Some time in 2020 in one of the myriads of riots by the far left, a guy with a rifle was attacked by three people (who, by the way, were all convicted criminals, including a child rapist) and he shot them in self defense, killing two of them and wounding one. Because the riot was, once again, far-leftist extremist terrorists burning buildings down because of some perceived injustice against a black person, the entirety of the far left, very much including the leftist mainstream media and most leftist politicians, decided to make this guy their scapegoat of the week and launched a year-long vicious attack against him full of slander, lies and distortions. This vicious smearing campaign was so effective that it pressured the state prosecution to file charges, even though there was essentially no case against him. It couldn't have been a clearer case of self defense as a last resort. The prosecution was laughably weak, because they just didn't have a case. (Ironically, the prosecution did a much better job defending the accused than the defense.) He was unanimously acquitted of all charges by the jury.
The amount of lies by the mainstream media and politicians about this guy is just astonishing and egregiously blatant. The left decided (with literally zero evidence) that he's a "white supremacist", a "trumpist", a "far right activist" and so on and so forth. Mind you, all three people who attacked him and he shot at were white. There wasn't a single black person in sight. Yet, according to the mainstream media this was still, somehow, an attack against black people.
Ben Shapiro has made an excellent video summarizing all the lies of the mainstream media and leftist politicians, especially after the trial. I highly recommend watching it. He does a much better job than I could ever do on this subject.
Anyway, one particular aspect of the leftist narrative on this case that I find really strange and odd is that they keep repeating over, and over, and over, and over, that Kyle Rittenhouse "crossed the state line" to come to that state in which he shot people.
You see it repeated over and over. News anchors, political commentators, mainstream media publications on the subject, politicians, other leftist activists have been repeating over and over how he "crossed the state line".
It's a small and rather inconsequential thing, but I can't help but be baffled about it. They are saying it as if it were somehow important and damning, as if it somehow worsened his alleged "crime". As if he somehow were more guilty because he "crossed the state line" to go to the riot where he ended up shooting those three people.
It just leaves me scratching my head. What does "crossing the state line" have anything to do with anything? Do they think he's somehow more guilty because of having done that? Would they think that he's slightly less guilty if he had been from that particular state and thus didn't need to "cross the state line"? Do they think that "crossing the state line" is itself some kind of crime, or aggravating circumstance? Some kind of egregious action that made the crime all that worse? I don't get it.
(In the United States people are free to cross state lines whenever they want. They don't need any sort of permission or permit. Anybody can freely move anywhere in the country.)
It's once again those leftist narrative tidbits that I cannot comprehend. I will never understand the far-leftist mind.
Comments
Post a Comment