AP now suggesting that Kyle Rittenhouse's defense shouldn't refer to Joseph Rosenbaum as 'irrational and crazy' because it stigmatizes mental illness

Yesterday, the Associated Press noted that “observers” are very concerned about Judge Bruce Schroeder’s “deference to the defendant” Kyle Rittenhouse.

What makes a fair trial? As Kyle Rittenhouse's trial unfolds, some observers have been struck by the judge's apparent deference to the defendant.https://t.co/Zul1lNMaO6

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 17, 2021

Because what is “innocent until proven guilty,” really?

These clowns pushed a false narrative since the start. It fell apart once the facts came out during the trial so they instead want to find a scapegoat for an outcome they don’t like.

Also, the “some observers” framing is just a way to push a view while pretending to cite others. https://t.co/7zDSrMfcEF

— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 17, 2021

Of course the AP is just trying to push a view, namely that Kyle Rittenhouse is guilty until proven innocent (but can’t be proven innocent because he’s definitely guilty). And they did it again today, this time going after Rittenhouse’s defense team for stating the obvious about Joseph Rosenbaum:

The first man Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot in Kenosha was “irrational and crazy,” Rittenhouse’s attorney told jurors. Some legal experts say that was smart strategy. But mental health experts say it was a dangerous assumption and stigmatization. https://t.co/yBSuEassjc

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 18, 2021

Sara Burnett writes:

Joseph Rosenbaum had been on medication for bipolar disorder and depression, and he was trying to take Rittenhouse’s rifle, attorney Mark Richards said, suggesting there could have been more bloodshed if Rittenhouse hadn’t acted.

“I’m glad he shot him because if Joseph Rosenbaum got that gun I don’t for a minute believe he wouldn’t have used it against somebody else,” Richards said during closing arguments in the 18-year-old Illinois man’s trial for killing Rosenbaum and another man and wounding a third during a chaotic night of protests in August 2020.

To some legal experts and other observers, Richards’ remarks were a smart courtroom strategy and an accurate depiction of the threat faced by Rittenhouse, who says he shot the men in self-defense. But mental health advocates heard something different: a dangerous assumption that people living with mental illness are homicidal and need to be killed, and terminology such as “crazy” that they say is pejorative and adds to the stigma surrounding mental health issues.

Narrator: “Some legal experts and other observers” were right. It’s not stigmatizing mental illness to point out that the man screaming “SHOOT ME, N*GGA” at armed civilians, the man who appears to have rushed Rittenhouse in an attempt to take his rifle, might be irrational and crazy. The defense isn’t suggesting that the mentally ill are all irrational and crazy, but rather that Joseph Rosenbaum was behaving like an irrational and crazy person.

Did those mental health experts watch the videos showing Rosenbaum was in fact acting irrational and crazy along with violent and threatening?

— signalMirror (@signal_mirror) November 18, 2021

This is a good point. What about the dangers of stigmatizing mental health by trying to associate it with the words "irrational and crazy," something the defense wasn't doing here. https://t.co/hZ77vtma8y

— Noam Blum (@neontaster) November 18, 2021

What the defense was doing was … their job. They were literally doing their job.

https://twitter.com/davidslavick/status/1461346369852039169

Kyle's lawyer are obligated to defend their client, not kowtow to some anonymous generalizations. https://t.co/E4Cjj59DDI

— ParsingAmerica (@NoChromeHD) November 18, 2021

Rittenhouse shouldn't receive the best defense he can because someone might get offended. https://t.co/ZByEyHCNaM

— Noam Blum (@neontaster) November 18, 2021

Also, these same people called Trump mentally ill, without any real evidence…why wasn't that dangerous?

— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) November 18, 2021

And why isn’t the AP at all concerned about the stigma that Kyle Rittenhouse carries due to being branded a murderer by media for well over a year before his trial even began? Because even if he is found not guilty, he will bear that stigma for the rest of his life.

They’re upset about stigmatizing the pedophiles again https://t.co/zIMQebQCW0

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) November 18, 2021

Yes please don’t stigmatize the serial child rapist that dated single mothers for access to their children.

— Khalid (@_azmi) November 18, 2021

The AP described Rosenbaum’s past as "an Arizona conviction for having sex with a minor in 2002.”

Rosenbaum was charged with sexual abuse, including anal rape, of five boys between the ages of 9 and 11-years-old, before pleading to a lesser charge and spending 10 years in jail. https://t.co/kTL0jgO2Q2

— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) November 18, 2021

https://twitter.com/OneFineJay/status/1461340061576933377

Joseph Rosenbaum’s past actions — heinous as they were — didn’t justify his being shot by Rittenhouse, but his actions that night arguably did. And the defense is doing their job by pointing that out.

So how many of these articles where the AP argues a dumb point by citing a few random people in order to justify their preferred narrative is the AP going to do on this case? https://t.co/fahKSqBPGY

— AG (@AGHamilton29) November 18, 2021

Guess we’ll have to stay tuned for tomorrow.