News

Edit: not a single inaccurate statement in my comment, but narrative-clingers gotta downvote because inconvenient facts just make them that mad, lol. Shameful.

Fact checking time~

the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to

The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.

to a state he didn’t live in

But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.

to shoot protestors he didn’t know

It's obvious he didn't go there "to shoot protesters", for several factual, verifiable reasons:

1. He had hours of opportunities to open fire on protesters, and never did. He did not even anti-protest.
2. He didn't shoot anyone unprovoked, and every time he was provoked, he ran away instead of escalating.
3. The only people who were shot by him that day were people who, when he ran away from their provocation, instead of letting him run away, chased him down and tried to kill him when they caught him. He prevented their murder attempts. This is crystal
4. None of those who were shot were ever protesting; all three were destructive rioters with violent criminal records who were there not there to support any cause.
5. Actions speak louder than words. Tons more people, tell their buddies they'd 'kick that guy's ass if I was there' etc., but do not act that way at all when they're actually in the situation. And that happens in the actual situation is what matters. Also, none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted, so they don't even fall into the category he was speaking about.

ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with

There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed 'thank you' picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.

Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.

Nope, but I can understand how you'd reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That's what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There's a ton of hard video evidence, you know.

It's funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.

This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what's actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they're fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.

It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.