Andrew Coffee, Arizona State University, Chicago, Derrick Johnson, DOJ, Emmett Till, GoFundMe, Ida Bae Wells, Kevin Sorbo, Kyle Rittenhouse, Legal Insurrection, Mark Richards, Oakland, Politifact, Portland, Prof. Jacobson, Prof. Turley, Sal Khindri, Sam Khindri, the narrative, Thomas Binger, Trayvon Martin, Tucker Carlson
1) The Ignorant. As the trial was televised, there is no excuse for remaining ignorant of the facts.
2) True Believers. Those whose allegiance is to the narrative. Because any D/S/C narrative cannot possibly be wrong, facts and law be damned. See #1.
3) The Evil. Those who want to destroy, not only Kyle Rittenhouse, but our nation. See #1 and #2.
Many among those I’ve identified are wedded to the false narrative that race had anything to do with the Rittenhouse case. “If it were a black man on trial, they’d get the death penalty!” they moan. Not so much:
A Gifford man who claimed he was defending himself and his girlfriend when he fired shots at deputies during an early-morning raid in 2017 was acquitted Friday of charges that carried a life prison term.
A jury found Andrew ‘A.J.’ Coffee IV, 27, not guilty of second-degree felony murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder of a law enforcement officer by discharging a firearm and one count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile.
In a separate proceeding Friday, the same jury convicted Coffee IV of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Here we have the case of a black man, a convicted felon, found not guilty of multiple felonies in a shoot out with police. Just as the Rittenhouse verdict, by itself, does not universally vindicate self-defense, the Coffee case does not, obviously, prove all black men deserve to be acquitted of felonies simply because they’re black, nor does it support the lie of “systemic racism” in our criminal justice system. However, by the rules of the mob, all that’s necessary to prove them wrong is a single example. As always, fact and evidence matter, they have to matter. The rest is hot air—politics.
We now know more about the ethical malfeasance of ADA Binger. Regular readers recall Sam and Sal Khindri, sons of the owner of the car lots Kyle and others protected, testifying they asked no one to protect their lots. Their testimony made it sound like they had never seen or talked with anyone that preserved their business. That was a lie. Photographic and video evidence—take this link–proves they not only asked Kyle and others to protect their business, Kyle had Sam’s phone number, and texted him.
Are we to believe ADA Binger didn’t know about any of this evidence? If he did, he knowingly suborned perjury. All lawyers are required, when their witness is lying on the stand, to tell the judge. Practically, however, this applies only to prosecutors. Everyone knows defendants are gong to lie. But this was another backward case where Defense witnesses told the truth and prosecution witnesses, and prosecutors… Unfortunately, the probability he’ll pay any price for any of his unethical and illegal conduct is zero.
Take this link to a Bearing Arms article with a good video of Defense attorney Mark Richards explaining why they elected to have Kyle testify. In that video, he had this to say:
On the prosecution’s case against Rittenhouse – ‘When they put on the Khindri brothers knowing that they were lying, that is a problem. As I said in my closing argument, this isn’t a game. You’re playing with an 18-year old kid’s life. And they were willing to put those guys on… Detective Howard and Detective Antaramian had both interviewed them and in their police report said ‘we know you’re lying.’ I can’t ask that question when they’re on the witness stand of the detectives because one witness can’t comment on another. So they put them on, they knew they were lying, and that’s garbage.’
Though it was not an issue I covered in any detail, it’s common knowledge Go Fund Me would not allow Kyle to raise money for his defense. Take this link to a Legal Insurrection article by Professor Jacobson. Go Fund Me has demonstrated a disturbing tendency to cut off fund raising for Normal Americans, while allowing unrestricted fund raising for D/S/Cs and their causes. Also take this link to another LI article with a transcript of an interview of Prof. Jacobson. Here’s an excerpt:
Well, it’s certainly the result [acquittal] that should have been. I mean, everybody was wondering why is it taking so long. I guess it took them that long to get to the right result. I’m assuming that there was a hold out, that there’s maybe one or two or three people who had to be convinced. But if somebody so clearly not guilty, so clearly acting in self-defense had been found guilty, it would have been almost unimaginable.
As I’ve so often noted, the self-defense case was so blatantly obvious, no charges should ever have been made. Victoria Taft, at PJ Media, provides a useful summary of prosecutorial misconduct.
Much has been said about media misconduct in this case, but the aftermath is no better. Consider this from Breitbart:
On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s ‘The Last Word,’ NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson stated that Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal ‘was an injustice. This was worse than the Emmett Till trial.’
Johnson stated, ‘It was unfortunate for the families of the victims with this outcome. We all witnessed and [saw] on-screen what happened. But it’s a true tale of what we need to do moving forward. Here’s a judge that’s been elected…mostly unopposed. I hope that community takes note and recognizes that this particular judge is not providing justice for that community. In addition to that, the jury pool question is a real question that we must embrace in the way in which we increase the number of people who are registered to vote and willing to serve on juries. It was an injustice. This was worse than the Emmett Till trial. This was worse [than] so many trials where we know, for a fact, individuals committed murder and yet they were not brought to justice. It is unfortunate, but this is America.’
For anyone in the least historically literate, Johnson’s comparison of the Rittenhouse case, which had no racial component whatsoever, to the Till case is obscene. Take this link to learn about Till. Johnson dishonors the sacrifices of Americans of all races in winning the battle for civil rights.
Here’s an example of continuing media lies:
Rioting in response to the acquittal was widely expected, but thanks in part to actual preparation by Wisconsin’s D/C/C Governor, and authorities elsewhere, nothing of any real consequence materialized. In Portland, only about 200 people engaged in a riot, but even by Portland standards, it didn’t amount to much. There were no arrests—SOP for Portland—and no injuries. The media did it’s best to pump up the importance of protests, like this one in Oakland:
And this one in Chicago:
But while various organizers and activists struggle to whip up violence, the immediate street-level response to the verdict was mild indeed compared to previous racially charged “mostly peaceful protests.”
As regular readers know, various vermin, including Congressman Gerald Nadler, are demanding the Federal Department of Justice, the most racist and weaponized against Americans in history, prosecute Kyle for something, anything. The Washington Examiner provides a bit of good news:
‘There is no obvious basis for a civil rights prosecution against Rittenhouse,’ said [Cornell Law School Professor William] Jacobson, who is also the founder of the Legal Insurrection blog and followed the trial daily.
‘The videos are the videos, and the testimony already is under oath from witnesses and alleged victim Gaige Grosskreutz. A civil case will fail even by a preponderance of the evidence,’ Jacobson added.
Another significant legal voice agrees:
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley wrote Sunday that the DOJ does not possess an office for the prosecution of ‘miscarriages of justice’ and furthered it would be a ‘dangerous precedent’ to probe a jury’s decision based on a disagreement with the verdict.
‘Rittenhouse was acquitted on state charges by a state jury. Moreover, while some have called for reducing self-defense protections, the jury applied the law as it currently appears on the books,’ Turley opined in a Fox News article. ‘It is not allowed to simply ignore the law to seek our own criminal justice rules.’
Turley also claimed federal prosecutors would have no grounds to stand on for a civil rights prosecution. ‘Rittenhouse is white and shot three white men. He was not accused of a hate crime,’ the law professor added, noting Rittenhouse was not a law enforcement member and ‘did not deprive anyone of their civil rights under federal law.’
Indeed. As a civilian—the police term for non-police officers—Kyle was not acting “under color of law,” which is necessary for a federal civil rights prosecution. Jacobson and Turley are correct, but neither law nor facts are likely to stop the current DOJ from trying to find some way to attack Kyle. If necessary, they’ll just make up law as they go. If they do not, it’s only because they see no political advantage in it. After all, they have a never-ending torrent of new versions of Covid to manipulate. They may decide Kyle is old news.
I’ve also noted the process is the punishment. D/S/Cs will ensure Kyle has a target on his back the rest of his life, and they’re beginning at Arizona State. Kyle made the mistake of saying he was enrolled there during his interview with Tucker Carlson. That interview is available on Fox Nation, and I recommend it. You’ll find Kyle to be a smart, likeable and remarkably balanced young man, which is in large part why his lawyers thought it a reasonable risk to put him on the stand. As one might imagine, D/S/Cs remain determined to punish Kyle for saving his life. The College Fix explains:
Progressive student groups at Arizona State University are planning a rally this coming week to demand the expulsion of Kyle Rittenhouse from campus.
This actually might be a bit tough to accomplish given that Rittenhouse — recently acquitted of all charges in the shootings of three people (two of whom were killed) in Kenosha, Wisconsin last summer — is enrolled online.
Campus Reform now tells us Kyle is no longer enrolled:
ASU reportedly confirmed to 12News in early November that while Rittenhouse had not gone through the university admissions process, he was at the time ‘enrolled as a non-degree seeking ASU Online student for the session that started Oct. 13, 2021, which allows students access to begin taking classes as they prepare to seek admission into a degree program at the university.’
Professor Turley has an informative article on these issues at Fox News. Another issue is what can be done about political prosecutions made by unethical prosecutors? Andrew Branca of Law Of Self-Defense fame suggests “Kyle’s Law,” which might just be the solution. He lays out the problem:
These are cases where there is little or no evidence inconsistent with self-defense, such that there can no good-faith reason for a prosecutor to drag that defender to trial. The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.
The real problem here is that these trials are a win-win for these rogue, politically motivated prosecutors. If the trial ends in a conviction, they won the legal case.
Even if the trial ends in an acquittal, however, as the George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse trials did, the prosecutor still wins, in the form of political capital and esteem from their own social and political community. They at least ‘fought the good fight’ as their team sees it.
With a win either way there exists zero disincentives for prosecutors to bring felony charges even in self-defense cases where the evidence and law overwhelmingly favor the defendant, and an actual conviction is all but impossible.
The consequences for the clearly innocent defender, however, are catastrophic no matter how strong his case of self-defense. For the lawful defender who finds himself the target of a rogue, politically motivated prosecutor, it’s a lose-lose.
Sure, the defender with the evidence and law on his side will probably win an acquittal–but at what cost? Especially with the mainstream media having demonized the defender for a year or more prior to the trial–as a murderer, a racist, a white supremacist.
An acquittal after the trial does not make up for the loss of job, marriage, home, business, reputation, educational opportunities, and emotional stability. Indeed, many such acquitted defenders find it largely impossible to ever live a normal life again.
Again, the process is the punishment, and the process does not end after an acquittal. Here’s the beginning of a solution:
It’s time to change this equation. It’s time to compel prosecutors to have skin in the game, to have something to lose if they bring a laughably weak, yet horribly destructive, felony prosecution in a case of self-defense. And it’s time to provide a path for the wrongfully prosecuted defender to get compensation for his monetary, reputational, and emotional damages.
Kyle’s Law is my proposal to accomplish exactly that. This statutory proposal targets laughably weak prosecutions of self-defense cases, prosecutions so weak they can only be politically motivated, and without any real prospect of conviction.
By all means, take the link and read the whole thing. Kurt Schlichter has a similar solution, here. I particularly like Branca’s suggest on probable cause hearings, which have, particularly in politically charged cases, become nothing more than a rubber stamp for corrupt prosecutors.
Final Thoughts: This is certainly not the final article I’ll be writing on this case. In reality, it was a run of the mill self-defense case, which should never have been charged. But D/S/Cs make their own reality and try to force everyone to live in it. This time they failed, but they often succeed. One such success is far too many.
I’ll continue to report on new developments as necessary, and as always, thank you, gentle readers, for your patronage of this scruffy little blog.