Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[andersweinstein]

I think I was somewhat sympathetic in that I felt he was a clueless idiot trying to look big in front of everyone, but I felt he was guilty of second degree murder. But any sympathy vanished when I saw him at the trial. That fake blubbering pretty much neutered any sympathy I had. It was clear he didn't give a shit about what he had done.

Yep, pretty much. He had the wrong people advising him.
If he had OWNED that, he would have gotten a lot of cred.

But, no. He let lawyers milk him and now he has a shoot-em-up game for sale.

He had grifting lawyers Linn Wood and John Pierce milking him to start, but they wound up fired.

The WI attorney who led his criminal defense, Mark Richards, eschewed pre-trial publicity and post-trial made remarks skeptical of the right-wing celebrity machinery embracing Rittenhouse. My personal impression is that Richards -- reportedly a Democrat -- has a lot of integrity. But Richards' role is done.

Rittenhouse's Svengali now seems to be family "advisor" David Hancock, a former security consultant who fell out with Linn Wood and won the trust of Wendy Rittenhouse. You can often spot this guy Hancock in the background with KR in photos of his various travels.This fine New Yorker piece has details of how Hancock came into this role. And, to his credit, Hancock did steer the family through the firing of Pierce and Wood who were not acting in their best interest. It is likely Hancock who manages his social media presence.

It seems a shame to me he's gone down this path rather than try to retreat into obscurity like, say, Nicholas Sandmann. But anonymity was probably never going to be attainable for Rittenhouse. He may retain the very substantial expense of a security detail. Right now, his major marketable asset is celebrity status in the right-wing ecosystem. And celebrity status can be VERY valuable in America. Intoxicating to boot, particularly to one who is young and none-too-bright.

[andersweinstein]

My personal impression is that Richards -- reportedly a Democrat -- has a lot of integrity.

Incidentally, I've always believed Rittenhouse's panic attack or PTSD flashback on the stand was real, but NOT because I think I can distinguish real from fake emotion. (I recuse myself as a judge of genuineness of emotion because I believe human beings are unreliable on this). It is just because he would have been coached and prepped for this testimony within an inch of his life, and I think it would be insane, just insane, for a defense attorney to say "now you fake cry". That would be insane because non-actors could never be expected to pull it off and the downside risk of being seen faking is huge, potentially undermining the credibility of all of his testimony. I can't believe Richards would make that decision. And, as an independent factor, I'm impressed with Richards' integrity as mentioned above. So to me it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think Richards would have done that. And I can't see Rittenhouse calling an audible on this against coach's instructions either.

[neonzx]

My personal impression is that Richards -- reportedly a Democrat -- has a lot of integrity.

Incidentally, I've always believed Rittenhouse's panic attack or PTSD flashback on the stand was real, but NOT because I think I can distinguish real from fake emotion. (I recuse myself as a judge of genuineness of emotion because I believe human beings are unreliable on this). It is just because he would have been coached and prepped for this testimony within an inch of his life, and I think it would be insane, just insane, for a defense attorney to say "now you fake cry". That would be insane because non-actors could never be expected to pull it off

I'm not sure you are going to get many takers that the performance on the stand was not choreographed. (there were no actual tears)

Oh, and Nickolas Sandmann is still around and not faded into obscurity. He's bitching to Elon Musk about wanting "hidden" files proving he received death threats on twitter back when his crap occured at 16yo. OMG, someone got a death threat on the internet! I think he is still just looking for more people to sue.$$$

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nicholas-san ... st-him.amp

nicksandmann.jpg (41.95 KiB) Viewed 1260 times

[andersweinstein]

I'm not sure you are going to get many takers that the performance on the stand was not choreographed. (there were no actual tears)

IMO the parenthetical comment points to something people get wrong about this. What was presented was not *crying*. It was rather a PTSD type panic attack. There would not necessarily have been any tears with that. So it does not support the idea that it was choreographed to say there were no actual tears. It is what you would expect.

It seems totally plausible to me he could have PTSD type symptoms from the night in question. He reportedly threw up in the interrogation room.

The key thing about my reason for believing it real that it is NOT based on my subjective impression. I believe people can't reliably tell real from fake emotion. I think if you go by your impressions you just wind up projecting your own biases. My reasoning about the improbability of them choosing to choreograph such a weird display could always be wrong for other reasons, obvs. But I discount my subjective impression entirely.

[Kriselda Gray]

I'm not sure you are going to get many takers that the performance on the stand was not choreographed. (there were no actual tears)

I frequently cry without any tears being shed. It's weird as all get out when it happens, but I'm genuinely distressed and I look and sound like I'm sobbing my heart out (which I am) there's just no tears.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened with Rittenhouse, just noting that it can happen like that.

[neonzx]

I'm not sure you are going to get many takers that the performance on the stand was not choreographed. (there were no actual tears)

I frequently cry without any tears being shed. It's weird as all get out when it happens, but I'm genuinely distressed and I look and sound like I'm sobbing my heart out (which I am) there's just no tears.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what happened with Rittenhouse, just noting that it can happen like that.

Okay. I am not going to rule out a potential PTSD panic attack that was suggested. Or tearless crying on cue but still I don't see it. To my knowledge, he has never expressed remorse for the events of that bad evening. Remorse would play pivotal in my consideration.

Sadly, I see no redemption for him.

[raison de arizona]

Last I heard, Rittenhouse was complaining that Grossman has not been charged for pointing a gun at him. That’s pretty far from any remorse.

[Gregg]

I seriously wish we had the laptops of the former guys kids to look into and read about all the sleazy deals the did unter the eyes of a papa posing as resident of the WH.

Besides, if we had Jr's Laptop we could sell the half a kilo of coke that is surely stuck in the keyboard and make a few bucks.

[poplove]

Jack E. Smith
@7Veritas4
Parody Kyle is killing it.

[neonzx]

[poplove]

Badd Company
@BaddCompani

Shot Chaser

[Dave from down under]

Killer Kyle is claiming it was self Defence as he felt threatened again..

Don’t worry, his acting skills have improved for the next court case.

[andersweinstein]

[ To my knowledge, he has never expressed remorse for the events of that bad evening. Remorse would play pivotal in my consideration.

Sadly, I see no redemption for him.

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability. Of course he is never going to agree with that! He thinks he was an innocent with good intentions (medical help, defending property) who was attacked by criminals and only shot to defend himself because he was forced into it when trying to flee failed. He said in one interview that if he didn't have his gun with him he would have been killed that night. He thinks it saved his life. Obviously he's not going to feel remorse for that.

On top of that, after defending himself lawfully (as he sees it), he was arrested, detained, put on trial facing potential life imprisonment, and subject to all this misrepresentation by media on the liberal side (racist, white supremacist, that sort of thing). He's going to feel he was wronged. And he is going to take the jury verdict as vindication.

[Dave from down under]

Psychopaths don’t feel remorse.

2 dead 1 maimed will be forever.

[pipistrelle]

Psychopaths don’t feel remorse.

2 dead 1 maimed will be forever.

That's how I see him. His age never meant anything to me. The fake crying sealed the deal that he doesn't care about anyone but himself.

[Maybenaut]

[ To my knowledge, he has never expressed remorse for the events of that bad evening. Remorse would play pivotal in my consideration.

Sadly, I see no redemption for him.

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

[pipistrelle]

[ To my knowledge, he has never expressed remorse for the events of that bad evening. Remorse would play pivotal in my consideration.

Sadly, I see no redemption for him.

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

Absolutely. And members of the Bundy cult are also guilty too.

[Suranis]

[ To my knowledge, he has never expressed remorse for the events of that bad evening. Remorse would play pivotal in my consideration.

Sadly, I see no redemption for him.

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

O J Simpson says hi.

[Maybenaut]

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

O J Simpson says hi.

Yeah, I think I saw him having lunch the other day with George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony.

[bob]

But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

:P&E:

The [Twitter] trend “Killer Kyle,” which may have referred to Kyle Rittenhouse, was defamatory in that Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges over an incident in Illinois in November of last year.

[Baidn]

I'm just going to outright say that innocent people do feel remorse. If you had no choice in an action (which is not even the case here) you can still feel deep regret over what happened. I would posit that when the result is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life any decent person should feel remorse.

[jemcanada2]

I'm just going to outright say that innocent people do feel remorse. If you had no choice in an action (which is not even the case here) you can still feel deep regret over what happened. I would posit that when the result is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life any decent person should feel remorse.

[bob]

I'm just going to outright say that innocent people do feel remorse. If you had no choice in an action (which is not even the case here) you can still feel deep regret over what happened. I would posit that when the result is a tragic and unnecessary loss of life any decent person should feel remorse.

"If only I had/had not...." is a form of remorse.

I'm not going to stoop to quibble whether people can "have regrets" about their contributory actions yet not "feel remorse" about them.

[andersweinstein]

I've said this before, but: people who believe they are innocent don't feel remorse. Regret, possibly. But not remorse.

Demanding remorse is just another way of saying you still think he was guilty of some wrongdoing. To me that's just begging the question about his culpability.

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

Yes, of course. I've never meant to question that. It just seems odd to me to expect him to show remorse given his position. Of course that's not going to happen. His position is that he was a wholly innocent victim.

[andersweinstein]

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that many people around here still think, despite the verdict, that Rittenhouse is guilty of wrongdoing and is, in fact, culpable.

The jury has spoken, so Rittenhouse gets to walk around a free man. But people are not required to agree with the verdict.

O J Simpson says hi.

Yes, again, of course people have the right to the opinion that the jury got it wrong. I've never questioned that.

I do see one pretty big disanalogy with the OJ case, though. That was a circumstantial case, something that leaves big space for doubt. But in the Rittenhouse case, there was a LOT of evidence. Every shooting was on video! I don't think the jury had the same room for factual doubt in his case.