Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
I Have Questions
Twitter is revelatory. The general population has probably always had a stupid streak, but Twitter makes it possible for ignorance to light itself on fire and burn so brightly it overwhelms the sun.
Reading the rants about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is something else. First, there seems to be a large segment of the population who thinks the prosecution is doing a good job. Now, granted, I just catch the “lowlights,” but from what I have seen, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger has been surprised way too many times by his own witnesses.
Second, the “conventional wisdom” about the law is astoundingly bad. I mean, most people commenting on the trial would be confused watching a Matlock rerun. I could be a very rich man if I could collect a dollar from everyone who assured their fellow progressives that, no matter what, the prosecution will eventually win on appeal. That’s how bad civics education is. How the hell do that many people believe an acquittal can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court?
And the comments about the presiding judge, Bruce Schroeder, are something else, too. Local attorneys describe him as fair but willing to be combative. My theory, which would be easy to prove or disprove with the proper resources, is that this is not the first time this judge has witnessed this prosecutor’s ineptitude. But no journalist seems even remotely interested in any backstory between them. The media loves the clips of Schroeder’s admonitions, but doesn’t go out of their way to make clear that he makes sure the jury is out of the room when he does it.
Rittenhouse will probably be convicted on the gun charge. There is no doubt that he was underage and outside the home with a firearm. The man who supplied the weapon is probably in more trouble than the person who fired it. There is a persistent belief that Rittenhouse, who lives in Antioch, IL, carried the rifle across state lines into Wisconsin. He did not. And even if he did, there is no Federal law against that. (States have their own transport regulations but anything interstate would be the jurisdiction of the Feds.)
But one never knows how a jury will rule. Especially one that feels intimidated. The political pressure has been huge, which is why in so many of these cases overcharging has become the norm. The DA feels the heat, the jury feels the heat, and so does the judge. My only hope is that the jury is more informed than the folks on Twitter.
Published in General
A hero takes big risks because big things are at stake. A fireman risking his life to save someone from a burning building for instance. A policeman or a legal gun owner taking out an active shooter is another. The risks to yourself and others should be proportionate to the good you can do. That’s why the police mostly avoid high speed chases now. The danger involved in the chase itself isn’t worth it in most circumstances.
Rittenhouse went out that night with an AR-15, a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit. He’s not an EMT and knows only basic first aid. With that fire extinguisher, he might be able to put out a dumpster fire but not much more than that. His first aid kit is not much more than band aids. So whatever good he’d be able to do that night, it isn’t much.
But there is a real danger that he’s going to have to use that AR-15 and shoot someone. That’s what I would I would have explained to him if I’d been his father and caught him going out that night. Have you really thought about this? You’re going to put yourself in a situation where you will likely have to shoot someone so you can put out a dumpster fire or two? Does that make sense? What about the risk you will accidentally shoot an innocent person while defending yourself? Or that a stronger man takes your gun from you(which nearly happened), and that guy goes on a rampage? You are introducing a whole new set of possible terrible outcomes by going out there with an AR-15. Is introducing those possibilities worth the good done by handing out a couple of bandaids? This is big risk for small reward, like a fireman rushing into a burning building to rescue a goldfish. Not heroic, foolish.
Rittenhouse asked a friend to buy him a rifle, and to maintain ownership of it and possession of it, and Rittenhouse would put up the money. His friend did this and stored it in his own gun safe, to which Rittenhouse did not have free entry. So every time Rittenhouse used this rifle it was with the specific permission of his friend, the owner of the gun.
Typical of your slanted interpretation. Surely one can protect property from fire with a fire extinguisher. He wore a shirt as well. Was that prima facie evidence of intent to strangle rioters?
#YGDR
Have you seen the complete footage? I’ve asked a couple of times — please pardon me if I have missed your answer.
The Marines would do well to show that in training, and not as a snarky “negative example”. The Marines are the only branch with the sack to even consider it, which is why I mention them (y’all) by name.
EDIT: I’m not saying that Kyle should be training Marines. I am saying that he performed remarkably well, and there is much of value there — not that he knows more about it than Marines. But there is surely an easily identified set of principles which he acted upon. Seventeen years old. Little or no formal training. Why did he perform so well, and with zero collaterla damage?
It wasn’t a positive for Kyle. He’s in therapy now for PTSD and he’ll carry this around with him for the rest of his life, both psychologically and socially. He’s always going to be that kid who shot those guys in Kenosha. He was in the Police Explorers and wanted to be a cop or fireman someday. No chance of that now, after violating the curfew and carrying a weapon that violated the spirit of the law at least. People think I don’t like the kid, but I’m thinking mostly about him. Seeing him on the stand breakdown I saw a kid who got into something way over his head and got a hell of a lot more than he bargained for. I feel sorry for him.
And we disagree about death. I don’t celebrate the death of anyone, even though I recognize that death is sometimes necessary in self-defense or the defense of the nation. God created all of us. Jesus Christ died on the Cross for every single one of us, including the worst of us. We are all sinners and deserve judgement.
Question for clarification of the argument that Mr. Rittenhouse “participated in a riot” and therefore can make no claim of self-defense and would deserve getting beat up or killed: For going forward consideration, since representatives of Black Lives Matter have declared their intention to turn New York City into a giant riot zone, does that mean that anyone who travels to New York City from now forward is entering a riot zone and thus is not entitled to defend themselves, and “deserves” anything that might happen to them?
In the military, this would be rewarded. How many combat decorations are for hare-brained actions that happened to work out? The initiative matters. Please recall that law enforcement had already abandoned that section of town — to their shame.
I have no argument with this. She is describing a perfect scenario. Who can argue with perfect?
I’ll see your Chicken Little ridicule and raise you a Pollyanna.
No, because the primary purpose of a shirt is as clothing, not as a weapon. The primary purpose of an AR-15 is as a weapon. When people use the phrase “protecting property” it is generally understood that they mean protecting the property from becoming damaged, not dealing with the damage after it has happened. So “protecting property from fire” means protecting the property from being set on fire in the first place, not putting it out once it starts. How will one do that? If someone is carrying an object that is primarily a weapon, it’s reasonable to conclude they intend to use that to do the protecting.
Well, McCloskey and his wife were both fairly cavalier about flagging. I’ve used 1, 2, and 3 point slings with an AR, and while the 1 point (wolf hook on armor) is the most convenient provided you are already wearing armor or a well-fitted chest rig, there’s no sling that forces you to wave the weapon about. Still, I agree with your larger point.
I might.
Is an illegal gun owner less a hero for taking out an active shooter?
Sorry, I meant the property to be defended. But good info!
Well, until the Almighty clears the murderous arsonist savages from our streets, we shall have to make do on our own shrift.
Yes, I’ve seen it a couple of times as well. Rosenbaum chased him, and when he went for the rifle, Kyle shot him. Justified self-defense. Same with the guy with skate board, the guy with pistol. “Jump kick man” would have been justifiably shot as well.
You’re losing something in your rush to … something. What is the primary purpose of a fire extinguisher?
Put out fires after they have started. If you show up at my house during a riot with an AR-15 and a fire extinguisher, and say “I’m going to protect your house from fire”, the common sense interpretation is that you will use the AR-15 to stop the rioters from setting my house on fire, not watch them do it and then try to put out the fire with the fire extinguisher. That’s not “protecting my house from fire.” It’s “putting out the fire after failing to protect my house from fire.”
This is tiresome. You are lying by omission. His presence, with others, forms the defense of property. The fire extinguisher additionally helps, um, extinguish fires. The AR is for defending himself. The AR and the fire extinguisher are equally and independently justified by your own argument that the place was expected to descend into riots. Arson had been a fairly consistent feature of the 202 riots.
He chose to go in harm’s way in the defense of property. He prepared to defend himself in case he was threatened.
If Kyle’s gameplan had been undisturbed by the rioters, the property would have been safe and the people who assembled would have been unthreatened. If the rioters’ gameplan had been undisurbed, the property would be ashes and Kyle would be dead.
I know which side I am on.
I did learn one thing on Twitter about this trial – earlier this year, the prosecuting attorney had been given a major award for his legal prowess.
I have no idea of how many holes exist in the grey matter of those awarding him such.
Since you were in the military, you know that far more important than heroics is teamwork, everyone doing their jobs. Most medals are awarded for men doing their jobs under extraordinary risk or danger. The private how braves mortar fire to bring ammo to his squad, or the lieutenant who continues to call in artillery despite being wounded are examples. Going off half-cocked on your own private mission isn’t a way to earn a medal, it’s a way to get yourself killed and maybe put your unit in danger. Or put another unit in danger when they have to rescue your sorry ass from the predicament you put yourself in. Going out in a riot with a fire extinguisher so you can put out a dumpster fire or two, but likely find yourself having to shoot your way home, is a dumb idea, not a heroic one.
They lit something on fire (a flatbed?), pushed it to the property, KR stopped it, extinguished the fire. Rosenbaum I think is the one who started that fire.
I’m learning to train myself to see guns as friends, not threats. They are tools of protection. I’m not going to assume the guy carrying is out to kill people. I assume he’s carrying to protect his life and those around him.
You are the only one here undermining the 2nd amendment with your non-sequitors.
However, although all the points that you detail are excellent points for any parents of younger people to make, the fact that reality is indeed as you state it still does not make Rittenhouse guilty of murder.
Self defense is self defense.
And if we had more Rittenhouse’s out there, I guarantee you there would be fewer AntiFa and BLM. Over the summer of rioting, late May to Oct 2020, the two hundred Americans, many of them working class people of color, would not have died defending their storefront while a mob attacked them with baseball bats wrapped in barbed wire. Included in that number are police doing their jobs while idealistic panty waists’ politicians declared the protesters to be peaceful, and urged the police to stand down.
And what’s with the disparaging treatment of First Aid? It’s supposed to be an initial life saving measure for when medics can’t be there immediately. Why teach it if it’s pointless? I don’t need First Aid lessons on how to put a bandaid on a booboo. And yet we offer them and there’s a certification process and everything.
I agree it’s tiresome, but I think because you are ignoring the obvious. It’s his “presence” that is the defense you say. So he’s going to stand in the way of the rioters. Then when the rioters approach or try to push him out of the way, he’ll take that as an attack on his person and shoot them. I see only a verbal and no material difference between this and just saying straightforwardly that he’s defending the property with the AR-15. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure the law would see it that way as well. He’s standing in the way and will shoot anyone who tries to get by him. That’s defending the property with a gun.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion but have to do other things this evening, so this will be my last. Peace.
Right. Because he was there without any friends, allies, co-defenders, etc.
Sorry, but your analogy makes my point — not yours.
To be fair, I know that Skyler has said each shoot was good, and I think that J C agrees. Just the same… to your bolded text above:
YES! This is the point which matters.
Again, this is a mendacious construction. You are making up the bold portion. It contradicts the scenario you set up earlier int he same paragraph.
When the rioters 1) trespass, 2) attack him in overwhelming numbers; that is assault and may in itself be a threat to life depending on the laws there.
This is not the same as your later construction — he shoots somebody who “tries to get by him.”
No wonder it’s your last comment.