No 17 year old should be walking the streets with a rifle—except when local government abdicates its responsibility for public safety even after two long nights of violent destruction and after the auto dealership that asks him to come stand guard has already had dozens of cars damaged. Asking why he was there suggests a misunderstanding of human nature as well as a lack of appreciation for the unavoidable negative cultural impact of unrestrained rioting condoned by the powers that be.
So what would the narrative be if Davide Giri defended himself by having the means to shoot Vincent Pinkney? Now the good guy would be alive, the bad guy dead, another victim not hurt but Davide would be in a world of trouble for carrying and using a firearm illegally. What’s wrong with this? At what point do criminals lose the benefit of the doubt? If someone robs a law abiding individual at gun or knifepoint (already breaking the social compact) the victim now is in the position of having to trust that the criminal will do the “right” thing and take valuables and do no further harm. That seems to be a heck of a position of a risky bet one would need to make for the benefit of the criminal who has already crossed the acceptable line. Why is this not part of the debate?
Thank you for your clarity and honesty. So refreshing. Gives me hope. Because I watch and read multiple news sources, I already knew all this, but NONE of my friends seem to know the facts, nor do they want to hear me interrupt the noisy narrative being chanted like a war cry.
None of those young men should have been out on the streets at night with guns and/or looking for trouble. Allowing protests to devolve into looting, burning, and mayhem is something no community should tolerate. Curfews should be enforced strongly to quell chaos. I don't admire Rittenhouse or his victims either. Grateful for those who took videos of the events and for those with the courage to report the truth and grateful the jury was able to sort it out.
Keep fighting the good fight, Bari. What is particularly appalling is for the President of the United States and the person they say is the Vice President of the United States to show so little respect for our institutions by slandering this man.
The mainstream media (left and right) might have blown the coverage, ignoring the details (such as they were), but to me it's all overshadowed by one thing: the AR-15. The weapon all by itself creates the very provocation its owner is saying he protected himself from. Is it a defensive weapon? No. It is an assault rifle capable of rapid fire without jamming. If Mr. Rittenhouse was truly interested in self defence, he would have know that a .22 caliber handgun would have sufficed. So why bring a weapon ready to fire dozens of rounds at once when a single round is enough to stop someone? We will never know for sure what the young man was really thinking in choosing to bring a combat rifle to a riot, but it does appear to be throwing gasoline on a fire already burning.
In Bari's recent podcast discussing the trail, near the end, Bari insightfully asks, "How can we live in a world in which people don't believe the results of elections, what they read in the paper, and that people are getting a fair trial? A world where people don't believe there's a pandemic and don't believe the CDC is telling the truth. How can we live in such a world?"
To that I wonder how it will end when you amplify the profound distrust of institutions with the algos in social media tuned to maximize social engagement and profits? Are we on the edge of a civil war with people fighting in the streets with pipes and axes and even guns, not unlike what we routinely saw in Portland only recently?
There is more to the story, and it goes back to Ferguson. The story told about Michael Brown was told by the press, and not supported by facts. There wasn't a "Hands up, don't shoot" moment. That was a story told by one of his friends, but the evidence and other witnesses denied that idea. The press never corrected it, and the riots began.
When you let a fire burn, it does not always burn itself out. The embers spread to other big cities, and bogus claims of police abuse were never properly handled, again, thanks to the press.
A major company can often absorb the loss of a store, but that is not what you have in Kenosha. When you come to disturb, riot, and burn, the "little people" will need help. If it does not come, they have no choice as they are backed into a corner. When Peaceful Assembly loses its peace, the Second Amendment gives the individual the ability to restore it.
Now that the verdict is in, we have an evidence-based yardstick with which to measure the mainstream media’s long, disgraceful chain of lies in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. Ugh...
"Unless you’re a regular reader of independent reporting — you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha."
Not true. One could simply read right-wing media, which tells the truth about all of the things left-wing media lies about.
"To acknowledge the facts of what happened that night is not political. It is simply to acknowledge reality."
It is most definitely political to acknowledge facts. The concept of acknowledging facts is right-wing. "Truth is subjective" is left-wing. I've had more than enough left-wing people tell me so to know that, even without all left-wing media proving it.
Here in Philly there was the "Etsy" bomber ( Antifa?) who was caught on camera burning a police car. She was masked but caught because of a fancy t-shirt she got on Etsy. Rich private school chubby white girl and suburban (future Karen?)....Not a word from the Local Press on this domestic terrorist since arrest..... but the Shaman posing quickly gets 4 years.
Political trails will backfire on the Woke because no matter what the narrative from the left media is. we all saw live the packs of rioters last summer being valorized and now know what a bigoted group BLM actually is.
Well, hopefully the whole country won't fall apart now just because we all found out that this kid wasn't the embodiment of all evil and most certainly wasn't a murderer.
I don't often comment on editorials I read, but felt compelled to write here given my respect for Bari, her mission and body of work. I strive to always listen to what writers are saying and work hard to avoid knee jerk responses that can get triggered by jolting words. Having said all of this, I feel that this commentary on the Rittenhouse trial (i've watched my share of it live) is quite biased and unfairly criticizes media outlets who simply are analyzing things differently. I also found some of the verbiage to be exaggerated and unnecessarily disparaging of those Bari doesn't agree with; things I thought her new outlet was set on avoiding.
Just a few examples from the piece:
1. "...you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha." -- Why such vitriol? Is it to attract a new audience? I was really hoping you would maintain a calmer and unbiased voice that most of us are seeking in our opinion leaders.
2. Agree no evidence of white supremacy in Rittenhouse, but you conveniently neglect his social media posts. He immediately asked police to delete his FB because it was filled with pics of him gun-toting and predicting fame for himself using guns. Your white supremacy line is a straw man meant to distract from ample evidence of a self-proclaimed gunslinger.
3. Your points about driving to Kenosha and the gun. Are you seriously trying to distract us from the fact that he knew he couldn't buy the gun and actively went to his friend's house to pick it up for the night's activities? If not, what's your point?
In addition, I'm sure you are well aware that the Wisconsin gun law is extremely contradictory (I read it in whole) and the count of illegal possession stood until right before jury deliberations when the judge threw it out because he saw it as poorly written but technically unambiguous. Does this really fall into the category of 'pack of lies' by the media?
4. You correctly point out that there were violent protesters causing damage and acting violently. What you never acknowledge is the potential for self-appointed 'deputies' running around these agitated protesters with AR-15's to cause mayhem. There is great footage of protesters just telling these 'deputies' to stay on the property they're guarding. Did you consider that no other killings took place notwithstanding all the 'angry mobs' of protesters? Is it unreasonable to think that these all white men with AR-15's and no affiliation with law enforcement in Kenosha were viewed negatively by the crowd?
I think the prosecutors did not do a great job and i'm guessing Rittenhouse will walk. He blasted 3 people with full metal jacket bullets from an AR-15 at close range. Whether he provoked the violence is something for the jury to decide and there may not be enough evidence to prove the case. But do you for a minute believe this 17 year old with clear heroic aspirations (see his social media) weilding a known mass-killing weapon on the streets in a volatile situation at night did nothing wrong and deserves no punishment?
Bari, I write this with the hope that you can appreciate that I come to you from a perspective of utmost respect. I love all of your work unmasking the unfairness of cancel culture in our universities. But I could not let this below-standard piece go without comment. I was quite surprised to see how one-sided your piece was and seemed more to advance an agenda of disparaging mainstream media than to stay true to your mission.
Not sure why you think I’m a partisan or why this needs to be a case of right vs left. There was rioting in Kenosha and the whole defense revolves around Rittenhouse saying he was there to protect property. So why not stay on the property with your assault rifle instead of running into the chaos with this deadly weapon? Do you believe Rittenhouse did everything right and that he’s a hero as many on the right are depicting him?
whole defense revolves around Rittenhouse saying he was there to protect property. no the defense was based on he was being assaulted and he defended himself..the 'he shouldn't have been there ergo he's guilty of murder' trope is a left trope.
Nothing to add. Everyone wants to look at this as right versus left instead of right versus wrong and the justice system. Our country is in a very dark place. There are so many issues here to unpack that I can’t blame the jury for acquitting this one kid for being an idiot but having enough lack of evidence on the other side to save him. I hope he learns from this horrible experience and doesn’t just fall in with the ultra right wing crowd if you think his actions define heroism instead of stupidity
It is Right v. Left. The Left politicized this case by retailing a long, deliberate string of lies, as detailed by Ms. Weiss. And in fact the lying continues, e.g. on MSNBC.
Well, of course this child accidental killer with his ar-15 runs right to tucker carlson to gloat about his action. He couldn’t stop smiling the entire interview. Says it all. Sad sad sad
Maybe it’s buried somewhere below, but the plot has thickened. The jury, now three days in, is reviewing video of KR pointing his rifle at an unarmed couple accompanying Rosenbaum. Then Rosenbaum goes after him. This means KR forfeits his self defense claim. Everyone wants the world to be something other than what it actually is in this case. It’s a mess, and the jury is taking its time sorting it out. Good for them.
Bari, the law regarding self-defense exists for valid reasons, and to suggest that anyone who can legally open-carry a rifle or shotgun for self-defense (so-called 'long-barrel' weapon) is not eligible to use, or should not use said weapon for self-defense is a reverse tautology. It makes no sense.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the same age my Dad was when he enlisted in 1944 and was sent overseas to fight and possibly die. 17 is not a 'child' by any means. Young, yes. But with training, discipline, keen observational skill and decision-capacity under stress, I'd say Kyle Rittenhouse did a damned-near perfect job of self-defense that August evening. His trigger discipline was outstanding. The only people he shot at were in the process of causing him great bodily harm and/or reaching for his gun to do what, exactly?
The people Kyle shot at are scum, but that's beside the point. Intellectuals look down their noses at working-class heroes like police, Army recruits, plumbers, electricians, guys who hang gutters on houses, and those who drive 'them old trucks' (to paraphrase Willie Nelson). Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys... well, for my druthers, I'd rather have many more 'cowboys' that fewer snide, ignorant MSNBC talking heads. And, we're all safer when more trained citizens are 'carrying'.
Indeed. I would go a step farther and say that the right of self-defense incorporates the right to means of self-defense superior or at least equal to any likely attack. It might not be fair to shoot an assailant armed with a knife. It’s a lot safer than trying to stab the guy, though…
No 17 year old should be walking the streets with a rifle—except when local government abdicates its responsibility for public safety even after two long nights of violent destruction and after the auto dealership that asks him to come stand guard has already had dozens of cars damaged. Asking why he was there suggests a misunderstanding of human nature as well as a lack of appreciation for the unavoidable negative cultural impact of unrestrained rioting condoned by the powers that be.
So what would the narrative be if Davide Giri defended himself by having the means to shoot Vincent Pinkney? Now the good guy would be alive, the bad guy dead, another victim not hurt but Davide would be in a world of trouble for carrying and using a firearm illegally. What’s wrong with this? At what point do criminals lose the benefit of the doubt? If someone robs a law abiding individual at gun or knifepoint (already breaking the social compact) the victim now is in the position of having to trust that the criminal will do the “right” thing and take valuables and do no further harm. That seems to be a heck of a position of a risky bet one would need to make for the benefit of the criminal who has already crossed the acceptable line. Why is this not part of the debate?
Thank you for your clarity and honesty. So refreshing. Gives me hope. Because I watch and read multiple news sources, I already knew all this, but NONE of my friends seem to know the facts, nor do they want to hear me interrupt the noisy narrative being chanted like a war cry.
None of those young men should have been out on the streets at night with guns and/or looking for trouble. Allowing protests to devolve into looting, burning, and mayhem is something no community should tolerate. Curfews should be enforced strongly to quell chaos. I don't admire Rittenhouse or his victims either. Grateful for those who took videos of the events and for those with the courage to report the truth and grateful the jury was able to sort it out.
Keep fighting the good fight, Bari. What is particularly appalling is for the President of the United States and the person they say is the Vice President of the United States to show so little respect for our institutions by slandering this man.
The mainstream media (left and right) might have blown the coverage, ignoring the details (such as they were), but to me it's all overshadowed by one thing: the AR-15. The weapon all by itself creates the very provocation its owner is saying he protected himself from. Is it a defensive weapon? No. It is an assault rifle capable of rapid fire without jamming. If Mr. Rittenhouse was truly interested in self defence, he would have know that a .22 caliber handgun would have sufficed. So why bring a weapon ready to fire dozens of rounds at once when a single round is enough to stop someone? We will never know for sure what the young man was really thinking in choosing to bring a combat rifle to a riot, but it does appear to be throwing gasoline on a fire already burning.
In Bari's recent podcast discussing the trail, near the end, Bari insightfully asks, "How can we live in a world in which people don't believe the results of elections, what they read in the paper, and that people are getting a fair trial? A world where people don't believe there's a pandemic and don't believe the CDC is telling the truth. How can we live in such a world?"
To that I wonder how it will end when you amplify the profound distrust of institutions with the algos in social media tuned to maximize social engagement and profits? Are we on the edge of a civil war with people fighting in the streets with pipes and axes and even guns, not unlike what we routinely saw in Portland only recently?
There is more to the story, and it goes back to Ferguson. The story told about Michael Brown was told by the press, and not supported by facts. There wasn't a "Hands up, don't shoot" moment. That was a story told by one of his friends, but the evidence and other witnesses denied that idea. The press never corrected it, and the riots began.
When you let a fire burn, it does not always burn itself out. The embers spread to other big cities, and bogus claims of police abuse were never properly handled, again, thanks to the press.
A major company can often absorb the loss of a store, but that is not what you have in Kenosha. When you come to disturb, riot, and burn, the "little people" will need help. If it does not come, they have no choice as they are backed into a corner. When Peaceful Assembly loses its peace, the Second Amendment gives the individual the ability to restore it.
I shouldn’t have weighed in at all on Rittenhouse . . .
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/11/20/it-all-began-with-ollie-north/
Now that the verdict is in, we have an evidence-based yardstick with which to measure the mainstream media’s long, disgraceful chain of lies in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. Ugh...
"Unless you’re a regular reader of independent reporting — you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha."
Not true. One could simply read right-wing media, which tells the truth about all of the things left-wing media lies about.
"To acknowledge the facts of what happened that night is not political. It is simply to acknowledge reality."
It is most definitely political to acknowledge facts. The concept of acknowledging facts is right-wing. "Truth is subjective" is left-wing. I've had more than enough left-wing people tell me so to know that, even without all left-wing media proving it.
Here in Philly there was the "Etsy" bomber ( Antifa?) who was caught on camera burning a police car. She was masked but caught because of a fancy t-shirt she got on Etsy. Rich private school chubby white girl and suburban (future Karen?)....Not a word from the Local Press on this domestic terrorist since arrest..... but the Shaman posing quickly gets 4 years.
Political trails will backfire on the Woke because no matter what the narrative from the left media is. we all saw live the packs of rioters last summer being valorized and now know what a bigoted group BLM actually is.
Well, hopefully the whole country won't fall apart now just because we all found out that this kid wasn't the embodiment of all evil and most certainly wasn't a murderer.
I don't often comment on editorials I read, but felt compelled to write here given my respect for Bari, her mission and body of work. I strive to always listen to what writers are saying and work hard to avoid knee jerk responses that can get triggered by jolting words. Having said all of this, I feel that this commentary on the Rittenhouse trial (i've watched my share of it live) is quite biased and unfairly criticizes media outlets who simply are analyzing things differently. I also found some of the verbiage to be exaggerated and unnecessarily disparaging of those Bari doesn't agree with; things I thought her new outlet was set on avoiding.
Just a few examples from the piece:
1. "...you would have been served a pack of lies about what happened during those terrible days in Kenosha." -- Why such vitriol? Is it to attract a new audience? I was really hoping you would maintain a calmer and unbiased voice that most of us are seeking in our opinion leaders.
2. Agree no evidence of white supremacy in Rittenhouse, but you conveniently neglect his social media posts. He immediately asked police to delete his FB because it was filled with pics of him gun-toting and predicting fame for himself using guns. Your white supremacy line is a straw man meant to distract from ample evidence of a self-proclaimed gunslinger.
3. Your points about driving to Kenosha and the gun. Are you seriously trying to distract us from the fact that he knew he couldn't buy the gun and actively went to his friend's house to pick it up for the night's activities? If not, what's your point?
In addition, I'm sure you are well aware that the Wisconsin gun law is extremely contradictory (I read it in whole) and the count of illegal possession stood until right before jury deliberations when the judge threw it out because he saw it as poorly written but technically unambiguous. Does this really fall into the category of 'pack of lies' by the media?
4. You correctly point out that there were violent protesters causing damage and acting violently. What you never acknowledge is the potential for self-appointed 'deputies' running around these agitated protesters with AR-15's to cause mayhem. There is great footage of protesters just telling these 'deputies' to stay on the property they're guarding. Did you consider that no other killings took place notwithstanding all the 'angry mobs' of protesters? Is it unreasonable to think that these all white men with AR-15's and no affiliation with law enforcement in Kenosha were viewed negatively by the crowd?
I think the prosecutors did not do a great job and i'm guessing Rittenhouse will walk. He blasted 3 people with full metal jacket bullets from an AR-15 at close range. Whether he provoked the violence is something for the jury to decide and there may not be enough evidence to prove the case. But do you for a minute believe this 17 year old with clear heroic aspirations (see his social media) weilding a known mass-killing weapon on the streets in a volatile situation at night did nothing wrong and deserves no punishment?
Bari, I write this with the hope that you can appreciate that I come to you from a perspective of utmost respect. I love all of your work unmasking the unfairness of cancel culture in our universities. But I could not let this below-standard piece go without comment. I was quite surprised to see how one-sided your piece was and seemed more to advance an agenda of disparaging mainstream media than to stay true to your mission.
This post is littered with partisan bias, but let's just focus on this line:
"There is great footage of protesters just telling these 'deputies' to stay on the property they're guarding."
You seem to think that these "protestors" deserved to be able to dictate everyone else's behavior. What an absurd perspective you have!
Not sure why you think I’m a partisan or why this needs to be a case of right vs left. There was rioting in Kenosha and the whole defense revolves around Rittenhouse saying he was there to protect property. So why not stay on the property with your assault rifle instead of running into the chaos with this deadly weapon? Do you believe Rittenhouse did everything right and that he’s a hero as many on the right are depicting him?
whole defense revolves around Rittenhouse saying he was there to protect property. no the defense was based on he was being assaulted and he defended himself..the 'he shouldn't have been there ergo he's guilty of murder' trope is a left trope.
Nothing to add. Everyone wants to look at this as right versus left instead of right versus wrong and the justice system. Our country is in a very dark place. There are so many issues here to unpack that I can’t blame the jury for acquitting this one kid for being an idiot but having enough lack of evidence on the other side to save him. I hope he learns from this horrible experience and doesn’t just fall in with the ultra right wing crowd if you think his actions define heroism instead of stupidity
It is Right v. Left. The Left politicized this case by retailing a long, deliberate string of lies, as detailed by Ms. Weiss. And in fact the lying continues, e.g. on MSNBC.
Well, of course this child accidental killer with his ar-15 runs right to tucker carlson to gloat about his action. He couldn’t stop smiling the entire interview. Says it all. Sad sad sad
Sigh. So tiresome. Impossible to convince people to take a long breath and reset to a kinder time. Go in peace…
Maybe it’s buried somewhere below, but the plot has thickened. The jury, now three days in, is reviewing video of KR pointing his rifle at an unarmed couple accompanying Rosenbaum. Then Rosenbaum goes after him. This means KR forfeits his self defense claim. Everyone wants the world to be something other than what it actually is in this case. It’s a mess, and the jury is taking its time sorting it out. Good for them.
More sense and truth here than most anything else I'll read anywhere. Thank you Bari Weiss.
Bari, the law regarding self-defense exists for valid reasons, and to suggest that anyone who can legally open-carry a rifle or shotgun for self-defense (so-called 'long-barrel' weapon) is not eligible to use, or should not use said weapon for self-defense is a reverse tautology. It makes no sense.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the same age my Dad was when he enlisted in 1944 and was sent overseas to fight and possibly die. 17 is not a 'child' by any means. Young, yes. But with training, discipline, keen observational skill and decision-capacity under stress, I'd say Kyle Rittenhouse did a damned-near perfect job of self-defense that August evening. His trigger discipline was outstanding. The only people he shot at were in the process of causing him great bodily harm and/or reaching for his gun to do what, exactly?
The people Kyle shot at are scum, but that's beside the point. Intellectuals look down their noses at working-class heroes like police, Army recruits, plumbers, electricians, guys who hang gutters on houses, and those who drive 'them old trucks' (to paraphrase Willie Nelson). Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys... well, for my druthers, I'd rather have many more 'cowboys' that fewer snide, ignorant MSNBC talking heads. And, we're all safer when more trained citizens are 'carrying'.
Indeed. I would go a step farther and say that the right of self-defense incorporates the right to means of self-defense superior or at least equal to any likely attack. It might not be fair to shoot an assailant armed with a knife. It’s a lot safer than trying to stab the guy, though…