Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty?

[weegiemum]

How? He shot 2 people dead in front of witnesses, but apparently it was "self defence"?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/nov/19/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-kenosha-shooting?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Oh apologies you’re right. I did post previously, I had totally forgotten, that’s how invested I am 😁. I should apologise for that too, sorry OP. I just do think there’s a lot of these kinds of threads around and they often feel purposely and “off” and baity. Apologies again. Still don’t know what your other abbreviations mean though.

Wrong thread! Sorry 😊

Thanks for the link @LondonWolf for all those victims, I hadn't heard of many of those namse and similarly feel sadness.

I would like to also highlight this current case in Kenosha,
Call for justice for Crystul Kizer of Kenosha.

Kizer was 17, shot & killed her pedophile child sex trafficker to escape.

She was wrongfully denied access to a self-defense law & her case is on appeal.

It's more productive than attacking Kyle Rittenhouse.

Background:

Kenosha prosecutors knew that the man who trafficked Chrystul, Randy Volar, was raping & sex trafficking a dozen Black girls as young as 12.

Feb 2018: charged Volar with child sex abuse

Released Volar without bail

June 2018: Kizer kills her abuser & confesses

Link to the thread on twitter.
twitter.com/AnOpenSecret/status/1461860828299337733?s=20

I'm hoping that the prosecutor's misconduct in the KR case broadcast around the world will lead to an investigation of the DAs office.

By coincidence, this story on deliberate media dishonesty came out just a few hours ago (Daily Wail link):

Two Fox News contributors QUIT over Tucker Carlson's documentary that described January 6 insurrection as a 'false flag' orchestrated by President Biden
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10228967/Two-Fox-News-contributors-quit-documentary-described-January-6-insurrection-false-flag.html

• Duo said misinformation pushed by Patriot Purge documentary was 'dangerous'
[...]
'Over the past five years, some of Fox’s top opinion hosts amplified the false claims and bizarre narratives of Donald Trump or offered up their own in his service. In this sense, the release of Patriot Purge wasn’t an isolated incident, it was merely the most egregious example of a longstanding trend,' the pair wrote in a statement on their website.

The journalists' full piece is on their own site here, and many PP may find it interesting:

thedispatch.com/p/why-we-are-leaving-fox-news

We believed, sincerely, that the country needed Fox News. Whether you call it liberal media bias or simply a form of groupthink around certain narratives, having a news network that brought different assumptions and asked different questions—while still providing real reporting and insightful conservative analysis and opinion—was good for the country and journalism.

Fox News still does real reporting, and there are still responsible conservatives providing valuable opinion and analysis. But the voices of the responsible are being drowned out by the irresponsible.
[...]
Over the past five years, some of Fox’s top opinion hosts amplified the false claims and bizarre narratives of Donald Trump or offered up their own in his service. In this sense, the release of Patriot Purge wasn’t an isolated incident, it was merely the most egregious example of a longstanding trend

I am slightly rolling my eyes at posters who are shocked to discover that media outlets sometimes tell outright lies, though. Maybe they're very young, or haven't been paying attention.

At the time of the Leveson Inquiry in the UK, IIRC some tabloid journalists testified they would simply ask their paper's legal adviser how large the likely libel payout would be – should their target be brave and rich enough to attempt to sue – and then go ahead and publish anyway. The Daily Wail itself only dispensed with K Hopkins after the bills for her libels got too large.

The old Press Complaints Commission had very restrictive rules for who could even lodge a complaint against a newspaper for knowingly printing untrue material. Don't remember exactly, but along the lines that only the person who had been lied about could make a complaint, not just a member of the public who knew the story was untrue. The set-up wasn't exactly designed to impede media dishonesty.

The decision will have been based not the evidence and facts presented not on public opinion and that is how courts should make decision.

Also on specific legislation in the state re: guns and self defence. The jury and judge can’t create the law.

Also, even if people strongly believe that the decision would have been different if Rittenhouse were black, it clearly isn’t in the power of the judge or jury to create some kind of tit for tat miscarriage of justice.

Or I suppose they could, but it wouldn’t survive the inevitable appeal.

PerkingFaintly Thanks for the articles. I hope that they find success with their new venture. It's great that spaces like Substack and Medium are allowing journalists to find new ways of reporting cutting out the middleman.

It's not that people do not know that the media deliberately lies, it's realising the extent of the lying that erodes trust. That's both on the right with Fox, Newsmax, OANN, Daily Mail, the Telegraph etc and the left with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, Channel 4, NYT, the Guardian etc. Tribalism has ruined the legacy media, reporters are deliberately leaving out pertinent facts in order to fit their narratives and score a win for their team. It's why poll after poll shows trust in the media is very low. All it leads to the public saying is "If you could lie about this? What else are you lying about?"

I don't know that it's always lying as much as it's lazy journalism so not checking facts for themselves but reading whatever other sites have written and just copying. After the trial and verdict, The Independent newspaper (obviously not right wing) were reporting that the three shot victims were black. You have to think that they never followed the trial for themselves and that there is no editorial process taking place. It's just cheap copy and paste and get it out as soon as possible.

Perhaps you know otherwise, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that content-providers for Medium or Substack are less able to lie or tell unwitting untruths than in older media.

IMHO increasing the plurality of media is in general a good thing (one really can have too much of Rupert Murdoch, for example), and I'm sure I've seen some excellent writing on such sites, but I don't think they're a "fix" for existing problems with biased or false information.

If anything, they're more of the same but with the throttle open.

How? Because you’re not party to evidence the court and Jury saw and heard snd probably just basing your rage on misinformation in Twitter.

This guy on Twitter however said exactly what I was thinking.

Love Zuby. He’s a bit irritating around woman’s maternity needs and rights though and I have tweeted accordingly - and been ignored .

The difference is though, I don’t write him off as an “evil” misogynistic, irredeemably bigoted POS who clearly has a agenda of some kind. I just accept that while I like some of his views I don’t agree with all of them and that’s ok. Same as nearly all the pundits I follow and even the MNetters I disagree with.

This constant framing of views which don’t adhere to the received wisdom of this time as “evil” “alt right” “having a hidden agenda” etc etc is as dangerous as it is tedious.

He has a good podcast with some great guests if anyone is interested.

I've never heard of Zuby, and I probably won't follow him, buy he has, very articulately, put his finger on the problem. These public figures calling out the result because they want to be seen as being on the right side leaves them no moral compass to know what the right side is.

100% a Zuby lover here, he's just old school common sense. Like you I don't agree with everything he says, but remember a time long ago when you could have a discussion with someone you didn't agree with, have a friendly back and forth then agree to disagree? He reminds me of that time 😆.

RE: Medium and Substack they currently appear to be privately owned. I agree that diversity in content spaces is good, having news outlets concentrated in a few hands gives a few people too much power. Plus Substack is an oasis for all those previously loved reporters who have been excommunicated for daring to say something different (Bari Weiss, Glenn Greenwald etc.).
Yes, they have more "freedom" and are less throttled but that's a reaction to the limitations on what they were able to report through the legacy media.

madisonbridges I used to think that the "lying" was accidental and caused by inadequate due diligence. I am slowly starting to think that it's deliberate as there are so many easily verifiable points that can be checked prior to publication. Maybe it's because of the 24 hour news cycle that standards have fallen.

Viva Frei speaks on the KR decision and the media lies.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=K-oD2P7kWN0

After the trial and verdict, The Independent newspaper (obviously not right wing) were reporting that the three shot victims were black. You have to think that they never followed the trial for themselves and that there is no editorial process taking place. It's just cheap copy and paste and get it out as soon as possible.

I think the Independent stopped having much of an editorial process when they went digital only.

However I would be wary of assuming that non legacy media is much better. Some journalists with substacks maintain high journalistic standards but there is no intrinsic reason why they would print a correction out of a sense of duty.

The Guardian and the BBC (particularly the Guardian US) have their obvious problems, but there is at-least a process in place for complaints and corrections.

Yeah, Twitter provides more content space too.

How's that going on the truth and lies front?

However I would be wary of assuming that non legacy media is much better.

Indeed. Understatement of the year.

It would certainly be... novel to claim that "Media with fewer editorial controls is more likely to be reliable and factually accurate".

The lying is intentional. This YouTube channel (The Young Turks) has been pushing misinformation from the time the incident happened. On the 4th November one of the presenters made a statement of correction about some of the misinformation, namely that KR had been chasing JR. At 3.45 in the video she states she hadn't seen the footage of what happened until very recently. The footage which had been available on line the whole time.

4th November

On the 20th November they lost their minds and continued with the lies despite all the information from the trial being available. On this occasion they took aim at Kyle's mum for driving him ACROSS STATE LINES© armed with a gun to go and join in a violent riot, which of course is not true and they know it is not true.

20th November

They call themselves journalists! Their analysis of what this means for the future is unhinged erm... interesting.

I mean BelleHathor, have you actually gone on Medium and done a search for "Rittenhouse"?

Lots of people enjoying that freedom to provide content...

There was interesting thread on the Ask Me Anything board a while back. An ex tabloid journalist was talking. She was saying that when a newspaper went to print they were cautious about what they printed and it was checked. But anything that was online was a bit of a free-for-all as the staff (often not even journalists) were instructed to just fill inches, to increase advertising potential.

I'd never really noticed up til covid the emotive words the press use to try and depress the reader's mood so they'll feel compelled to read more. After a while you could really predict what the headlines would be.

@PerkingFaintly

I mean BelleHathor, have you actually gone on Medium and done a search for "Rittenhouse"?

Lots of people enjoying that freedom to provide content...

As well they should be. Most of the writers don't like Rittenhouse and make it ear, they are playing to their audiences. I have no desire to censor them. If their subscribers feel they have been lied to they will unsub.

Equally I could go to Redstate, The American Thinker or the National Review right now and there would be pro KR articles.

It's really about curating a diverse collection of sources and recognising biases in sources.
In that sense Substack is better than Medium as former professional writers have left reputable publishers to join.

This is quite a good piece on the events, apologies if some has already posted it and I missed it.
Link