Stephanie Willis rambles on about “privilege” and but never gives us any “meat” to back up her claims:
Kyle Rittenhouse being found not guilty on all counts after more than 24 hours of deliberations can be summed up with one simple phrase: White privilege. It’s an all too familiar theme we witness when White defendants are on trial for killing us.
I dare say Kyle Rittenhouse was cloaked with a privilege you cannot find in any legal precedent – The Rittenhouse Privilege. Throughout the trial there were instances in which it was quite apparent that the scales of justice tipped in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse.
Let’s start with the jury makeup. After the jury process, 18 individuals were selected to listen to the trial. Of these 18 individuals, 12 were selected at random by the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, to deliberate. These individuals consisted of seven women and five men – only one was a person of color.
The next thing to consider is the venue. The case was tried in Kenosha, which according to Census data is over 75% White. In the past, Kenosha country voted Democratic but went for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. It is also particularly important to consider the fact that Wisconsin is a gun friendly state. But we must also ask ourselves Gun Friendly toward whom?
How is the described jury makeup tipping the scales in favor of Rittenhouse? What, in her mind, would create a balanced trial? What should the composition of the jury be? Where would she think a venue be found? What does the predominate Democrat bias of the county with the outlier of 2016 going to Trump have to do with anything? She says these things as if these were obvious, unquestionable, evidence of bias. Absent a lot more explanation I can only conclude these are the ravings of a paranoid.
Nevertheless, she asserts her conclusion:
The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent. There is now legal precedent which permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases. Be forewarned – this precedent will only extend to individuals who can claim the Rittenhouse privilege.
With video and still pictures from multiple angles for nearly all the shootings and witnesses testimony consistent with the digital evidence the facts of the case could not be more clear. Rittenhouse met the requirements of the law and was justified in using deadly force against his attackers. That Willis claims to be an attorney, yet asserts this was an “outrageous” because Rittenhouse was found not guilty, only eliminates the defense she is ignorant, and not malicious, in her assertions.
Willis is a liar.
Typical leftist. Her head whistles when the wind blows.
The source of the concept of “Dog Whistle.”
She hears the sound and thinks it comes from somewhere outside her head.
It is clear that Leftist feel that noone can claim self-defense against their righteous looting and burning and since there are no Leftist code words for such an offense, she grabbed something handy out of the propaganda trashbag that didn’t require any thought to send or to receive. What she couldn’t say was, don’t you dare stop one of our hirelings from destroying your town or your business or we will come back with more thugs and more gasoline. That would not be part of the “Narrative”. “White Supremacy” means the same thing but is acceptable pablum for the cult.
To be fair, this article is quite plainly listed as an ‘opinion’ piece. One can share an opinion that is factually wrong, without being a liar.
That said, having read though the entire thing, I can find only one (1) entirely non-factually correct statement: “These statements alone were key in the claim of self-defense.” I submit that these statements were not ‘alone’ key. The MULTIPLE videos were just as key. I see this article a prime example not of lying, but of the masterful use of True-isms (not to be confused with a truism).
A True-ism is a statement, that when parsed in a neutral manner is FACTUALLY ACCURATE, but when taken in the context presented, it leads the reader to a non-factual conclusion different from the text. One cannot be convicted of lying if the statement one makes is ‘factually accurate’. One cannot be punished for the misinterpretation of the recipient.
A prime example is Cuomo’s response when questioned about the DOCUMENTED order forcing NY nursing homes to accept Covid patients discharged from hospitals.
https://www.fingerlakesdailynews.com/2020/09/30/642307/ (3rd clip beginning at 5:25). Note well that he never claims the order didn’t exist, or was not implemented/enforced; merely that “…we never needed to…”.
All of this to say that, with the aforementioned exception, nothing in this article is an out-and-out ‘lie’. Lots of factually accurate statements, and LOT of personal opinions, but no actual ‘lies’:
“I dare say Kyle Rittenhouse was cloaked with a privilege you cannot find in any legal precedent – The Rittenhouse Privilege.(opinion) Throughout the trial there were instances in which it was quite apparent that the scales of justice tipped in favor of Kyle Rittenhouse.(factually accurate…BECAUSE HE WAS NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED. That’s what the scales represent and how they function)
Let’s start with the jury makeup. After the jury process, 18 individuals were selected to listen to the trial.(factually accurate) Of these 18 individuals, 12 were selected at random by the defendant, Kyle Rittenhouse, to deliberate.(factually accurate) These individuals consisted of seven women and five men – only one was a person of color.(factually accurate)
The next thing to consider is the venue. The case was tried in Kenosha, which according to Census data is over 75% White.(factually accurate) In the past, Kenosha country voted Democratic but went for Donald Trump in the 2016 election.(factually accurate but arguably irrelevant) It is also particularly important to consider the fact that Wisconsin is a gun friendly state.(opinion) But we must also ask ourselves Gun Friendly toward whom? ”
See how it works? Now go back and apply this mental filter to the entire article. She doesn’t outright LIE, but she masterfully (?) steers the reader to a…shall we say ‘inaccurate’ conclusion.
It was thre last paragraph I quoted that I claim is the lie.
And I maintain that said paragraph is a combination of True-ism, and Opinion.
“The Rittenhouse Privilege has set a precedent. (opinion) There is now legal precedent which permits individuals to claim self-defense in the most outrageous of cases. (factually accurate*) Be forewarned – this precedent will only extend to individuals who can claim the Rittenhouse privilege.(opinion)”
The asterisk is to note that the precedent is not a new one. A person may make a CLAIM of self defense in ANY situation. Whether that claim is VALID will be borne out by the court(s). See also Michael Dunn in Fla. who shot a guy sitting in a car at a convenience store for playing music he didn’t like/too loud and alleged threats, and claimed SD.
I’m not a lawyer, but I thought precedent was a legally binding court decision. I thought the Rittenhouse decision has no legally binding influence on other cases. As you certain I am mistaken?
Phsstpok. You seem to have missed the headliner. The precedent was for “Whites”.
So your saying I can walk into court now and claim it’s OK to shoot someone because I’m white?
That’s not even an opinion. Let alone something a judge and jury would consider.
So the headliner says Rittenhouse set new precedent in white privilege.
Bullshit. No such f–ck’in such thing as white privilege. And if Kyle was black that same jury would have let him walk also. But that don’t fit the narrative.
“White privilege” is totalitarian propaganda.
Even if the rest of the opinion was 100% truthful. The headline negates everything that follows.
I grew up with affirmative action. I watched that destroy every chance black people ever had at having an equal footing in America.
If Ms. Willis celebrated Black history month like the wife and I, she would be far more informed on the facts. (We binge watch the First 48.)
White Privilege indeed!
Emotionally bonded with the criminal element, all cops are doing to be pigs, property owners are all sinister in some way, and legal self defense is going to be one of the worst things of all— It will be seen as an outrageous personal threat to your safety.
And so the trick has been to get as many people as possible to bond emotionally with the criminal element.
That she claims to be a lawyer means nothing when it comes to a criminal charge. Criminal court is a world apart from civil court actions. For that matter, most all criminal attorneys have no idea how to work for someone claiming to be innocent and especially claiming self-defense.
Virtually all their normal clients are guilty, and the lawyers spend all their effort on figuring out how to work the system to get the best deal for the guilty client. That is the opposite of what should be done for a real self-defense charge, and the client needs to pay careful attention to who they hire, since most of those lawyers will not do a good job in their case, due to their work experience and mindset.
Will’s comment reminds me of a quote from an article I read about talking to an attorney to see if he/she is the right one for you in a defensive use of deadly force.
Ask – “How many of your clients were innocent?”
NOT how many were found not guilty, but INNOCENT of the charges against them.
If the attorney hems and haws and doesn’t really have an answer, say “Thank you” and walk.
You/we need to find representation that can approach the defense from a standpoint that innocence is the bedrock on which our case stands. Anything less is a plea deal in the making that will leave you “less than” what you deserve.
KNOWING YOUR STATE LAWS IS PARAMOUNT. What works in AZ will not help you in CA or NY.
You’re still a liar if you place your lies under the heading, “Opinion”.
If I were to tell you that it is my ernest opinion that pigs can fly, you’d be right in calling me a liar. Pigs can’t fly, we all know it, it’s verifiable, and therefore that’s not my opinion. And so I would be lying to say that it is my opinion, and furthermore saying that it is my opinion doesn’t give me moral carte blanch to full the airways, papers and the internet with lies.
Again, anyone who claims to care about something and yet has failed to do any of the most basic research into the subject, or fails to acknowledge their findings having done any research, is a liar. They’re lying because they don’t really “care”. If they cared, in the way they claim to care, they’d have done some homework before chiming in with advice, opinions or declarations, or they’d be forced, even against their initial wishes, to acknowledge the truth as truth. QED.
That’s for the originators of the content. We can then look also at the publishers and their editors who choose to publish certifiable lies under any heading. By definition it’s a group effort.
In a twisted sense, these soldiers for the cause of evil do “care”. They “care” about serving the interests of their clique, their masters, who have them emotionally bound and otherwise beholden.
As I keep saying in various ways, it’s all about one’s allegiance.