Following the not guilty verdict Schwab and co-counsel Kimberley Motley issued the following statement:

“Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse. Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum did not deserve to die that night. For now, we ask for peace from everyone hurting and that the public respect the privacy of the victims and their families. That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically. They did not seek violence, but to end violence. What we need right now is justice, not more violence. While today’s verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. We are committed to uncovering the truth of that night and holding those responsible to account.”

I bet their noses are really long….

The double standards of those folks on the Left who think that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “Vigilante” and had no right to be on the streets but the protesters (“Mostly Peaceful!”) had every right to be there.

That he had no right to defend himself, but after the first shot after being attacked, every single one of his “Victims” did have the right to attack him in the attempt to defend themselves….even as he was running away.

That the protesters (“Mostly Peaceful!” ones) had the right to loot and destroy property and attack people……and, while they weren’t “Part of the Community” their actions in protest (fires, property destruction) were acceptable, but Kyle “Was not a part of the Community” and had no right to help defend the neighborhood.

That putting out the fire was a “Provocative Act” but chasing him and attacking him in anger when he wasn’t a threat was not.

That Kyle would have been better served to not have been there (they are correct) but the protesters DID have the right and reason to be there and were simply innocent bystanders and their presence was acceptable….that they were innocent and their presence did not contribute to the mess. The failure to realize that the protesters would also have been better served to stay home as well….(that is different because Shut Up).

That Kyle, who was attacked (as the video evidence shows) was the cause of the incident, and not the folks who attacked him. That his mere presence was the root cause of the incident, not the riots themselves or the attacks on his person.

One wonders how their thought processes work.

“Great Lakes Approach, that vector doesn’t work for us”

“Well, if you don’t like the vectors assigned, then perhaps you should leave my airspace and go practice approaches elsewhere”

So a guest responded to a request from Hotels.com asking for a review of the hotel at which she was currently staying…

and she reviewed the hotel…giving it three stars out of five.

The hotel manager kicked her out for the bad review. At night. using the police to make sure she left.

Damage control caused the hotel management to later change their story, but that is what they reported to the police when they called to have her tossed out.

One would hope that both Hotels.com and Wyndham, the parent company, will do something about this action.

I mean, Not Guilty on all counts seems to be pretty clear. (I, for the record, cannot figure out why it took so long to come to that decision)

He should, in a just world, be able to sue all who conspired to try him and who twisted and manipulated the evidence to try and convict him.

Plus the Media, for portraying him as a monster.

And he should get his rifle back along with the apologies of the court.

I do, however, feel sorry for the citizens of Kenosha. I expect riots and fires and property destruction and general mayhem for them for the next few nights. I strongly doubt the rioters protesters have learned their lesson.

Mr Arbery was just jogging in Georgia when he was confronted and shot by some people who thought they were apprehending a criminal.

Mr Rittenhouse was just walking through a Kenosha Neighborhood when he was attacked….

Yet one person who was attacked is the victim, the other is not.

Why is that?

SO three dudes tried to play Police Officer in Brunswick Georgia.

They attempted to detain a person. Who declined the honor and instead attempted to flee.

The clusterfuck ended up with Ahmaud Arbery dead.

Testimony by the defendant is that Arbery never threatened him. 

So that seems to me to be an open and shut case of Murder. Plain and simple.

No threat, no reason to shoot. No matter what.

One cannot play Cop when one is not a police officer.

For the Rittenhouse verdict (and the soon-to-follow protest riots).

A couple of points though:

This is, essentially, a judgement on the right to defend oneself when attacked (Notice that people in the background  NOT attacking young Mr Rittenhouse were not threatened…only those who physically attacked him). Provocation, even if it were valid here, only goes so far. Rittenhouse was retreating/leaving the scene, yet he was attacked (a point the prosecution defense should have made much more vehemently) and then actively fleeing….therefore, even if a provocation, he was not a threat at the time of the attacks. One cannot shoot a person once they cease being a threat in any scenario….if they are leaving your house, even after attacking you, you cannot shoot them once they are leaving.

Further, if the (mostly peaceful!) protests are allowed to run rampant, not snuffed out quickly, then the State is saying that such riots are acceptable and allowed. This too has to stop. People need to be able to sleep at night without fear of rioters burning their homes and businesses. Without fear of being attacked on the street by a Mob. If the authorities cannot stop this, then at what point do the citizens have right, the responsibility, to do so themselves….by whatever method they choose?

From trashing neighborhoods and burning property and assaulting people, then we won’t:

“we shouldn’t have, broadly speaking, vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons”

(A partial tweet from Joe Biden)

If the police and the authorities allowed the “vigilantes” like they allow the rioters…you know, free reign to do what they want…..then there’d be a lot less riots and destruction, I think.

Of course, those “vigilantes”, oddly enough, seem to have self control and don’t wildly shoot or kill…..oddly enough, they seem to follow the laws.  Funny how that works.

So if Kyle Rittenhouse “Provoked” the attacks by threatening people with an AR-15 (and I wonder what kind of delusional thinking could lead to that conclusion) then why did the second and third “victim” (and I am using that term as loosely as the prosecution only in order to ask this question) not retreat rather than attack him in order to (supposedly) disarm him….aren’t THEIR actions also “Provocative”?

If young Mr. Rittenhouse was perceived as a threat then why attack him rather than retreat? Why didn’t the other people in the area retreat rather than ignore him rather than run away if he was perceived as a danger?

I guess that a prosecutor must have to try and twist reality ion order to make a case like this one.