In contrast to the sober reactions ABC And CBS offered on the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, NBC News was less composed on Friday afternoon as two analysts fretted Rittenhouse’s innocence was a sad commentary on the “toxic” and “the really dangerous combination of liberal self-defense laws…and the accessibility of guns”With a “vindication of vigilantism”This could result in more fatal shootings “military-style…assault weapon[s].”
Tali Farhadian Weinstein (NBC legal analyst) told NBC Nightly NewsAnchor Lester Holt That, “when we sit with this verdict,”We will be forced to break the record “to look at is the really dangerous combination of liberal self-defense laws like the ones in Wisconsin, around the country and the accessibility of guns.”
Farhadian Weinstein said that Rittenhouse is responsible and not the attackers, despite his concern about how he would react to it. “prevailed” despite his “own gun” being “what put him in danger and what justified him using deadly force.”
Continuing to double down on some sort of “her skirt was too short” line of attack, Farhadian Weinstein reiterated that Americans will be stewing over “that toxic combination of self-defense and the proliferation of guns for a really long time.”
A few minutes after she wrapped by warning of “Second Amendment activists already being on the ground,” Holt closed the Special Report by asking NBC contributor and longtime liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson for “the bigger context,” including the fact that the Rittenhouse incidents took place “during a protest over the shooting of a black man by police.”
Robinson spoke in a depressed tone and criticized the prosecution for failing to argue that Rittenhouse was actually the aggressor. Rittenhouse looked for violence, while those who were shot (Gaige Grosskreutz and Anthony Huber) were in fact engaging in self defense because Rittenhouse was there. “this huge, military-style weapon and was running up and down the street.”
Robinson continued spewing hateful race-baiting hatred, and calling it the verdict “a vindication of vigilantism, of what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing” Travel “across state lines carrying a military-style — style assault weapon.”
Both of these claims were false. In fact, it was the AR-15 that had been in Wisconsin when the first claim occurred.
Asking rhetorically to “what end” does self-defense extend, Robinson speculated about America’s “very dangerous”And “very worrisome” future with more people like Rittenhouse taking to the streets (click “expand”):
RITTENHOUSE: [H]e came across state lines carrying a military-style — style assault weapon with the — with what end? Which end? Is that the end? He wanted to protect his property, which he did not have the right to. The police were on the scene. You know, duly authorized and trained law enforcement officers who were prepared to handle whatever situation arose, yet he came in, you know, appointing himself as — as — as some sort of enforcer and to the extent that this legitimizes that line of thinking, that line of action, I think it’s very dangerous and — and it’s very worrisome going forward. You know, this is — this is a divided country, hair trigger on a lot of issues, and it’s a country in which there are more guns than people. And —
HOLT: You touched upon a number of important points, which will be the subject of many conversations moving forward. This is based on today’s events.
Yes, Eugene. He envisions a world where there will be numerous white men with AR-15s who take to the streets in order to attack anyone they think is threatening the peace.
Liberal media for ladies and gentlemen.
It was an NBC News Special Report so there weren’t any commercials.
To see the relevant NBC transcript from November 19, click “expand.”
NBC News Special
November 19, 2021
Eastern: 1:22 pmLESTER HOLT: The — the prosecution was criticized at times from many onlookers for the way it conducted the case. Do — when we look at this case, are we going to look at the performance of a prosecution or does — did the facts simply not make a case that argued against what Rittenhouse was saying?
TALI FARHADIAN WEESTEIN: Not at all. I believe that when we look at this verdict we’ll be focusing on the very dangerous combination of liberal selfdefense laws such as those in Wisconsin and around the country, along with the availability of guns. His argument which won the day was that Kyle Rittenhouse’s gun was what placed him in danger. This is why he used deadly force. If he had not had that gun in his hand, then he would not have been in a position to invoke the self-defense theory and I think we’re going to be sitting with that toxic combination of self-defense and the proliferation of guns for a really long time.
HOLT. The prosecution had argued in closing arguments that it is impossible to provoke an object and claim that it is self-defense. You might be able to. Perhaps that is what it means.
FARHADIAN WEESTEIN: This says that the jury didn’t understand provocation in the case. Therefore, they rejected the idea of Rittenhouse just showing up with a weapon and deemed it provocative. They stepped in Rittenhouse’s shoes when they discussed the matter with the victims.
HOLT. What do you see the social consequences of all this? It’s probably hard to read, but a lot of folks will take what they want out of this — out of this verdict.
FARHADIAN WEINSTEIN (That’s right. The election was very polarizing and will continue to be so going forward. Your report just mentioned that Second Amendment advocates were on the ground in Wisconsin. And I think hanging over this is also a Supreme Court case that’s currently pending about whether states can be as restrictive as some of them are, as New York is, in prohibiting people from having concealed handguns and, you know, this — this verdict and this whole episode is a lesson that may well bear on decisions like that coming down.
(….)
Eastern, 1:28 p.m.
HOLT: I want to go to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson to give us a little bit of the bigger context and the context, of course — this was all taking place, Eugene, during a protest over the shooting of a black man by police. When you — when you look at that bigger context, will this always stand apart, or will this be a case of strictly about self-defense?
EUGENE ROBINSON (English): It stands apart, Lester. But it is not about self-defense strictly speaking. There is also the question of the way the prosecution presented its case. Had the prosecution presented the case all along that it presented in its closing arguments, namely, that the people Kyle Rittenhouse says he perceives as a deadly threat — actually, the reason they were coming at him was they perceived him as a deadly threat because he had this huge, military-style weapon and was running up and down the street and they were just trying to, in effect, protect themselves. The prosecution didn’t prove that. The prosecution argued this in closing arguments. The judge in the case is known for being pro-defendant throughout his long career. Look, it’s a fact that in the legal system, judges are expected to support all defendants, not all prosecutors. So, you know, it’s — so there are unique things about this case. But I — what concerns me, though, is that the result will be seen as a vindication of vigilantism, of what Kyle Rittenhouse was doing. The larger context of what he was doing, you know, during these demonstrations over the shooting of — of Jacob Blake, he came across state lines carrying a military-style — style assault weapon with the — with what end? Which end? Is that the end? He wanted to protect his property, which he did not have the right to. The police were on the scene. You know, duly authorized and trained law enforcement officers who were prepared to handle whatever situation arose, yet he came in, you know, appointing himself as — as — as some sort of enforcer and to the extent that this legitimizes that line of thinking, that line of action, I think it’s very dangerous and — and it’s very worrisome going forward. You know, this is — this is a divided country, hair trigger on a lot of issues, and it’s a country in which there are more guns than people. And —
HOLT: You touched upon a number of important points, which will be the subject of many conversations moving forward. This is based on today’s events.
This post was last modified on November 19, 2021 4:00 pm
This website uses cookies.