Politifact Completely Whiffs on a Kyle Rittenhouse ‘Fact-Check’ and Feeds a Meltdown in the Process – Opinion

It is getting close to the end of the Kyle Rittenhouse case, and one little piece of information today has set off quite a stir. That would be the judge dismissing the illegal gun charge, which was once thought to be the prosecution’s best hope at getting a conviction on something.

It was obvious that the reaction of the left, now cultishly involved in Rittenhouse being sent to prison for his defense, was pure hyperbole.

It is absolutely disgusting that Judge Schroeder sent count 6 to the sandbox. #KyleRittenhouseCase about the illegal possession of firearms under 18.

I’m pretty sure that the judge also thinks that it is okay for him to murder.

— David Leavitt (@David_Leavitt) November 15, 2021

Some of that was driven by a Politifact report which boldly and confidently proclaimed that it was “false” to say that Rittenhouse was legally carrying a gun the night of the shootings. In August 2020 they originally gave that rating, blasting the Facebook post which made this claim. In response to dismissal of the illegal gun charges, they republished the article today. This further fuels the madness of vapid people who don’t want to research.

A Facebook post says, “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” That’s False. https://t.co/Rxtw5rkFZb

— PolitiFact Wisconsin (@PolitiFactWisc) August 28, 2020

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time. It wasn’t clear if he could carry a gun. https://t.co/2xvPi9LvRv

— PolitiFact (@PolitiFact) November 15, 2021

Problem is, it’s actually quite clear. Wisconsin law allows a 16-17-year old to carry either a long rifle, or a shotgun provided that it isn’t concealed. Rittenhouse could have been armed that night with the gun he was carrying. This fact isn’t ambiguous. Politifact however claims it is absurd to claim Rittenhouse is legally armed because the law was written with hunting in view.

pic.twitter.com/uDqlCQXnvQ

— Bad Legal Takes (@BadLegalTakes) November 15, 2021

That’s not how any of this works. The statute does not mention hunting as a qualification. While lawmakers might have had some preferences about why 16-year-olds were allowed to own rifles in public, this is irrelevant when it comes to whether Rittenhouse violated the law. He simply didn’t, and Politifact is maliciously misframing matters. Another round of criticisms has followed on from this attack against a judge who does his job well.

Further, even if Politifact wanted to suggest that the law was meant for hunting while conceding he was still technically legally armed, the proper rating there would be “mostly true” with a mention on the further context. However, to declare the claim falsified is malpractice.

In the end, it is the prosecution’s fault for bringing the wrong charge in the first place, with ADA Thomas Binger once again showing he has very little grasp of the facts. That’s where the blame lies here, not with the judge for cleaning up the mess. Rittenhouse was legally allowed to possess a gun the night of July 31, regardless of whether he or she is unbiased in his readings of the law. The judge’s decision made it so. Partisans claim that the charges were improperly dropped.

This should serve as a reminder of the absurdity of fact-checking. These people are highly partisan, and they will do anything to get to their preferred conclusions. They hold such power via social media. It’s a shame. I can’t tell begin to tell you the garbage RedState has to put up with to please bad-faith actors who threaten our livelihoods simply for telling the truth.