60. I previously posted on Larry’s “About Me” thread, but after watching more of the actual trial was able to answer some (but not all) of my own questions that I posed there. First, I completely agree that KR was properly found not guilty. In this thread, I’ve found comments about KR’s “trigger discipline” and have to agree. The one picture I saw showed his right index finger extended along the trigger guard and NOT on the trigger. For me that was telling. But there was also what I would call the “gun, gun, teddy bear” issue: amongst all the chaos and adrenaline, he maintained enough situational awareness to (very quickly) make that “gun, gun, teddy bear” decision – if it’s a threat, eliminate it. If it’s not an immediate threat, DO NOT fire. In watching the videos several times, I was very impressed how this 17-year old youth was able to REPEATEDLY make the right decision in a matter of (literally) seconds. My heart goes out to him for his PTSD… My head congratulates him for his decisionmaking.

      1. Reminds me of the last hunter safety course I attended. We had a course where various game animal silhouettes were set up and the instructor/evaluator walked through with you. You had to identify shoot/no shoot; and why (house in background, highway on the other side of a rise, guy dressed in brown with his dog right next to him, bird flying between you and other member of your party, etc.) You didn’t get marked down for not shooting. But you got major penalized for taking a bad shot. There were several unhappy people who went home without license that weekend.

  61. “I really recommend Rekieta Law, who had phenomenal and entertaining coverage with lawyers watching the live stream. I was glued to it for much of the trial”

    It may interest you to know that Rekieta has expressed interest in having you on as a guest on his late night show in the past.

    1. I normally wouldn’t have spent a lot of time on this case, but I spent literally _hours_ on several nights watching Rekieta & his cohorts dissecting that case – and all the various digressions into other topics were fascinating, as well.

  62. Coincidentally, here’s a story in my local news today which refutes the “you can automatically shoot someone if they’re on your property without permission” nonsense.

    It boils down to: three workers coming to test creek water, some miscommunication between the workers and the two residents of the property, and the resident who didn’t know about the arrangement IMMEDIATELY SHOOTING at the workers before any other interaction was made, and then continuing to threaten them even after they promised to leave.

    Charged with assault. And this is in a Castle Doctrine state.

    https://www.krtv.com/news/crime-and-courts/cut-bank-man-sentenced-for-threatening-blackfeet-tribal-employees-with-rifle

  63. I’m a long time resident of The Great State of Mississippi, and a retired US Marine with combat experience. Your “military legal worker”, wouldn’t last 10 minutes down here before one of my farmer neighbors fired up his back hoe and disposed of him.

  64. As a recently graduated law student and person preparing for the bar, I can tell you that if this was an essay on the bar exam or any course exams, this “paralegal” would definitely NOT pass with his analysis of the situation. He’s an idiot.

  65. Dear Mr. Not-A-Lawyer,

    One problem with being a paralegal fetching coffee for real attorneys, and occasionally aiding us with law library searches or cross-checking cites or copy-editing our documents for typos, is that if you hold yourself forth in public as a legal expert, a real attorney may read your words, and really unmask you in public as a facetious fool.

    Such is the case here and now. I direct my remarks to the anonymous sophist posing as a legal expert.

    Sir, whoever you are, I see your paralegal experience and raise you with my three law licenses.

    Before retirement, I was admitted to practice law in three jurisdictions, after graduating from William and Mary’s Marshall Wythe School of Law, one of the finest in the nation. (For the record, I passed the notoriously difficult New York bar exam on my first go, which members of the Kennedy family, taking the bar at about the same time I did, cannot boast.)

    Be that as it may, anyone armed with the internet and a search engine can find online commentaries, cases, digests, law review articles, common law and local statute and federal code for all these points. Any citizen can find the law of his jurisdiction.

    As for the facts of the case, anyone can review the trial in its entirety. It is all recorded, and available online for anyone to view.

    Dear emptyheaded, blackhearted purveyor of deception: You have misstated the law, and misrepresented the facts.

    You are making errors that would flunk out a 1L law student from his first semester crimlaw class.

    The most notorious error is one Mr. Correia pointed out: you are conflating the castle doctrine with the duty to retreat, and misstating the conditions when and if the doctrine of self defense applies, not to mention blithering about matters irrelevant to the case of Rittenhouse.

    Here is Blackstone’s commentary on the Common Law, which is in force in America in any jurisdiction where subsequent case law or statute has not overturned it:

    “[T]he law requires that the person, who kills another in his own defence, should have retreated as far he conveniently or safely can, to avoid the violence of the assault, before he turns upon his assailant; and that, not fictiously, or in order to watch his opportunity, but from a real tenderness of shedding his brother’s blood. And though it may be cowardice, in time of war between two independent nations, to flee from an enemy; yet between two fellow subjects the law countenances no such point of honor: Because the king and his courts are the vindices injuriarum [avengers of injuries], and will give to the party wronged all the satisfaction he deserves.”

    Note the duty to retreat here is limited to a case where it can be done safely and conveniently. Such is never the case when the attacker is in hot pursuit. Never.

    For the record, Wisconsin statute does NOT impose a duty to retreat. Subsequent law has overturned the common law duty. Here is the exact wording.

    ” A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. ….

    “The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

    “If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim…” (Wis. Stat. § 939.48)

    Got that? Wisconsin courts are forbidden to consider whether the defendant had opportunity to flee or retreat.

    Note to any lazy scam artists in earshot: I found this after one and one-eighth second of internet searching, without even any need to log onto Westlaw or Nexis.

    Again, as Mr. Correia correctly points out, your recital of the castle doctrine is irrelevant to the case here, which is outside anyone’s home, and only applies to limit the duty to retreat further in those jurisdictions imposing a duty to retreat, of which Wisconsin is not one such.

    While there is a legal principle that denies raising self defense as a right in a case where the defendant himself created the conflict or instigated the fight, technically speaking, the defendant does not lose the right of self-defense merely by committing a crime, if such a crime does not endanger another: and, even so, the holding of the current case produced no evidence that Rittenhouse committed a crime or initiated the conflict. So this is merely noisy eructation on your part.

    The legal standard for self defense is a reasonable belief (see above), namely, would a reasonable man in the same situation, given his knowledge of the time, had reason to fear threat to life, limb, or property?

    There is no requirement that the threat be actual; there is certainly no requirement that the assailant be better armed than the defendant, or armed at all.

    Men have been killing each other with bare hands since before the dawn of history, and, in this case, kicks and stomps, chains, and skateboards were involved, as well as a loaded firearm pointed at Rittenhouse.

    And, despite what George Lucas may have later edited out or airbrushed in, once anyone draws a weapon and points it at you, speaking such words as to imply an immediate threat of bodily harm, you do not need to wait for him to shoot first.

    Han shot first, and was well within his legal right to do so.

    So take your credentials as a paralegal or legal clerk, put them in your mouth, and shove them up your fundament into your lower intestinal tract, where you may lodge your head in truth as you have lodged it metaphorically with your windy and meaningless attempt to awe us with your wisdom.

    You are a gassy and bloated bladder, sir. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge in the matter can prick you and watch you sputter, fly in circles, and fall in limp deflation.

    Shut your mouth, go away, and elsewhere, out of earshot, may you have a pleasant day. Your fatuous and flabby ignorance is abundant, and so can keep you company on cold nights.

    1. Agreed, in spades. I’ve done criminal defense law for 18 years, and in looking at the video evidence, my first thought was that the prosecution’s legal judgment was clouded by their obvious political prejudices. I blew a prosecutor out of the water on a case like this, my second jury trial out of law school – using, as in this case, the prosecution’s video evidence… They lost, big time, and a month later, lost the election to a challenger, and they were all out on the streets looking for jobs. The paralegal ought to stick to the Coffee Patrol, no prosecutor with sound legal judgment would have brought this case at all, much less to an actual jury trial, in light of the evidence.

  66. This anonymous “military legal expert” post getting circulated around on social media reminds me of a COVID scaremongering post that got circulated back in late summer 2020 that was shared with the label “from Dr Fauci” at the top to try to give it credentials.
    In that case it was eventually traced back to… a musician.

  67. For people who claim to hate methane the Left does seem to inhale quite a lot of it.

    Perhaps it’s the source they object to.

  68. I haven’ seen these statements made elsewhere:

    “He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle …
    He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight…”

    Is there evidence for either of these?

  69. I read this military federal paralegal’s post on FB. People were buying his bullshit and happy an “expect” explained things to them. WOW – gullible, ignorant and lazy. Within seconds I found a record on the guy Rittenhouse wounded. As you pointed out, military law and civilian law are way different. This guy is a paralegal and I assume did not pass the bar. So he can not practice law or give legal advice. Especially in Wisconsin. Apparently he missed the part where in Wisconsin it is the prosecutions responsibility to disprove self defense, not the defenses to prove it. One of the “dictums” did have a gun. Based on his record, probably illegally. One of the others struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard. It does not have to be a firearm to be a lethal weapon. In fact a court specifically declared a skateboard was a lethal weapon. Although not in law enforcement or legal, I work around both everyday. I never hear either make statements about a case, personal or otherwise. IN my opinion either this guy is a complete fake or a complete idiot. An officer lost his job for making an anonymous donation to Rittenhouse’s defense fund. This guy should not only lose his job if he is in legal, but be charged as well.

  70. I thought the post was a good rebuttal until it descended into an anti left diatribe. Just like you bought up factors that were irrelevant in the case, you ironically start bringing up irrelevant crap. The general surface optics of the case may have gotten the usual problematic 24/7 media self sorting for max ratings with the ideological pugilism and all, but this is one of the few objective times the rightist media actually got it right, their actual agenda notwithstanding, and the so called ‘mainstream’, but actually the commercial focused media, have very little to do with actual leftist thought. The senseless diatribe means some of those who came here and sought more enlightenment will go back to at least feeling neutral about the case instead of having a solid opinion. In other words you needlesslt consigned your entire article to the right-wing echochamber.

  71. Nobody who was in the military calls themselves “former” if you obtained an honorable discharge you are retired. You are only “former” if you were kicked out. He’s either lying and doesn’t know this or he was kicked out for some reason (most likely the first one)

    1. That’s not correct at all. You can be separated and be a former or discharged Sailor, soldier, or whatever. “Retired” is only used for those who have in fact retired from the military, not served a tour or two and then got out.

  72. When someone threatens to kill me, or even to kick my ass,
    or however it’s phrased, I tend to take them at their word. Without even trying too hard, I bet that I could find a dozen examples of one punch deaths. I’m not as spry as I used to be, bad knees make running not an option, and sundry other issues limit my physical capacity for unarmed self-defense. So, for me, if I’m put into a situation where I feel that I’m going to be physically assaulted, you bet your ass I’ll use lethal force on an “unarmed assailant”. The pertinent question is, “How many times should I let someone punch me in the face, before I use a weapon to defend myself?” In my case, the answer to that is none.

  73. That “military” paralegal, aka not someone that passed the bar,is a colossal dolt. They should know about the Law of Armed Conflict and that it states that one has an inherent right to self defense in face of a hostile act or hostile threat

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *