The right wing narrative regarding Waukesha is...something else.

[Tommy Carcetti]

So here's the run-down of how things played out.

1. Kyle Rittenhouse is acquitted of murder by a Wisconsin jury on Friday.

2. On Sunday, a car careens through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, killing 6 people and injuring several dozen more.

3. Immediately amongst the right-wing Twittersphere, word instantly becomes this was a targeted act of terroristic revenge by some BLM sympathizers getting revenge on the Wisconsin citizenry for the Rittenhouse verdict

4. A suspect is arrested; he's black

5. Right-wing Twittering intensifies

6. Police release details about the incident, where it appears the suspect was fleeing a the scene of a domestic attack before his car rammed into the parade

7. Suspect is charged with first intentional homicide; there are no charges for terrorism, as there is no evidence of terroristic intent

8. The initial narrative by the Right Wing Twittersphere having been destroyed, they are forced to scramble for some alternate narrative

9. Those initially claiming this was a terrorist attack subsequently peruse the accused's social media profile and pull out various instances where this individual had made radical and arguably bigoted statements.

10. Nothing at all in #9 has any indication that the accused intentionally sought to drive into a parade in fulfillment of a greater agenda, i.e., terrorism

11. Nonetheless, they now insist this was "terrorism" and that somehow the agenda-driven mainstream media is somehow covering the incident up as not being terrorism

12. A crime was committed and people died, i.e. intentional homicide

13. No reasonable person has claimed that a crime was not committed

13. No reasonable person has claimed that what happened in Waukesha was anything but a terrible, horrifying event

15. Just because something was a horrible event and/or intentional homicide does not automatically make it "terrorism"

Unfortunately, we have at least one poster here on DU that is trying to push this particular right-wing "terrorism" narrative.

And it doesn't help that someone as well-intentioned as Debra Messing has made the same unforced error, thus inadvertantly causing all of Right Wing twitter to swarm to her post to happily agree with her:

Link to tweet

(Why Debra didn't simply say call it "murder" and not an "accident," I don't know. Also, who called it an "accident"?)

Critical thinking is critical.

And don't feed the trolls with their willful disinformation, because if you give them an inch, they'll take you a mile.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. It also doesn't help that Waukesha is one of the most right-wing towns in WI.

[jimfields33]

6. I have no sympathy for the killer or the people who posted 1,000 dollars bail.

Sorry. I won’t ever!

[TheRealNorth]

9. If the Waukesha Co Sheriff thought that the Rottenhouse trial had anything to do with the motive....

I am sure we would know.

It is kind of funny that the Right is trying to use past social media posts, because the prosecutors couldn't use Rottenhouse's prior statements against him in the trial.

[MichMan]

17. When Brooks goes on trial they might also be excluded

No prohibition on the general public reposting anything

[d_r]

2. thanks for typing that I enjoyed reading and learning about it I had no idea

[moondust]

3. Waukesha officials

repeatedly said this was NOT a terrorist attack, NOT connected to terrorism.

Maybe some RWers had their hearing aids turned off.

[MichMan]

4. .

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142829989

[haele]

5. Some people think that using the term "accident" means responsibility is thrown out the window.

Accidentally killing people when driving impaired, ether emotionally or physically, is still a homicide. Murder or manslaughter, depend on whether or not you were capable of mitigating some of the damage the accident caused.

Haele

[Haggard Celine]

7. Yeah, I wouldn't call it an accident, either.

The guy didn't have to go speeding through a parade. Even if you're being chased by police, driving through a parade of people is not an option. You pull over, wait for police or take off on foot. But you don't drive through a parade of people. When he decided to keep going, it was not an accident. He decided that it was worth sacrificing those people's lives so he could keep away from police. And that, I think, is murder.

[WarGamer]

8. Police were NOT in pursuit.

This was 100% intentional. Period.

[Haggard Celine]

10. I had heard they were, but hadn't really read much about it.

Thanks for letting me know.

[WarGamer]

11. It's poor writing by reporters.

One article literally wrote "Fleeing from the scene"

The Sheriff said there was no pursuit.

Looks like he had just committed a domestic assault and drove away...

[Tommy Carcetti]

13. Reports were that police had been called to the scene of the domestic assault

And while he wasn’t being pursued by the police before he got to the parade, it’s easy to infer that he was fleeing the scene as opposed to just casually driving away. Which you make it sound like he did.

So the idea that he was involved in this domestic assault and then shrugs his shoulders and thinks—oh, hey, now let me run into a parade doesn’t logically add up.

All of this is splitting hairs, mind you—if he was fleeing the scene of an assault and in his haste ran into a parade and killed people, that’s felony murder regardless of intent.

[WarGamer]

14. I'm afraid we'll neve rknow the truth.

But I think it's ludicrous to believe that he was simply "running", a guy with a history of MANY police interactions and he was sooo scared that he accidentally ran over 60+ people.

If I had to make a guess... I'd guess the last domestic assault made him think "I'm screwed, it's years back in prison now" and he took out that frustration and anger by raging at innocents.

Like I said... I don't think we'll ever know the truth. His attorney will certainly tell him not to talk about it and if he does... make up a story.

[Tommy Carcetti]

18. I think he was an angry, emotional person...

…and probably acted as angry and emotional persons do after leaving the scene of a crime.

The idea that he acted with some terroristic motive, however, is absolutely absurd.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. There Was One Cop Pursuing

But, he was ON FOOT and he was chasing him AFTER he turned onto the parade route.
You're correct. Nobody was pursuing him before he turned his car toward that crowd.
One article quoted the cop as saying he was pounding on the door window & the guy swerved to bump the cop. He wasn't hurt. It wasn't even clear if he was knocked down.
This same cop stopped his pursuit at one point to recruit people to aid the victims.
By then, there was no way he could chase the car down on foot.
Nobody chased him into that carnage, as you said.

[TheRealNorth]

12. He was just a bad apple with an SUV

[The Magistrate]

16. Well Said, My Friend