‘Fire Tucker Carlson’: Fox News Host Condemned for Comments on Deadly Shooting of Kenosha Protesters

[HarryStotle]

JonNC:

Is that because they did little to nothing to stop the rioting and violence?
Isn’t all of this, from the confrontation With Blake forward, the direct responsibility of the mayor?

No, because Blake was shot in the back and because they let the shooter involved in two killings walk away.

Blake was shot in the back because 1) he had a knife, 2) was reaching into a vehicle that was not his for what the police thought was another weapon. (The vehicle belonged to the woman that he had sexually assaulted in May who had also made the 911 call to the police). And 3) there were children in the vehicle who may have been harmed by Blake had the police just let him go. The children in the vehicle were those of the woman who had made the 911 call and who had a restraining order on Blake. He wasn’t supposed to go near her nor her children, according to that order.

I suppose you, as a police officer, would have simply let Blake drive off with the children after he had resisted arrest to make things easy for you - i.e., your actions would not become the subject of nationwide scrutiny by the progressive left, Antifa and BLM supporters. Perhaps this is why so many uninformed individuals are for defunding the police? I.e., they think they themselves would act superbly during extremely trying circumstances because they surmise they just need to behave according to the current progressive mantra that criminals can do no wrong and the police are always at fault.

 

[TMC]

You said he was a murderer.

Yes, I did.

He is admitting to self defense. That’s not murder. That’s a basic human right.

He is admitting to homicide, and claiming that the homicide is justified by self defense.

His self defense argument seems completely ludicrous to me - based both on the videos and on his lawyer’s own description. But I am neither the judge or jury. He will get his due process, but unless some really big, currently unknown fact comes up, I doubt I will change my view.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I did.

That is, at this tome, not true.

He is admitting to homicide, and claiming that the homicide is justified by self defense.

Correct. Homicide is not necessarily murder.

His self defense argument seems completely ludicrous to me - based both on the videos and on his lawyer’s own description.

And they seem quite reasonable, looking At the videos, but I, too must wait for the legal process to work.

He will get his due process, but unless some really big, currently unknown fact comes up, I doubt I will change my view.

Even if a jury of his peers find him not guilty?

 

[TMC]

Even if a jury of his peers find him not guilty?

It depends on what the facts show. When OJ was acquitted did you conclude he must not have done it?

 

[HarryStotle]

Thbolt:

Well, I think so. The Kenosha Police Dept is an embarrassment and makes the case for ‘defunding’ the police.

If this is true, the Rittenhouse makes a better case for not de-funding the police. Without police, then what he did would be the only other option for defense. Some people cannot defend themselves, so they will look to inexperienced, sophomoric gun-toters to come “defend” them.

If you know anything about what Rittenhouse did, you would know that he acted as competently as the most well-trained LEOs. He shot only those who were direct threats to him, refrained from shooting another individual who paused his attack just feet from Rittenhouse and backed away, and made a precise hit to the arm of the man with the handgun who was about to kill him - i.e., disabled the shooter without killing him. All this while under attack from at least four individuals at the same time.

Any expert will tell you Rittenhouse acted extremely competently. An “inexperienced, sophomoric gun-toter” would have likely shot wildly and injured or killed innocent people in the vicinity since there were numerous others nearby.

 

[pnewton]

More. He is presumed innocent.

Yes, he has the legal presumption of innocence. I was neglecting all the politically correct language due when the defendant is white. At least in this case there was an indictment of a crime.

I do not disagree with this hair you split, but I will note that you have no problem making accusations of riots and looting, without convictions. I do not mind. I even will on occasion mention that abortion is a murder, even though there is not conviction involved, though not often because of the thin-skin of pro-abortionists. But I will endeavor to be more politically correct on this as well.

 

[pnewton]

If you know anything about what Rittenhouse did, you would know that he acted as competently as the most well-trained LEOs.

Which is it? Can this be judged or not? If calling him a murderer, when he is an indicted for this crime is considered judging him, isn’t believing his innocence also a premature judgement?

…refrained from shooting another individual who paused his attack just feet from Rittenhouse and backed away, and made a precise hit to the arm of the man with the handgun who was about to kill him

So you are framing this as a quick draw shoot-out? Both armed, both walked into, not away from, the confrontation. The fastest on the trigger is the one who acted in self-defense?

FYI, LEO carry badges, not AR-15’s, and are taught to de-escalate verbally first. Teenagers are not allowed to be police for good reason. We shall see how this part plays out.

 

[marybobo]

There are far too many who do not know the difference between a news program and an opinion program. On the other hand, there are networks that propose to be news that are all opinion. Everyone should be allowed to have an opinion whether you (not you specifically) do not agree.

 

[marybobo]

Amazing.

But not at all unusual.

 

[pnewton]

I just watched the video. Based on that, no policeman anywhere that I know of would have done what he did. He gave less than a second of threat assessment, after tripping running away and came up firing. There is also a video of him punching a girl from behind in a previous fight. I think painting Rittenhouse as a policeman will backfire as much as those who rush to paint hard criminals killed by police as martyrs.

And framing my point as a “quick draw shoot out” is just a tad unsavory.

The point is, would not someone else with a gun have just as much right to claim the were trying to shoot Rittenhouse in self-defense? If not, what would the difference be. If they both have a claim, that is a shoot-out. If it is unsavory, then what am I not seeing?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If you know anything about what Rittenhouse did, you would know that he acted as competently as the most well-trained LEOs.

Which is it? Can this be judged or not? If calling him a murderer, when he is an indicted for this crime is considered judging him, isn’t believing his innocence also a premature judgement?

…refrained from shooting another individual who paused his attack just feet from Rittenhouse and backed away, and made a precise hit to the arm of the man with the handgun who was about to kill him

So you are framing this as a quick draw shoot-out? Both armed, both walked into, not away from, the confrontation. The fastest on the trigger is the one who acted in self-defense?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You claimed Rittenhouse was “inexperienced” and “sophomoric.”

Aside from the question of whether or not he was justified in his actions, these claims of yours concern his competency with a gun under dire circumstances. I am simply arguing that he acted with extreme competence and self-control.

His guilt or innocence are completely separate matters. And framing my point as a “quick draw shoot out” is just a tad unsavory.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

In all of this back and forth, not a single word about the victim shot in the arm of whom there is at least one graphic photo that shows him with his wounded arm with his hand still holding the handgun he aimed at Rittenhouse. As I said above, I will not link it here because it is a nasty looking wound. But there is no doubt about the gun still in his hand.

He is seen in the video pointing said gun at Rittenhouse. Now what is Rittenhouse supposed to think about that gun aimed at him? While facing off with at least two other men who were coming at him? Was he supposed to lay down and offer his neck? Seems some here think that.

It will all come out at the trial.

 

[HarryStotle]

Ridgerunner:

Biden himself says this rioting will only stop if he’s elected. His people bail these criminals out of jail. Where are the Trump supporters who have been burning buildings and killing people?

It is possible he is right because it is unlikely that Trump will address white privilege and the systematic racism that caused these riots.

The presumption on your part is that you have properly diagnosed the causes as well as provided the best prescription. Must be a nice feeling to believe yourself absolutely inerrant despite having provided nothing in terms of analysis of either one.

I suppose the fact that all of the mayhem is occuring in Democrat run cities under control of Democrat governors. A reasonable observer would stop to ask why that is so.

A reasonable observer would also ask why all of the mayhem is happening just before an election instigated by Democrats in control of those areas that are doing nothing to prosecute the rioters and looters but, instead are enabling the mayhem.

Trump’s fault. Uh huh. What do you take us for? Clueless?

 

[HarryStotle]

I just watched the video. Based on that, no policeman anywhere that I know of would have done what he did. He gave less than a second of threat assessment, after tripping running away and came up firing. There is also a video of him punching a girl from behind in a previous fight. I think painting Rittenhouse as a policeman will backfire as much as those who rush to paint hard criminals killed by police as martyrs.

Post the video of him punching the girl. The only one I’ve seen is of him offering medical aid to a girl.

 

[JonNC]

It depends on what the facts show. When OJ was acquitted did you conclude he must not have done it?

No. I figured he was not guilty because that’s how it works.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, he has the legal presumption of innocence. I was neglecting all the politically correct language due when the defendant is white.

Not sure what difference his skin color makes. That’s the American standard. If it isn’t followed for an individual because of his race, that’s contrary to our fundamental system of rights.

I do not disagree with this hair you split, but I will note that you have no problem making accusations of riots and looting, without convictions.

Name someone Ive accused. A name. The fact is it isn’t splitting hairs. It’s our system, the one leftists want to tear down and replace with authoritarianism. Now, if you want to claim Or argue that these things aren’t happening, which would be delusional, fine. The fact is they are. Rittenhouse shot three people. This is clear. Is it murder, as was claimed? No. Not yet.

 

[TMC]

No. I figured he was not guilty because that’s how it works.

Legally perhaps.

Consider this. By saying you assume that the shooter acted in self defense, you are saying that you assume the people he shot were attacking him with deadly force. Why is it OK to assume the people he killed were attackers, but not OK to assume the same about him? Why does the admitted killer deserve that benefit of doubt, but those he killed do not?

 

[WingedHussar]

Maybe, but 1st Degree murder?

Whoever wrote that charging document cannot even apply the WI law on minors and firearms properly. This prosecution reeks of an attempt to intimidate people who dare to stand against the communist mobs burning our cities.

I am trying to see all sides. I think the first shooting is the most problematic. I can see an argument for self-defense on the next two shootings, but I can also see how the victims thought they were trying to protect others.

Self-defense and defense of others cannot be used as justification to attack a fleeing individual. Kyle was running away running away from each of his assailants.

Well, there isn’t much evidence here that the victims were ‘bad guys’. Now defunding the police would involve replacing the current police with another governmental agency that would act in the role - hopefully without the systematic racism that seems so prevalent in many police departments.

Outside of the fact that 3 of the 4 had criminal records, were part of a mob intent on beating and possibly murdering someone who did not present an imminent threat, and then attacked that person. Members of the mob who did not present an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Kyle were not shot.

It is a systemic crime problem we have, not racism.

 

[JonNC]

Legally perhaps.

What else matters?

Consider this. By saying you assume that the shooter acted in self defense, you are saying that you assume the people he shot were attacking him with deadly force.

I’ve made no such assumption. I’ve simply stated that there is a presumption of innocence. The video appears to show he was being chased and attacked. AFAIK, the injured man was not charged. He is presumed innocent.

Why is it OK to assume the people he killed were attackers, but not OK to assume the same about him? Why does the admitted killer deserve that benefit of doubt, but those he killed do not?

As you can see, I’ve made no assumption. You now have made two.

 

[TMC]

What else matters?

Most Christians, myself included, believe that truth and morality matter more than what the state decides to do. Is your position that whatever is legal is moral, and that all decisions of the government are always correct?

I’ve made no such assumption. I’ve simply stated that there is a presumption of innocence. The video appears to show he was being chased and attacked. AFAIK, the injured man was not charged. He is presumed innocent.

I think you are trying to have it both ways. He admits to killing two people and shooting a third. The only way that can be legal is if those people were putting his life in danger. So your presumption presumes their guilt.