SoylentNews

Portland Rioters Give Trump One Last Free Campaign Ad Before Election Day By Trying To Burn Down An Apartment Building, Smash Up University

The *PEACEFUL* protesters of Portland couldn’t resist another night of reckoning in their own city. This time they targeted the college that many of them went to: Portland State University. The antifa and BLM terrorists smashed up a Starbucks and attempted to douse the place in kerosene, with 300 apartments above the establishment.

This was after they took their anger out on one of the many symbols of oppression and systemic racism, Portland State University, which has been run by crazed leftists for years and basically serves as an indoctrination center. The terrorists smashed out the windows of Cramer Hall and targeted the campus public safety office.

The chief of Portland State University’s campus “police”, Willie Halliburton, who also moonlights as a comedian (@ComedyCopPDX on Twitter), said he was “disappointed” in the PEACEFUL rioting.

Meanwhile, anticipating a YUGE Trump victory, downtown businesses look even more boarded up than ever before.

Must I point out the keywords here?

with 300 apartments above the establishment.

This is an utter disregard for human life. Someone needs to get these dogs leashed - or shoot them down in their tracks.

I'm curious how the story would be spun, if the arsonists had succeeded? 10, 30, or 90 charred bodies eventually recovered from the debris - how would MSM and the left have spun the story? Undoubtedly, it would have been Trump's fault.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/portland-rioters-give-trump-one-last-free-campaign-ad-election-day-trying-burn-apartment-building-smash-university/

The title of the article is "Another Unhinged Leftist Teacher Caught on Video Lecturing 13-Year-Old Student for 10 Minutes on Why Trump is Racist (VIDEO)"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/another-unhinged-leftist-teacher-caught-video-lecturing-13-year-old-student-10-minutes-trump-racist-video/
Better transcript-like account here https://mynorthwest.com/2258047/rantz-video-teacher-trump-racist-immigration/

Wow.
Another leftist teacher took time out to lecture a 13-year-old student for 10 minutes on why he should hate the president of the United States.
Unfortunately, for the teacher the student was recording the lecture and later posted it on the internet.

A 13-year-old student recorded his teacher as he tried to convince him to stop supporting President Donald Trump.

TRENDING: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Text Messages Show VP Biden and His Wife Colluded to Suppress HUNTER'S ACTIONS WITH A CERTAIN MINOR

The teacher spent nearly ten minutes trying to get his student to agree the president’s immigration policy is a failure and that Trump is a racist.

It’s the latest in a long string of incidents where teachers bring their political bias into the remote learning environment. Had it not been for the precocious 8th grader, this would not have come to light. But the district claims the teacher didn’t do much wrong.

In light of another recent journal entry, some of you might think that I agree with bashing this teacher, as well.
https://soylentnews.org/~Runaway1956/journal/6159

However - I listened carefully to this "expose". Yes, Teach is a liberal, or at least he comes across as a liberal. I disagree with some of what Teacher says. But, this time, Teacher isn't terribly far off base.

The message I got from his speech was very similar to what Wikipedia will tell you. "You can't use the guy you are writing about as your primary source for information."

The kid seems to be old enough, and mature enough, to understand that when making a report, you should use multiple sources. It's fine to use Whitehouse.gov as one source, but you look further afield to find corroborating sources, or opposing sources.

Yeah, sure, I disagree with Seaman, pretty strongly. I think our border should be secure. SOME OF those people who cross our borders are terrorists - think MS-13. It is most certainly not "racist" to keep illegals out of the country, whether they be terrorists, or they be saints. Illegal is not a race.

So, I disagree with teacher. But, did teacher do "wrong" here? Not that I can see. Maybe if I could evaluate Teacher's interactions with the class for a few weeks, I could condemn him. Does he spend his teaching time belittling other students for supporting conservatives? Maybe not - he DID state pretty clearly that it would be just as wrong to make a report on Biden, using Biden's campaign site as a sole or primary source for information.

What do people think about this one? I think that Mr. Seaman may warrant a mild scolding from the administration - or not. He probably should be subjected to a bit of scrutiny, because no teacher should be indoctrinating students into his own political views.

On the other hand, teachers shouldn't have to shy away from controversial issues. The right leaning articles seem to be over reaction based on what I'm seeing here. This is not the sort of abusive conduct that I saw in the previous journal entry.

Muh feeliez iz hurt!

AOC blasts GOP lawmakers for calling female colleagues by nicknames
By Kenneth GargerOctober 23, 2020 | 1:58am

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted Republican lawmakers for calling female legislators by nicknames after President Trump twice referred to her as “AOC” in Thursday night’s debate.

“I wonder if Republicans understand how much they advertise their disrespect of women in debates when they consistently call women members of Congress by nicknames or first names while using titles & last names when referring to men of = stature,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted early Friday morning.

“Women notice. It conveys a lot,” she wrote.

The Queens-Bronx congresswoman said her popular nickname, “AOC”, was born out of the community and should be reserved for “the people.”

“Government colleagues referring to each other in a public or professional context (aka who don’t know me like that) should refer to their peers as “Congresswoman,” “Representative,” etc. Basic respect 101,” the lawmaker added on Twitter.

Trump, while answering a question about balancing climate change and the economy, used the term “AOC plus three” two times during the debate.

The “plus three” is an apparent reference to Reps. Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, whom Trump also routinely refers to by another nickname, “The Squad.”

https://nypost.com/2020/10/23/aoc-blasts-gop-lawmakers-for-calling-female-colleagues-by-nicknames/

The QOTD seems appropriate here:

The aim of a joke is not to degrade the human being but to remind him that he is already degraded. -- George Orwell

Why? Hell, I ain't really sure.

He can't sing.
He can't dance.
He hangs with women of ill repute.
Has probably done more drugs than Trump & Biden combined. (Probably not as much as Hunter though.)
Doesn't have a single plank in his platform.
The only platform he's ever seen was at the subway.
He has some kind of faith, and believes in God.
Not sure if he has ever held an honest job, or earned an honest dollar, but who cares?
Has never engaged in, or funded, a revolution that I'm aware of.
Hasn't been caught cheating on his taxes, that I'm aware of.
I don't think he kicks puppies. (He looks like someone who might rub a cat's fur backward though.)

I figure he's about as qualified as anyone else on the ballot.

Yeah, I said I'd probably vote for JoJo. Well, shit, there were like 80 or 90 people on the ballot for president. I fell asleep twice, scrolling toward the bottom. Literally half of the physical ballot was taken up listing presidential and VP candidates.

Maybe if the silly fuck wins, things will get better. It's not like things can get a lot worse than the Ds and Rs have done.

Posted on October 16, 2020 by Andrew Torba
An Open Letter to President Trump on Section 230

By e-mail and First Class Mail

Dear Mr. President:

Gab AI Inc. (“Gab”) is a small company that has been a repeat victim of Big Tech’s immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

We are attacked by Big Tech because we stand for freedom and because we compete with their control over the flow of information online. We operate a social media site that has one core rule: political speech that is protected by the First Amendment is allowed on our site. We do not take sides.

We run an entirely legal business. We proactively engage with U.S. and international law enforcement to keep illegal activity, and criminals, off of our platform.

We refuse to censor legal speech. For this, we have been the target of extreme left-wing activists who have been successful in getting us banned from:

        The Apple App Store, the Google Play App Store, the Mozilla Extension Store, and the Google Chrome Extension Store.

        By payment platforms including Stripe, Paypal, Square, BitPay, Coinbase, and Visa.

        By hosting companies including Joyent, Azure, Backblaze, and Amazon AWS.

        By storefronts including Shopify and Gumroad.

        By third party software tools including Embedly, Helpscout, Pusher, Medium, and Mailgun.

        From crowdfunding websites including Patreon, StartEngine LA, and even our own whitelabeled portal when Amazon AWS refused to run it.

        From Twitter Ads.

In short, Section 230 – and political bias – has allowed Big Tech to deplatform us from practically every single major resource required to operate our business.

We have every reason to hate Section 230.

But we want you to keep Section 230 exactly the way it is.

Section 230 helps the little guy. We seek to protect free speech on the Internet, and Section 230 is the only thing that stands between us and an avalanche of lawsuits from activist groups and foreign governments who don’t like what our millions of users and readers have to say. Without Section 230, we couldn’t stand up to these oppressive forces that want to eliminate free speech online. With Section 230, we can.

All over the world, the market is providing free speech-oriented alternatives to Big Tech. The single best thing you could do if you want to beat Twitter is NOT to abolish Section 230, which will take years and will hurt the companies you need to protect conservative thought – and indeed all free thought – on the Web.

The best thing you could do is to use sites like Gab.com to disseminate content and information your supporters need to read. The Free Speech Internet is growing fast as millions of people make the move over to Gab. If you join the Free Speech Internet it will grow even faster.

We have reserved an account for you at gab.com/realdonaldtrump. Do the right thing – do the effective thing, the thing that will help end Twitter and Facebook’s dominance over the Web for good – and get on Gab, and join us in our mission to make the Internet free again.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Torba, CEO Gab.com
October 16th, 2020
Jesus is King

https://news.gab.com/2020/10/16/an-open-letter-to-president-trump-on-section-230/

Amy Coney Barrett’s beet-pink dress spoke before she did: it looked sensible, practical, and stoically feminine, an image she aims to project.

It was a pretty dress, maybe even stylish by D.C.’s standards. A flat bow rested on her right shoulder, just underneath a string of pearls. The justice picked a very nice outfit for her first confirmation hearing. Too bad it was curated for such an ugly, rotten process.

The dress stood out in a room full of anodyne blue and black suits; it spoke of soft prettiness when the proceedings are about the very opposite. Her outfit radiates a maternal warmth, an easy comfort. It hides her staunchly right-wing record. It masks the harm she has the potential to enable once confirmed against women, LGBTQ people, all of those with Obamacare, and victims of voter suppression.

The deep pink color of Barrett’s might not be youthful, exactly, but there is some life to it—underscoring her relatively young age for a Supreme Court justice. Barrett’s 48, like Brett Kavanaugh’s 53, means a long tenure. This dress, with its saccharine design, serves as a reminder of that.

Barrett’s dress made a statement. So did the Democratic women lawmakers at the hearing. Senators Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein, Mazie K. Hirono, and Amy Klobuchar all wore bright blue blazers, the color of their party.

Hirono and Klobuchar put Ruth Bader Ginsburg enamel pins on their lapels. Kamala Harris, who Zoomed into the meeting, had a copy of the children’s book I Dissent on a table behind her. A cartoon of RBG wearing her judge’s robe and famous collar smirked back at the camera.

If the Democratic sartorial coup spoke loudly, Barrett’s dress had a quieter impact. In her opening remarks, Barrett spoke of her devotion to family. She peppered in sweet details about each of her seven children. She mentioned that her mentor in college, an English professor, gifted her a copy of Truman Capote’s collected works upon graduation. (Was the subtext that she is anti-LGBTQ?)

The dress labored overtime to quell certain fears. How could anyone who looks this safe be a threat?

Barrett showed up to the hearing outfitted as the caricature of a mother, or at least the right’s archetype of one. Outfits can do a lot to create a reputation or communicate values. Barrett’s gender and family are seen as an asset by the conservative men who loudly support her, and this placid dress is a perfect sartorial vehicle for her and them.

Thom Tillis, a senator from North Carolina, propped Barrett up as an avatar of women’s empowerment during his statement. He said she had signed two copies of the Constitution for his granddaughters, writing “Dream big” alongside her signature. He called Barrett an “inspiration to millions of young women in this country.”

Lindsey Graham said, “This is a vacancy that has occurred through the tragic loss of a great woman, and we’re going to fill that vacancy with another great woman,” referencing Barrett’s takeover of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s seat. As if women are interchangeable. As if one exceptionally remarkable woman’s seat can be so easily filled a little more than three weeks later.

But there is more to being a mother than looking like one. There is more to being a “great woman” than having close proximity to power. Barrett’s outfit projected capability and congeniality, but she wore it while doing the bidding of a president who possesses neither of those traits.

Amy Coney Barrett’s dress highlights the absurdity it was intended to lull. And it is, perhaps, a warning. Republicans are rushing this process, and she is happy to go along with them, dressed perfectly and properly.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dont-let-amy-coney-barretts-confirmation-hearing-dress-fool-you

I always vote for the best dressed man - errrr - person! Anything else would be sexist!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wRHBLwpASw

Headlines claim "Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Kidnap Plot Busted By FBI". Virtually all stories include the claim that it was a "right wing extremist" group responsible.

The very first problem with the claims center on the FBI. The FBI has a history of entrapment-like "investigations", where simple minded fools without the means to accomplish their goals are offered said means by the FBI. The FBI invariably arrest some village idiots after said investigations, to make an example of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/12/newburgh-four-fbi-entrapment-terror
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrapment

A cursory glance at the early stories shows that the fools plotting to kidnap Whitmer had little idea what they were even talking about. Their talk of "200 men" and the need to purchase explosives directly from an FBI informant already makes the story smell of fish.

But, the "white supremacist" and "right wing" nonsense is being laid low, regardless of the village idiot's capabilities.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/not-making-headlines-alleged-right-wing-militia-member-arrested-plot-gov-whitmer-black-lives-matter-protester-sympathizer/

It turns out Brandon Caserta, one of anarchists who was arrested for plotting to kidnap Whitmer, actually hates President Trump and is on video calling Trump a “tyrant.”

And now there is evidence a second “rightwing” militia member attended at least one Black Lives Matter protest and was sympathetic to George Floyd and BLM protesters.

So we have not one, but TWO Antifa/BLM protesters involved in this "right wing" plot? Interesting, to say the least!

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/gov-whitmer-media-caught-another-lie-anarchist-arrested-plot-kidnap-kill-whitmer-hates-president-trump-trump-tyrant-video/

It turns out Brandon Caserta, one of anarchists who was arrested for plotting to kidnap Whitmer, actually hates President Trump and is on video calling Trump a “tyrant.”

“Trump is not your friend dude,” Caserta said.

He says Trump is “a tyrant” and calls President Trump an “enemy.”

The media, with the FBI being complicit, is playing the American public for a bunch of fools here. "Anarchist" do not equate to "right wing" or to "white supremacy".

I can grant that self proclaimed anarchists may have ulterior motives that they keep hidden until they have destroyed the existing government. Given that possibility, how did everyone jump to the conclusion that these particular anarchists are either "right wing" or "white supremacist"? Wouldn't it be just as easy to surmise that these fools are socialists, left wing militants, and/or communist activists?

Maybe, just maybe, these self proclaimed anarchists are really and truly anarchists? Maybe they don't care about left or right, maybe they don't care about black or white. All they want to see is government come tumbling down?

As usual, the public is being played. Mainstream Media has it's agenda, it has it's narrative, and that's all you're going to see when you tune in to "News at 11:00".

And, the FBI. That clown outfit is working hard to shed any credibility it may have. In the last election, the FBI worked hard to protect the D candidate, right up until the last days, then Comey turned on his mistress. Now, the FBI seems to be on track again, protecting the D narrative, and attacking the R, just before the election.

EDIT:
Credit to Magic Oddball's post here - https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=39975&page=1&cid=1062216#commentwrap

The BBC has a better rundown on the various groups that may (or may not) be involved here. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54470427

EDIT #2:
AC linked to this video below, it is well worth watching -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWN3FQGfkWw

Rantz: Video shows Tacoma teacher scold 10-year-old for admiring Trump

The morning after the world learned President Donald Trump contracted the coronavirus, a Seattle-area teacher went on a rant about the president to sixth graders. When a mom complained, he misled her about what happened. Luckily, the mom recorded the incident on her cell phone.

Brendan Stanton, a middle school teacher at P.G. Keithley Middle School in Tacoma, asked students who they admired and why. One student answered President Trump. That triggered Stanton.

Not only did the teacher boot the student from the chat, he proceeded to scold the child for his “inappropriate” answer.

Elsy Kusander’s 10-year-old son logged into his remote classes for another day of online learning on Friday, Oct. 2. Little did he know he’d be scolded for his support for Trump.

Each day, Stanton asks his students a daily question. This time he asked students, “Who is the one person you admire and why?” Students are asked to write their answers in the online chatroom. According to a screenshot, Kusander’s son wrote:

I admire Donald J. Trump because he is making America great again. And because he is the best president the United States of America could ever, ever have. And he built the wall so terrorists couldn’t come into in the U.S. Trump is the best person in the world. And that’s why I had admire him.

Stanton almost immediately kicked the student out of the chatroom, deleted the chat, and proceeded to attack the president, while calling out the student for mentioning him. The student, who I am keeping anonymous, immediately told his mother.

Trump name triggered teacher
When Kusander came into the room to see what happened, she heard Stanton berating the president. She started to film the comments on her cell phone.

“The example that was shared in the chat, which I went ahead and erased for us, was not appropriate right? Especially as that individual has created so much division and hatred between people and specifically spoken hatred to many different individuals, OK?,” Stanton told his students.

Stanton was so offended, he apparently wouldn’t even say the president’s name. Instead, he referred to Trump as “that individual.” But he wasn’t done.

Gotta love this Mom for defending her child, and calling out a lying sack of shit.

"You don't know, but I'm from Honduras" "Coming to this country illegally is a crime." "building the wall is not something divisive"

God bless this woman. And, this Political Indoctrination Propagandist "teacher" should be fired, and barred from ever having contact with children again.

https://mynorthwest.com/2203336/rantz-seattle-teacher-scolds-student-trump/

FORMER SENATOR SAYS ‘WOMEN SICK OF ALL THESE GUNS.’ WOMEN SAY OTHERWISE
By Larry Keane

Former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) was replaced by voters in 2018 and is now a political talk show pundit. During a discussion about the violence erupting in America’s communities, including Kenosha, Wisconsin, Portland, Oregon and her home-state St. Louis, Missouri, Sen. McCaskill opined women are “sick of all these guns.” Data shows she couldn’t be more mistaken.

Not So Show-Me Senator
Missouri is a state with strong Second Amendment approval and Sen. McCaskill tried to hide her antigun beliefs while in office. She was caught talking about her support for more gun control when she thought no voters would hear. Even her staff was recorded describing the senator’s Second Amendment voter deception. When pressed why she wasn’t more vocal for gun control, a staffer bluntly stated, “But she doesn’t openly go out and support groups like Moms Demand Action or just like other groups that are related to that. Because that could hurt, her ability to get elected.”

On gun control, Sen. McCaskill supported a grab-bag of favorites, including reinstating a so-called “Assault Weapons Ban,” limiting so-called “large capacity magazines,” expanding background checks and even voting against a right-to-carry reciprocity bill.

Violence, Rioting and Surging Firearm Sales
As the coronavirus pandemic escalated, Americans became concerned for their safety and the safety of their families and neighborhoods. They watched as local law enforcement were stretched thin and unable to quickly respond to calls for help. Criminals were released from jails, many of whom committed more crimes. Prosecutors announced they wouldn’t prosecute criminals, inviting law-breakers to act. With cities facing violence, looting and rioting, calls to “defund the police” echoed. Close to Sen. McCaskill’s home, the McCloskey’s of St. Louis made national headlines for exercising their right to protect their home.

These legitimate concerns spurned historic numbers of Americans to buy firearms in 2020. More than 13 million have done so, including more than 5 million first-timers.

Women Gun Owners Growing Fast
Speaking on TV about violent riots and how they may affect November’s presidential election, former Sen. McCaskill stated women had had enough. She said “And, you know, the American suburban women, they see that. And they don’t like everybody having an AR-15. That’s part of the problem in America right now.” She continued, “And the guns is a huge part of this. And women in America are sick of all of these guns…”

Data tells a different story. The continuing surge of firearm ownership in America includes women as one of the fastest-growing demographics, continuing a 20-year trend. In 2003, 13 percent of women identified as gun owners. Today that number totals around 25 percent. A quarter of those female gun owners said self-protection was their main reason for purchasing a gun and a whopping 70 percent affirmed owning a gun was essential to their personal freedom.

2020 sales have grown those numbers. Former Sen. McCaskill may be inconvenienced to learn of the nearly 13 million new firearms in the past 8 months, 5 million were purchased by first-time owners and nearly 2 million were women.

Data also shows handguns and Modern Sporting Rifles, including the AR-15 model former Sen. McCaskill mentioned, are among the most popular-selling firearms, for reasons of personal protection. Women aren’t just buying guns and placing them in a safe or storing them away either. Women’s firearm training courses are booked solid, shooting ranges across the country are hosting “ladies night” events and women are practicing to ensure they are confident gun users. The ‘Soccer Mom’ has become the ‘Security Mom’ as they’ve taken their concerns, jumped off the fence and went right to the gun retail counter.

Former Sen. McCaskill is right. Women are concerned watching current events. But they aren’t “sick of all these guns.” Violence, rioting, looting and calls to reduce law enforcement are prompting women to take their safety, and the safety of their families, into their hands. That’s why the Second Amendment exists.

https://www.nssf.org/former-senator-says-women-sick-of-all-these-guns-women-say-otherwise/

Gun control advocates hate women!

Column: Here’s why Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen shooting suspect in Kenosha killings, is likely to get off
By ERIC ZORN
CHICAGO TRIBUNE |
SEP 03, 2020 AT 3:39 PM

Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk.

This is my conclusion as I emerge, blinking in the light, from the rabbit hole I’ve been down all week of self-defense law, jury-instruction language, charging documents and online, frame-by-frame analysis of the videos of the tragic shootings in Kenosha during street protests on Aug. 25.

Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Antioch, Illinois, has been charged with first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide, two counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety, attempted first-degree intentional homicide and possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, in the shooting deaths of two protesters and the wounding of a third. The homicide charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 65 years.

Those of us on the left who are already outraged that it’s legal for civilians to openly carry military-style assault weapons in public spaces should begin now to brace for the inevitable resolution of this case.

Kyle Rittenhouse is probably going to walk.

He’s going to plead self-defense — his lawyers have already signaled as much — and from what I’ve seen, read and heard, I predict he’s going to be acquitted on the most serious charges.

Yes, it seems certain that Rittenhouse was in violation of Chapter 948.6 of Wisconsin law when he was guarding business properties with a weapon of war slung across his back. That law bans minors from carrying guns, and Kenosha County’s criminal complaint notes the maximum penalty for that offense is nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

But even those who break that law don’t forfeit their right to “use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm (if they) reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to (themselves),” as Chapter 939.48, Wisconsin’s self-defense law, spells out.

According to prosecutors, video from the scene and witness accounts, the legally relevant portion of the story picked up a little before midnight: For unknown reasons, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha, who had earlier been yelling angrily at the armed men who had come to the protests, was at a run, chasing Rittenhouse along Sheridan Road and into the parking lot of a used-car dealer.

When Rosenbaum, who was unarmed, finally cornered Rittenhouse, he grabbed for the teenager’s gun. Multiple shots rang out, and Rosenbaum fell, mortally wounded.

Did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief under the circumstances that if Rosenbaum got his gun he would suffer death or great bodily harm? Jurors in Wisconsin are instructed that “reasonable” means “what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed ... under the circumstances that existed at the time.”

Tensions were high late into the protests against the police shooting of Jacob Blake two days earlier. Gunshots from other weapons were heard immediately before and after the shots that killed Rosenbaum. Whether you think Rittenhouse is a hero for helping guard against a repeat of the vandalism the night before, or if you think he’s a reckless wannabe cop who had no business in Kenosha, you’ve got to concede that, at that moment, he was probably terrified.

Rittenhouse hustled away. Soon a group of people began chasing him up Sheridan Road, shouting “Beat him up!” “Get him! Get that dude!” and “Get his ass!” according to the prosecution’s summary. One of the pursuers took a swing at Rittenhouse and knocked his ball cap off.

Were those running after him simply trying to effect a citizen’s arrest in the belief that Rittenhouse had just committed a crime and might be a danger to others?

“Whether or not the people chasing him thought they had the right to chase him is irrelevant,” said Richard Kling, a veteran Chicago defense attorney who teaches evidence and forensic science at Chicago-Kent College of Law.

Rittenhouse stumbled and fell as he ran. One of his pursuers took a flying kick at his head and missed as Rittenhouse fired two errant shots from the ground. A second pursuer, Anthony Huber, 26, of Silver Lake, Wisconsin, swung a skateboard at Rittenhouse, hitting him on the shoulder, and grabbed and tried to hang onto Rittenhouse’s rifle. Rittenhouse shot Huber in the chest during that struggle, prosecutors said, killing him.

A third victim, Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, of West Allis, Wisconsin, who survived, first held up his hands in a gesture of surrender at a distance of a few feet. In one of his hands, he held a gun. But when he “moved toward” Rittenhouse, prosecutors said, Rittenhouse fired, striking him in the arm.

That final shooting “will be the most serious problem” for Rittenhouse at trial, Kling said. ”The guy did have a gun in his hand. But he wasn’t pointing it at or threatening Rittenhouse.”

What about the context, though? The confrontational, high-adrenaline interactions that led up to the tragic deaths. The night air punctuated by gunshots. Danger all around.

Did the teen willingly put himself in that fraught milieu and illegally, allegedly, risk a horrific escalation of that danger by carrying a gun on the scene? Yes.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/eric-zorn/ct-column-rittenhouse-kenosha-self-defense-zorn-20200903-susvsg45yndn7pb67l42ywnzn4-story.html

Runaway's note: That final shooting is really the least problematic for Kyle. Grosskreutz had a lethal weapon in his hand, as he approached Kyle a second time. That weapon was being brought to bear as Grosskreutz advanced. More, Grosskreutz has been quoted, "I just talked to [Gaige] too–his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward.”

Runaway's second note: For anyone who missed it, the above was written by a left wing partisan who took the time to study the videos. The only possible conclusion of an honest person who studies all of the video, is self defense was warranted.

Runaway's third note: If Rittenhouse were a racist, he's a total failure. Kid shot 3 white people, and never even threatened any black person in the crowd. The Aryan Brotherhood would disown his young ass!