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
I’ve written many, many times on this thread that I think Rittenhouse was justified in his self-defense. Here’s one more.
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.
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.
Yes, and if being present is “participation” then all the police for the last 18 months have participated in riots.
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.
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.
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.
Thats funny, these people keep telling me that borders shouldn’t exist.
Seen on the intertubes:
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.
Dang. That’s good stuff.
Now you’re being glib.
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.
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.
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.
You know what you call one guy taking it upon himself to putting out fires and winding up killing two rioters?
A good start.
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.
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.
It’s possible, and not even self-contradictory, to say all of the following:
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.
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.
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.
Yeah we Fn HIRED that force and they stood down.
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.
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.