web analytics

Kyle Rittenouse

By Patrick Van Roy On September 23rd, 2020

The following are 2 breakdowns of the events that night. One by Tucker, one put together by his defense team.

I put this up so that all those debating this case have ALL the information, and ALL the film of the incident.

Personally I think the kid is a fool. If you leave your house armed with a Rifle to attend a riot you are either going to wind up shooting someone or getting shot yourself. If you are not a rioter or a cop you don’t belong on the street. Stay IN YOUR HOME and protect your own family. That is your duty.

66 Responses to “Kyle Rittenouse”

  1. I put this up so that all those debating this case have ALL the information, and ALL the film of the incident

    But it’s not all the information, the prosecution case is missing.

    I’t’s two incredibly heavily biased versions of the same thing.

  2. watch the films before you comment…… it might help your credibility.

  3. “watch the films before you comment…… it might help your credibility.”

    It might help your credibility if you didn’t just post propoganda videos.

  4. I’ve already seen the Carlson video and watched the second video before I commented. The prosection case is still missing and it’s still two incredibly heavily biased versions of the same thing.

    As a matter of fact, the second video bears striking similarities to this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEPazLTGceI&t=315s&ab_channel=MeToKe242

    Both are crude propaganda.

  5. If you are not a rioter or a cop you don’t belong on the street.

    Umm – what?

  6. No one other than well trained police should be at a demonstration with firearms.

    Other than homeowners and business owners protecting their premises as needed.

    The kid’s family should have loved him enough to persuade him never to do anything remotely like this.

  7. What a bloody fake Tucker is. His lies and propaganda don’t even deserve a response.
    God help any American who swallows what this eegit says.

  8. Seamus…. kiss my a**.

    The information is just that information. I purposefully put up both clips so you could get a breakdown as well and not just the propaganda.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.

    If you don’t like the format I put my posts in don’t read them, and don’t watch them.

    Tell me Seamus what website do you create content for ? I’d love to see it and review it.

    If this is the ONLY site you write things for I’ll gladly next time you write something put my criticism of you and your style of creating content in the comments…… believe me, I’ve been kind.

  9. And not just the propaganda

    Yeat that is precisely what both videos are.

  10. “The information is just that information. I purposefully put up both clips so you could get a breakdown as well and not just the propaganda.”

    You purposefully put up the defense’s case and the views of a right-wing entertainer (not journalist, not broadcaster – entertainer). That isn’t information. That is propoganda.

    “If you don’t like the format I put my posts in don’t read them, and don’t watch them.”

    I can’t read them because there is nothing to read. There rarely is. You don’t seem to be able to think for yourself and instead just post videos of the people who think for you.

    “If this is the ONLY site you write things for I’ll gladly next time you write something put my criticism of you and your style of creating content in the comments…… believe me, I’ve been kind.”

    You are welcome to criticse anything I write.

  11. fuck you Seamus plain and simple.

    Your criticism is of me not my post.

    Look you’re very smart, but you’re an ass that has no clue.

    The purpose of a post is to convey information and a point of view. This post does both.

    You didn’t watch the information well that’s your problem skippy. The evidence in both clips speak for itself, but your refusal to view it is the embodiment of your ignorance.

    Tucker is not a Journalist….. Who is? There are no investigative REPORTERS the breed died in 1973. You can’t find a “News” piece that is NOT opinion and colored by the writers own views.

    I don’t care about this case, but you all do, so I put up the post. I supply the most info on any subject that I can find.

    Go start your own site and show us how it’s done. Criticize the information, criticize my views, but when it comes to format and the creation of how the information is delivered if you don’t like my style that is your problem.

  12. “You didn’t watch the information well that’s your problem skippy. The evidence in both clips speak for itself, but your refusal to view it is the embodiment of your ignorance.”

    They are propoganda videos. Their role is not to inform, but to encourage ignorance.

    “Tucker is not a Journalist….. Who is? There are no investigative REPORTERS the breed died in 1973. You can’t find a “News” piece that is NOT opinion and colored by the writers own views.”

    There are plenty of investigative reporters. But Carlson has no interest in being accurate. Just interested in being on-message.

    “Criticize the information, criticize the my views, but when it comes to format and the creation of how the information is delivered if you don’t like my style that is your problem.”

    I will criticise your information and criticise your views when you provide some. I’m actually somewhat bored of critiquing Tucker Carlson. How about you put your own views forward instead of letting people think for you?

  13. Your comments are those of a fool.

    If you can’t bring yourself to watch the clips and point out the “Propaganda” your opinion isn’t worth the time it took you to type it.

    Tell me Seamus what in the Tucker clip is propaganda? He points it out, but you in your ignorance don’t know that……

    Your one of those guys that has a room full of books and consider you know them by reading the spines……

    Keep your head shoved in the dirt or wherever you have it shoved, your ignorance still shines through.

    https://thoughtcatalog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/headupass.jpg?resize=800,800&quality=95&strip=all&crop=1

  14. Pat, check mail pls.

    BTW, both videos are heavily partisan on the side of Rittenouse. They are nothing but crude propaganda.

  15. “Keep your head shoved in the dirt or wherever you have it shoved, your ignorance still shines through.”

    You are the one who never contributes an original thought and just posts the viewpoints of right wing, and far-right wing, “journalists”. You don’t get to accuse people of ignorance.

  16. Isn’t Patrick being “fair and balanced” here? He posted all the video available, even that of the defense team, so that if one wanted to view it, one could.

    In his third paragraph, he gives his own opinion, which can be debated.

    I don’t understand the negative responses to the post. If one doesn’t like the format, pass it by for something else perhaps.

  17. “If one doesn’t like the format, pass it by for something else perhaps.”

    We did that a few months ago. Patrick posted five posts in a row of videos. People pointed out their issues with the format. He then posted another post about a video. And no one commented on it. And he lost the rag over it.

  18. Charles,

    Carlson is heavily biased on the topic.

    Rittenouse’s ‘defence team’ are heavily biased on the topic.

    They are both heavily partisan versions of the same thing with no contrary dissent, ie, not ‘all the information and film’

  19. I hear what you two are saying. I’m really not a fan of videos myself either. But my larger point is let’s not gang up on Patrick, as he and Pete are all that’s keeping our little blog running.

    It must not be easy on Paddy coming up with germane topics day in and day out, and a thankless job it is, as well. So some posts are going to be hits, and some are going to be misses.

  20. But my larger point is let’s not gang up on Patrick

    Yes, but if Pat’s going to express views or controversial points others have the right to comment or criticise them? That’s bread & butter to a political blog. The fact of the matter is that the two videos posted are heavily favourable to one side of the issue and questioning their independence is a completely legitimate comment.

    I agree with you about blog topics. The solution of this is of course to open the books to new writers.

  21. What a boring place this would be, if we all agreed, all the time.
    People are perfectly entitled to criticise any and all aspects of someone else’s post. If people regard posting a couple of videos and a short opinion to be insufficient or one-sided, then they can say so.
    It only becomes unacceptable when it becomes personal, and nobody said, “Hey Troll, I disagree with your post, and you’re ugly to boot! 😊

  22. Of the video footage provided, which parts are partisan and which parts are propaganda i.e. which parts are untrue? As with the Covington boys, it’s lucky for the defendant that such footage exists.

  23. If Trump wins in November he will get Barr to stop the prosecution. Then we’ll see Rittenhouse seated at the inauguration in January.

  24. If Trump wins Rittenhouse will probably be made Head of the Dept of Homeland Security 😋

  25. Peter, Colm – clearly you believe that the video footage is adverse to Rittenhouse’s case. Why is this?

  26. Allan

    Clearly you believe that Rittenhaus is totally innocent of all charges. That’s why the prosecution should be stopped, there’s no need to waste a jury’s time. If Barr can’t order it legally, maybe he can just fire the local DA, just like he will fire the Southern NYC DA who is investigating the Trump crime family, provided Trump gets the right result on 3 November.

    And I’m sure that all the Trumpists hereabouts, including you, will be totally cool with those outcomes. Watch out for Rittenhaus as a guest of honour at the inauguration, you heard it here first. Won’t that be the day though!

  27. I watched both videos, and I have a few thoughts:
    Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t appear to be a white supremacist, or a gang member, or anything like that. If anything, he appears to be, as the Judge said, an all-American boy. He was a lifeguard, and to take on a job like that, he understood that the fundamental reason for doing so was to save lives, even at the risk of his own. He did have a medical kit with him, and he did publicly state that he was there not only to defend, but to help, and he also is seen offering assistance to injured protesters.
    But the bottom line is this: as well as a medkit, he also brought a rifle – a rifle he wasn’t, by law, allowed to have. And he used that rifle, and whether it was his bullets or someone else’s which killed the first victim, he was certainly an accessory, as the victim would not have been shot at all, had Kyle Rittenhouse not had a gun and fired it. He definitely shot the second victim dead, and that was someone who was clearly facing away from him and was therefore no immediate threat. He also clearly shot the third victim in the bicep.
    What is so disturbing about these videos is the casual way that someone like Tucker Carlson, a well-known and apparently respected TV personality, can present one side of an argument as apparent fact, and can also casually declare that they might be able to prove Kyle Rittenhouse’s innocence before it even goes to trial!
    This statement alone proves that Carlson is no reporter or journalist. There is no hint of impartiality in what he says; no attempt to recognise a legal process of any sort. Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent of all wrongdoing, and here’s why. That’s it. Carlson also points out the alleged criminal records of the victims (was there not some doubt about the identification of one of them?)
    Even the sexy, attractive judge he brings on has made her mind up, telling the DA they should be very worried about the charges. She loses all credibility almost immediately, by constantly calling Kyle Rittenhouse ‘Kyle’, but referring to his victims only by their surnames only. She dehumanises them, whilst humanising him. She also shows her lack of impartiality by stressing the fact that all the politicians involved are Democrats.
    The second video is as bad, if not worse. This was made by one of his legal team?? If this is how the law works in America, then you guys really are screwed. Can anyone from a sane country here imagine if the defence in a case could produce a promotional video for their client, where you could put up the crimes of your client’s victims, against his achievements? Unbelievable.
    I don’t believe that Kyle Rittenhouse went to that rally with the intent to kill anyone. I believe he went there to try to help, but also with the zealous, ill-thought-out feelings of a 17 year-old, that he might end up being some kind of hero. So he took a gun that he shouldn’t have had (and his parents need to be given a bollocking for making that too easy for him), got in his car, drove to a different town and tried to do some good. What he actually did may have ruined his life. I kind of agree with PaTroll here – shocker, I know! – he was a fool. But I would go a bit further. He was a stupid, irresponsible, immature, naive, idiotic fuckwit of a fool and, unfortunately for him, he will have to face the consequences. I feel sorry for him for being so stupid, but I feel no sympathy for him for what he did.

  28. Allan, I haven’t watched or commented on the videos, but clearly that doesn’t affect your ability to decide what I believe about them.

  29. //Of the video footage provided, which parts are partisan and which parts are propaganda i.e. which parts are untrue?//

    All the Seimi says above plus the speculataive leading commmentary, but most of all the lack of any commentary whatsoever to the other side of the issue.

    The only person to suggest any untruth is you.

    I also don’t think that Rittenhouse was nessecarily a bad kid. I think he got sucked into the simplistic good / bad big dick hero machoism which can be seen in certain sections of US society which seems to think that life is a Hollywood filum, none of which excuses the outcome of his actions.

  30. There is no reason to watch propaganda videos unless you want your source of news to be propaganda. But Trumpites live in a anti-fact world. Their acceptance of the lies runs the gamut from those too stupid to know better to those who recognize the lies and see them as an advantage.

  31. The problem in the country now is that CNN/Fox News/MSNBC/OAN etc, are primarily propaganda stations now.

    It’s not only the Trumpers ( and again, not one of them is any conservative, or close to it )

  32. I agree.

  33. //The problem in the country now is that CNN/Fox News/MSNBC/OAN etc, are primarily propaganda stations now. //

    True, but I don’t know if they put on commentators who state such blatant lies. I mean: “Mobs of Biden voters destroyed business and churches, torched car lots and furniture stores”

    Mind you, “there still isn’t any evidence that Blake’s killing was racially motivated”, he tells us. Then goes on to say that the victim was a sexual felon and police shot him in response to him reaching for a knife. He doesn’t seem to be worried about lack of evidence when it comes to the victim being shot.

  34. He walked away from the police, against instructions, eluded the officer’s grasp, opened the car door, and reached down into the car to where the knife was located.

    All of that is very clearly seen on the video and none of this detail is realistically in dispute.

  35. He walked away from the police, against instructions, eluded the officer’s grasp, opened the car door, and reached down into the car to where the knife was located.

    All of that is very clearly seen on the video and none of this detail is realistically in dispute.

    We’re back to this again? Really? How do you know where exactly the knife was located? That can’t be seen from any video footage I’ve seen. That is not ‘very clearly seen on the video’.

    Did anything that he did or didn’t do justify him having seven bullets shot into his back from point blank range? Because that is what you are (still) trying to justify here.

    Whether the Blake shooting was racially motivated or not, it still seems excessive in the extreme to have shot him that many times from that close a range.

  36. You’re invited to look at the video

    The police didn’t know what he was reaching for in any event. But they had to assume that a man walking straight on away from armed officers, and who eluded the attempt to hold him back, and who opened a car door, and who reached down for something was not reaching for a book of psalms.

    I guess that’s ” smartaresery ” to say that, but the point remains necessary.

  37. he had already also been tased and pulled the wires out before getting into a physical altercation with the first 3 cops.

  38. You’re invited to look at the video

    I did

    The police didn’t know what he was reaching for in any event. But they had to assume that a man walking straight on away from armed officers, and who eluded the attempt to hold him back, and who opened a car door, and who reached down for something was not reaching for a book of psalms.

    One officer tried to put his hand on his shoulder and he shrugged it off. He hardly ‘eluded’ him. And yes, the police most likely suspected that he was reaching for a weapon, but he had no weapon in his hand at the point when the officer shot him seven times in the back from point blank range.

    I guess that’s ” smartaresery ” to say that, but the point remains necessary.

    It’s not ‘smartarsery’ to suggest it, but to make it in such a manner is smartarsery. Nice to know, by the way, that the term struck enough of a chord with you that you remembered it 🙂

    he had already also been tased and pulled the wires out before getting into a physical altercation with the first 3 cops.

    And do you believe this was justification enough for shooting him seven times in the back at point blank range? Wait – who am I asking? 😉

    By the way – can you check your mail in about half an hour from now? I have a post to send, but it’s for tomorrow.

  39. But the point remains necessary

    The point also remains necessary why the cop didn’t take the oportunity to push Blake to the ground and effect an arrest as Blake was walking away from him rather than attempting to murder him by shooting him seven times in the back.

  40. //reached down into the car to where the knife was located.
    All of that is very clearly seen on the video//

    Can you link to the video that shows clearly the man reaching down to where the knife was?

    I haven’t seen it yet.

  41. He reached into the car.

    Deny that.

    Very stupid and wrong action, and not the only one.

    A police officer will assume the worst when someone does what Blake did, and should assume that.

    It is possible that the police did something wrong that day, but it is certain that Blake did wrong. He owns a big chunk of what happened.

  42. “He owns a big chunk of what happened.”

    Riots are caused by rioters. Police shootings are caused by police officers shooting people.

  43. And the police there was a violent man marching away from them, eluding the attempt to grab hold of him, then reaching into the car.

    All on tape.

  44. But the police shot him. All police shootings are caused by police officers.

  45. Yes, Seamus

    That’s why they give them guns.

    All military shootings are done by soldiers.

    All cars are driven by drivers, except the new autonomous ones.

    This cannot be denied.

  46. But they are no one elses fault. The only people at fault for police shootings are police officers. They are the only ones pulling the triggers.

  47. When there is fault, the ones who are at fault are at fault. Yes, that’s decided.

    If you think that the officer here did a wrong thing, that’s your opinion.

  48. The principle cause of a shooting is the officer pulling the trigger. So the only person at fault for a shooting is the officer pulling the trigger. Exactly the same as the rioters. Unless you are now recognising that there maybe secondary actions that influence the primary action?

  49. Eluding the attempt to grab hold of him

    Blake didn’t ‘elude’ anything. He was walking in touching distance with his back to the cops the whole time. That’s when the cop could have easily pushed him to the ground from behind in order to execute an arrest but he didn’t, he tried to murder him.

  50. No, that’s not what the video shows at all

    The officer had two hands on the pistol before.

    He caught up with Blake, barely, grabbed Blake with one hand ( the other still holding the gun ) and Blake eluded him. This can’t be seen any other way.

  51. //He reached into the car.
    Deny that.//

    Why should I?

    You said the video “shows very clearly” the man “reaching down to where the knife was”.
    Deny that.

    So link to the video that shows all that or admit that you just made it up.

  52. Rubbish, Blake didn’t ‘elude’ anything, he kept walking when the cop tried to grab him. That’s what the video shows. It was at that time, when Blake was walking the whole time withing touching distance of the cop with his back to him, that the cop could have pushed him to the ground in order to arrest.

  53. ‘He caught up with Blake’
    You make it sound like Blake was sprinting. He wasn’t. So clearly it can be seen in another way – your way. Which is wrong.

    ‘He owns a big Chunk of what happened.’
    What? You’re saying that him being shot seven times in the back at point blank range is somehow his fault? Did he reach around and pull the trigger himself? What justification could anybody have for using such excessive force on an unarmed suspect, with his back to you?
    At best, this is shockingly poor judgement by the cop. At worst, it’s attempted murder.

  54. Blake was walking briskly.

    The cop tried to push Blake away, that’s clear.

    This is all monday morning quarterbacking from the comfort of the barstool

  55. Blake was walking briskly

    I thought he was ‘walking with purpose?’

    The cop tried to push Blake away, that’s clear

    It’s not clear at all. He tried to grab him. He could have pushed him but didn’t.

    This is all monday morning quarterbacking from the comfort of the barstool

    The Honourable Memeber for Smartarsery from Bayridge reverts to default mode.

    So link to the video that shows all that or admit that you just made it up.

    Good luck with even an acknowledgement of that, Noel.

  56. Blake was walking briskly.

    No he wasn’t.

    The cop tried to push Blake away, that’s clear.

    He made a slight effort to stop him. That’s clear.

    This is all monday morning quarterbacking from the comfort of the barstool

    Then you should stop.

    It is noted that you are no longer claiming that the video clearly showed Blake reaching to where the knife was.

  57. There’s far too much partisanship in these silly “debates”, and anyone who distorts the facts is part of the massive problem facing the US at the moment. People should stick to the truth, remain cool and objective, and support the rule of law whether in relation to cops, demonstrators or the victims of both.

  58. I don’t think that some of us have even seen the video with the things that they’re saying.

  59. Maybe you should watch it then

  60. Who do you not think has seen the video? Or is that just more indulgence in the dark arts of smartarsery?

  61. If they charged you a Northern Ireland £5 note every time you used that word, you’d be broke at the end of the year.

  62. If they charged you a Northern Ireland £5 note every time you used that word, you’d be broke at the end of the year.

    Great response.

    As you are so concerned that some here may not have seen the video, here it is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DSTV7XT1E&bpctr=1600971110

    As you can clearly see, Blake is not walking ‘briskly’, ‘marching’ or even ‘walking with purpose.’ In fact, he seems a bit unsteady on his feet, which wouldn’t be surprising, as he had just been tasered.

    You can also clearly see that he does not ‘elude’ the officer. The officer makes a swipe at Blake’s left shoulder, but the contact is weak, so he grabs his shirt. At the same instant, Blake opens the door and starts reaching in to the car, at which point the officer shoots him seven times in the back, at point blank range. At no point is it clear that he reaches ‘down into the car to where the knife was located.’

    That is what is clear to see, and no-one could deny any of it.

  63. If they charged you a Northern Ireland £5 note every time you used that word, you’d be broke at the end of the year

    Every action has a reaction, when the King of obfuscation & double talk speaks the commners respond. The smartarsery continues in absence of any comment on the subject content.

    That is what is clear to see, and no-one could deny any of it

    What is clear is that Phantom is watching a different video from everyone else:

    So link to the video that shows all that or admit that you just made it up.

  64. Blake is an Animal with a rap sheet as long as your arm who fought with cops and was shot.

    He’s a armed robber, a wife beater, and a drug addict, and your hero…..

    says it all…..

  65. He is not anyone’s ‘hero’. Please don’t start making things up.
    His convictions and criminal record have nothing to do with this. Are you saying he deserved to be shot seven times in the back at point blank range because of this? Is that good policing in your eyes?

  66. Your hero is a serial womaniser, a thief embezzler, woman abuser, alleged rapist, alleged peadophile and someone who lies as easily as he breathes.

    That’s about right, isn’t it?

    What was Blake’s rap sheet which allegedly makes him our ‘hero?’