Oh, when they finally drive someone to it, I'm sure there'll be the videos about how terrible it is that even this Nazi \ white person \ man was killed. They might even remember not to grin ear-to-ear while they're doing it.
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
I consistently underestimate how shameless the media will be.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
It would not surprise me of the media said something like "It's inappropriate but understandable. If you don't empathize with the discomfort of Black Liberation, you are a sociopath!"
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
Basically. He came to them, they ran the story, and tried not to praise him. They were just trying to not challenge the narrative he was pushing. They didn't explicitly endorse the murder, though.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
You could well be right. Like I said, I consistently underestimate just how big a bunch of shitbags the media is prepared to be. That said, I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story. As a tactic, it's working well for them so far - they've got enough of a monopoly that aside from a small group of people, if they don't talk about it, it didn't happen.
Vice not explicitly endorsing the murder.
I wonder if that's simply because Michael Reinoehl got himself killed with such alacrity - Danielson was murdered August 29^th, Reinoehl was dead by the 3^rd September - that they just didn't have time to do so.
I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story
I don't think an in-court mob lynching is their objective, just that they'd defend it. Burying the facts of the story and supporting the narrative echos of it is the far more common action taken: hands up, don't shoot.
Michael Reinoehl
Well, nobody but the feds even knew where the guy was. He was clearly fucking crazy and went on the lamb. They not only couldn't make him a hero, they didn't even have communication to idolize him. They tried a half-assed martyr narrative, but the abandoned it since it just wasn't worth the effort.
Honestly, I'm surprised they are even respecting the bare minimum to not show their face. The consequences threatened for doing so much have been stressed as severe.
It's possible that they could face serious charges. Far be it from me to claim that the court system will be fair to Leftist Activists rather than preferential, but this does step on the power and authority of the court, rather than appealing to it.
So, if we are considering the court system as a purely political organization dedicated to maintaining it's soft-power authority (which is much more realistic), the journalists are stepping out of line and interfering with another predator's territory, which guarantees violence from the affronted predator. A judge may be absolutely willing to put a journalist in jail for contempt of court, even if they won't put them in jail for rioting and assault on a police officer.
They might all agree with each other's side on a coalition, but their not all in the same unit or faction. You don't cross a judge in his courtroom for a reason, they take it very personally.
He'll be convicted based on the jury. The only two jurors that might acquit are the two white men (an auditor and a chemist), and the court literally has two white female alternates waiting to replace them.
It doesn’t matter at this point, it’s been a year of constant propaganda before the jury was finalized and the judge denied change of venue because “no where could be a fair trial.”
Usually, yes. However, such pollution should have resulted in a trial in front of a jury of the Amish, or the formerly comatose, and they didn't bother with that.
I think you are right that the left gets what they want, either way.
I'd be happy with an acquittal though because, while they can always find reasons to rouse the rabble, this guy shouldn't go to prison for doing his job.
"Because CNN's public doxxing of a guy just wasn't scummy enough"
This is actually starting to remind me of the Joker movie. The media want something terrible to happen. They want a lynching.
Oh, when they finally drive someone to it, I'm sure there'll be the videos about how terrible it is that even this Nazi \ white person \ man was killed. They might even remember not to grin ear-to-ear while they're doing it.
That said, didn't Vice grant to guy who just executed a Trump supporter an interview or something?
I consistently underestimate how shameless the media will be.
I don't think so. If terrorists were to storm the court-room and kill Chauvin during trial; I think they'll rationalize it. The communists have been pushing the concept of "Communal Self-Defense" for a while, which is a) the definition of lynching, and b) actual Nazi rhetoric.
It would not surprise me of the media said something like "It's inappropriate but understandable. If you don't empathize with the discomfort of Black Liberation, you are a sociopath!"
Basically. He came to them, they ran the story, and tried not to praise him. They were just trying to not challenge the narrative he was pushing. They didn't explicitly endorse the murder, though.
You could well be right. Like I said, I consistently underestimate just how big a bunch of shitbags the media is prepared to be. That said, I suspect that they'd do the omerta thing and just bury the story. As a tactic, it's working well for them so far - they've got enough of a monopoly that aside from a small group of people, if they don't talk about it, it didn't happen.
I wonder if that's simply because Michael Reinoehl got himself killed with such alacrity - Danielson was murdered August 29^th, Reinoehl was dead by the 3^rd September - that they just didn't have time to do so.
I don't think an in-court mob lynching is their objective, just that they'd defend it. Burying the facts of the story and supporting the narrative echos of it is the far more common action taken: hands up, don't shoot.
Well, nobody but the feds even knew where the guy was. He was clearly fucking crazy and went on the lamb. They not only couldn't make him a hero, they didn't even have communication to idolize him. They tried a half-assed martyr narrative, but the abandoned it since it just wasn't worth the effort.
NY Times is all about punching down.
They never support Assange. Never criticize wars or attack big government agencies.
They do dox little people who dare to think for themselves.
Yellow journalists
How dare you speak that way of the Walter Duranty New York Times!
They're not yellow! They're red!
Unless it's Vietnam.
If Biden were to invade Vietnam tomorrow, the Times would be writing up fluff pieces about Weapons of Mass Starvation, or whatever.
Honestly, I'm surprised they are even respecting the bare minimum to not show their face. The consequences threatened for doing so much have been stressed as severe.
It's possible that they could face serious charges. Far be it from me to claim that the court system will be fair to Leftist Activists rather than preferential, but this does step on the power and authority of the court, rather than appealing to it.
So, if we are considering the court system as a purely political organization dedicated to maintaining it's soft-power authority (which is much more realistic), the journalists are stepping out of line and interfering with another predator's territory, which guarantees violence from the affronted predator. A judge may be absolutely willing to put a journalist in jail for contempt of court, even if they won't put them in jail for rioting and assault on a police officer.
I think a large number of leftist judges would hop at the opportunity to let their comrades in journalism skate on any such offense.
They might all agree with each other's side on a coalition, but their not all in the same unit or faction. You don't cross a judge in his courtroom for a reason, they take it very personally.
Can’t you take them to court for that? Honestly don’t know how he gets convicted when you look at the evidence
He'll be convicted based on the jury. The only two jurors that might acquit are the two white men (an auditor and a chemist), and the court literally has two white female alternates waiting to replace them.
Not sure they can just replace a juror who refuses to convict. Usually they let the jury hang and retry.
It doesn’t matter at this point, it’s been a year of constant propaganda before the jury was finalized and the judge denied change of venue because “no where could be a fair trial.”
Love that they're basically admitting they're stacking the deck.
Usually, yes. However, such pollution should have resulted in a trial in front of a jury of the Amish, or the formerly comatose, and they didn't bother with that.
I think you are right that the left gets what they want, either way.
I'd be happy with an acquittal though because, while they can always find reasons to rouse the rabble, this guy shouldn't go to prison for doing his job.