Kyle’s Cantankerous Legal Conundrum: Views from Both Sides

Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial came to a close today, with remarks on Twitter by the usual suspects that are so breathtaking I would be remiss not to immortalize them here.

No one involved on either side of the shootings were Black, but I guess self-defense at a BLM riot is traumatizing enough for the entire race that they ought to get a couple days off work. How’s that for an excuse for a day off?

A movement voice pointed out the following:

That’s the key, and what we saw in closing arguments. Prosecutor Fatty said that Kyle should not have had a gun at the protest. But if one cannot protect property during a violent riot, when can one protect it? Is that not the best time to be protecting property?

Remarks by prosecutors in their closing argument and rebuttal defy reason:

Tomi Lahren remarked that it is the very concept of self-defense that is on trial:

What a horrible shitshow. If Kyle couldn’t defend himself from people raising guns against him, grabbing for him, and swarming him as a mob, what hope does that leave any of us?

It’s all about the religion of Anti-Racism and the fact that Kyle violated its tenets by daring to protect property during a BLM riot. Self-defense means nothing to them now. It’s all about enabling unlimited anarcho-terror to usher in a new era of racial “equity,” with riots as a key mechanism of cathartic cleansing that is necessary to advance our “National Conversation on Race”.

The prosecution’s closing argument, summarized:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.