The ViewToday’s hosts pretend they are judge, jury, and executioner for Kyle Rittenhouse. He was the teenager who attacked him last year at Kenosha’s riot in self-defense. As the jury deliberated his fate, the liberal talk show panel had already determined he was a “vigilante murderer” who was “looking for trouble.”
Before playing clips from the trial, Whoopi Goldberg had sympathy for rioters who tried to burn down the city of Kenosha last Summer, calling them “social justice protesters.” But she suggested Rittenhouse was a vigilante murderer:
Let’s not delay, some of it is mind-boggling. Wisconsin is all the rage after Wisconsin lawyers presented closing arguments. These included whether Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, traveled across state lines in order to obtain arms. He then killed two people and wounded another one during a night full of social justice protests. Was this self-defense?
Whoopi responded with that loaded question: “This is only one-sided discussion.”
Everything boils down into a race for the left. View host claimed even white BLM “protesters” would now be open targets, if Rittenhouse was found innocent:
“I think it’s really a red light for white folks coming to help at social justice protests because basically what they’re saying is, oh, it’s okay to shoot white people too,” She snorted.
After that nastiness, guest host Tara Setmayer, a former CNN “Republican” analyst, chided the judge for throwing out the gun charge and confidently claimed Rittenhouse was “not a martyr” but a “murderer.”
Like Hostin did last week, Setmayer also feared we would see violence from “rabid 2nd Amendment advocates” taking the law into their own hands. (Wait, isn’t that what Kenosha rioters did last year after the shooting of Jacob Blake?)
You know that back in Wisconsin there are different gun laws in every state. Unfortunately, this was one of many mistakes made by the prosecution. It has to do the weapon’s size. They shouldn’t have known this. It stems back to a gun law from the 1990s that was supposed to counter gang violence when they were using sawed off shotguns, things like that and it’s a bit of an antiquated law and it’s for people under 16. This is something. It was the weapons offense that many thought was a simple matter. He was under-18 and he had this weapon.But then, the judge, who was a little controversial in this case to put it mildly, decided that he should also throw out the statement. And I am, you know. My family is pro Second Amendment and we own guns. I see this case as a way to help him get away. It is vigilante justice at its worst. But I also think it’s going to embolden some of the more rabid 2nd Amendment advocates. You should also know that it is difficult to be responsible gun owners. He isn’t a martyr. He isn’t a martyr. He is a murderer. Technicalities such as this should not empower him.
Co-host Joy Behar then lied, saying that despite his testimony, Rittenhouse “went looking” to commit violence. This was a “fact” apparently:
“But what about the fact that he went looking for trouble. He shot ‘em dead, a couple of people!” she decried.
Fellow co-host Sunny Hostin, a lawyer, didn’t correct her but claimed Rittenhouse reminded her of George Zimmerman:
“One person is wounded by another. This is the truth. You can see some remnants of George Zimmerman’s trial here. I think a lot of people are thinking, he’s going to get off again for killing, and wounding another person!” She was worried.
This fact-free smear session was paid for by sponsor McDonald’s, whom you can contact them at the Conservatives Fight Back page linked.
You can read the transcript here:
The View
11/16/21
WHOOPI Goldbergg: Let’s move on to the meat of it because there are some things that seem mind-boggling. Wisconsin is all eyed after Wisconsin lawyers presented closing arguments about whether Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, traveling across state lines in order to carry arms while killing and wounding two men during a night filled with social justice protests was an act of self-defense. Let’s have a closer look.
[plays clips from trial]
So the jury is deliberating as we speak. How do you think this will end? This is a great opportunity for white people to come and help out at social justice demonstrations. It basically says, “It’s okay” to shoot other whites.
…
SARAHAINES: Because he’s young and open-carrying, the technicality surrounding this weapon is a little strange to me. It’s an AR-15.
BEHAR: A style weapon.
HAINES: Yeah. Is that right? The lawyers claimed that there was an error in the law.
TARA SETMAYER: Because back in, you know, in Wisconsin, you know, every state has different gun laws, and unfortunately, and this is I think one of the several missteps by the prosecution. It has to do the weapon’s size. They shouldn’t have known this. It stems back to a gun law from the 1990s that was supposed to counter gang violence when they were using sawed off shotguns, things like that and it’s a bit of an antiquated law and it’s for people under 16. This is something. It was the weapons offense that many thought was a simple matter. He was under-18 and he had this weapon.But then, the judge, who was a little controversial in this case to put it mildly, decided that he should also throw out the statement. And I am, you know. My family is pro Second Amendment and we own guns. I see this case as a way to help him get away. It is vigilante justice at its worst. But I also think it’s going to embolden some of the more rabid 2nd Amendment advocates. You should also know that it is difficult to be responsible gun owners. He isn’t a martyr. He’s no martyr. He is a murderer. Technicalities such as this um or that then should not empower him.
JOY BEHAR – What’s the technicality?
SETMAYER: How they charged him.
SUNNY HOSTIN – He is facing multiple charges, including murder. But Sara’s question concerns the fact that a judge flew in what most people thought he would be convicted for, which was open carrying a small barrel gun. And the judge determined that the barrel was too short and kicked it out. It was shocking to many.
JOY BEAR: What about the fact that Joy went searching for trouble? He shot ‘em dead, a couple of people.
HOSTIN: One person is wounded by another. This is the truth. You can see some remnants of George Zimmerman’s trial. Many people think that he will get away again for murdering and injuring someone else. There were three people. The problem is the Wisconsin self-defense law is very broad. He claimed he was there to assist people but he also killed one other person, who he stated was reaching for his weapon. People chased him and tried to catch him. He had just shot and killed another person and had a gun. Then he fired at the second victim he claimed was in self defense. While I could see the self-defense argument being used for his first shooting, it was difficult to understand how self-defense can be claimed when you are trying to get away from someone who has just killed you. It’s so generous, I don’t get it.
This is what happens when police chase perps constantly. JOY BEHAR It’s self defense if the officer shoots back at him. No.
WHOOPI GOLDBERG: If a cop is chasing you, that’s a different thing because thats policing, that’s their job, but just John Doe walking around, I mean — the fact that the guy had the gun and was walking around with it and, you know —
SETMAYER: And he crossed state lines.
GOLDBERG : It crossed state boundaries with him, and I was afraid it would be an affront to my family.
About Post Author
