Itching for Defamation Suit: Cuomo Smears Rittenhouse as Out to Kill

News & Politics

CNN’s Chris Cuomo seemed to be itching to catch a defamation suit from innocent Kyle Rittenhouse as he opened his Friday show after the not guilty verdict was handed out, calling him a “chump” filled with “animus” for the people in the Black Lives Matter riot who managed to trick the jury. He even suggested Rittenhouse should have tried to fight off the entire crowd with his fists first and defended convicted pedophile Joseph Rosenbaum because at least he hadn’t “killed anybody.”

But it’s no surprise Cuomo would take that position. After all, he’s an admitted sexual assaulter with an affinity for Antifa terrorists and who’s fantasized publicly about choking and punching his critics.

In addition to smearing Rittenhouse, his opening screed was directed at Wisconsin’s law allowing for self-defense. After declaring “it is too easy to kill in this society,” Cuomo took issue with the idea that you can protect yourself from “imminent serious injury or death” with your own deadly force.

And he did this by painting Rittenhouse as a cold-blooded killer who managed to walk because of the “shooter’s dream” of a law. And he was appalled that the jury had to view things from his perspective and not as a “reasonable person would.”

You Might Like

You have to be in his shoes? Even if they think he’s a chump? If it was reasonable for him to think they were about to really hurt him or try to kill him, the law justifies it. And that kid on that stand painted the right picture for that jury,” he scoffed. “This law saved Rittenhouse as much or more as his weapon did.”

He also disapproved of how “the prosecutor has to disprove the defendant’s need for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.”

That’s what our justice system calls for in criminal cases, Chris. Can you believe this guy went to law school?

Again painting Rittenhouse as someone out to bathe himself in blood, he suggested killing “came too easily to Kyle Rittenhouse.” And despite the jury ruling that he was not guilty of provocation, Cuomo insisted that he was and full of hate:

He put himself in a bad situation for bad reason with bad people, and he made bad choices. And he killed people and hurt people. He’s no hero. But beware the politics here.

Depends on what team you’re on these days, he’s either a vigilante killer or he’s Captain America. Which is he? Who cares? It’s not the right question. The law isn’t about his character or his politics or his animus, not in this case.

Cuomo managed to somehow score an interview with Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards. And during their conversation, Cuomo (who fancies himself a martial arts master) suggested that Rittenhouse at 17 should have tried fighting off the entire crowd with his fists first:

Does he have concerns that maybe he could have done something else, maybe he didn’t have to fire, maybe he could have fought, maybe he could have gotten back on his feet? Does he ask himself those questions?

Cool it, Jackie Chan, you can’t even do that.

And as usual, when he goes up against actual, practicing lawyers, Cuomo made a fool out of himself. At one point, he defended pedophile Rosenbaum by arguing that at least he hadn’t killed anyone.

CUOMO: It’s hard to believe that somebody chasing you is going to beat you to death.

RICHARDS: Why else was he chasing him, Chris?

CUOMO: Probably to get him and beat him up, hurt him. But again, my problem is with the law here. Look, we don’t know what he was going to do — now we do. Because now we know that none of the people involved here ever killed anybody before or known for that kind of violence.

Richards also dismantled Cuomo’s ridiculous fearmongering against Wisconsin’s self-defense law.

“I don’t think anybody with a brain is going to go out and say, ‘I’m going to go kill somebody and see if I can get away with it in self-defense.’ I’ve done a lot of self-defenses cases in Wisconsin over the years where it was claimed and hasn’t been successful,” he noted.

Now, Chris has admitted that he only has one suit that he wears on TV. Maybe he could swap it out with a defamation suit.

Chris Cuomo’s smears of an innocent teen target by the liberal media was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from Charles Schwab and Liberty Mutual. Their contact information is linked so you can tell them about the biased news they fund.

The transcript is below, click “expand” to read:

CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
November 19, 2021
9:07:49 p.m. Eastern

(…)

CHRIS CUOMO: The jury found he was justified mainly because they believe two things. One, he did not provoke the specific altercation with the men who were pursuing him. And he had a reasonable fear of imminent serious injury or death.

This prosecution did not prove the defendant provoked this specific situation with these three men. It didn’t. And therefore, under this law, Rittenhouse had no duty to retreat, which is huge. When you take that out of self-defense, you are creating an incredibly low bar and making it way too easy to kill.

No duty to retreat — and by the way, to be fair to the facts here, he did retreat. He was running away, okay? He had no duty to exhaust all non-lethal means, no duty to fight them off, to kick, to try anything else. He had no duty under the law to do that. If the jury thought it was reasonable for him — another aspect of the law that you haven’t been told enough about — it’s not what they would do. It’s not what the reasonable person would do.

This law requires them to think, was it reasonable for the defendant, an overwhelmed 17-year-old. And that’s how he obviously came off on the stand. This law is a shooter’s dream. The jury can’t ask what a reasonable person would do or what they would do? You have to be in his shoes? Even if they think he’s a chump? If it was reasonable for him to think they were about to really hurt him or try to kill him, the law justifies it. And that kid on that stand painted the right picture for that jury.

The law also says that the prosecutor has to disprove the defendant’s need for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a higher burden — it’s the highest we have — and much higher than other state statutes. This law saved Rittenhouse as much or more as his weapon did.

The jury is not the bad guy. Race is not the bad guy. Politics is not the bad guy. This statute is. And there are many like it, a growing number actually. It’s right akin to stand your ground.

It’s absolutely too easy to kill. And, yes, it came too easily to Kyle Rittenhouse. He put himself in a bad situation for bad reason with bad people, and he made bad choices. And he killed people and hurt people. He’s no hero. But beware the politics here.

Depends on what team you’re on these days, he’s either a vigilante killer or he’s Captain America. Which is he? Who cares? It’s not the right question. The law isn’t about his character or his politics or his animus, not in this case. It’s about his actions and his intentions and what the facts justified or not under the law. You want a different outcome — and you might — change the standard.

(…)

9:14:42 p.m. Eastern

CUOMO: Does he have concerns that maybe he could have done something else, maybe he didn’t have to fire, maybe he could have fought, maybe he could have gotten back on his feet? Does he ask himself those questions?

(…)

CUOMO: I don’t know that it’s was guts. I think it’s was bad judgment. It was justified under the law, but I think it’s hard. And that’s why I asked the question. It’s hard to believe that somebody chasing you is going to beat you to death.

MARK RICHARDS: Why else was he chasing him, Chris?

CUOMO: Probably to get him and beat him up, hurt him. But again, my problem is with the law here. Look, we don’t know what he was going to do — now we do. Because now we know that none of the people involved here ever killed anybody before or known for that kind of violence. But he didn’t know that in the moment.

This law, does it concern you how low a bar this law presents for now some ten years that there’s no duty to retreat, that you put yourself in his shoes, not the reasonable person’s shoes, that the prosecutor has to prove self-defense wasn’t necessary by a reasonable doubt, unlike so many state statues? Are you worried about this being too low a bar?

RICHARDS: You know, I don’t think anybody with a brain is going to go out and say, “I’m going to go kill somebody and see if I can get away with it in self-defense.” I’ve done a lot of self-defenses cases in Wisconsin over the years where it was claimed and hasn’t been successful. And Kyle Rittenhouse is thankful that this was on video tape because it showed this individual’s true intent throughout the evening. And you know, if it was his word against the mob, he would have came in second.

(…)

Articles You May Like

Pence Says There Were ‘Irregularities’ in 2020 Election
Red states dominate index of fiscal, regulatory, and personal freedoms, while blue states are the least free
Liz Cheney Threatens Mark Meadows with Criminal Contempt Charges
The Left Is Terrible at Spinning Bad News for Biden
Biden’s Supreme Court Commission Approves Final Report with ‘No Position’ on Court-Packing

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *