I made a post about this on /r/media_criticism which was deleted in an hour with the following reason given:
I'm removing this because Rittenhouse is a terrorist and I refuse to let him be justified. The AP article is well-written and as neutral as possible.
I will copy the comment I made there here: -
Submission statement: This claimed "fact check" from AP is a mockery of the concept of a fact check. It is a political opinion piece masquerading as a "fact check". Examples:
He’s giving an account at odds with the authorities who charged Kyle Rittenhouse with homicide.
It's not uncommon for prosecutors (which this article misleadingly refers to as "authorities") - especially in politically charged cases such as this - to make claims that turn out to be false. This "fact check" takes the prosecutor's assertions as being factual when they cannot be considered so.
THE FACTS: His implication that Rittenhouse only shot the men after he tripped and they attacked him is wrong. The first fatal shooting happened before Rittenhouse ran away and fell.
This is a lie. Multiple videos show, and witness testimony confirms, that Rittenhouse was being chased by the mob before anyone was shot. Even the NYT's own analysis confirms this.
Trump did not say whom he meant by “they” — the two men he shot or others in pursuit of him. But he spoke in defense of someone who opposed racial-justice protesters
This is one of the most egregious statements in this supposed "fact check". Firstly, this has no business in a fact check or any non-opinion news article, because the statement tries to paint as being bad anyone who would oppose "racial justice protesters", which is a political opinion. Second, it claims Rittenhouse opposed the protests but offers no evidence of such. Third, it misleadingly calls what were riots "protests" (see video above, and others). Fourth, it presumes that the BLM protests are about "racial-justice", and not just baseless media-stoked hysteria, or arguably even a pretext for insurrection.
victim Joseph Rosenbaum was shot and killed first, after following Rittenhouse into a parking lot
Video evidence shows Rosenbaum didn't "follow" Rittenhouse but chased him.
[...]and tried to take the weapon from him.
This contradicts the statement made earlier in this article that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum before he was attacked.
Rittenhouse then ran down the street and was chased by several people trying to stop him
This description tries to play down and even valorise the intentions of the angry mob that seconds later violently attacked Rittenhouse.
He tripped and fell. Anthony Huber, who was carrying a skateboard, was shot in the chest after apparently trying to wrest the gun from Rittenhouse
As proven by copious video evidence, Huber was shot after he attempted to kill Rittenhouse by smashing him in the head/throat with this skateboard. This "fact check" curiously omits this critical fact.
There's a second part to this fraudulent "fact check" involving the National Guard that is just as deceitful as the first, but I will leave that to the reader.
The "rules of self defense" literally say that if you follow someone into a parking lot, you cannot claim self defense.
They aren't laws or anything, but (apparently, so I read) lawyers and DAs across the US (and UK?) know for a fact that judges will judge any claims of self defense on those lines.
Kyle clearly, provenly, was running away from a mob of attackers (who literally followed him into a parking lot!) He had every right to use lethal force in self defense. Ditto for the second and 3rd shooting.
Indeed. This case shows just how deranged and deluded people have become due to mass media propaganda. When even the fucking NYT, who would clutch at any possible straw to paint this guy in bad light, is indicating it was self-defence...
When even the fucking NYT, who would clutch at any possible straw to paint this guy in bad light, is indicating it was self-defence...
They’re probably smart enough to realize that disputing this is only going to draw more attention to what really happened, and that this could potentially turn into a Sandmann-type incident if they take the lie too far.
I’m sure they would rather the whole incident be forgotten. Unfortunately for them, the TDS they helped create will ensure that it is not.
I'm removing this because Rittenhouse is a terrorist and I refuse to let him be justified. The AP article is well-written and as neutral as possible.
I am god here and I decide what is true and what is not. I have a duty to protect the dumb users of this sub, lest their feeble minds break down in the face of contradiction. Even if everything you write is correct it must not be stated here because it runs against what I consider true.
No, that's not what it means. This statement doesn't mean that the police/prosecutor version of events is the objective truth. It just means that this is the version of events that are being served as the basis by which they are trying to charge Rittenhouse, which they have to prove in court should they want and charges to stick.
This statement doesn't mean that the police/prosecutor version of events is the objective truth.
The AP outright says that Trump "misstates what happened" in the headline then leads with the prosecutor's angle, in an article by their "Fact Check" group. Either they're saying it's the truth or they're saying they like these lies more than Trump's.
I made a post about this on /r/media_criticism which was deleted in an hour with the following reason given:
I will copy the comment I made there here: -
Submission statement: This claimed "fact check" from AP is a mockery of the concept of a fact check. It is a political opinion piece masquerading as a "fact check". Examples:
It's not uncommon for prosecutors (which this article misleadingly refers to as "authorities") - especially in politically charged cases such as this - to make claims that turn out to be false. This "fact check" takes the prosecutor's assertions as being factual when they cannot be considered so.
This is a lie. Multiple videos show, and witness testimony confirms, that Rittenhouse was being chased by the mob before anyone was shot. Even the NYT's own analysis confirms this.
This is one of the most egregious statements in this supposed "fact check". Firstly, this has no business in a fact check or any non-opinion news article, because the statement tries to paint as being bad anyone who would oppose "racial justice protesters", which is a political opinion. Second, it claims Rittenhouse opposed the protests but offers no evidence of such. Third, it misleadingly calls what were riots "protests" (see video above, and others). Fourth, it presumes that the BLM protests are about "racial-justice", and not just baseless media-stoked hysteria, or arguably even a pretext for insurrection.
Video evidence shows Rosenbaum didn't "follow" Rittenhouse but chased him.
This contradicts the statement made earlier in this article that Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum before he was attacked.
This description tries to play down and even valorise the intentions of the angry mob that seconds later violently attacked Rittenhouse.
As proven by copious video evidence, Huber was shot after he attempted to kill Rittenhouse by smashing him in the head/throat with this skateboard. This "fact check" curiously omits this critical fact.
There's a second part to this fraudulent "fact check" involving the National Guard that is just as deceitful as the first, but I will leave that to the reader.
The "rules of self defense" literally say that if you follow someone into a parking lot, you cannot claim self defense.
They aren't laws or anything, but (apparently, so I read) lawyers and DAs across the US (and UK?) know for a fact that judges will judge any claims of self defense on those lines.
Kyle clearly, provenly, was running away from a mob of attackers (who literally followed him into a parking lot!) He had every right to use lethal force in self defense. Ditto for the second and 3rd shooting.
Indeed. This case shows just how deranged and deluded people have become due to mass media propaganda. When even the fucking NYT, who would clutch at any possible straw to paint this guy in bad light, is indicating it was self-defence...
They’re probably smart enough to realize that disputing this is only going to draw more attention to what really happened, and that this could potentially turn into a Sandmann-type incident if they take the lie too far.
I’m sure they would rather the whole incident be forgotten. Unfortunately for them, the TDS they helped create will ensure that it is not.
That's a very strange way to phrase "Factually incorrect to the point of being internally inconsistent but conforms to my own biases"
Fucking jannies
So we're believing the police always do the right thing now?
No, that's not what it means. This statement doesn't mean that the police/prosecutor version of events is the objective truth. It just means that this is the version of events that are being served as the basis by which they are trying to charge Rittenhouse, which they have to prove in court should they want and charges to stick.
The AP outright says that Trump "misstates what happened" in the headline then leads with the prosecutor's angle, in an article by their "Fact Check" group. Either they're saying it's the truth or they're saying they like these lies more than Trump's.