Take The Ethics Alarms Rittenhouse Case Pledge: “I Vow To Slap Down The False Narrative Whenever I Encounter It, Forever!”

Witherspoon tweet

The five jagged prongs of the fantasy version of the Rittenhouse case are 1) He carried a semi-automatic weapon “across state lines” to cause trouble; 2) the teen is a white supremacist, hence a racist, and was “hunting” virtuous social justice crusaders justly and peacefully protesting ; 3) the three men he shot were innocent victims, and two of them were murdered, 4) the rioting Rittenhouse was opposing was a protest over a white police officer brutally killing an unarmed black man, and 5) the jury’s failure to convict resulted from the inherent racism of the justice system.

Within those prongs are at least (let’s see…) twelve lies that can no longer be excused by confusion over the facts. Nor is it an excuse that someone like Witherspoon has been reading and watching the wrong news reports (as well as getting her political views from within a progressive bubble), because every American knows or should knows that such sources cannot be believed or trusted.

Aiding and abetting the persistence of the 12 Lies of Rittenhouse (I feel a Christmas song parody coming on) has been the news media’s detestable spin that the guilty verdict in the Ahnaud Arbery trial somehow mitigated the “unjust” Rittenhouse acquittal. The two cases has nothing substantive in common whatsoever, except to those either deliberately misrepresenting the cases or those hopelessly lobotomized by the news media reports and such attempts to poison the proceedings as President Biden’s repeated slur that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist.

“Justice is Possible…” shouted yesterday’s New York Times story about the Arbury verdict…Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! That headline would have been far more appropriate for the result in the Rittenhouse trial. The Arbury jury was given evidence that demanded conviction, including an irrefutable video of the shooting. The judge’s instruction that the jury would have to find that Arbury’s killers had conclusive evidence that the black man had committed local burglaries to make their so-called “citizen’s arrest” attempt legal wiped out the defense’s desperately contrived defense. In the Rittenhouse verdict, the video evidence and even the prosecution’s witnesses dictated that “justice” required acquittal, though many doubted that it would be possible with Biden and others recklessly misrepresenting the facts and a threat of renewed Kenosha rioting looming over the jurors’ deliberations.

In a neat obliteration of the attacks on the Rittenhouse verdict and the “reasoning” behind it, Prof. Turley wrote that “justice” now means “freeing ourselves not just from objectivity but from the criminal code.” He continued, in an excellent analysis for The Hill,

In this case, the legal question under Wisconsin law was neither complex nor confusing: “A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.” Lethal force is allowed if “the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”

Each use of force by Rittenhouse was preceded by attacks by at least four men. The jury simply had a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse acted without a reasonable belief that he faced great bodily harm.

[I am especially grateful to Turley for highlighting the bias-driven idiocy of Georgetown professor Paul Butler, who described the trial on MSNBC as “white supremacy on steroids” and said the verdict meant that “vigilante justice prevailed.” Butler is the tenured jerk whom NPR’s Michel Martin, now the weekend hostess of “All Things Considered,” allowed to interrupt and mock my 100% correct explanation of how sexual harassment law often works with long past conduct in my final appearance on the network as an ethics analysis. They shared a friendship, a color, and a hatred of Donald Trump, who might have been a victim of the phenomenon I was attempting to describe, so Martin chose to advance their partisan objectives over the alleged NPR mission of informing its audience. Yes, I’m still angry about that episode. But I digress…]

In the Times article about reactions to the verdict, a careful and deceitful use of words drove a narrative that the Rittenhouse and Arbury cases were similar, and that contrasting them was fair. “The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict is the America I expect — the Arbery verdict is the America I fight for,” Rev. Lenny Duncan, 43, a Black pastor in Portland was quoted as saying. Oh, because the evidence in the Rittenhouse verdict would make anyone paying attention expect an acquittal, Reverend? No? Why is it that you don’t “fight for” a justice system that is determined by the law rather than mob demands? I don’t understand.

The Times also felt that the view of anti-white racist Hawk Newsome, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Greater New York, was worthy of publishing, as he called the two trials “a mixed message.” “You can’t outright chase down and murder Black people and those who support them,” he said. “But if you make it look like self-defense, you got a shot.” Right, Hawk, that’s what Rittenhouse did: he chased down and shot three men who weren’t doing anything but supporting black people, and “made it” look like self defense.

That’s not an opinion, that’s deliberate misrepresentation.

I’ve taken the pledge: I’ve annoyed several Facebook friends this week by going on their page to debunk various Rittenhouse lies. I expect to confront several more.

Join me! It’s for a good cause!

Friends don’t let friends post stupid.

11 thoughts on “Take The Ethics Alarms Rittenhouse Case Pledge: “I Vow To Slap Down The False Narrative Whenever I Encounter It, Forever!”

  1. Our Thanksgiving has included a couple of good dinner-time conversations around the Rittenhouse trial/verdict. Fortunately, our family is largely made up of reasonable people that think critically about these kinds of things, so there’s been very good discussion – especially valuable for the three grandchildren present – and very little false narrative to slap down.

    Happy Thanksgiving a day late, Jack. This site is one of the few internet-based blessings we enjoy. We will hit the road tomorrow after spending what is my first week in Virginia. It was more beautiful that I imagined and we’ll be back!

  2. Here is another disturbing trend.


    An email reportedly from Fitchburg State University’s Center for Diversity and Inclusiveness advertised spaces and times to discuss the verdict and separated white and black students into different spaces. The email also made multiple false statements, claiming Kyle Rittenhouse had an automatic rifle and that Jacob Blake had been killed by the police. The university later issued a correction but defended its decision to separate student spaces by race after receiving backlash.

    Did anyone in the university’s administration ever heard of Brown v. Board of Education?

  3. Thanks for a thoughtful analysis — much of which should have been obvious to the average citizen but now is not, thanks to general ignorance of the US Constitution, agit/prop and planned divisiveness by the left.. But it was very helpful anyway to have the jury’s finding laid out in a clear and comprehensive manner, and as always to find Turley as well.

    Here’s my question: Why the Reese Witherspoon’s tweet? Do people really care what she thinks? Do they think she is a ‘thought leader?’ What are her qualifications to make such statements? She might as well tweet on what she ate for dinner, for all the impact it should have. I am puzzled and annoyed that anyone, anyone, with a recognizable name believes he or she can spout platitudes and unsupported opinions and expect to be taken seriously. I am more puzzled and annoyed that some actually do take them seriously. It should be laughable, but it is not. God help us.

    When we got the internet for research and email for communication, I thought it was a blessing, especially for running a small business. Facebook and tweeting have added a completely new and increasingly negative side to this technology: whereas with email one was ‘talking’ to individuals directly (even if there were a bunch of them you had to know their email addresses); now anyone can blast out lies, hate, and totally insupportable opinion. Facebook’s censorship only adds to this, as Facebook itself has taken a political position. Constructive dialogue is a dead concept now. Alas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.