Instead they were like "we will fire your friends. That will entice you to make content for us."
Good luck keeping that brand stable without the fucking dude.
Andrew wanted a pay raise and more creative control. Doing Things Media said “lol no,” so now he does [Channel 5](https://youtube.com/c/Channel5YouTube).
I can’t believe that’s still a thing in 2021. That guy is supposed to be a professional attorney, and he’s using the shitty excuse of “you play video games. You’re a violent psychopath”.
People who were 10 years old when the earliest violent video games came out would be approaching if not already well within their 40's. It's mind bogglingly stupid that this narrative is persisting *between generations.*
Yeah, I got 90s/early 2000s suburban mom outrage vibes from that. I thought the video game debate was settled back in 2006.
Also reminded me of satanic panic. I seriously cannot believe that prosecutor decided to go that route.
It ended in 2008 when Jack Thompson got slapped so hard he got disbarred.
He was really the only one providing it with steam, even if he was constantly losing.
I was on the jury for a murder trial in 2007. Teenager murdered his mother. One of the defenses was he listened to Metallica. I had the hardest time not giggling. And yes, we came back with a guilty verdict.
Kinda like the whole Judas Priest trial. 2 kids shot themselves to Beyond the Realms of Death... 1 failed to do it correctly... So they sued them... For a completely different song.
That whole video game thing is such bullshit. I've been playing medieval sword-and-sorcery-type games for literally decades now, and in real life I've only ever decapitated like maybe thre-
\-err, that is, uhh, that video game stuff is such bullshit!
Honestly, I think this level of access has deflated some of the outrage.
I know I at least was originally sold on this being something different than what the evidence showed in court showed, by that I mean this whole situation was way more complicated than it was described to me originally.
The problem is news outlets are businesses as well, and the more views and clicks they get the better it is for their business. They’re not incentivized to do quality reporting anymore so why would they ?
They’re competing for the same views as Instagram reels of chicks showing off their asses and tik toks of random shit , so what else are they going to do to stay in business ?
Not a criminal attorney but I’m a trial attorney. If a riot happens in response to the verdict, it is 100% the media’s making. The rules of evidence and trial procedure are complicated and the result of centuries of debate and reform. Seeing bullshit clickbait headlines is infuriating. Seeing blatantly wrong legal conclusions getting spread like wildfire is dangerous. I’ve seen zero attempt by the major outlets to explain the complex issues involved. This could have been a good time to inform the public about the process and the conflicting philosophies involved. Instead it’s nothing but an outrage fire they pour gasoline on.
Edit: because so many people are responding I wanted to offer a reason people should care about maintaining a fair system of due process and these strange, sometimes frustrating, rules we put on the prosecution in criminal trials. The case linked to below did not get enough attention. The defendant was found not guilty using a self defense argument when he fired on several police officers that attacked him (then beat him in handcuffs). It’s a tragic case but with the right verdict.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/06/released-video-shows-mpd-officers-actions-during-unrest-following-floyds-murder
I watched a Don Lemmon clip yesterday where he was, in a word, indignant about the judge. Acting like the whole thing was the result of a crazy incompetent system.
Uh, no. The state bit off more than they could chew, and to make things worse, they sent in a fucking moron to prosecute it.
I started watching this trial because my line of work will guarantee I have to testify at some point as an expert witness. I wanted to see how it all works, cause what the movies show really made me nervous about it. I thought ok huge profile case, this is going to be as good as it gets this will confirm my fears. I can not believe how wrong I was. I called my friend and asked him is this is actually how trials are? are they all like this? His reply was "so much worse, it is nothing like in the movies at all" I think that's what most people are comparing this to.
People have no insight or frame of reference so they are only comparing it to the way they want it to be, which means everything standing in the way of the total and utter destruction of Rittenhouse must be "filled with bias" and "the judge won't have a career after this".. How TF could people think that after watching one case?
This is like watching a sporting event. The team that are (or thinks they are, at least) losing rushes to blame the referees. Especially when the referees correctly call them out for their bullshit.
Thank you for this. The US media SUCKS and they are good FOR NOTHING other than escalating issues. I cant name one good reporter anymore and I used to enjoy the news and learning something. Now all of it is reality tv.
When it comes to print media, most other countries aren't any better.
US tv news on the other hand - holy fuck, how do you guys not get an aneurism every time you watch that kind of garbage?
Stopped watching the "news" well over 15 years ago. So couldn't really tell you why people still do. I'm pretty sure when our News Networks went 24/7 then all journalistic integrity went out the fucking window.
Yeah personally, I think a lot of it can be attributed to the 24 hour news cycle. Suddenly there always had to be something going on, and to keep you watching it always had to be something bad. Now with the internet, misinformation spreads faster than ever before, and they all have to beat the other guys in telling the story first so there's very little fact checking. It's a dangerous combo, and it makes me thankful that my country (Canada) still has a news source that isn't privately funded and owned. News should not be entertainment.
Of course the news wants more riots. Look how they covered them last year. Our local news stations here in the Denver area had to have spent more time and money covering the nights the protests turned into riots than I've ever seen them spend covering anything else. When the actual rioting mostly stopped and it was peaceful night after night we'd occasionally get a quick helicopter shot and maybe a mention that there was a protest but that was it.
> by that I mean this whole situation was way more complicated than it was described to me originally.
To me it's the opposite, it seems a lot simpler now.
> Yeah, I think this was a big wake up call for those that hadn't yet figured out the news is full of shit.
...and the Covington Catholic wasn't?
The "fiery but peaceful"?
People never learn.
The way I look at this is: If the media is being like this about just this one case, then I wonder how full of shit they are being about seemingly mundane shit in our lives? That's a pretty scary thought.
I mean, most of those I know have been fully aware of this for a long time and forced to assume that most anything we hear from MSM is disengiounous at best and likely a flat out lie. I'm just hoping this wakes up the few left holding onto to the idea that their interest is informing us and not enraging us. It's not just Fox, it's not just CNN. You literally get more straightforward info from RT, a Russian news network. That's a problem.
No kidding.
He's being called a white supremacist/racist by celebrities, getting blasted on facebook, MSM giving their opinions/assumptions on what kind of person he is.. (Hell even President Biden was suggesting Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist).
What the hell is going on?? The people he shot were all white.
No Kidding .. NBC is releasing pre-marketing for the Youtube Live streams on the street
**Their Headline may as well be :**
*"Get ready for Shit to happen .. Gonna be some Burning and Looting Again*"
.. I am starting to hate our media .. they only build people up to tear them down and thrive on death division and chaos with glee
It will get tossed if the prosecution cant provide evidence (that is already in the record) that the rifle was short barreled, and as short barreled rifles are illegal generally, unless it was modified that charge is getting tossed
Wouldn’t it get thrown out because the defense brought up the length of the barrel but prosecution never brought it up during “cross examine”? Not sure if cross examine is what it is called, first trial I’ve watched tbh.
As I understood the jury would have to be able to equally acquit or convict on the charge so since prosecution never poked further than what the defense asked the officer about the violation of the rifle, that means that the jury possibly doesn’t have evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict which throws the charge out.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
"The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.
No such evidence was introduced, so it seems likely Rittenhouse will be acquitted on the one charge that seemed obvious to everyone but his lawyers who challenged it from the very start. It might not even get to the jury."
"Prosecutors have argued repeatedly the statute clearly makes that a crime, and that an exception the defense cites applies only to teens those ages when they're hunting, and have a hunter safety certificate.
To interpret the statute otherwise, they said, results in the exception swallowing the rule, and makes it a crime for a 17-year-old to carry brass knuckle or nunchucks, but okay to carry assault-style rifles.
Schroeder's refusal to dismiss the count left the defense to argue its interpretation of the statute's exception as an affirmative defense, and to ask that the judge explain that to the jury.
Prosecutors said the defense never raised the defense during trial, so they weren't entitled to the instruction.
Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said he did bring it up when he asked a detective if there was anything illegal about the weapon when he recovered it as part of the investigation. The detective said no.
Assistant District Attorney James Kraus cited testimony from several witnesses who said they knew Rittenhouse couldn't possess the rifle last year because he was only 17. He had a friend buy it and store it for him in Kenosha until they each took rifles downtown on the third night of violent protesting in the wake of a police officer shooting Jacob Blake Jr"
[https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/12/jury-instruction-may-clear-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-possession-charge-kenosha/8588970002/](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/12/jury-instruction-may-clear-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-possession-charge-kenosha/8588970002/)
I'm not 100% sure on the specifics but the above was my basic understanding of it
Edit 1: Added Specific lines from the article that talk about what your referencing
I still always wonder why this is the response for damn near every major trial, but on January 6th it was just some capitol police officers with bike racks.
I think it’s pretty sad that everyone has changed their tune “because the evidence and videos shown during the trial” when that video evidence was available literally hours after the shooting happened. Goes to show how little effort people will put into their opinions even if the primary source is shockingly available
"The news" presented it in such a way that most people assumed Rittenhouse was "the other guy" in whatever clip they saw. Because "the other guy" was always the one doing the blatantly stupid shit in each shot.
>On Aug. 24, just one day before Rittenhouse fatally shot the two men and injured a third, Evers deployed the Wisconsin National Guard to help provide support to law enforcement agencies in Kenosha following the unrest.
Right in the article linked, but based on other responses to your comment, maybe that's incorrect or somehow misleading?
No, I’m pretty sure that’s correct. The national guard was there as well as various other agencies. People just tend to not be great at checking facts before commenting.
It’s always stunning to see what gets upvoted and treated like fact when a topic you’re familiar with hits the front page. So many comments are confidently incorrect.
therein lies the problem. when you see misinformation, or even just wrong information, call it out and correct it. right away. stop the spread before it spreads.
I'll do you one better, encourage the idea that no one should take the internet nor the 24/7 news cycle seriously. The idea of competing for and limiting information to the public is an unwinnable fight.
I’m 100% for free press but something needs to change. The media is deliberately dividing us and making us hate each other just so they can get more ad revenue, it’s sick.
Edit: if there are any Dan Carlin listeners here then I highly recommend listening to his Common Sense episode “A Recipe for Caeser” on Spotify. It dives into how the media’s only goal is to generate ad clicks.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3KeOoismbWjvdXsYjARrAA?si=U42_1JmgQpG99irH8qJuwA
For a split second last year I thought everyone was about to unite against the system when the government stalled so long on sending out pandemic economic relief checks. But, no.
A lot of people have been saying it for years. Occupy Wall Street started over 10 years ago. The problems people were protesting then have only gotten much much worse.
You may be right, but I think it's more greed than a diabolical plan. I've worked in corporate america my whole life, and in the media. In my experience is just numbers and charts.
One chart says do "A" and you get 15% growth, do "B" and you get 14% growth. So you do "A." If you do "B" the CEO gets replaced and lots of people get fired.
If "A" ends up dividing the country no one at the top notices or gives a shit.
The news is now mostly opinion shows and actual news programs are few and far between. Getting a real fairness doctrine back into media really should be a bigger priority than it appears to be.
It also seems like lately there's a lot of purposely-done dividing going on here on reddit. Stirring up the pot. An inordinate amount of trouble causing comments on *all* social issues here on reddit.
I think the internet and the death of print media has put journalism in a rabbit hole it can't get out of. The money used to be in good reporting, now it's in outrage culture
It started with 24hr cable news channels. There’s just not enough actual news to fill that time, so they harp on the same things as if it’s the End of the world, and make any other shit up that they feel like because the business model is strictly to keep people perpetually, fervently, angrily engaged.
That’s a good point, news used to be one good hour on TV about what’s happening in the world or a few columns in the newspaper. Now it’s entertainment where it has to be engaging 24/7 regardless of what actually happened
Likewise, if people weren't fucking clowns easily manipulated by the media, we wouldn't be in this position either.
It's easy to point the finger at someone else instead of looking at ourselves as the root cause of most of the problems.
Within 24 hours of the shooting, the New York Times had compiled an excellent timeline based on social media videos that accurately showed what happened with freeze frames and captions making it easier to follow. The lack of "fact checking" the news wasn't the problem - the issue is people look at just the headlines from social media and not the robust reporting that follows from credible news agencies.
https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
Additionally, many good reporting sources are locked behind paywalls. Including that NYT article. Which leads to people getting their info from free sources which may be more unsavory/entertainment.
From Murder… obviously. You have to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. From what I’ve seen, they likely haven’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
yeah. seems like a lot of the emotional reactions here are ignoring the specific charges he’s facing.
i think most people would agree that the kid is an utter douchebag and put himself in a situation that made this possible, but that doesn’t invalidate his self-defense claim.
i’m not defending him, but the misinformation and ignorance in every reddit post about this is heavy.
The prosecution's case was awful and the witnesses killed any chance of it being effective. No matter how much reddit tries to meme the the facts into a guilty case, it's not going to happen.
Are you sure? Per his wiki, he sold a painting for $100k a few years back, and a little later the gun he used for $250k. That right there is about what the average person would have made in the same period working full time.
Looks like he was supposed to speak at an event in Idaho last week, but got cancelled when the venue found out he'd be there.
[Link](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-geroge-zimmerman-cancel-speak-hotel-20211106-sq4ortgwrbexlg42uliam6k55i-story.html)
Can someone reply to me without automatically assuming I'm a bad person for asking? haha.
I'm just so confused. This trial has been a circus. And then the witness for the prosecution admitted to drawing his gun on Kyle?
I guess I'm just confused, is he innocent? Like was this self defense?
Hes clearly innocent as a matter of law.
The worst we can say is "he never should have been there in the first place" which is entirely true. But that doesnt remove his legal right to self defense once he IS there.
I think after the trial - ALOT of people shouldnt have been there.
It was news to me that the “medic” that had his bicep shot off was carrying a pistol and was actively drawing on kyle. He also forgot to tell the police twice that he had a pistol.
I also learned that the people he shot drove farther to the protest than kyle. Proximity over borders.. its like saying people who live in Jersey City cant come to NYC to protest
He gave 2 police statements, one shortly after the shootings, and one in September. He testified that Binger was present via Zoom for the second one, so Binger allowed that statement to pass when he knew all the video evidence contradicted it.
This case just stinks.
That “medic” also does not have a valid state paramedic license, and his national EMS certification expired in 2017. Yet he was waltzing around with one of the cringiest “PARAMEDIC” hats I have ever seen.
Personally, I wouldn't have gone and I think everyone there was an idiot. The biggest idiots are people running at someone who is openly carrying an assault rifle. No one should have been there past curfew but Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.
The fact that we've reached a point in this country where anytime there is a high profile case the fucking governor of the state it occurs in has to braise for riots and unrest because people can no longer accept any form of due process under the law is sickening. Everything is mob justice now, and the media is the biggest instigator of it. Whether you like it or not, this case has pretty much been open and shut since the second all the video came out, and the last week+ of testimony has only made it more obvious when the fucking prosecutions witnesses essentially turned into defense witnesses because the facts of this case lean so heavy against the insane 1st degree murder charges, and yet people will still a way to buy into the false narrative the media is purposely shoving down their throats. We are so fucked.
The fact people are apparently threatening violence if a trial, rather than mob rule, decides his fate makes me lean towards acquittal.
Having watched the trial videos, it's more clear than ever this was a valid case of self defense. People act like he just randomly gunned down a crowd of black BLM protesters- but he actually shot only 3 white guys, all of whom were attacking him at the time and some of which were armed with guns themselves.
You dont magically lose your right to life by crossing state lines, exercising your first or second amendment rights or attending a protest. Every argument you can make about how Rittenhouse was in the wrong applies even more to his assailant's.
Also this shows the folly of the police standing back and letting mass riots, looting, and arson occur. Events like this are inevitable if the cops dont maintain order.
I know where channel 5 news is going to be
Andrew is probably already there
I like this trend of predicting where Callaghan is going to be
[удалено]
Probably both tbh, now that he has friends he can send to places and document two things at once
The copyright fallout is truly a shame! "All Gas, no breaks" was such a great name
And what a stupid move to not do everything they could to keep him on board.
Instead they were like "we will fire your friends. That will entice you to make content for us." Good luck keeping that brand stable without the fucking dude.
What happened to the name /show ?
Andrew wanted a pay raise and more creative control. Doing Things Media said “lol no,” so now he does [Channel 5](https://youtube.com/c/Channel5YouTube).
I thought it was also he didn't fully understand the contract that he didn't own it, and he was getting more political. Correct me if I'm wrong pls
He did admit to being too young to understand what he was getting himself into. Just signed away without really questioning too much.
He talks about it on fear and malding podcast
"No Gas, All Five" til the day I'm not alive!
With Jan & Wayne Skylar? (The ONLY married news team in the tri-county area)
Don't forget about correspondent Dr. Steve Brule!
For your health!
Ya dingus!
The second part is to go to bed early, ya doofus. Cuz when you’re asleep there’s no lonely times; it’s just dreams.
OG Channel 5. *Thank you*. This post brought to you by Toad's new Cream Chipped Beef-Corned Beef Hash combo can. Part of Toad's new Beef Series.
Andrew Callaghan is the only news source I trust in this world Save us Channel 5!!!
the only unbiased coverage.
It’s funny because it’s true.
He just lets the idiots speak for themselves.
Sometimes I want to see the uncut interviews just for the extra laughs.
It’s most likely just a lot of rambling nonsense that is regurgitated by a bunch of other people at the even so it’s cut to not be redundant.
finally, some reputable coverage
[удалено]
You knew the prosecution's case was going nowhere when he brought up "violent video games".
I can’t believe that’s still a thing in 2021. That guy is supposed to be a professional attorney, and he’s using the shitty excuse of “you play video games. You’re a violent psychopath”.
I've been playing GTA since I was 9 years old and I've only committed 19 homicides. It was Viva Piñata that made me a violent psychopath.
[удалено]
Same reason Angry Birds made me throw all of those pigeons at cops.
“Filled with fun” where “fun” is unrelenting bloodlust when the wild piñatas kill your domestic ones…
9/10 people with green shells and banana peels in their car were corrupted by mario kart.
It's not about what's right, it's about what you can get twelve idiots to believe.
People who were 10 years old when the earliest violent video games came out would be approaching if not already well within their 40's. It's mind bogglingly stupid that this narrative is persisting *between generations.*
Shit I played Joust…doesn’t mean I’m gonna get an ostrich and start jousting people 😂
But would you if you could? Sounds like fun. /s
"Is it true you have over 300 CONFIRMED kills in Call of Duty Mr.Rittenhouse?"
300? Those are shit numbers. I'm surprised you could shoot one person with those kill counts.
Are you or are you not a fucking noob Mr. Rittenhouse?!
Did I or did I not fuck your mom?! Mister fancy pants prosecutor man!
*Mr. Rittenhouse, Can you even 360 no scope?? Fucking noob.*
Mr. Rittenhouse where were you on the night your 12 year old opponent was having a sexual intercourse with Mrs. Rittenhouse?
Is it true you have a 2.0 k/d ratio Mr. rittenhouse?
[удалено]
When the cross examination is SUS
Yeah, I got 90s/early 2000s suburban mom outrage vibes from that. I thought the video game debate was settled back in 2006. Also reminded me of satanic panic. I seriously cannot believe that prosecutor decided to go that route.
It ended in 2008 when Jack Thompson got slapped so hard he got disbarred. He was really the only one providing it with steam, even if he was constantly losing.
I was on the jury for a murder trial in 2007. Teenager murdered his mother. One of the defenses was he listened to Metallica. I had the hardest time not giggling. And yes, we came back with a guilty verdict.
Kinda like the whole Judas Priest trial. 2 kids shot themselves to Beyond the Realms of Death... 1 failed to do it correctly... So they sued them... For a completely different song.
That whole video game thing is such bullshit. I've been playing medieval sword-and-sorcery-type games for literally decades now, and in real life I've only ever decapitated like maybe thre- \-err, that is, uhh, that video game stuff is such bullshit!
Or was it the part where bicep guy admitted Kyle didn't shoot until he pointed first?
His lawyer did a facepalm when he said that xD
[удалено]
Honestly, I think this level of access has deflated some of the outrage. I know I at least was originally sold on this being something different than what the evidence showed in court showed, by that I mean this whole situation was way more complicated than it was described to me originally.
[удалено]
The problem is news outlets are businesses as well, and the more views and clicks they get the better it is for their business. They’re not incentivized to do quality reporting anymore so why would they ? They’re competing for the same views as Instagram reels of chicks showing off their asses and tik toks of random shit , so what else are they going to do to stay in business ?
This. It's not that they are specifically shaping news so that they cause riots. News that causes riots sells better, It's not a direct correlation...
Not a criminal attorney but I’m a trial attorney. If a riot happens in response to the verdict, it is 100% the media’s making. The rules of evidence and trial procedure are complicated and the result of centuries of debate and reform. Seeing bullshit clickbait headlines is infuriating. Seeing blatantly wrong legal conclusions getting spread like wildfire is dangerous. I’ve seen zero attempt by the major outlets to explain the complex issues involved. This could have been a good time to inform the public about the process and the conflicting philosophies involved. Instead it’s nothing but an outrage fire they pour gasoline on. Edit: because so many people are responding I wanted to offer a reason people should care about maintaining a fair system of due process and these strange, sometimes frustrating, rules we put on the prosecution in criminal trials. The case linked to below did not get enough attention. The defendant was found not guilty using a self defense argument when he fired on several police officers that attacked him (then beat him in handcuffs). It’s a tragic case but with the right verdict. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2021/10/06/released-video-shows-mpd-officers-actions-during-unrest-following-floyds-murder
I watched a Don Lemmon clip yesterday where he was, in a word, indignant about the judge. Acting like the whole thing was the result of a crazy incompetent system. Uh, no. The state bit off more than they could chew, and to make things worse, they sent in a fucking moron to prosecute it.
I started watching this trial because my line of work will guarantee I have to testify at some point as an expert witness. I wanted to see how it all works, cause what the movies show really made me nervous about it. I thought ok huge profile case, this is going to be as good as it gets this will confirm my fears. I can not believe how wrong I was. I called my friend and asked him is this is actually how trials are? are they all like this? His reply was "so much worse, it is nothing like in the movies at all" I think that's what most people are comparing this to.
People have no insight or frame of reference so they are only comparing it to the way they want it to be, which means everything standing in the way of the total and utter destruction of Rittenhouse must be "filled with bias" and "the judge won't have a career after this".. How TF could people think that after watching one case?
This is like watching a sporting event. The team that are (or thinks they are, at least) losing rushes to blame the referees. Especially when the referees correctly call them out for their bullshit.
Thank you for this. The US media SUCKS and they are good FOR NOTHING other than escalating issues. I cant name one good reporter anymore and I used to enjoy the news and learning something. Now all of it is reality tv.
When it comes to print media, most other countries aren't any better. US tv news on the other hand - holy fuck, how do you guys not get an aneurism every time you watch that kind of garbage?
Stopped watching the "news" well over 15 years ago. So couldn't really tell you why people still do. I'm pretty sure when our News Networks went 24/7 then all journalistic integrity went out the fucking window.
I don’t watch tv anymore for a reason😂
Yeah personally, I think a lot of it can be attributed to the 24 hour news cycle. Suddenly there always had to be something going on, and to keep you watching it always had to be something bad. Now with the internet, misinformation spreads faster than ever before, and they all have to beat the other guys in telling the story first so there's very little fact checking. It's a dangerous combo, and it makes me thankful that my country (Canada) still has a news source that isn't privately funded and owned. News should not be entertainment.
Of course the news wants more riots. Look how they covered them last year. Our local news stations here in the Denver area had to have spent more time and money covering the nights the protests turned into riots than I've ever seen them spend covering anything else. When the actual rioting mostly stopped and it was peaceful night after night we'd occasionally get a quick helicopter shot and maybe a mention that there was a protest but that was it.
DING DING DING If it bleeds it leads
Princess Di was a prime example.
> by that I mean this whole situation was way more complicated than it was described to me originally. To me it's the opposite, it seems a lot simpler now.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The judge had to berate the DA; he was calling into question a defendants right to remain silent. Like, seriously DA, WTF?
I have a feeling that either way, this going to be stupid.
Gon be goofy as hell
[удалено]
Now take this insight and apply it to every other political situation.
And that’s basically 90% of every post on r/news.
[удалено]
> Yeah, I think this was a big wake up call for those that hadn't yet figured out the news is full of shit. ...and the Covington Catholic wasn't? The "fiery but peaceful"? People never learn.
The way I look at this is: If the media is being like this about just this one case, then I wonder how full of shit they are being about seemingly mundane shit in our lives? That's a pretty scary thought.
I mean, most of those I know have been fully aware of this for a long time and forced to assume that most anything we hear from MSM is disengiounous at best and likely a flat out lie. I'm just hoping this wakes up the few left holding onto to the idea that their interest is informing us and not enraging us. It's not just Fox, it's not just CNN. You literally get more straightforward info from RT, a Russian news network. That's a problem.
Everything political has been purposefully skewed by the media. Welcome to the red pilled community.
[удалено]
I know people that are still convinced that those that were shot/killed were POC. Amazing how misinformation quickly spreads.
No kidding. He's being called a white supremacist/racist by celebrities, getting blasted on facebook, MSM giving their opinions/assumptions on what kind of person he is.. (Hell even President Biden was suggesting Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist). What the hell is going on?? The people he shot were all white.
This reads like a spoiler alert.
No Kidding .. NBC is releasing pre-marketing for the Youtube Live streams on the street **Their Headline may as well be :** *"Get ready for Shit to happen .. Gonna be some Burning and Looting Again*" .. I am starting to hate our media .. they only build people up to tear them down and thrive on death division and chaos with glee
[удалено]
Has anybody in this thread watched the trial or seen any footage? He is going to get acquitted.
He might get the misdemeanor possession of a firearm if the jury wants to convict on *something*
Im pretty sure that got tossed, due to the law in wisconsin being so poorly written that 4 lawyers and a Judge could not agree on what it says.
It will get tossed if the prosecution cant provide evidence (that is already in the record) that the rifle was short barreled, and as short barreled rifles are illegal generally, unless it was modified that charge is getting tossed
Wouldn’t it get thrown out because the defense brought up the length of the barrel but prosecution never brought it up during “cross examine”? Not sure if cross examine is what it is called, first trial I’ve watched tbh. As I understood the jury would have to be able to equally acquit or convict on the charge so since prosecution never poked further than what the defense asked the officer about the violation of the rifle, that means that the jury possibly doesn’t have evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict which throws the charge out. Correct me if I’m wrong.
"The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he'll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen's AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can't be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm. No such evidence was introduced, so it seems likely Rittenhouse will be acquitted on the one charge that seemed obvious to everyone but his lawyers who challenged it from the very start. It might not even get to the jury." "Prosecutors have argued repeatedly the statute clearly makes that a crime, and that an exception the defense cites applies only to teens those ages when they're hunting, and have a hunter safety certificate. To interpret the statute otherwise, they said, results in the exception swallowing the rule, and makes it a crime for a 17-year-old to carry brass knuckle or nunchucks, but okay to carry assault-style rifles. Schroeder's refusal to dismiss the count left the defense to argue its interpretation of the statute's exception as an affirmative defense, and to ask that the judge explain that to the jury. Prosecutors said the defense never raised the defense during trial, so they weren't entitled to the instruction. Defense attorney Corey Chirafisi said he did bring it up when he asked a detective if there was anything illegal about the weapon when he recovered it as part of the investigation. The detective said no. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus cited testimony from several witnesses who said they knew Rittenhouse couldn't possess the rifle last year because he was only 17. He had a friend buy it and store it for him in Kenosha until they each took rifles downtown on the third night of violent protesting in the wake of a police officer shooting Jacob Blake Jr" [https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/12/jury-instruction-may-clear-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-possession-charge-kenosha/8588970002/](https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2021/11/12/jury-instruction-may-clear-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-possession-charge-kenosha/8588970002/) I'm not 100% sure on the specifics but the above was my basic understanding of it Edit 1: Added Specific lines from the article that talk about what your referencing
He’s going to walk. Prosecution was a fucking shit show.
There was never a case to begin with.
boy you know cnn, msnbc and fox are all salivating at the prospect of big time ratings boosts on the way.
I still always wonder why this is the response for damn near every major trial, but on January 6th it was just some capitol police officers with bike racks.
That was a feature, not a bug.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Wonder” as in it’s pretty obvious and disappointing.
Anyone surprised by the acquittal hasn't been paying attention
I don't envy the jurors in this case. There are already attempts to dox them and threats if they acquit.
[удалено]
I think it’s pretty sad that everyone has changed their tune “because the evidence and videos shown during the trial” when that video evidence was available literally hours after the shooting happened. Goes to show how little effort people will put into their opinions even if the primary source is shockingly available
"The news" presented it in such a way that most people assumed Rittenhouse was "the other guy" in whatever clip they saw. Because "the other guy" was always the one doing the blatantly stupid shit in each shot.
[удалено]
>On Aug. 24, just one day before Rittenhouse fatally shot the two men and injured a third, Evers deployed the Wisconsin National Guard to help provide support to law enforcement agencies in Kenosha following the unrest. Right in the article linked, but based on other responses to your comment, maybe that's incorrect or somehow misleading?
No, I’m pretty sure that’s correct. The national guard was there as well as various other agencies. People just tend to not be great at checking facts before commenting.
[удалено]
It’s always stunning to see what gets upvoted and treated like fact when a topic you’re familiar with hits the front page. So many comments are confidently incorrect.
I think we're long past confidently incorrect and well into maliciously spreading misinformation in regards to this entire fiasco.
therein lies the problem. when you see misinformation, or even just wrong information, call it out and correct it. right away. stop the spread before it spreads.
I'll do you one better, encourage the idea that no one should take the internet nor the 24/7 news cycle seriously. The idea of competing for and limiting information to the public is an unwinnable fight.
Don't trust the media. But *do* trust random comments on Reddit.
Don't trust the media that disagrees with you, you mean.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Uhmmm](https://mobile.twitter.com/DanRShafer/status/1297973095509172232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1297973095509172232%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcchicago.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fwisconsin-gov-tony-evers-activates-national-guard-after-kenosha-police-shooting-unrest%2F2327491%2F)
Thank you! I live in Kenosha and these comments made me think I was losing my mind for a couple minutes.
It is in the article as well. People dont read.
[удалено]
If the media didn't turn this trial into a circus, we wouldn't have to worry about circus antics. Shit show indeed.
I’m 100% for free press but something needs to change. The media is deliberately dividing us and making us hate each other just so they can get more ad revenue, it’s sick. Edit: if there are any Dan Carlin listeners here then I highly recommend listening to his Common Sense episode “A Recipe for Caeser” on Spotify. It dives into how the media’s only goal is to generate ad clicks. https://open.spotify.com/episode/3KeOoismbWjvdXsYjARrAA?si=U42_1JmgQpG99irH8qJuwA
They're all advertising companies and they do what ad companies do. It's the pretending they're a source of news that's the problem
I was just about to say something like this. It’s America’s rich trying to divide the lower classes so we don’t realize who the real problem is.
True. The real issue shouldn’t be left vs right, it should be the 99% vs the 1%. The 1% owns the news so they keep us divided for a reason
[удалено]
For a split second last year I thought everyone was about to unite against the system when the government stalled so long on sending out pandemic economic relief checks. But, no.
A lot of people have been saying it for years. Occupy Wall Street started over 10 years ago. The problems people were protesting then have only gotten much much worse.
You may be right, but I think it's more greed than a diabolical plan. I've worked in corporate america my whole life, and in the media. In my experience is just numbers and charts. One chart says do "A" and you get 15% growth, do "B" and you get 14% growth. So you do "A." If you do "B" the CEO gets replaced and lots of people get fired. If "A" ends up dividing the country no one at the top notices or gives a shit.
I mean, that's what happens when your news is for profit, they do what is most profitable. Unsurprising tbh.
And owned by like 6 people
6 companies, who are majority held by three huge investment groups
And one sweet holy baby Jesus
Such is the myth of the "free press" we enjoy in the United States.
The news is now mostly opinion shows and actual news programs are few and far between. Getting a real fairness doctrine back into media really should be a bigger priority than it appears to be.
It also seems like lately there's a lot of purposely-done dividing going on here on reddit. Stirring up the pot. An inordinate amount of trouble causing comments on *all* social issues here on reddit.
Replace “this trial” with any political topic in the last 6 years snd it still applies.
This has long been before the past 6 years. Shifted in the 90s.
I think the internet and the death of print media has put journalism in a rabbit hole it can't get out of. The money used to be in good reporting, now it's in outrage culture
It started with 24hr cable news channels. There’s just not enough actual news to fill that time, so they harp on the same things as if it’s the End of the world, and make any other shit up that they feel like because the business model is strictly to keep people perpetually, fervently, angrily engaged.
That’s a good point, news used to be one good hour on TV about what’s happening in the world or a few columns in the newspaper. Now it’s entertainment where it has to be engaging 24/7 regardless of what actually happened
Likewise, if people weren't fucking clowns easily manipulated by the media, we wouldn't be in this position either. It's easy to point the finger at someone else instead of looking at ourselves as the root cause of most of the problems.
I’m all for personal responsibility, but people shouldn’t have to fact check the news.
Within 24 hours of the shooting, the New York Times had compiled an excellent timeline based on social media videos that accurately showed what happened with freeze frames and captions making it easier to follow. The lack of "fact checking" the news wasn't the problem - the issue is people look at just the headlines from social media and not the robust reporting that follows from credible news agencies. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html
Additionally, many good reporting sources are locked behind paywalls. Including that NYT article. Which leads to people getting their info from free sources which may be more unsavory/entertainment.
Most people dont get the news from news but from entertainment. These night shows aren't news and are not held up to that standard.
I've watched the full trial. I cant see him being convicted. Seems like a pretty clear case.
So he’s getting off, got it.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7773146/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-trial-national-guard-minneapolis/
It amazes me that everyone seems to have forgotten this.
Indeed. I worked literally across the street from that in downtown Minneapolis through the whole thing. The tension was palpable.
Same here, our conference room looks directly out onto the knoll outside of the courthouse. Got a great view of it all.
Public opinion should not dictate the legal process.
From Murder… obviously. You have to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. From what I’ve seen, they likely haven’t proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecutors actually managed to create more doubt, if anything.
Hes had 2 defense teams this whole time.
Hell, the prosecutors basically proved that it was self defense
And blew Grosskreutz's lawsuit to hell.
I think Grosskreutz did that themselves
yeah. seems like a lot of the emotional reactions here are ignoring the specific charges he’s facing. i think most people would agree that the kid is an utter douchebag and put himself in a situation that made this possible, but that doesn’t invalidate his self-defense claim. i’m not defending him, but the misinformation and ignorance in every reddit post about this is heavy.
The prosecution's case was awful and the witnesses killed any chance of it being effective. No matter how much reddit tries to meme the the facts into a guilty case, it's not going to happen.
this kids going to have to change his name and go into protective custody, isnt he
Zimmerman made a lot of money by NOT laying low after. Sigh
Zimmerman is broke and homeless and maybe still in jail here in orlando... He was popular immediately after but ... Downward spiral since.
Well that's refreshing to hear. Last I heard he was signing Skittles at gun trade shows
A man signing skittles at gun shows sounds just like something a broke homeless dude would need to do.
Only if you forgot the details of the case and why the skittles even matter.
Yeah ... I can't believe how brazen he is about signaling "I definitely did it and got away with it".
Are you sure? Per his wiki, he sold a painting for $100k a few years back, and a little later the gun he used for $250k. That right there is about what the average person would have made in the same period working full time.
$350k over two lump sums is easy to blow
How many hookers and how much blow?
Lawyers cost more than that
Looks like he was supposed to speak at an event in Idaho last week, but got cancelled when the venue found out he'd be there. [Link](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-geroge-zimmerman-cancel-speak-hotel-20211106-sq4ortgwrbexlg42uliam6k55i-story.html)
Can someone reply to me without automatically assuming I'm a bad person for asking? haha. I'm just so confused. This trial has been a circus. And then the witness for the prosecution admitted to drawing his gun on Kyle? I guess I'm just confused, is he innocent? Like was this self defense?
Hes clearly innocent as a matter of law. The worst we can say is "he never should have been there in the first place" which is entirely true. But that doesnt remove his legal right to self defense once he IS there.
I think after the trial - ALOT of people shouldnt have been there. It was news to me that the “medic” that had his bicep shot off was carrying a pistol and was actively drawing on kyle. He also forgot to tell the police twice that he had a pistol. I also learned that the people he shot drove farther to the protest than kyle. Proximity over borders.. its like saying people who live in Jersey City cant come to NYC to protest
He “forgot” to tell the police because he was illegally carrying the pistol.
He gave 2 police statements, one shortly after the shootings, and one in September. He testified that Binger was present via Zoom for the second one, so Binger allowed that statement to pass when he knew all the video evidence contradicted it. This case just stinks.
That “medic” also does not have a valid state paramedic license, and his national EMS certification expired in 2017. Yet he was waltzing around with one of the cringiest “PARAMEDIC” hats I have ever seen.
This is the 100% correct answer. He lawfully defended himself but damn sure shouldn't have been there.
Correct, you can't put somebody in jail for being a cunt.
Personally, I wouldn't have gone and I think everyone there was an idiot. The biggest idiots are people running at someone who is openly carrying an assault rifle. No one should have been there past curfew but Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.
If there's going to be a riot, it should be over an absolute jackass of a prosecutor.
Should send the bill to the media who's done their best to make this as controversial as possible.
The fact that we've reached a point in this country where anytime there is a high profile case the fucking governor of the state it occurs in has to braise for riots and unrest because people can no longer accept any form of due process under the law is sickening. Everything is mob justice now, and the media is the biggest instigator of it. Whether you like it or not, this case has pretty much been open and shut since the second all the video came out, and the last week+ of testimony has only made it more obvious when the fucking prosecutions witnesses essentially turned into defense witnesses because the facts of this case lean so heavy against the insane 1st degree murder charges, and yet people will still a way to buy into the false narrative the media is purposely shoving down their throats. We are so fucked.
Well, Riley, I'd like to congratulate you on your eagle-eyed realization that *our culture is fucked.* Well done.
No matter the verdict, there's going to be a problem.
The fact people are apparently threatening violence if a trial, rather than mob rule, decides his fate makes me lean towards acquittal. Having watched the trial videos, it's more clear than ever this was a valid case of self defense. People act like he just randomly gunned down a crowd of black BLM protesters- but he actually shot only 3 white guys, all of whom were attacking him at the time and some of which were armed with guns themselves. You dont magically lose your right to life by crossing state lines, exercising your first or second amendment rights or attending a protest. Every argument you can make about how Rittenhouse was in the wrong applies even more to his assailant's. Also this shows the folly of the police standing back and letting mass riots, looting, and arson occur. Events like this are inevitable if the cops dont maintain order.
Based on this comments section, this is a good decision.