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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 450 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    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.

    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.

    I’ve written many, many times on this thread that I think Rittenhouse was justified in his self-defense. Here’s one more.

    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.

    I’ve also written that I think people should defend their property. I’ll defend mine. There’s a middle ground here. Responsible adults should defend their property, with guns if necessary. I support that. On the other hand, high school kids should not be going out into riots with rifles on their own private missions. But I suspect we are now going to get more of that, with tragic results.

     

    • #361
  2. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    BDB (View Comment):

     

    No wonder it’s your last comment.

    Well, I guess it’s not my last. I’ll just say I enjoyed the conversation until you descended into insults. I won’t do the same. Good night.

     

    • #362
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    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?

    Yes, and if being present is “participation” then all the police for the last 18 months have participated in riots.

    • #363
  4. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Incidentally, I am opposed to the notion that policing is only for police professionals, that education is only the job of educational professionals, that medical decisions are only the job of medical professionals, that the making and selling of food is only a job for licensed food professionals, and that heroism is the exclusive job of hero professionals.  

    • #364
  5. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Stina (View Comment):

    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.

    The message seems to be that anarchy is now the name of a game we should all respect, and we can pinky finger promise ourselves that we will all do the best we can to not live in a neighborhood that will ever be  targeted by the anarchists.

     

    • #365
  6. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    • #366
  7. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Stina (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    J Climacus (View Comment):
    Sure he had an AR-15, but he also had a fire extinguisher, and he intended to defend the property with the fire extinguisher (by throwing it at the rioters, I guess).

    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?

    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.

    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 think it might have been a dumpster. Seems like pretty good evidence that Rittenhouse was carrying the fire extinguisher to extinguish fires, not to bash people over the head. And I think Rittenhouse putting out fires was mentioned at the Legal Insurrection blog, maybe even by one of the lawyers there.

    EDIT: Not sure why anybody would say that Rittenhouse intended to use the fire extinguisher as a weapon, but without evidence to support such a claim, plus evidence to contradict it, it seems like an assertion made out of malice and in bad faith.

    • #367
  8. James Salerno Inactive
    James Salerno
    @JamesSalerno

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Thats funny, these people keep telling me that borders shouldn’t exist.

    • #368
  9. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Thats funny, these people keep telling me that borders shouldn’t exist.

    Seen on the intertubes:

    “Kyle Rittenhouse is literally the first and only time I’ve ever heard the Left care about borders”

    • #369
  10. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    J Climacus (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

     

    No wonder it’s your last comment.

    Well, I guess it’s not my last. I’ll just say I enjoyed the conversation until you descended into insults. I won’t do the same. Good night.

    I apologize.  That was churlish of me.  I look forward to you squaring the beginning of your paragraph with the end. 

    I admit to being somewhat invested in this.  Not only do I see this as a leading case for the future of the country, I also do not wish to see this young man of courage and commitment railroaded for standing up to a bunch of thugs.

    • #370
  11. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Incidentally, I am opposed to the notion that policing is only for police professionals, that education is only the job of educational professionals, that medical decisions are only the job of medical professionals, that the making and selling of food is only a job for licensed food professionals, and that heroism is the exclusive job of hero professionals.

    Dang.  That’s good stuff.

    • #371
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    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?

    Yes, and if being present is “participation” then all the police for the last 18 months have participated in riots.

    Now you’re being glib.  

     

    • #372
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Incidentally, I am opposed to the notion that policing is only for police professionals, that education is only the job of educational professionals, that medical decisions are only the job of medical professionals, that the making and selling of food is only a job for licensed food professionals, and that heroism is the exclusive job of hero professionals.

    Dang. That’s good stuff.

    You know, just taking off from this.  There seems to be a general view that a person is incompetent outside his field of work, and especially outside of university training.  Maybe this is part and parcel with the narrative that those without college degrees in the social sciences are cultural boobs and deplorables.

    • #373
  14. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    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.

    The message seems to be that anarchy is now the name of a game we should all respect, and we can pinky finger promise ourselves that we will all do the best we can to not live in a neighborhood that will ever be targeted by the anarchists.

     

    There is not a moral equivalence between someone who is a victim of a riot and someone who travels to a riot not as part of an organized force, but as an individual, somehow believing that an individual has any sway whatsoever to a riot.  That’s not how riots work.  To respond to a riot, you have to have a united, disciplined force that can sweep rioters from the streets.  Running around by yourself with a fire extinguisher is idiotic.  People who start fires don’t want them put out, and one person trying to do that has put himself in grave peril.  Riots are very, very dangerous, and such a lone actor will only worsen the riot.  Case in point, Kyle was attacked and had to kill two and maim one person to save himself.  I’m all for the killing, but the fact is that his presence and participation in the chaos of the riot contributed to a worse riot.

    • #374
  15. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    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?

    Yes, and if being present is “participation” then all the police for the last 18 months have participated in riots.

    Now you’re being glib.

     

    It’s called reductio ad absurdum.  It’s a tool that should be in everyone’s toolbox for use when evaluating a person’s statements and positions, and especially for evaluating one’s own. 

    • #375
  16. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Skyler (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    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.

    The message seems to be that anarchy is now the name of a game we should all respect, and we can pinky finger promise ourselves that we will all do the best we can to not live in a neighborhood that will ever be targeted by the anarchists.

     

    There is not a moral equivalence between someone who is a victim of a riot and someone who travels to a riot not as part of an organized force, but as an individual, somehow believing that an individual has any sway whatsoever to a riot. That’s not how riots work. To respond to a riot, you have to have a united, disciplined force that can sweep rioters from the streets. Running around by yourself with a fire extinguisher is idiotic. People who start fires don’t want them put out, and one person trying to do that has put himself in grave peril. Riots are very, very dangerous, and such a lone actor will only worsen the riot. Case in point, Kyle was attacked and had to kill two and maim one person to save himself. I’m all for the killing, but the fact is that his presence and participation in the chaos of the riot contributed to a worse riot.

    You know what you call one guy taking it upon himself to putting out fires and winding up killing two rioters?

     

    A good start.

     

    • #376
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Skyler (View Comment):

     

    There is not a moral equivalence between someone who is a victim of a riot and someone who travels to a riot not as part of an organized force, but as an individual, somehow believing that an individual has any sway whatsoever to a riot. That’s not how riots work. To respond to a riot, you have to have a united, disciplined force that can sweep rioters from the streets.

    That’s not always true. Sometimes a lone individual can influence the direction of a riot.  There are lots of possible responses to a riot. If you expect to shut the whole thing down, you probably need force as you describe, but you’re being rather binary. There are other possibilities.  

    Running around by yourself with a fire extinguisher is idiotic. People who start fires don’t want them put out, and one person trying to do that has put himself in grave peril. Riots are very, very dangerous, and such a lone actor will only worsen the riot. Case in point, Kyle was attacked and had to kill two and maim one person to save himself. I’m all for the killing, but the fact is that his presence and participation in the chaos of the riot contributed to a worse riot.

    Is it true that the riot (whether you’re referring to the Kenosha branch of it or the wider riot) got worse because of Kyle’s action? This is the first I heard of that.  

    • #377
  18. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    D.A. Venters (View Comment):

    James Salerno (View Comment):

    And another thing, conservatives should be 100% behind Kyle because we no longer live in a society of laws. 

    Things really aren’t that bad. 

    Amen.

    • #378
  19. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    • #379
  20. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.”  Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    • #380
  21. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    • #381
  22. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    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?

    Yes, and if being present is “participation” then all the police for the last 18 months have participated in riots.

    Now you’re being glib.

    It’s called reductio ad absurdum. It’s a tool that should be in everyone’s toolbox for use when evaluating a person’s statements and positions, and especially for evaluating one’s own.

    It’s not really a reduction regarding what I said, it’s a statement of fact.  Police are citizens carrying guns and are taking responsibility for the safety of those on the streets, and are paid to do it full time.  So likewise was KR, he just wasn’t paid for it.

    And when the citizens we call police abdicate their jobs, it falls on other citizens to do them.

    • #382
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    None of the three people he shot – two fatally – had good records up to that time.  Including that/those who had already started fires at that one and may have started more if they hadn’t been stopped, any of which could have resulted in injury, death, and/or property damage to innocent parties.  Put another way, it wasn’t their first rodeo.  And it may even be that they were paid participants that time.  How many “second chances” do you think someone should get?  Maybe they were lucky to have not been shot at their previous riots or other crimes.  Parents sometimes kill child-rapists too.

    • #383
  24. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    None of the three people he shot – two fatally – had good records up to that time. Including that/those who had already started fires at that one and may have started more if they hadn’t been stopped, any of which could have resulted in injury, death, and/or property damage to innocent parties. Put another way, it wasn’t their first rodeo. And it may even be that they were paid participants that time. How many “second chances” do you think someone should get? Maybe they were lucky to have not been shot at their previous riots or other crimes. Parents sometimes kill child-rapists too.

    That’s nice. But if you’re going to bring up hypotheticals about what evil the dead young men might have committed, I’ll bring up the possibility of redemption and changed paths. Personally, I think no such hypotheticals — from either of us — are relevant. I’m simply responding.

    I’m a big believer in the possibility of redemption.

    • #384
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    None of the three people he shot – two fatally – had good records up to that time. Including that/those who had already started fires at that one and may have started more if they hadn’t been stopped, any of which could have resulted in injury, death, and/or property damage to innocent parties. Put another way, it wasn’t their first rodeo. And it may even be that they were paid participants that time. How many “second chances” do you think someone should get? Maybe they were lucky to have not been shot at their previous riots or other crimes. Parents sometimes kill child-rapists too.

    That’s nice. But if you’re going to bring up hypotheticals about what evil the dead young men might have committed, I’ll bring up the possibility of redemption and changed paths. Personally, I think no such hypotheticals — from either of us — are relevant. I’m simply responding.

    I’m a big believer in the possibility of redemption.

    I’m also bringing up the actual evil the dead young men already committed, including before that night.

    • #385
  26. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    None of the three people he shot – two fatally – had good records up to that time. Including that/those who had already started fires at that one and may have started more if they hadn’t been stopped, any of which could have resulted in injury, death, and/or property damage to innocent parties. Put another way, it wasn’t their first rodeo. And it may even be that they were paid participants that time. How many “second chances” do you think someone should get? Maybe they were lucky to have not been shot at their previous riots or other crimes. Parents sometimes kill child-rapists too.

    That’s nice. But if you’re going to bring up hypotheticals about what evil the dead young men might have committed, I’ll bring up the possibility of redemption and changed paths. Personally, I think no such hypotheticals — from either of us — are relevant. I’m simply responding.

    I’m a big believer in the possibility of redemption.

    I’m also bringing up the actual evil the dead young men already committed, including before that night.

    And I don’t care. I believe in due process. Whatever misbehavior the individuals involved committed in the past is irrelevant to whether or not they should have been shot by Mr. Rittenhouse.

    Similarly, Mr. Rittenhouse could’ve been attacked by saints. It wouldn’t matter. If they were attacking him, he would have a right to defend himself. 

    • #386
  27. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Flicker (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Incidentally, I am opposed to the notion that policing is only for police professionals, that education is only the job of educational professionals, that medical decisions are only the job of medical professionals, that the making and selling of food is only a job for licensed food professionals, and that heroism is the exclusive job of hero professionals.

    Dang. That’s good stuff.

    You know, just taking off from this. There seems to be a general view that a person is incompetent outside his field of work, and especially outside of university training. Maybe this is part and parcel with the narrative that those without college degrees in the social sciences are cultural boobs and deplorables.

    Yup.  Credentialism.

    • #387
  28. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Skyler (View Comment):
    To respond to a riot, you have to have a united, disciplined force that can sweep rioters from the streets.

    Yeah we Fn HIRED that force and they stood down.

    • #388
  29. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Skyler (View Comment):
    Kyle was attacked and had to kill two and maim one person to save himself.  I’m all for the killing, but the fact is that his presence and participation in the chaos of the riot contributed to a worse riot.

    I look forward to your demonstration that the riot was made worse by the shooting of three of the miscreants.  I’ll wager that put a damper on things instead.  If we’re going to argue unproveable counterfactuals, I prefer mine to yours.

    • #389
  30. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:

    1. Mr. Rittenhouse probably acted in legitimate self-defense and, if so, should be exonerated.
    2. Mr. Rittenhouse probably broke some laws by going out after curfew with a gun he wasn’t supposed to have.
    3. Mr. Rittenhouse was unwise to take a weapon with which he was unfamiliar, and which is not particularly well-suited for personal defense in a crowded environment, and to enter a chaotic mob situation with it.
    4. Had Mr. Rittenhouse decided to stay home, several people would probably not have been shot and his own life would be less complicated and at-risk at the moment.
    5. The authorities failed in their duty to secure the peace by allowing thugs to rampage in the streets without a police response. These authorities bear the brunt of the responsibility for the chaos of 2020.
    6. Despite the failure of the authorities, Mr. Rittenhouse was not obligated to enter the fray.
    7. Criticizing Mr. Rittenhouse for a lack of sound judgment while defending his right to exercise poor judgement and also to defend himself from violent assault is perfectly consistent.

    Based on what I’ve read, my hope is that Mr. Rittenhouse is acquitted, and that he exercises better judgment in the future.

    Of course, we don’t know what else those he shot might have done if they hadn’t been “taken out.” Apparently at least one of them started at least one fire burning and tried to start more.

    Nor do we know if either of the people he killed might have decided, like many who attended riots in their youth, to shape up and make a contribution to society. I guess it doesn’t do to hang too much on hypotheticals.

    To be honest, kedavis’ supposition uis far better supported than the opposite.  And I don’t care what contribution they “might have made”.  Rap sheets and Bayes tell me all I need to know.

    • #390
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.