20 ms·

> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this sp

by caeril 5y ago

> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head, to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme malice and contempt for their viewers.

Natsu 5y ago
Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/908751355911471154/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90... Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand: Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct? Gaige Grosskreutz: Yes. CC: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun. Yes? GG: No. CC: Sir, look, I don’t want to – does this look like right now your arm is being shot? GG: That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes. CC: Okay. And it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him. Yes? GG: Yes. CC: Okay. So when you were standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right? GG: Correct. CC: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down — pointed at him that he fired. Right? GG: Correct. Now compare that to what Grosskreutz said to ABC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M ABC: "So here you’re allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you’re saying you weren’t pointing your gun at him? Is that what you’re saying?” Grosskreutz: “That’s absolutely what I’m saying, yes. Problems with this: * Grosskreutz has a $10M lawsuit against the city over this. * Grosskreutz' phone was not searched, despite a signed search warrant for the same, due to the DA's personal intervention. Nor was his and only his police interview recorded. * Grosskreutz has an expired CCL, so was not legally carrying. * As a side note, the illegal gun charge against Kyle, meanwhile, was dropped. Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle, so Kyle's possession was ruled to be legal under WI's poorly-written laws. * Grosskreutz lied to the police both about having a gun at all, then later changed his story to dropping it, but was caught on camera in possession of it the entire time. * The police testified that this is the one and only time they have ever done things that way. * Grosskreutz testified that he chose to attack because Kyle re-racked his gun. However, this does not happen anywhere in the video of the exchange and no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was found. * What was found is an unspent round matching Grosskreutz' glock. * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill. * While that was not seen on camera, this must have happened while he still had two arms. * Grosskreutz' roommate posted on social media that Grosskreutz regretted not killing Kyle. He later claimed to have been lying when brought to the stand. In short, ABC put on someone who has changed their story multiple times when confronted with new evidence, who provably lied to the cops that were investigating a murder, and who has $10 million reasons to lie about everything. This particular exchange has even been fact-checked, so ABC has little excuse for platforming someone they know or should have known to be lying without challenging them: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro... One wonders if this coverage will ever show up with a "disputed by fact checkers" label on social media?
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  > * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill. It doesn't imply that. It would be nice if, in a thread about the media misreporting the facts of the case and feeding the biases of the folks who are supposed to be benefiting from the coverage, we wouldn't make other assumptions. You might think it's reasonable to make this assumption, but (a) the people leaping to conclusions—many of which turned out to be wrong—and repeating them ad nauseum over the last year also thought their assumptions about Rittenhouse were reasonable, and (b) as it turns out, the source of the ejected round is knowable/known since it was also caught on video (and it wasn't Grosskreutz doing as you said). [I'm not going to actually delve into the details on that, since as far as I'm concerned this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic and not straying into the details of the case, which provides us a vehicle for the discussion but other than that is really just a tangential third rail.]
  - Natsu 5y ago
    I'm basing my opinions on those statements made in open court that were subjected to cross-examination, not random social media nonsense, which is pretty much all there was a year ago when you formed this opinion. The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock. If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at the scene, please show it. There were claims previously that it came from Kyle's rifle, but it was not a match and this is attested to by the prosecution's own police witness. I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from after several searches. This makes me wonder if you can actually produce the claimed video evidence of another source of the same ammo.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      I haven't been watching the trial so forgive me this question, but what does it mean for the found round to match the ammunition in the glock? That they were both 9mm? Or that they were both the same brand and variety of 9mm?
HideousKojima 5y ago
Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  He lied to the media but told the truth under oath? I'm surprised.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    There was video evidence of everything he testified to under oath. If he had lied, it would have been obvious perjury.
    - LogonType10 5y ago
      Thanks for the context.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    What should be surprising here is that, when interviewed on these major networks after his court testimony, no journalist asked him that very obvious and clear follow-up question.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  Anderson Cooper 'confronted' Grosskreutz about contradicting his sworn testimony, but the guy (clumsily) dodged the question, and apparently Cooper wasn't interested in following up on it. Cooper: On Good Morning America today you said that you were absolutely not pointing your gun at Rittenhouse. Can you clarify there? Grosskreutz: Yes, absolutely. Um. First and foremost, [the cross examination] was a very tense situation. Something that I've never been in before. Just like never being shot before. I think it's important to note though, specifically during cross that, if there's skilled attorney, they're able to present questions to help support their narrative. That's their job. And with one of the exhibits that Attorney Sharrad(?) had introduced, there's a photo of me with my gun pointed towards the defendant. Either just after or right during he had shot me in my right arm. I think it's important to note though that the physiology of my wound would be inconsistent with someone being shot with their arm in.. we'll say the traditional way that you would point your gun at somebody or something. The only way that I could have sustained the injury that I have is if I had been shot with my arms up. Cooper (looking perplexed): So... so you're say--did you ever point your gun at him? [someone speaks to Grosskreutz off camera, he looks at them, turns back] Grosskreutz: I think that in the still photos it certainly looks like it. But never intentionally. You have to understand that, following that gunshot, I was--I had no use of my arm. I wasn't able to move anything. I--and--in my right arm, or in my right arm. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-intv-rittenhouse-point-gun-defense-ac360-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-i...
roody15 5y ago
Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sneak 5y ago
  They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
    - Eelongate 5y ago
      > I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
      - 5y ago
shiohime 5y ago
We live in a society whose narrative is completely and utterly controlled by megacorporations who create truths that are convenient for them, or their overall agendas, regardless of the actual truth. It's a disgusting world and it's only going to get worse. We're all pawns to these companies that are performing social engineering on scales we cannot even fully comprehend.
- foxhop 5y ago
  Do you say it's almost like super normal stimulation? https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#page-1 https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#pa... I would say this is what it's like.
  - shiohime 5y ago
    It does seem like a pretty good metaphor for what it is like. Thank you for sharing, I've never seen this comic before and I think it does a great job at communicating the message the author was trying to get across.
short12 5y ago
Too bad he didn't pull the trigger considering he had already gunned down people. Isn't that the narrative? If some starts shooting people some one with a gun will stop him
- noxer 5y ago
  You can't just "stop" someone with deadly forth because he appears to have "gunned down" someone before. You dont know the whole story and you are not in the position to declare who is the victim and who is the "bad guy". Its not self-defense if you chase someone. A fleeing suspect even if you would have witnessed an execution style murder is not legal to just shot. It must be reasonable to believe that you or someone else is in imminent danger of harm. Like a terrorist who just randomly shoots at anyone. Commonly referred to as "an active shorter". In this case there was no doubt he was fleeing from the mob.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. > “Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered. > “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said. > “Correct,” he said.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  It's also worth noting that the statement you quoted from GP is objectively incorrect without the qualifier that Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed at Kyle's head, because Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.
  - YeBanKo 5y ago
    How is it objectively incorrect, if he pretty much quoted a direct speech verbatim? At least one of them hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard, so he was armed.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      If you're calling a skateboard a weapon I'm going to take everything you say with a mountain of salt.
      - YeBanKo 5y ago
        Not me, but courts. Not just a weapon, but a deadly weapon.
        5y ago
nope35467 5y ago
A quick search shows that NPR and the New York Times both covered this aspect of Mr. Grosskreutz' testimony. Covering additional details from the testimony is not lying. More importantly, focusing narrowly on that fact detracts from the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two other people that night. Mr. Grosskreutz' pointing of his gun, whether intentional or not, is not what turned Mr. Rittenhouse into a killer.
- superflit2 5y ago
  Well he did the Kenosha Hat trick Shot a wifebeater, a pedo, and a burglar. To not make it inflammatory I will use this reference [1] "For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes." "Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders." "Grosskreutz had not committed a felony crime, our analysis of court records showed. He was, however, found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,” though the court records did not elaborate on what exactly had happened. " The reference was not updated then the court papers have more information. [1] - https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-r...
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    This comment is disrespectful of the dead and should be removed.
    - superflit2 5y ago
      It is all on court documents.
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      These are the past crimes they've been sentenced guilty already at court not some rumor or events they never got punished for. Calling a pedophile a pedophile is not disrespectful.
andrepd 5y ago
Really? Can you link me to said CNN coverage where they twisting his words? Anyways this is a classic ruling class tactic: keep the plebs entertained with something else. While they're busy endlessly discussing the Rittenhouse case with ever more inane partisan takes, they're not discussing the impending economic crisis, the unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality, pressing climate crisis...
- ipaddr 5y ago
  All of those are media created issues as well.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Ah, alright. Thanks for being so upfront, saves me wasting my time x)
  - andybak 5y ago
    Please tell us more about your theories on this.
    - andrepd 5y ago
      Don't feed...
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Many of the issues you believe are important are only important because the media told you they were and provided a neat story. Great recent example: Afghanistan.. do you know what happened to those people who fled? What about the ones that never made it out on time. The media changed the topic and people stopped caring. What do you think would happen if wealth gap stops being talked about? People stop caring because people only care about their pay and buying power. Global warming same. It takes planting 1,000 new trees to offset a flight from Austria to Scotland. If global warming was taken seriously these people would meet virtually and society would be changed to tax companies with offices. That's not what the media is talking about.
  - 5y ago
908B64B197 5y ago
> The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme malice and contempt for their viewers. At least, here in America we decided that justice should be public and cameras freely admitted into courtrooms. It's sad to see that YouTube is trying to work against these ideals of transparency, openness and universal access. It is not, however, a universal freedom. In many foreign countries (even in Canada) it's simply impossible to get a simple video and audio feed outside of the courtroom. Only people with the means of queuing up and spending the whole day in court can get the privilege of seeing and hearing justice with their very own eyes and ears. The rest have to rely on what these people will decide to write in either the state backed medias or billionaire owned news outlets.
lalaland1125 5y ago
CNN directly includes this fact: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-monday/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon... > "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded. I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.
- strangeattractr 5y ago
  People don't base this opinion on a single article but on the coverage of the situation holistically as it evolves. Most of the 'bombshell' revelations in this trial have been available on the internet since the week of the shooting. The number of videos and images that show that it wasn't until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him aiming at his head that he was shot is overwhelming and yet it seemed to catch the prosecutors and journalists completely by surprise. If you watch the videos of the event in sequence you realise that this is one of the most blatant and well documented cases of self-defence in history, yet people who have only consumed media coverage of the shooting have been surprised by the difficulty that the prosecution have had proving it was murder. Clearly there is something broken in the transmission of information there.
  - genewitch 5y ago
    One thing that was the primary influence of whether this was actually self defense or not was what happened between the interview where he explained how and why he was there, to the start of the video in front of the store where he first fires. I'm not sure (I haven't been following the trial) - but have seen a few people mention that someone else "shot into the sky" while a fire was being put out, and words were exchanged, which led to the accused leaving the area, going to a better lit area, which is when the infamous video started. It really puts a different perspective on the entire thing, especially if you notice at the end of the video he was moving toward law enforcement the whole time.
    - 5y ago
LordDragonfang 5y ago
>compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission. edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.
- hasdf 5y ago
  kind of like how you fail to admit that one of the two 'unarmed' men was armed with a skateboard that he was trying to beat kyle to death with. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    >that he was trying to beat kyle to death with. So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous. Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4 https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4 Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.
    - hasdf 5y ago
      ?? you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

by caeril 5y ago

Natsu 5y ago

Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/908751355911471154/unknown.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90... Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand: Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct? Gaige Grosskreutz: Yes. CC: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun. Yes? GG: No. CC: Sir, look, I don’t want to – does this look like right now your arm is being shot? GG: That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes. CC: Okay. And it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him. Yes? GG: Yes. CC: Okay. So when you were standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right? GG: Correct. CC: It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down — pointed at him that he fired. Right? GG: Correct. Now compare that to what Grosskreutz said to ABC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M ABC: "So here you’re allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you’re saying you weren’t pointing your gun at him? Is that what you’re saying?” Grosskreutz: “That’s absolutely what I’m saying, yes. Problems with this: * Grosskreutz has a $10M lawsuit against the city over this. * Grosskreutz' phone was not searched, despite a signed search warrant for the same, due to the DA's personal intervention. Nor was his and only his police interview recorded. * Grosskreutz has an expired CCL, so was not legally carrying. * As a side note, the illegal gun charge against Kyle, meanwhile, was dropped. Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle, so Kyle's possession was ruled to be legal under WI's poorly-written laws. * Grosskreutz lied to the police both about having a gun at all, then later changed his story to dropping it, but was caught on camera in possession of it the entire time. * The police testified that this is the one and only time they have ever done things that way. * Grosskreutz testified that he chose to attack because Kyle re-racked his gun. However, this does not happen anywhere in the video of the exchange and no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was found. * What was found is an unspent round matching Grosskreutz' glock. * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill. * While that was not seen on camera, this must have happened while he still had two arms. * Grosskreutz' roommate posted on social media that Grosskreutz regretted not killing Kyle. He later claimed to have been lying when brought to the stand. In short, ABC put on someone who has changed their story multiple times when confronted with new evidence, who provably lied to the cops that were investigating a murder, and who has $10 million reasons to lie about everything. This particular exchange has even been fact-checked, so ABC has little excuse for platforming someone they know or should have known to be lying without challenging them: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro... One wonders if this coverage will ever show up with a "disputed by fact checkers" label on social media?

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
> * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill. It doesn't imply that. It would be nice if, in a thread about the media misreporting the facts of the case and feeding the biases of the folks who are supposed to be benefiting from the coverage, we wouldn't make other assumptions. You might think it's reasonable to make this assumption, but (a) the people leaping to conclusions—many of which turned out to be wrong—and repeating them ad nauseum over the last year also thought their assumptions about Rittenhouse were reasonable, and (b) as it turns out, the source of the ejected round is knowable/known since it was also caught on video (and it wasn't Grosskreutz doing as you said). [I'm not going to actually delve into the details on that, since as far as I'm concerned this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic and not straying into the details of the case, which provides us a vehicle for the discussion but other than that is really just a tangential third rail.]
- Natsu 5y ago
  I'm basing my opinions on those statements made in open court that were subjected to cross-examination, not random social media nonsense, which is pretty much all there was a year ago when you formed this opinion. The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock. If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at the scene, please show it. There were claims previously that it came from Kyle's rifle, but it was not a match and this is attested to by the prosecution's own police witness. I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from after several searches. This makes me wonder if you can actually produce the claimed video evidence of another source of the same ammo.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    I haven't been watching the trial so forgive me this question, but what does it mean for the found round to match the ammunition in the glock? That they were both 9mm? Or that they were both the same brand and variety of 9mm?

HideousKojima 5y ago

Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony.

LogonType10 5y ago
He lied to the media but told the truth under oath? I'm surprised.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  There was video evidence of everything he testified to under oath. If he had lied, it would have been obvious perjury.
  - LogonType10 5y ago
    Thanks for the context.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  What should be surprising here is that, when interviewed on these major networks after his court testimony, no journalist asked him that very obvious and clear follow-up question.
marcusverus 5y ago
Anderson Cooper 'confronted' Grosskreutz about contradicting his sworn testimony, but the guy (clumsily) dodged the question, and apparently Cooper wasn't interested in following up on it. Cooper: On Good Morning America today you said that you were absolutely not pointing your gun at Rittenhouse. Can you clarify there? Grosskreutz: Yes, absolutely. Um. First and foremost, [the cross examination] was a very tense situation. Something that I've never been in before. Just like never being shot before. I think it's important to note though, specifically during cross that, if there's skilled attorney, they're able to present questions to help support their narrative. That's their job. And with one of the exhibits that Attorney Sharrad(?) had introduced, there's a photo of me with my gun pointed towards the defendant. Either just after or right during he had shot me in my right arm. I think it's important to note though that the physiology of my wound would be inconsistent with someone being shot with their arm in.. we'll say the traditional way that you would point your gun at somebody or something. The only way that I could have sustained the injury that I have is if I had been shot with my arms up. Cooper (looking perplexed): So... so you're say--did you ever point your gun at him? [someone speaks to Grosskreutz off camera, he looks at them, turns back] Grosskreutz: I think that in the still photos it certainly looks like it. But never intentionally. You have to understand that, following that gunshot, I was--I had no use of my arm. I wasn't able to move anything. I--and--in my right arm, or in my right arm. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-intv-rittenhouse-point-gun-defense-ac360-vpx.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-i...

roody15 5y ago

Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sneak 5y ago
They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal justice system.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    > I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc. Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.
    - 5y ago

shiohime 5y ago

We live in a society whose narrative is completely and utterly controlled by megacorporations who create truths that are convenient for them, or their overall agendas, regardless of the actual truth. It's a disgusting world and it's only going to get worse. We're all pawns to these companies that are performing social engineering on scales we cannot even fully comprehend.

foxhop 5y ago
Do you say it's almost like super normal stimulation? https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#page-1 https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#pa... I would say this is what it's like.
- shiohime 5y ago
  It does seem like a pretty good metaphor for what it is like. Thank you for sharing, I've never seen this comic before and I think it does a great job at communicating the message the author was trying to get across.

short12 5y ago

Too bad he didn't pull the trigger considering he had already gunned down people. Isn't that the narrative? If some starts shooting people some one with a gun will stop him

noxer 5y ago
You can't just "stop" someone with deadly forth because he appears to have "gunned down" someone before. You dont know the whole story and you are not in the position to declare who is the victim and who is the "bad guy". Its not self-defense if you chase someone. A fleeing suspect even if you would have witnessed an execution style murder is not legal to just shot. It must be reasonable to believe that you or someone else is in imminent danger of harm. Like a terrorist who just randomly shoots at anyone. Commonly referred to as "an active shorter". In this case there was no doubt he was fleeing from the mob.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-grosskreutz-testimony.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. > “Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered. > “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said. > “Correct,” he said.

LordDragonfang 5y ago
It's also worth noting that the statement you quoted from GP is objectively incorrect without the qualifier that Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed at Kyle's head, because Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.
- YeBanKo 5y ago
  How is it objectively incorrect, if he pretty much quoted a direct speech verbatim? At least one of them hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard, so he was armed.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    If you're calling a skateboard a weapon I'm going to take everything you say with a mountain of salt.
    - YeBanKo 5y ago
      Not me, but courts. Not just a weapon, but a deadly weapon.
      - 5y ago

nope35467 5y ago

A quick search shows that NPR and the New York Times both covered this aspect of Mr. Grosskreutz' testimony. Covering additional details from the testimony is not lying. More importantly, focusing narrowly on that fact detracts from the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two other people that night. Mr. Grosskreutz' pointing of his gun, whether intentional or not, is not what turned Mr. Rittenhouse into a killer.

superflit2 5y ago
Well he did the Kenosha Hat trick Shot a wifebeater, a pedo, and a burglar. To not make it inflammatory I will use this reference [1] "For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes." "Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders." "Grosskreutz had not committed a felony crime, our analysis of court records showed. He was, however, found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,” though the court records did not elaborate on what exactly had happened. " The reference was not updated then the court papers have more information. [1] - https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-r...
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  This comment is disrespectful of the dead and should be removed.
  - superflit2 5y ago
    It is all on court documents.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    These are the past crimes they've been sentenced guilty already at court not some rumor or events they never got punished for. Calling a pedophile a pedophile is not disrespectful.

andrepd 5y ago

Really? Can you link me to said CNN coverage where they twisting his words? Anyways this is a classic ruling class tactic: keep the plebs entertained with something else. While they're busy endlessly discussing the Rittenhouse case with ever more inane partisan takes, they're not discussing the impending economic crisis, the unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality, pressing climate crisis...

ipaddr 5y ago
All of those are media created issues as well.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Ah, alright. Thanks for being so upfront, saves me wasting my time x)
- andybak 5y ago
  Please tell us more about your theories on this.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Don't feed...
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    Many of the issues you believe are important are only important because the media told you they were and provided a neat story. Great recent example: Afghanistan.. do you know what happened to those people who fled? What about the ones that never made it out on time. The media changed the topic and people stopped caring. What do you think would happen if wealth gap stops being talked about? People stop caring because people only care about their pay and buying power. Global warming same. It takes planting 1,000 new trees to offset a flight from Austria to Scotland. If global warming was taken seriously these people would meet virtually and society would be changed to tax companies with offices. That's not what the media is talking about.
- 5y ago

908B64B197 5y ago

> The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme malice and contempt for their viewers. At least, here in America we decided that justice should be public and cameras freely admitted into courtrooms. It's sad to see that YouTube is trying to work against these ideals of transparency, openness and universal access. It is not, however, a universal freedom. In many foreign countries (even in Canada) it's simply impossible to get a simple video and audio feed outside of the courtroom. Only people with the means of queuing up and spending the whole day in court can get the privilege of seeing and hearing justice with their very own eyes and ears. The rest have to rely on what these people will decide to write in either the state backed medias or billionaire owned news outlets.

lalaland1125 5y ago

CNN directly includes this fact: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-monday/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon... > "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded. I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.

strangeattractr 5y ago
People don't base this opinion on a single article but on the coverage of the situation holistically as it evolves. Most of the 'bombshell' revelations in this trial have been available on the internet since the week of the shooting. The number of videos and images that show that it wasn't until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him aiming at his head that he was shot is overwhelming and yet it seemed to catch the prosecutors and journalists completely by surprise. If you watch the videos of the event in sequence you realise that this is one of the most blatant and well documented cases of self-defence in history, yet people who have only consumed media coverage of the shooting have been surprised by the difficulty that the prosecution have had proving it was murder. Clearly there is something broken in the transmission of information there.
- genewitch 5y ago
  One thing that was the primary influence of whether this was actually self defense or not was what happened between the interview where he explained how and why he was there, to the start of the video in front of the store where he first fires. I'm not sure (I haven't been following the trial) - but have seen a few people mention that someone else "shot into the sky" while a fire was being put out, and words were exchanged, which led to the accused leaving the area, going to a better lit area, which is when the infamous video started. It really puts a different perspective on the entire thing, especially if you notice at the end of the video he was moving toward law enforcement the whole time.
  - 5y ago

LordDragonfang 5y ago

>compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission. edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.

hasdf 5y ago
kind of like how you fail to admit that one of the two 'unarmed' men was armed with a skateboard that he was trying to beat kyle to death with. Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  >that he was trying to beat kyle to death with. So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous. Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4 https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4 Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.
  - hasdf 5y ago
    ?? you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg