We’ll preface this post with a reminder that Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz’s past bad acts do not justify their being shot.
That’s not why they were shot, of course. And Tom Nichols knows that.
But because he’s counting on his readers to be stupid, he’s tweeting things like this:
When I said the defense summation in the Rittenhouse trial is “they all had it coming”, I mean the defense lawyer is basically saying “these bad people deserved to get shot on principle for being bad people”
Not sure that counts as self-defense
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) November 15, 2021
Isn’t it possible, Tom, that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz “had it coming” because they posed an immediate physical threat to Kyle Rittenhouse?
They were bad people because they attacked him, Tom. Get some rest. https://t.co/GYxaCXpXnS
— jimtreacher.substack.com (@jtLOL) November 16, 2021
It shouldn’t be this difficult. Especially for a self-proclaimed Expert™.
Actually what counted as self defense—legally and morally—was that the bad people were *repeatedly physically attacking him*, not that they were “bad people.” https://t.co/hp2VEgXiY1
— Michael Haugen (@HaugenTX) November 16, 2021
No, he's basically saying that if you physically attack and verbally threaten to kill someone who has a gun, you shouldn't be surprised if you get shot. https://t.co/YxLOLg3geB
— Not-So-OK Boomer (@Rand_Simberg) November 16, 2021
No. They deserved to be shot because they attacked or intended to attack a person holding a weapon.
There were at least 15 rioters Kyle didn't shoot. Do you know why?
Let me help: They DIDN'T grab for his gun and they didn't attempt to SHOOT him. https://t.co/DZmyL6NcQb
— My Name is Nobody (@F3_Haskell) November 16, 2021
They were attacking him. He was defending, quite plainly, himself against those physically attacking him.
It's… It's literally on video, and the prosecution's star witness literally testified under oath to that effect.
That… That really does count as self defense. https://t.co/KOAIlIEd6Z
— Sweatimus Prime (@SweatimusPrime) November 16, 2021
What counts as self defense is running someone down and trying to grab his weapon, per eye witnesses. Firing on someone who points a gun at you is also self defense. Brain trust of The Atlantic keeps tweeting out bangers.
Their criminal history is noteworthy but irrelevant. https://t.co/Db40Vn4LFz
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 16, 2021
Their criminal records might certainly explain why one was racially confrontational and the other was carrying an unlicensed illegal hand gun. But I'm no expert™
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 16, 2021
We could never be Experts™ like Tom.
No, saying ‘I’m going to kill you, <n-word>’ the chasing and attempting to take his rifle makes it self defense.
I’m not sure how you’re missing this- I know you’re an “eXpErT” and all but even you should be able to see that. https://t.co/SqC4JAyzsf— Salty Major (Medical Type; 1 Each) (@anccpt) November 16, 2021
NARRATOR: Nothing in this tweet reflects the defense's argument. https://t.co/S4HFd6LVbT
— RBe (@RBPundit) November 16, 2021
He knows. He just doesn’t care.
Tom has a narrative, and he’s sticking to it.
People who should know better are saying nonsense like this and others who didn't bother watching the arguments are lapping it up.
This can only end well. https://t.co/gttZ0gqfwy
— Chris Karabats (@Zaphoid) November 16, 2021
Tom Nichols knows those flames aren’t gonna fan themselves.
This doesn't come naturally. You literally have to make an effort, to say something this obtuse. https://t.co/HPA2vTXHlk
— Mav (@TheMaverick21) November 16, 2021
Hats off to Tom for making it look so easy.
If you want a pretty good example of Tom's sheer dishonesty and bad faith, add this take to your collection. If you have any room left. https://t.co/sFmTfQd2kR
— hughhark (@hughhark1) November 16, 2021
If expertise is dead, Tom Nichols pulled the trigger.
