Letters to the Editor

Letter: Where is the rebuttal to Rittenhouse claims?

To the Editor:

In response to the article written by Tammy Webber, Michael Tarm and Amy Forliti on the topic of the ongoing Kyle Rittenhouse trial, I feel it necessary to point out something to the editors: This article, on three occasions, has the phrase “he was there to defend property” or some very similar variation of this notion, and while it was usually attributed as something ‘said by Rittenhouse’ himself, it also lacks a pretty major, glaring detail:

The response from Anmol Khindri, the owner of the lot which Rittenhouse and co. were supposedly protecting, saying that he didn’t invite nor want them there. He also clearly states that he’d received adequate protection from his own insurance and that there was nothing there left to protect.

This approach of couching Rittenhouse’s claims in paraphrased language - only to then repeat it three times without ever offering the rebuttal - stinks of the type of purposefully slanted, partisan tactics offered by bad-faith actors employing plausible deniability.

I understand that this was a compiled piece by multiple people and that the coverage is ongoing, but it is downright dishonest to repeatedly discuss damage to property as cause for use of force without mentioning the other, critical details: Rittenhouse was accompanied by a band of extremists who weren’t there to protect personal property even peripherally connected to anyone in the group with an invitation.

This appears more as a half-hearted defense for a person whose desire to commit violence is better documented than his desire to “protect” anything. I hope that your staff can take a lesson from this.

Chris Rozakis, Stillman Valley