At the end of another terrible day in America, Amber Ruffin has a message for people who need it
An emotional Ruffin states truths plain enough to break your heart
TV News Amber Ruffin
Late-night hosts are supposed to interview celebrities, do goofy stunts for our amusement, and generally make us feel like we’re staying up to catch a really cool party we’re sort of invited to. But, increasingly, late-night hosts have become our first responders to truly awful, unfathomable events, the traditional mid-afternoon taping schedule feverishly reshuffled to accommodate news that breaks just before the cameras roll.
Since this is America, 2021, Friday afternoon sent your favorite host and his/her writing staff a gut-punch of an impossible-to-ignore national tragedy, in the form of a Wisconsin jury’s not guilty verdict for one Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse is the then-minor who, during the Black Lives Matter protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, had his mother drive him across state lines where he, with an illegally procured AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, shot three protesters, killing two. The protests, if you recall, were in response to the police shooting of now-paralyzed Black man, Jacob Blake.
With her earlier Peacock streaming time, it was Amber Ruffin who found herself the first host called upon to react to the jury’s decision. Having sent out a typically endearing tweet earlier in the afternoon promising an even goofier than usual Amber Ruffin Show tonight, Ruffin perhaps felt the need to get out in front of what’s going to be the chief topic for all those other writers rooms and hosts. Putting out a Twitter video from her 30 Rockefeller Plaza studio desk, Ruffin’s introduction said simply, “In case you needed to be reminded of this after today’s verdict.”
In the video, Ruffin headed off any idea that she’d be addressing the white Republican politicians gleefully offering the freed Rittenhouse a job. Or the braying white trolls flooding that same Twitter platform with stupid memes and sneering contempt for anybody who thinks it’s indeed a national tragedy that a Wisconsin court has now set a precedent for heavily armed right-wing white supremacists to straight-up murder people they don’t like in the street. Or even to wishy-washy other politicians, like, it has to be said, President Joe Biden, who’ve adopted a head-shake and plea for calm as appropriate response to this latest bloody travesty of justice.
No, Ruffin addressed her viewers, who, excepting the reliable hate-watchers looking to post remedial middle school insults whenever the subject of America’s hard-baked systemic racism gets mentioned, are in angry mourning tonight. Calling her opportunity to publicly speak on these all too frequent injustices something she doesn’t take lightly, Ruffin visibly gathered herself before stating, simply, “You matter.”
You should watch the clip yourself, as Ruffin, after hugging her arms and choking back the emotion threatening to overwhelm her throughout, tried to ground herself and her viewers in some sense of shared moral reality. “So, I can’t believe I have to say this but,” began Ruffin, before taking a very long pause and stating, finally, “It’s not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free.”
Continuing to speak slowly and deliberately, Ruffin went on to remind viewers that it’s also not okay for the legal system in America “to be so blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color,” and that it’s not okay “for there to be an entirely different set of rules for white people.” Still, Ruffin explained that she wasn’t talking to Kyle Rittenhouse, “that racist judge,” or even speculating on “how fucked up that jury must be.” Instead, she, speaking straight to those of us crushed once more by how little the justice system even tries to hide its deadly double standard, echoed her opening statement, noting emphatically, “I can’t believe I have to say this, but you matter.”
So with the weight of another horrible day in America sitting on a whole lot of shoulders on Friday, and with the sickening thought of white supremacists across the country emboldened in their violent thuggery by this farcical trial, Ruffin reminded everybody who cared to listen, “You matter so much.” Acknowledging that, “As soon as you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn’t have in the first place, and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you,” Ruffin yet urged her audience not to forget. You matter. Black lives matter. You matter.
288 Comments
This is not hyperbole: I feel physically ill reading that Rittenhouse was found not guilty.
You’d rather he was beaten to death by a mob? How… tolerant of you.
Is it the white people defending themselves? Or is it the pedos getting shot?
It was truly a gut-punch.
Why? If you had paid any attention to the trial it was obvious he was going to be found not guilty.
Can’t expect everybody to always be as cynical as reality.
Honestly, I hadn’t much been paying attention to the trial itself, only because the last 2 weeks I been going through other crazy disasters near and far that distracted me. I’m still not “surprised” but I am sickened.
Clearly you weren’t paying ANY attention to the trial. It was self-defense and had nothing to do with race.
It is clear none of the people commenting watched a second of the trial. The fact that the acts in question were on video is hard to ignore… To loot, burn, and vandalize is the highest form of protest, I guess…
It was basically a forgone conclusion. Wisconsin’s self defense statutes are extremely permissive and the prosecution, frankly, sucked. Some of their witnesses actually helped the defense argue the reasonable belief standard of the statute was met.
don’t let that pos prosecutor off the hook
I already knew he would when the media turned on the protester’s to begin with. That’s the position the Union state has already taken and that was unsurprising to. But they had to try it and they have my respect for putting themselves out on the lines for a worthwhile protest.
I love Amber Ruffin, but I’ll be completely honest in admitting I didn’t need or want that segment. The somberness and disappoinment was not something I wanted to sit in, even with the affirmations at the end. I know there wasn’t enough time to prepare a How Did We Get Here segment for it (although we absolutely knew how this verdict would go), but I would have much preferred the dive into it with some jokes over sticking with the mood that was already here.But it’s likely some other people need this, so I can’t complain too much. It’s just not what I needed in the moment.
I think from the fact she was holding back tears she didn’t have any intention of joking about this.
I don’t think anyone wants to sit in this verdict or the fact that no matter how many years we work at changing things a POS like this walks free. Reminding us that we matter and the struggle matters, even if it is eternal, was kind and an act of grace.
Rittenhouse can both be a POS and the jury could have reached a verdict that followed the law.I don’t know how the other charges, like the gun charge, got thrown out though. Those at least he should have been convicted on.
How is he a pos? Really worried about the slippery slope. Now everyone is going to think it’s okay to shoot a child rapist when he’s trying to kill you. Where does this lead? I mean, will any child rapist ever be able to kill anyone without getting shot? I don’t want to live in that country.
Neeeeeeeded this like we neeeeeeded Kate McKinnon singing Hallelujah as Hillary Clinton.
I’ve been struggling to express how I feel about this, and I think I’ve got it just about formulated right. First of all, although it is obvious to me that Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha with the specific goal of finding trouble and being the big gun-toting hero, my disappointment with this verdict isn’t because I’m upset that he isn’t going to rot in jail. I don’t think that people rotting in jail represents a positive outcome, especially if they’re dumb kids. Over the past few months, it’s really rubbed me the wrong way to see people baying for this 17 year old’s blood. Locking him up wouldn’t have brought his victims back to life, and it’s a bit hypocritical (although totally understandable) that people who generally advocate for leniency in the criminal justice system insist that the book be thrown at this particular kid. But what does bother me about this is that it’s still clearly a miscarriage of justice. Like I said, he clearly went there, armed, looking for a fight. If he had been black there’s no way in hell he would have gotten away with shooting anybody. In general, I’d say that a court applying the law in the most defendant-friendly way possible is a good thing, but of course it’s frustrating when that only happens when the defendant has white skin, wealth, or some other form of privilege. Even more troubling is that people (mostly on the right) will take this as a green light to bring a weapon to any sort of protest or rally and will not hesitate to shoot whenever they can claim to feel threatened. This is the by far the worst part of all this, and not the fact that one racist dumbass is going to be free to walk the streets.
Well… no point in locking him up except for the non-small chance that a spree murderer like him will kill again.
Possible, I suppose, but more likely if he gets in trouble again it’s going to be like George Zimmerman, where he regularly gets into violent confrontations with people he thinks are disrespecting him. But I don’t see him grabbing his rifle and heading to every protest that breaks out.
HE probably won’t. But the USA is full of KR wannabes, and they all just got told they if they acted out their murder fantasies it would be cool, heroic and legal – why, even the cops would call them heroes.BTW those who call for leniency in the system are usually talking about non-violent drug offenses, and the disproportionate sentences given to people of color. That does not make them hypocrites when they don’t come out in support of a white supremacist who killed 3 people in cold blood.
Setting the timer now for when he’s in front of a judge on a domestic violence charge.
My issue is that this case is being used as a victory against our right to protest in general. That to me is the worst part of it, because the Right and hate groups under a similar umbrella are moving against our civil rights and even constitutional rights in such an effective way.It pretends that the side getting persecuted is causing the unrest and even the call for peace is undermining that. It’s bad on both sides both democrat and republican that they’re unwilling to even consider a validity to the protests. That the focus on property damage is higher than the value of actual lives leaves me very cold. You can always rebuild a building or a business but when a person is dead they are gone forever. You can’t undo taking another person life. And I guess because I don’t believe in an after life I think that its more serious a crime than people who comfort themselves with a heaven.I don’t believe that justice ever brings back the victims, but I think we have to have a clear line of consequence for wrong doing or else why even try to establish any order to begin with? Why not just have the rule of the sword be the law of the land in that case. I think he should’ve seen some jail time at least a decade and then he could go on with his life. I don’t agree with the death penalty or taking prisoners right to vote or have rights or place to live or work, but I think for murder for doing real harm yeah…jail time to a feasible degree. Serve your time and be able to begin again. That’s what I advocate for.
If the government surrenders your community to the mob, and allows it to descend into anarchy and ruin, you are not under any moral obligation to sit back and watch it happen. That’s what the “he shouldn’t have been there” people are arguing, and it’s false and deranged.
I know what you mean, but this is the type of material I connect more with from Amber. I feel like her studio audience takes away some of the direct connection she has with the viewer and are too often reliant on lazy, glib material which doesn’t let the host have a heart.
Playing the race card when the victims wernt even of color?
Man gets attacked by the same people he shot, whilst they had guns aswell?
Yall are arogant and naive fools.
You’re missing or perhaps ignoring the larger goal, which is to shift legal and public opinion to accept mob violence when the mob doesn’t get its demands met. I’m not saying this to say I either accept or disagree with what they want, but that is what they want.
lol, arogant
Rottenhouse did not”Pick Up a rifle and travel across state lines”. The rifle never left Kenosha, that ist a fact and was established in the trial, This might Not Matter to you, but it is an essential fact that so many people who weigh in on this – including Ruffin and the author – of this article misrepresent.And ist Not the only one
LOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLL COPE COPE AND COPE AGAIN!
Joseph Rosenbaum – the First Guy, that was shot – was Not a protester or BLM-ally. He was been released from a mental hospital the same das after a suicide-attempt. He then walked miles to His (Ex-) girlfriends house, würde He was told that He was legally forbidden from staying thete. Then He walked miles to end Up in the riots. Thete He helped Set fires (fact established in trial), He shouted the N-word (fact established in trial), He threatened Rittenhouse to kill him (fact established in trial), He later chased Rittenhouse Into a group of Cars and grapped His gun (fact established in trial), which means that He was in that moment legally armed (fact established in trial).And thats wegen Rittenhouse shot him.
There was one black Guy involved. At the trial He was referred to AS “jumpkick-man”, because he tried to kick Rittenhouse in the Grad, wegen Rittenhouse was in the ground.He retreated, when Rittenhouse pointed His rifle at him and no shot was fired, since He wasnt a threat anymore.He was also never called AS a witness, investigated or charged with assault. The prosecution claimed they couldnt find him, which as media reports Point Out might be false.
1. No, Rittenhouse did not “have his mother drive him across state lines.”https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/2. No, Rittenhouse’s gun was not “illegal.” Wisconsin state law makes an exception for minors possessing shotguns or rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled. Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law. Which is why the weapons charge was dropped by the judge.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/603. “… during the Black Lives Matter protests AND RIOTS” – fixed it for you, since I think it’s kinda important to acknowledge that it’s not just “protests” when a Car Source dealership, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections building, the city’s Danish Brotherhood Lodge, and other buildings are burned to the ground, over $2 million in city property is razed, and private property up to $50 million is destroyed.4. Finally – and I can’t believe this needs to be said – people have a right to defend themselves when someone points a gun at them, like in Grosskreutz’s case; or when someone chases them around and threatens them (“If I catch any of you f****** alone, I’ll f****** kill you”) and reaches for their gun when they catch up to them, like in convicted pedophile Rosenbaum’s case; or when someone chases them around and tries to seriously maim them with their skateboard, like in convicted domestic abuser Huber’s case. But, hey, I get it: The Official Narrative™ has to be honored, not the actual facts. This country sucks, its institutions suck, the judge and the jury in this case sucked and were “racist” and “white supremacist” because I didn’t get the verdict I wanted (see, the judge and the jury in the Chauvin case – now those were swell people! Because I got what I wanted!), and everyone who doesn’t think like me or agree with me with is a Hitler-loving racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic bigot.For my part, I hope Rittenhouse follows Nick Sandmann’s lead and sues the establishment press for defamation and blatant lies. The A.V. Club, of course, unlike CNN and Washington Post, probably can’t afford $250-$275 million, so it’s probably not going to be worth the effort.
I get that people are upset, but this is unacceptable hyperbole and dishonesty by Ruffin, and only helps fan the flames. Blaming the jury for following the law is appalling.Rittenhouse did not bring a gun across state lines. And saying he travelled “all the way” to another state when he lived a few minutes away from the border and had family in Kenosha is, to me, a pretty blatant effort to misrepresent what actually happened. That of course is without even taking into account how dumb the constant repetition of “crossed state lines” is.People with a big platform like Ruffin need to act more responsibly than this.
Don’t forget to call out malevolent leftist Perkins for making even more baseless assertions…seriously the Left has forfeited the right to complain about fake news.
For the love of white shooters, will you give it a rest?
That’s a strange thing to say. This is the first comment I’ve ever made about this case, anywhere.
I’m not sure what’s more ridiculous: That you expect us to believe that this is your first comment on the topic or that you expect us to have been breathlessly following your posting activity….
I’m not expecting anything. The phrase “give it a rest” is generally used when someone goes on and on about something, but as I said that was my first comment on the topic. That’s why it was a strange thing to say.
So your the one person that didn’t’ say anything on this topic until after the verdict and choose this thread to share your wisdom you saved up, and you still managed to make the first thing you say complete Bullshit. Amazing.
*you’re
Yes, I only came to this case a couple of weeks ago.Could you point out the bullshit in my first post please?
More than likely, they’re lumping you in with all the other “blue checkerboard” commenters on the network of sites.
Really worried about the slippery slope. Now everyone is going to think it’s okay to shoot a child rapist when he’s trying to kill you. Where does this lead? I mean, will any child rapist ever be able to kill anyone without getting shot? I don’t want to live in that country.
The day a child rapist can’t grab a man’s gun and shoot him with it is the day the Statue of Liberty will walk into the sea.
Don’t bother, it’s an account shared by some housemates in Massachusetts. These posts are part of their elaborate masturbation ritual.
If you disagree with me why don’t you explain why? It would be handy if you could get straight to the point and phrase it like this: “I think it’s cool for Amber Ruffin to mislead her audience because…”
I really should know better, but… Fuck it, I love this kinky shit. Tell me how to debate you again, Daddy! I’m verrrrry simple-minded.
You aren’t funny or interesting
It’s embarrassing that you think this is funny or some kind of a “burn”. Truly.
I’m verrrrry embarrassed…I thought the door was locked, and now you’ve caught me masturbating. And you’re my stepbrother! But yeah, now that you mention it, I would LOVE to suck your dick.
Your existence makes me sad. This was a funny bit for like a week, 8 years ago.I feel bad for you because it’s clear this website is all you have and you think you’re killing it right now.
I don’t normally do this, but…Yes, you can come all over my face.Just go ahead.Go ahead….No rush. Just go ahead. …No rush.
Lol. You don’t matter.
My god… You’re commenting on your own 8 years of experience of activity by one particular poster, and telling THEM this website is all they have.Fucking touch grass you racist stalker.
Lol you don’t matter. And for the record your existence still makes me sad.
It’s embarrassing that you rape housepets and yet apparently that hasn’t stopped you.
I think it’s cool for Amber Ruffin to speak honestly, and not misleadingly, to her audience. Which she did. If you think she missed them, that’s because you are stupid and you think she’s testifying under oath, which she is not.Go jump off a skyscraper you fucking racist piece of shit.
I think it’s cool for Amber Ruffin to speak honestly, and not misleadingly, to her audience. Which she did. If you think she missed them, that’s because you are stupid and you think she’s testifying under oath, which she is not.Go jump off a skyscraper you fucking racist piece of shit.
Did you watch the trial?
Ya know Rittenhouse is Hispanic, right?
lollollollollollollollollollol
Why do you guys keep giving them a platform and entertaining them? I’ve been around for years and it just boggles my mind. Headed back to The Root. We don’t tolerate this BS there.
The Root is just Breitbart for Black racists.
You’re a racist clown. Everything she says in this monologue is false. This is the evil of ignorance and zeal
She doesn’t care to learn the facts
She doesn’t care about what is true
She just spreads lies, willfully just like you.
Give all these facts a rest bro.
Ultimately, he had zero business being in Kenosha that night. So cut out the concern trolling bullshit
Ok, well leaving aside that he has family there, it wasn’t illegal for him to be in Kenosha so that has no bearing on whether he should have been found guilty. My point was that people in the media like Ruffin shouldn’t mislead their audience, particularly when the topic is as sensitive as this one. Obvously you disagree, but I’m not sure how that constitutes concern trolling.
So you went from “this is my first comment, I’ve said about this anywhere” to really doing a hard defense of Rittenhouse. Say what you will about the trial, about the fact that this was self-defense(which, disgustingly, in this country, this was considered …) but to defend him BEING THERE.“Leaving aside he had family there”…YES, LEAVE THAT ASIDE. His family was NEVER in danger. So why did he have to go? Why did he gave to go onto the street with guns? How was he protecting his family?We get, clearly you’re one of those people who see Rittenhouse as some sort of hero unjustly prosecuted by the media. I mean, poor, little white supremacist has some misinformation on him. Clearly, he’s so heartbroken by this, he has to go out drinking underage at bars, wearing t-shirts that shows he has no remorse and giving white power signs. Poor little dirtbag put himself in a situation where he was able to claim self-defense and kill people. Poor little racist will now embolden others to do the same. Will someone please think of the racist children!
Haha, this is great! You just haven’t managed to understand my post, at all. And it wasn’t complicated! Suffice to say, I didn’t defend him being there, I said it wasn’t illegal.
where are you from dan? my guess is the netherlands. you have the haughty, smug attitude of the original worst country
Guess again, you big ol’ anti-dutch racist
south africa?
I dunno dude, Belgium is pretty close.
You come across as extremely unintelligent.
^ this guy just read you for filth dan and i thoroughly enjoyed it
However, there was a curfew, so it was illegal for him to be out in Kenosha that night…
Was his family in downtown Kenosha that night? Or did his stupid ass mom get a bad route from. Google maps?
Yeah those people should have just let their businesses get burned down. You don’t know what you’re talking about. At all.
Yes, it’s the job of a dipshit whose balls yet to drop to go police a riotSeriously are you this fuckin stupid? Either way your boy walked free. So congratufuckinlations
His father lives in Kenosha. He worked in Kenosha. He has roots on Kenosha.
He had no business in downtown Kenosha with a firearm. Or was his father there?
Agreed but that does not make him guilty of murder. A 17 year old can apparently openly carrying a firearm with a barrel longer than 16 inches in town in Wisconson. That is why the firearms charges were dismissed by the court. Sort of nuts (try that in a Canabian city and your head will be pinned to your car in minutes – a friend of mine took his 22 in for repairs and found that out the hard way) but that is the law.
Nobody had business being in Kenosha that night so YOU cut the bullshit.
It was a public protest on public land. He had every bit as much right to be there as anyone else. And you don’t lose your right to self-defence just because some shitbag pedophile decides he doesn’t want you around.
What actually happened was that an 18-year-old cop cosplayer went to a protest with a gun, praying for the opportunity to shoot someone like he’d been bragging he’d do to his friends, and ended up killing two people.Everything you brought up is irresponsible spin doctoring.
He was 17. Shouldn’t be too hard to get the facts right but I guess it is
Yes, totally invalidates their point because he said 18 vs 17.You are all so weird
I mean it kind of does. Why would I trust that he knows that the Rittenhouse “ was praying for the opportunity to shoot someone” if he cant bother to get basic facts right?It seems to me Rittenhouse is a prick that deserves prison time for killing two people and shooting a third.But not bothering to know the basic fact of whether he was an adult or not really makes me wonder whether TeoFabulous should shut the fuck up because sharing their opinion on a case they apparently know nothing about is really stupid
Nothing I’ve said contradicts anything in your post. Although he was 17 at the time Im not arguing that he wasn’t/ isn’t an irresponsible asshole. If you actually bother to read and understand my post you will see that it was a criticism of Ruffin, not a defense of Rittenhouse. Anyone who was surprised by the verdict just didn’t bother to familiarize themselves with the case or the relevant laws. Just like Ruffin.
You did defend Rittenhouse…In an earlier post you defended why he went to Kenosha, which was absolutely insane.
everyone up there is right and you should just stop posting and both sidesing this nonsense. go whack off to kyle on your own time judge schroeder
Or, like me, perhaps they’re an experienced attorney who knows “the relevant laws” always refers to some fucking bullshit that will be interpreted differently depending on the race of the victim, the race of the defendant, and the politics of the judge and prosecutor.Only fucking idiots believe “the law” is meaningful or something to be respected.
The jury who sat there for a week disagree with you.
No, they actually didn’t. They just said that he shouldn’t be prosecuted for it.
Wow, a racist jury, what a shock in America
Did you watch the trial?
Did he literally brag to his friends that he was going to shoot someone? I followed the case fairly closely, but not super closely, and that’s not something I’ve heard. It seems like that would have been pretty damaging to his case if it was known that beforehand he was going around crowing about the opportunity to shoot someone.
If Rittenhouse was praying for an opportunity to shoot someone, why did he run away from Rosenbaum?
“Rittenhouse did not bring a gun across state lines.”So, this 17 year-old bought one when he got to the riot?He deliberately armed himself and interjected himself into a dangerous situation with the intention of shooting people. To say otherwise is bullshit.Your argument is silly and defenseless.
“So, this 17 year-old bought one when he got to the riot?”I didn’t say that, or anything close to it.“He deliberately armed himself and interjected himself into a dangerous situation with the intention of shooting people. To say otherwise is bullshit.”Ok. I didn’t say otherwise though. Can you read?
“Rittenhouse did not bring a gun across state lines.”Your entire argument is that a 17 year-old child had a right to arm himself, travel across state lines (yes, he fucking crossed state lines), put himself into this situation, and shoot people. That this is a perfectly acceptable course of action. That people have no reason to be outraged by the verdict.This is the statement you’re making. This ‘can you read’ bullshit is disingenuous at best; you’re deliberately arguing in bad faith.I’m not engaging with you any further, I just wanted to let you know that you’re not nearly as clever as you think you are, and if you want to go the ‘intellectual right-winger owns the libs’ route, you will really need to up your game.
“Your entire argument is that a 17 year-old child had a right to arm himself, travel across state lines (yes, he fucking crossed state lines), put himself into this situation, and shoot people. That this is a perfectly acceptable course of action. That people have no reason to be outraged by the verdict.This is the statement you’re making”But this isn’t a statement I have made, or would ever make. That’s why I think you’re stupid: you haven’t understood what I’ve said at all. I made no comment on whether Rittenhouse behaved morally. But according to the law a not guilty verdict was to be expected. People can of course be outraged. I’m not American, and looking from the outside I think the whole situation is absolutely outrageous. But they should be outraged with the law, not the verdict.Finally, he did not arm himself before crossing state lines. That is an easily verifiable fact that you can look up. You might think about familiarizing yourself with a topic before telling other people they aren’t as smart as they think they are.
Go away racist
What have I said that is in any way racist?
Go away racist
Seriously, anything at all that I’ve said here that is at all racist?
Go away racist
recognitions will keep repeating this because he has the intelligence of a toddler. He’s also pretty clearly mentally ill. So there’s that.
Don’t bother replying to recognitions. They’re little more than a troll.
Nothing. Facts apparently have no place in this argument. The trial proved that most of the assumptions made about this case were false. Anybody watching as the prosecution’s own witnesses re-enforced the defence would know that. How a white man shooting other white men in self defence while his neighborhood burned around him (largely caused by white men) is racist is beyond me.
You’re defending a racist and attacking Ruffin for pointing out the damage and pain caused by this verdict.
You can’t reason with people like this. Just be happy you aren’t as stupid and angry as them.
Apparently the truth.
It’s recognitions. It is always morally fine to dismiss recognitions, no matter what they say.
Almost fucking everything
Then it should be super easy for you to give even one example, right?
Everyone involved is White.
So he got a gun after crossing statelines. It’s okay ya’ll! The gun came second. But Disparate Dan is NOT defending him.
I didn’t say it was ok for him to have a gun, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere I think the relevant gun laws are insane. My (very simple and easy to understand) point was that it wasn’t illegal as he didn’t cross state lines with the gun. I’m sorry you’re incapable of understanding the distinction.
You realize most issues with your posts isn’t that no one is struggling to understand what you’re saying, it’s us failing to understand WHY you are saying. Why be THAT guy who is like “well he went to Kenosha because he had family there” “It wasn’t that far, you know” “He got the gun in Wisconsin, and it’s legal”….Yes, Ruffin had misinformation in her monologue BUT the point she’s making is significantly more important and you decide to ignore that to be like, “Well I’m not from America, but like I’m going ignore the larger point to discuss why legally its okay that Rittenhouse got off”The point many are trying to make is that MORALLY that this keeps happening in this country, that there is one set of laws, applied two different ways is wrong, that this happened in the first place is wrong. That he was there was wrong. That he walked into a protest with a gun was wrong. There is no DEFENDING that, and that IS what you are doing when you say things like “Well he didn’t cross the state with a gun” and “He didn’t live that far” and “Well he has family there.” Those are DEFENSES and EXCUSES, and that’s what many people are taking issue with.You can feign ignorance that, that is what you are doing, and it is what you are doing. You are making excuses for why a racist purposely put himself in a situation where he killed two people. And though he is lawfully innocent, morally, he knew what he was doing, and most certainly was hoping he’d get to put his cop cosplay to use by shooting someone and playing a hero. And he got just that.
Thank you! This is exactly what this gaslighting asshole is doing.
I think it would be better if everyone just ignores him, that’s the surest way to make him go away.
Then he can only have circlejerks with the other racist apologists on here.
Use more buzzwords. Lol “gaslighting” – you realize that not a single respectable legal observer of the trial agrees with you right? You’re literally just an angry uneducated person who’s making objectively false claims about things you know absolutely nothing about.
Gaslighting, really? C’mon why don’t you explain how I’m gaslighting? I’m dying to know because your other posts here have been so insightful. Then maybe you can explain why it’s ok for people in the media to mislead their audience and why it isn’t ok for me to point out when they’re doing so.
You’re a vile bully with a trash mouth, Betsy. You told the guy you didn’t want him to answer you while you talked and talked, then you insisted others ignore him. Why don’t you mind your own business?
You write like an 16 year old who thinks they’re smart. Also, I didn’t realize you were the person who gets to decide when and where people are able to state their opinions on the internet. No one owes you anything.
Be more sanctimonious though. It’s a good look. Always a sign of intelligence.
“Yes, Ruffin had misinformation in her monologue BUT the point she’s making is significantly more important and you decide to ignore that to be like…”Yes, I commented on parts of the monologue and ignored other parts. Why is that a problem? Would it have been better if I had said “While I agree with Ruffin on X, I don’t think she should have said Y”? I just think it’s extremely irresponsible for Ruffin to make this dishonest speech, and frankly the fact that she didn’t bother to familiarize herself with the case before doing so makes me think she doesn’t give a shit about the victims. Though that’s obviously speculation. You and others here seem to think it’s not a big deal for her to lie like that, which is fine. It’s a perspective I have trouble wrapping my head around, but you’ll notice I haven’t accused anyone of being a racist or fascist as others have done to me. “The point many are trying to make is that MORALLY that this keeps happening in this country, that there is one set of laws, applied two different ways is wrong”That’s fine, I haven’t commented on that though so it’s not relevant to my posts. “that this happened in the first place is wrong. That he was there was wrong. That he walked into a protest with a gun was wrong.”Yeah, I agree with that. He shouldn’t have gone. “There is no DEFENDING that, and that IS what you are doing when you say things like “Well he didn’t cross the state with a gun” and “He didn’t live that far” and “Well he has family there.””I pointed out falsehoods and exagerration. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you think it’s ok for people in the media to mislead their audience?
This reminds me of the kinds of debates I used to get into with people in the early 2000s about Michael Moore. Someone would point out some egregious falsehood in one of his films, and the inevitable response would be “Who cares if he got that minor detail wrong, when he’s so right about George Bush / gun control / health care / whatever?” And my response was always, shouldn’t you be MORE insistent that someone’s arguments be accurate and honest if you AGREE with their fundamental argument? Wouldn’t that argument be more helpful and persuasive if it’s able to stand up to fact-checking and counterargument? If it could be defended by assertions more substantive than “If you disagree, you must be a fascist”?
We have a problem with you caping for a violent racist when a good chunk of this country is mourning yet another example of how black lives don’t matter in a country mired in white supremacy.
You’re having a hard time with WHY actual facts are being proffered? There has been an avalanche of completely factless talking points reiterated over and over again, that Rittenhouse took a gun across state lines, or his mother drove him there. This is all factually incorrect and repeating it just makes us look stupid and gives ammo to the right. Ruffin repeated completely false info, which doesn’t help anybody. Her overall point is spot on, but showing that you didn’t even follow the case undercuts it.Also: And though he is lawfully innocent, morally, he knew what he was doing, and most certainly was hoping he’d get to put his cop cosplay to use by shooting someone and playing a hero.None of that follows. Have you seen the drone footage? Rittenhouse is running away from Rosenbaum who was a mentally ill man who just got out off the hospital that morning after a suicide attempt and was screaming, “kill me,” while another protester started shooting into the air. There’s absolutely nothing that suggests that he wanted to shoot anybody. He was running away during every encounter. Hence, the very obvious legal outcome of this case from the start. Literally every legal analyst from every publication said this was the only legal outcome based on the evidence and Wisconsin’s self defense laws.Now, you want to argue that if Rittenhouse was Black that the basically all-white jury wouldn’t have found the same level of reasonableness in the clause? Undoubtedly. The laws can be changed a good bit to be more equitable. The inherent racism of our country? Not so much.
Bro, bringing a rifle to that situation clearly suggests he intended to shoot people. If you don’t intend to shoot people you don’t need a means to do it.And don’t tell me I don’t understand the law. IDGAF about the law.
The people equivocating about “state lines” and distance from said lines, can fuck off. I live 10 minutes from Tijuana. If I lived right up against the fence, and I went there, I will have “crossed lines”. It does not matter if he lived 10000 miles or 10 inches from the state line. If he didn’t live there, he crossed state lines. I’m sure we all would love to be able to take a gun (whether or not it was from another state) to a volatile situation, create more volatility by our mere presence with a high powered assault rifle, and then claim self defense when shooting unarmed people because suddenly you claimed to fear for your life. If you feared for your life, stay the fuck home like literally everyone in the country except for a few hundred people, did. This entire thing could have been avoided if Rittenhouse, his parents, and the Kenosha cops had done literally any of the things they should have done instead. I have been part of many peaceful protests, and I cannot emphasize enough, how far down the list of things I would wish to do at a protest, is bring an assault rifle to them, because the armed to the teeth police, who have already proven just how violent they can be, somehow might require my help.
If he was acquitted under whatever bullshit laws ALEC and the NRA have been able to get passed in the WI statehouse, then fine I guess, but lets not pretend this is a thing that ever should have happened.
effing fanboy
He did not cross state lines with the gun. The gun was already in Kenosha at the friend’s house who bought it for him in Wisconsin. Stating this fact doesn’t mean one approves of Rittenhouse’s actions.
That doesn’t make it any more legal.
If he respected the law as much as he claims, he wouldn’t have gone to a city under curfew from another state. He was 17. He wouldn’t have picked up a rifle he wasn’t old enough to legally carry in either Wisconsin, where he killed people, or Illinois, the state he left to kill people. He was breaking the law just by being in Kenosha and being armed. The two people he killed would still be alive today had he not inserted himself into that situation.He and his mother should both be in jail. That neither of them are shows how rotten the entire justice system is in the United States.Amber is spot-on here.
As it turns out he was legally able to carry a rifle of that length in Wisconsin. That’s why that charge was thrown out. Turns out there’s a statute that was added regarding rifle’s over a specific length that created a loophole for 17 year olds. Obviously Rittenhouse didn’t know that at the time but that doesn’t matter as far as the law is concerned. Also, this “other state” mantra is silly. Antioch and Kenosha border each other. Rittenhouse works in Kenosha and his father and some friends live there. There were hundreds of people in Kenosha that came from much further away. And why should his mother be in jail? You do know the report that she drove him there was false, right?What needs to be changed are these wildly permissive self defense laws. The jury got it right based on how the law is written but it’s bad law.
You are right. We have so many bad laws. But I think the point stands that laws apply differently to different people. When black kids with toy guns are killed, and white kids with rifles can walk the street, pass some cops and put themselves in a situation where they can(and want) to shoot people, then there is something seriously wrong not just with the laws, but the system as a whole.I think more, or less, that’s what Amber was saying. Yes, there is definitely false information in what she said but the overall point was basically this country is effed to hell
But I think the point stands that laws apply differently to different people. Oh, absolutely. I’m a little bogged down in minutiae, but yes, Ruffin is absolutely correct in that regard. If Rittenhouse was a 17 year old Black kid he almost certainly would’ve been found guilty on all counts. When it comes to reasonability clauses in statutes white juries almost never extend the same level of empathy to a Black person. Unfortunately, even if these laws were made better, there’s no way to write out certain thresholds of reasonability completely. There’s no way to make them completely racism proof. And, that’s just in regard to a jury trial. That’s if a Black person even makes it to trial. The racism endemic in law enforcement can often preclude that from even happening due to, you know, shooting them instead. This country is effed to hell due to racism and while laws can changed to be more equitable they can’t be written in a such a manner that all potential racial bias is eliminated. The only way is for America to stop being so racist and, well, it always has been so I have little faith that it ever will be.
LOL as if a black teenager would have had right wing lawyers, orgs and pundits fundraising for their cause. They’d have to get a public defender and take a plea deal. Maybe they’d get out in 15-20. But probably not.
You’re an extremely unintelligent person.
So what is wrong with “crossing state lines”??? People do it all the time for Heaven’s sake!!! What’s your bloody beef??? Seems we live in the USSA now, when “crossing state lines” is some sort of crime!!!! It is for the illegals but not for American citizens, but of course you probably believe that for illegals, it’s ok! :-((
no dan, these people can’t read. good post.
“Your argument is silly and defenseless.”Your statement is at odds with reality. You don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the actual facts of the case.Hence why the jury found him not guilty and why every legal expert who followed this trial wasn’t surprised by that. Your opinion means little to nothing.
It was at his father’s house, which in Kenosha.
He brought the gun for protection, he didn’t want to have to shoot people but ultimately had to or else they would have shot him! This was strictly for his own defense. He went to Kenosha to help put out fires that barbarians started!
He’s not a cop. You fuckin weirdo
Please tell me – why the fuck was he even there with a rifle? (please don’t think I actually want you to come back with some asinine gaslighting comment. We ALL know why he was there)That’s where this all started and he is the only person to blame for the resulting actions.
Sure go ahead, blame him. Again, I’m criticizing Ruffin here, not defending Rittenhouse. But the fact remains that the law was pretty clearly on his side, and the verdict was unsurprising.
You know exactly what you’re doing. *fart noise*
Doesn’t it bother you to be so wildly anti intellectual? Do you think dismissing reality makes you brave and important?
Well.why don’t you indulge me and explain anyway, because I don’t really know what you’re talking about.
You are criticizing Amber Ruffin’s reporting on the verdict. You are criticizing her synopsis of the trial and the events on trial. I understand your desire to do so, I do it with Fox News all the time.The issue I am seeing is that she is reacting to something she finds personal, and she has every right to do that. Give her the opportunity to react as I wanted to.
Not the people who also were illegally armed with fire arms who were chasing him? They aren’t to blame at all? That’s weird how you only care about one person having a gun and ignoring the fact that everyone he shot had guns as well and were actively pursuing him.
So you asked a question and then immediately let it be known that you would reject any actual attempt to answer it…You realize you’re not the good guy here?
Not going to let you out, and I will dismiss your other comments. Ever heard of a rhetorical question?
Idiot.
nadanilSo you asked a question and then immediately let it be known that you would reject any actual attempt to answer it…You realize you’re not the good guy here?
You’re an unbelievably unintelligent person. Kind of breathtaking actually. Rest assured your opinion matters to no one and I guarantee you’ve never done a single thing of note in your entire life. Lol. Also learn what a rhetorical question is.
I’m not giving more air to the racist apologists on this thread.
But it’s just as obvious why you are here posting as it was why this cowardly fuck was at that BLM protest with a gun.
You’re not that clever, reasonable people can see right through you. ETA: and if by the slimmest imaginable possibility you really don’t understand what you’re doing – you have some serious personality disorder and should probably go see someone to help you be a little more self-aware.
“you have some serious personality disorder and should probably go see someone to help you be a little more self-aware.”Hahaha. Omg this is hilarious. I never made any claims about being clever, but I’m 100% more clever than you. You write like a literal child.
“But it’s just as obvious why you are here posting as it was why this cowardly fuck was at that BLM protest with a gun.”Two of the people chasing him also had guns, except for theirs were actually illegal. Unlike his. You’re an extremely unintelligent person.
So.just a complete total and utter inability to counter or engage with any arguments you don’t like huh? Good job.
“Please tell me – why the fuck was he even there with a rifle?”
To me, it looks like he went out hunting for people. He bagged two—almost three. I’m guessing he considers it a successful hunting trip.
To suggest, as some are, that he never went there intending to use the gun he went out of his way to purchase, stow away at a friend’s house, pick up after crossing state lines, & carry, loaded & openly, strapped on his shoulder, is beyond absurd. He went looking for trouble, & depending on how you look at it, he either found some or made some. This kid got exactly what he wanted & expected out of that night.
Exactly right.
You’re sooooooo brave and important. Stunning too.
So what about the two people he killed who also had guns, albeit ones they were carrying illegally?
You raise an excellent point. What about them? What about their rights to a trial, just like Rittenhouse got? If they broke the law, the law should see to them—arrest them, bring charges, & try them. If they were trespassing, or breaking curfew, or damaging property, or illegally armed, or anything else, they should have been held accountable.
Do you see the problem here? Even if the two people Rittenhouse killed were breaking the law (and as far as I know they were not charged with any crimes), none of the laws they could be accused of are capital offenses—not even all added together would they have been sentenced to death for these alleged crimes. But Rittenhouse—who, let’s not forget—is not a police officer & had no legal authority over those he killed, took it upon himself to sentence them to death without even a trial.
Right, but they were pointing their guns at him and chasing him. The other person violently attacked him with a skateboard. People being attacked by others with guns have the right to shoot the person attacking them. It’s been clearly shown that Rittenhouse was retreating/running away, and all of the victims were chasing after him. The prosecution did not dispute this. So you think Rittenhouse should have let them shoot/beat him to death? What do you think he should have done in that situation? You highlighting that he had “no business being there” doesn’t seem to acknowledge that none of the people involved had any business being there and NONE of them had any business carrying guns. You seem to think that the person you just so happen to ideologically disagree with had the duty to let himself be killed by the people chasing him.
Thank you for your service.
“But Rittenhouse—who, let’s not forget—is not a police officer & had no legal authority over those he killed, took it upon himself to sentence them to death without even a trial.”So no one can ever legally shoot someone in self defense? Is that your contention? You have to wait for them to kill you and then hope that after your death the justice system sorts it out? Do you know how insane that is? Do you understand how indicative of your lack of understanding of the legal system the statements that you’ve made are?
I understand the legal system EXTREMELY well, and IMO it’s stupid. If a racist white cop fetishist shows up in my neighborhood with a rifle, it’s GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS to kill him, regardless of the law.
Have you ever even watched full videos of what happened? It’s absurdly obvious that it was self defense and he showed incredible restraint not shooting them sooner than he did.
And please remember to dismiss the trolls.
Once the thread has grown to a certain critical mass, dismissing the trolls is no longer an option. At that point it’s much better to leverage the meaninglessness of the conversation against the people trying to hijack it. They have responses at the ready for any sincere engagement or sincere dismissal, but they get hilariously flustered if someone aggressively comes onto them.
Agree to disagree. I’ll make my point once, but I’m not about to give life and air to those despicables.
Sooooooo brave. And important. You’re like a caricature.
“They have responses at the ready for any sincere engagement or sincere dismissal, but they get hilariously flustered if someone aggressively comes onto them.”These are all things you ascribe to “the trolls” as if everyone who disagrees with you on anything is a singular entity.I think you could actually use what you’ve written here as a legal autism diagnosis. But I’m quite sure you have one of those already don’t you?
Oh wow…It was worth the wait. Nobody has ever shot this much hot, sticky come all over my face before! Thank you, Daddy. Now I have to put some laundry in the dryer. I hope I don’t get stuck! I’d be all helpless… And embarrassed.
The instincts that inform your unfunny comments are the same instincts responsible for your complete lack of success in life.
The trolls…you mean people you want to muzzle while you go on and on. You’re abusing the commenting system. It isn’t your personal censoring tool.
Betsy sez “please remember to dismiss the trolls.” You mean people you want to muzzle while you go on and on. You think you’re fitting in by trashing people. You’re abusing the commenting system. It isn’t your personal tool of censorship. You’re a vile bully with a trash mouth, Betsy. You told the guy you didn’t want him to answer you while you talked and talked and you insisted others ignore him. Why don’t you mind your own business?
Exactly this. He went there to commit violence with a gun he went to extensive trouble to obtain.
How do you have any insight into that? “he went to extensive trouble to obtain.” Why would this matter at all? This isn’t against the law. And you have zero insight into his thought process outside of what progressive media outlets are brain washing you with. You’re literally implying that you can read thoughts. The jury and every legal expert in the country disagrees with you. But they’re all probably racist too right?
“People with a big platform like Ruffin need to act more responsibly than this.”
So I’m assuming you’re going to be writing several hundred sternly worded letters to GOP politicians all around the country then?
Well I’m not American so I don’t know that they’d be too bothered about what I had to say. But to get to your point, I expect GOP politicians to act badly. If the AV club published a piece praising them for stating “truths plain enough to break your heart” when they were in fact misrepresenting the truth I would of course criticise them. But that doesn’t mean left leaning media personalities are above criticism.
The responses to your extremely correct and reasonable post show how unhinged some of the posters here really are. They don’t care about facts or what really happened. They just want to repeat “across state lines” as many times as possible and then lie about the actual facts of the case. In short, these are not good or intelligent people. Especially not recognitions – who is one of the more pathetic people on this planet.
It’s just this weird reflex reaction to even fairly mild criticism of someone on “our side”. I don’t know if anyone here is lying necessarily, but they’re definitely commenting with great certainty on a subject they know little about.
Agreed. In many ways their certainty is more disturbing than if they were knowingly lying.
It’s not weird reflex reaction to not like people who come out to defend racist murders and attack folks like Ruffin who are pushing back against racist violence and a corrupt legal system.
We care about the fact that a racist went across state lines to shoot up a protest and got away with it because of racism. We care that there’s one system of justice for white people and another for black people. We care that this verdict empowers racists to commit violence.
“We care about the fact that a racist went across state lines to shoot up a protest and got away with it because of racism.”All the people he shot were from farther away from Kenosha than him. Please explain how “racism” helped him get away with it. Every person involved in this is white. “We care that there’s one system of justice for white people and another for black people”Point me to a case with similar circumstances where a black person was convicted. Just one. “We care that this verdict empowers racists to commit violence.”Rittenhouse was being chased by three (white) people. He retreated multiple times and showed incredible restraint before firing only when his assailants pointed their own guns at him. This was not disputed by the prosecution.Why are you willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a child rapist and a domestic abuser who were both carrying illegally carrying firearms and chasing someone multiple blocks?You’re good at parroting buzzwords but I don’t think you have much insight into this case at all.
If you don’t realize that there’s two justice systems for white and black folks in this country you’re so far out of touch with reality I don’t know where to begin. Rittenhouse went to lot of trouble to get a gun and go there to commit violence. The fact that others might have gone there to do the same is 100% irrelevant. It’s not that racist POS’s job to go shoot up protestors or anybody else. I had rioting within 3 blocks of my place last year. I did not grab a gun and go looking to shoot people because that’s somethings absolute craven violent assholes do. No one who arms themselves and seeks out violence is exhibiting restraint. Not ever.
You asserted that black person would never be found not guilty like Rittenhouse was. I asked you to back that up with a single example of a black person being convicted in similar circumstances. You were unable to.
“Rittenhouse went to lot of trouble to get a gun and go there to commit violence”Going to “a lot of trouble” to get a gun is not illegal. Both of the people he killed were chasing him with their own guns – both fully drawn and pointed at Rittenhouse. “It’s not that racist POS’s job to go shoot up protestors or anybody else.”Right – but they weren’t just protesting. They chased him for multiple blocks until he was unable to retreat any further.“No one who arms themselves and seeks out violence is exhibiting restraint. Not ever.”So how does this apply to the two people he killed who were chasing him with guns? You’re saying that they’re allowed to chase him for multiple blocks with guns and Rittenhouses only option when he ran out of room to run was to be killed by them? That seems unfair. Again…you don’t seem to be very familiar with the actual facts of this case. You do seem to be familiar with a bunch of buzzwords that mean nothing and have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
“You asserted that black person would never be found not guilty like Rittenhouse was.”I never said that. What I said was there’s two systems of justice one for black people and one for white people, which is a fact writ so large on the history and present of this country you have to deliberately not looking to see it. Going to a lot of trouble to get a gun isn’t illegal, it just shows that he’s a POS looking to commit violence. he got a gun and went looking for trouble, looking to hurt people. That pthers might have done the same does not exonerate him.
“I never said that. What I said was there’s two systems of justice one for black people and one for white people, which is a fact writ so large on the history and present of this country you have to deliberately not looking to see it.”So in that case every single trial held at any level in this country is as big of an injustice as you claim that this one was. What makes this case special then? You’re claiming with absolute certainty that a black person would have been convicted for this, but you can’t cite a single example in support of your claim. That’s pretty telling.Seems like more than anything else you’re just talking because you like the sound of your own voice.
I also never said every single trial, but nice straw man. I never claimed with absolute certainty that a black person would have been convicted of this, but nice distortion of the obvious truth I stated. The justice system in this country is riddled with racism, that’s the truth. What’s telling is the pretzels racists will twist themselves into to ignore and avoid fixing an unjust, bigoted system. https://www.themarshallproject.org/tag/racism
“ I never claimed with absolute certainty that a black person would have been convicted of this”Yes you did. Unambiguously – several times.
“Point me to a case with similar circumstances where a black person was convicted. Just one.”Dude… In America the black person doesn’t get a trial, they get killed on site by the cops.You should really kill yourself, and your whole family, to improve the world slightly.
You think you’re so brave and important for writing these objectively false facts about the case don’t you. I guess that’s what really bothers me about this – a bunch of people making wild, provably false claims about something they have no understanding of.
I think that it’s an undeniable fact that this racist POS went to the rally because of racism and got off because of white supremacy in America. What really bother me is how many people refuse to see the racist writing on the wall. The knots they will twist themselves into to blame anything, absolutely anything, but racism.
“I think that it’s an undeniable fact that this racist POS went to the rally because of racism and got off because of white supremacy in America”How would you have any insight into this whatsoever?You know what really bothers me? Low information people making extremely bold claims. It’s usually a pretty good indicator of a person of low intelligence.
I live in this country and have eyes and ears, that’s how I know. That’s how everyone knows except you. Maybe google racism and educate yourself. It’s not a bold claim to state the facts about white supremacy. It’s reality.
You’re an ideologue. That’s why the meaningless buzzwords you’re throwing around make sense to you. You’re no better than an evangelical christian lecturing people about God’s judgement. “That’s how everyone knows except you.”And, you know, every single legal expert watching the trial for any of the major news networks. But I’m sure they’re all a bunch of racists too huh? Say white supremacy more like it means anything. I feel sorry for you.
I certainly am an ideologue when it come to the idea that racism is wrong. And I will keep talking about white supremacy until the glorious day when that fuckery is gone for good. Luckily there are a lot of anti-racists who are doing the same.
I love these gimmick accounts. Now do Gavrilo Princip!
Lick more boots, fascist
Interesting. What have I said here to make you think I’m a fascist?
People like this don’t think, they just say words they’ve heard other people use and then masturbate thinking about how brave they are.
stfu sea lion. And racist.
Lol you think you’re being so brave and important when in reality you’re just a sanctimonious, anti intellectual douche.
I assume your anti intellectual streak is one of several factors that contributed to your life not panning out like you thought it would.
Im pretty sure for me to be Sealioning it would require a level of repetition and persistence, but this is the first time I replied to DMFC. If you could point out where I’ve been racist too that would be handy
you’re persistently replying to this thread, racist
Oh I see, you didn’t understand your own post. No worries.
racist
God you’re so brave and definitely not a complete failure at life.
sadly evergreen
You aren’t an intelligent person.
I think the point is “white guy with gun gets okay, black kid with toy gun gets killed”. It’s the larger narrative here. People defending Rittenhouse(which you are doing, sorry) are seeing things in such small way, but not looking at the larger picture at all. Yes, her jury comment wasn’t the best but I mean…everything else she said was. If you really think a black seventeen year old would’ve gotten acquitted in this exact same circumstances, you are wrong…If you think a black seventeen year old could’ve walked around Kenosha with a gun, passing two cops and been given a “thanks bud”, you are wrong.And that’s the overall point she is trying to make her. The country treats white and black people VERY differently. This case highlights that and sadly, will make it even worse
“If you really think a black seventeen year old would’ve gotten acquitted in this exact same circumstances, you are wrong…If you think a black seventeen year old could’ve walked around Kenosha with a gun, passing two cops and been given a “thanks bud”, you are wrong.”I don’t think those things, and haven’t indicated otherwise anywhere.
You don’t get to decide what the narrative is. Give me an example of a black person who has been convicted in a case involving similar circumstances. One example.
it is possible for what you’ve said to be true (which it is) and for what OP said about Ruffin to also be true…
He travelled out of his way to a protest he did not agree with and brought a gun with him for the express purpose of shooting people. And then shot not one person he felt threatened by, but three separate people. All of whom were unarmed.That was premeditated assault at best and premeditated murder at worst. There’s not situation where he is completely innocent of any crime, let alone all crimes.Did he have family there? That’s irrelevant. Unless said family was with him and lying on the ground in front of a raging protester, that’s irrelevant to the case.
I don’t want to pile on, but on the matter of traveling “all the way” across state lines, it’s not so much a misrepresentation as it is a greater contextual issue, especially in a post-Jan 6 America where like-minded people went and did (are doing) the same thing. And I’m sure some of them live close to the Capitol, too
Doesn’t matter if Rittenhouse lives 10 minutes or 10 hours away from the border, he wasn’t there to visit family…
“Doesn’t matter if Rittenhouse lives 10 minutes or 10 hours away from the border, he wasn’t there to visit family…” Sure, I agree with this. My issue is with the constant parroting that he crossed state lines, the implication beong that doing so somehow makes what he did more sinister or illegal.
he crossed state lines to start trouble, that is what he did and wanted to do
Oh boy. You came here lecturing everyone else on the law, and now you’re saying that crossing state lines to perform an action in the USA has no particular legal significance?You are too stupid to live. Do something about that (and I don’t mean get smarter because you’re clearly incapable of that)
Exactly, he went there to get armed and hurt protesters. I had rioting in my city, 3 blocks from my house in 2020. You know what didn’t do? Get a gun and shoot people. Rittenhouse is a racist murderer. If they want to stick to facts, stick to that one.
Right – but were you ever chased multiple blocks by people with guns until you didn’t have the ability to run away anymore? So really your sanctimonious opinion has no place here. You’re doing a realllllly good job of showing everyone that you didn’t watch the trial or any videos of what actually happened.
Rittenhouse drove from Illinois to Wisconsin the day before he killed two people. His gun was being kept at the house of a friend in WI. Likewise, he technically did not possess his gun illegally, because Wisonsin law allows minor to own guns as long as the barrel isn’t less than 16 inches, & his was exactly 16 inches. So, yeah, he didn’t cross state lines with a gun, & he didn’t own a gun illegally, but damn if that isn’t some real fine hair-splitting. Sadly, such obviously irrelevant technicalities were enough to put doubt in the minds of the jury. This benefit of the doubt would never have been offered to a black 17-year-old, not least because he never would have made it to trial. A 17-year-old black kid carrying an assault rifle would have been shot dead in the street by the police as soon as he showed up.
All you need to ask yourself is if Kyle didn’t go somewhere he didn’t need to be at would two people still be alive? Was the only person to kill anyone at that protest was Kyle? If he would’ve stood home there would be two people still living their lives and another without a bullet wound?Rationale vigilantism all you want. Broken system with two different sets of rules for a white man and everyone else. Defense of Kyle is the power of the system not willing to give an inch.. Because if they gave an inch they FEAR that we would take a mile.
Fuck all the way off. You don’t matter.
Yeah, Ruffin is the problem we should be focusing on here, not the guy who killed people. /s
Honestly, with twisted logic and priorities like this it’s no wonder the US is clueless when it comes to gun control.
I often see this kind of post here about what should be focussed on here in the comments section of the AV club and they always make me smile. As though it will make a material difference to anything.
It goes without saying nothing in the comments section of AV Club makes a difference to anything. I’d ask why you said it, but I don’t care.
As for what problem should be focussed in our minds and discussed, between a killer and a comedian talking about a killer, it’s self-evident the killer takes priority. Well, self-evident for some.
“As for what problem should be focussed in our minds…”The implication of this is of course that you’re not intelligent enough to consider 2 aspects of one story. Now obviously that isn’t true, very few people are that stupid, but you are pretending to be that stupid to imply that it’s somehow morally wrong for me to criticise the media dishonesty on show here. Weird and embarrassing behavior.
No. You apparently don’t know what focus means.
A killer has gotten off scot-free and instead of condemning that at the time you’d rather criticise a comedian talking about it, hence me criticising your priorities.
Unless you also think Rittenhouse’s acquittal is unacceptable and appalling, which you certainly didn’t even mention in your OP. The weird and embarrassing behaviour is yours not to do so.
This is an article about a video. That is why I am criticizing that video in the comments section. Why would you expect the comments to be about anything else? There are plenty of places online to discuss the trial itself, why would you think it is unacceptable to discuss something other than the trial in an article that is not primarily about the trial?So if I had said “of course Rittenhouse is a big bastard and I condemn his actions, but I think Ruffin…” that would be ok? What kind of ridiculous, childish way of thinking is that? That nobody can criticise the actual subject of the article without first establishing that they’re one of the good guys.
if I had said “of course Rittenhouse is a big bastard and I condemn his actions, but I think Ruffin…” that would be ok? It’d be a start. Context helps, otherwise you get the sort of replies you’ve been getting. Could save yourself a lot of time and typing explaining your position because no one knows where you’re coming from.
Yeah I’m getting that. People here seem so determined to assume bad faith (and Naziism). What a bunch of jerks.
As you said, people are upset. And this is an AV Club comments section. It can be tricky, but if you don’t want people to assume bad faith, then you kinda have to try to write in such a way that they can’t. Not always possible, and there’s always jerks around, but lets you control your narrative and not them.
Why would be upset about it? Justice was served.the left is bad the an innocent white kid wasn’t falsely convicted. It is worth emphasizing that Rosenbaum, one of the “victims,” was not only a sex offender but an actual serial child rapist who molested and anally raped multiple boys. This is the man that the Left is mourning. They wish that he was still alive and Rittenhouse was dead instead.
I don’t believe in the death penalty and I certainly do not support execution without judge and jury. You seem to think that it’s okay to kill people without going through the justice system, at the same time as you are saying the justice system works…
And likewise, if your first-ever comment on WWII was “that Hitler guy wasn’t so bad” you would get a similar reaction, for a similar reason, so shut the fuck up forever, you racist piece of shit.
Just wanna say dude: I see the position you’re currently in here, I’ve been there, and I feel you. Sadly, it seems that there are a lot of people on this site who either willingly promote left-wing misinformation or don’t think it’s a problem when it spreads.
Unfortunately, this entire sequence of events – from the Jacob Blake protests to the rioting that’s now taking place over the verdict – is the perfect example of why this shit is harmful.
cool takeaway.
Fuck you, white pig.
No one on the Left gets to complain about fake news anymore: “As soon as you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn’t have in the first place, and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you,”
Stop the bullshit!! I clicked on a traitor to this countries twitter and seen your 🎥 with your crocodile tears lol I figured u for a far left dyke but i see that you married a white man so maybe this is u trying to score points with strong black women in America or these Hollywood liberal don’t know if they have a cock or a pussy nutjobs 😂 😂 u r the problem with America!! Stop race baiting! If Beverly Hills was 🔥 from looters o I mean protesters Rittenhouse would be an American hero to you screw balls!! Nice attire if Hillary Clinton was a south western cow 👧 LMFAOOOOOOO
Pay more attention to the grammar lessons in your Remedial English class.Now have a juicebox and shut up.
as an english instructor i gotta let you know we don’t really say “remedial” any more that’s pejorative.
Wow. You’re a real creepy, sad piece of shit. Bet you get invited to all the best parties.
I thought this was Reposted Daily Mail Comments at first
In other words you’re a flaming bag of limp dicks.
The words “Hillary Clinton” are where the ejaculation happened, and then it kind of trails off.
Divide and Rule works. Your heroes have pitted us against each other to the point that they’re free to rob both of us blind. You think they have your back. They don’t give a shit about you. All they want is your vote. And when you realize what they’ve done, you won’t be able to do anything about it, because they won’t need your vote any more. Go ahead, keep laughing. Keep believing the joke isn’t on you.
They are the joke.
Apropos of the time, I honestly have no idea what side of the divide this is directed at. Schrödinger’s admonition.
THIS gets ungreyed?!?!?!!?
You seem lovely.
I saw this exact same comment the other day, except it was written in shit on the walls of an abandoned mental institution…
Ohh right, THESE are the comments that get through this site’s rigorous comment approval process
Who ungrayed you? I flagged you for a reason.
Take your meds Beavis.
My main question after watching this: How many times was this rewritten to come as close as possible to implying that the people he shot were black without actually saying that, or that the jury was some sort of all-white jury straight out of To Kill a Mockingbird? Because that seems to be what she’s doing.
Ruffin sweet Ruffin! This was Ruffin’s funniest episode. Ha ha. Never change, Ruffin!
Listen, we all know she sucks. It’s the message that’s important
“We all” do not know that whatsoever… you only have your sad “opinion”
“It’s not okay for a man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines, and shoot three people and then walk free.”He DIDN’T bring the gun across state lines. This asinine talking point was debunked weeks ago. And actually, yes, it IS okay to shoot three people IF those people are attacking you. That’s kind of what self defence means.What’s not okay is for some stupid, ignorant, race-hustling little cunt to use her enormous (and entirely unearned) platform to spread more disinformation about a controversial issue.Just for the record:• Rittenhouse did NOT transport the gun across state lines. The gun was purchased in Wisconsin by a friend of his, and it stayed in Wisconsin the entire time.• There’s some controversy over whether Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, was legally entitled to hold the weapon. But, and this is important, that has absolutely fuck all to do with his claim of self defence. Rittenhouse could’ve gotten that gun from MS13, and he still would’ve been allowed to defend himself with it if he was attacked. Which he was. Repeatedly. On video.• The protest was a public protest on public land and he had every bit as much right to be there as anybody else. Also, the first person to attack Rittenhouse, Joseph Rosenbaum, was a convicted child rapist. This may be Big News to Amber Ruffin, but in America you don’t lose your right to self defence just because some random guy – and especially not some filthy pedophile – summarily decides that you shouldn’t be where you have every right to be.• Rittenhouse travelled about 30 minutes to reach Kenosha. Many others travelled way further. Gauge Grosskreutz travelled about three times further.• Nobody forced Joseph Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse. He chose to do that. And if you choose to chase a man carrying an AR 15, and if you choose to corner him, and if you choose to grab his gun, then you can’t fucking complain if you get shot. Similarly, if you choose to smack someone carrying an AR 15 around the head with a skateboard and then choose to start beating the shit out of him, you also can’t really complain if you get shot. Again, nobody forced these people to make those choices. Rosenbaum and Huber chose to attack Rittenhouse, And the fact of their deaths is mere proof of the wisdom of that age old Chinese proverb (Confucius, I think) “If you see a guy with a big fuck off gun, don’t be a retard. Leave him the fuck alone” (It’s a little more poetic in the original Mandarin).Fuck Amber Ruffin, fuck her cutesy bow ties, fuck her persistent inability to understand how shit works before mouthing off about it, and fuck Dennis Perkins for signal-boosting it.Y’all called this one wrong. Legally, factually, and ethically, you’re wrong. Have some fucking dignity about it and let it go.
If you are left wing and unarmed I don’t know wtf you’re doing with your life.
Not shooting people, for one thing.
Not living in america, for another.
Trusting in your fellow human, eeee
How was this a terrible day in America? A jury found Andrew Cofffee IV not guilty on murder charges and attempted murder charges against law enforcement.
Don’t bring none, won’t be none.This little puke instigated this whole tragedy.
So what does that say about the two men who chased him, both of whom were carrying illegal firearms? And you’re suggesting he “instigated” it by getting chased by an angry mob? Have you even seen the video? I’d be shocked if you had. You’re just a low information nobody.
If the government surrenders your community to the mob, and allows it to descend into anarchy and ruin, you are not under any moral obligation to sit back and watch it happen. That’s what the “he shouldn’t have been there” people are arguing, and it’s false and deranged.
Except there’s no evidence of that.
I thought maybe a lesser charge would stick. But damn…
When I came home and heard the news, my jaw hit the floor. It shouldn’t have, though. Kyle was treated great the whole trial. That judge was biased as fuck
You need toget over your BS he killed a Child rapist and a wife beater .Some times the Animals pick the wrong prey
It was obvious from the start of her aside that Amber was deeply affected by this, and I’m glad she’s using her platform to say what she feels, and what a lot of us need to hear.
What happened is absolutely sickening, fucked up, and disgusting…
If there’s any hope for the world, it’s people like Disparate Dan!
A blatant, yet latent, racist! Who is such a pussy that he can’t come out and say “I’m glad a few black people were murdered!”
What he says is “The murder weapon may-or-may-have-not-been-across state lines, so who’s to say if killing people is legal or not?”
We oughta leave this world behind…
Oh man, I’m sorry I missed this one! The victims weren’t black, you complete and utter clown. Why do you have such strong opinions on something you clearly don’t know the first thing about? What is wrong with you? You absolute fucking moron.
I know her talk show isn’t really a talk show but that might make it the best talk show right now. She’s great and needed.
If you’re in the rainforest, and you see a brightly coloured frog, would you pick it up, or would you leave it alone?You’d leave it alone, right? You would see that it’s warning you to stay away, so that’s what you would do. It’s certainly what I’d do.It’s also what I’d do if I saw a guy holding an AR-15. I’m guessing you guys would pick up the frog.
Yeah this article keeps pushing lies. His weapon was not illegal nor did his mother drive him across state lines. Sure sucks when reality conflicts with your delusion.
This article is unbelievable.
“The protests, if you recall, were in response to the police shooting of now-paralyzed Black man, Jacob Blake.”
You mean a man who was being arrested “on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct,” who resisted arrest (tasers), went for a knife… and HAPPENED to be black. If all you feel is necessary to say about him is that he was black, you’re racist and a terrible ‘journalist.’“he, with an illegally procured AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, shot three protesters, killing two.”
You mean shot three people who were attacking him, in self-defense. As clearly determined by the court. Funny you don’t mention the race of the three “protestors,” which is… white. Remind me how this is an act of white supremacy again?
It was obviously stupid for him to go to a violent protest with a gun, but he was trying to help maintain order. A stupid prior action does not invalidate his right to defend himself. A woman walking lone and naked into a dark alley in a sketchy neighbourhood who manages to kill an attacker does not get found guilty because she put herself in a bad situation. You look at what motivated the act of killing, not what preceded it.
If Kyle was a white supremacist going to murder people at the riots, he would have shot a lot more of them, and they probably wouldn’t have been white.
Ruffin is a joke, and so are you. I cannot believe what I’m reading here.
The dishonesty in not only Ruffin’s and the AV Club’s narrative is not only embarrassing, it’s staggeringly ignorant.- the gun was not illegally purchased nor was it illegal in the state of Wisconsin for a 17 year old to own that type of gun (non-short barreled)- the gun was not brought across state lines — it was in Kenosha stored at Kyle’s friend’s stepfather’s house- the notion that Rittenhouse had no ties to Kenosha is unbelievably absurd: his family and friends live there and he fucking WORKS there- there is no proof he is a member of any white supremacy movement- he was also armed with a first aid kit and a fire extinguisher that he used to try to put out a fire- the living victim of the shooting, Gaige Grosskreutz, admitted to pointing a gun and advancing at Rittenhouse prior to being shot- Rosenbaum, who is not a BLM champion, had been discharged from the hospital earlier in the day after being in for attempted suicide. The day he was killed he said to Ryan Balch and Rittenhouse earlier, “If I catch you guys alone tonight, I’m gonna fucking kill you.”. Rosenbaum, a sex offender, was clearly looking for a violent and potentially deadly confrontation and had very little reason to care about his own life.
I get it though: the reductive narrative of a young, white teenager gunning down “activists” at a BLM protest, despite the facts, was simply too delicious to deny.And now we have the 24/7 MSM news cycle churning the “white supremacist” narrative non-stop. Who gives a fuck about the facts? We want to see white accountability no matter the lack of evidence supporting the narrative.
Do better, people. Not every case is an example of white supremacy.