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
You may be right. Teenage boys are generally no match for grown men in a fight. That’s a reason for a 17 year old to obey the curfew, not arm himself with an AR-15 and wade out into the night.
As the smarmy ADA Binger truthfully pointed out, it’s illegal in Wisconsin to defend property with lethal force. So what did Rittenhouse expect to do with that AR-15?
He’s a hero to some people and not to others. There is no universal, objective category called “hero.” And an accident waiting to happen can be a hero, too. Those are not mutually exclusive categories.
Have you watched the footage?
Well, sure, if we choose to fall back into relativism then the discussion is pointless. But I thought what distinguishes us on the right from leftists is that we reject relativism.
I think this is exactly right.
The insurmountable problem for the prosecution has been the multiple videos of the incidents at issue.
In this era of everyone has a camera ….
All of the videos can reasonably be interpreted as a case of self defense … serious problem to overcome for the prosecution.
“Think of it as evolution in action.”
The most puzzling aspect is how a white guy who shoots 3 white guys, is considered “racist” by the mainstream media.
Because … Shut up!!!
Probably because the 3 guys (who all had criminal records) were peacefully protesting with their BLM counterparts.
Really? I’m a moral relativist, and from your comments it sounded like you are, too.
I don’t carry that crap either. Mess aboot — find oot, as the Canadian ‘pedes say.
Good question. Defend himself, maybe?
No, I think objective moral truth (to a certain degree) is obtainable through reason.
Why do you ask?
To defend himself if the people menacing property should decide to threaten him instead. Well done, Kyle!
Does the question of whether Rittenhouse is a “hero” or not have any relevance to his guilt or innocence?
Relativism is relative, I’m afriad. Here’s an absolute: Rittenhouse did not start trouble. If it is absolutism you seek, then pick a side and be known for your shoice. No room for nuance there.
And well executed self-defense!
Either it is, or it is not. Let’s not have weasel-worded, caveat-ed relativism creep in here.
You mean, defend himself in protecting the business? It’s illegal to use lethal force to do that.
Including the question of whether someone is a hero?
You know, what Kyle Rittenhouse did was (with the exception of open carrying a rifle) was legal. He started his afternoon scrubbing graffiti off an historic building. If we start using being unarmed, and using cowardice as a legal standard for “good judgment” then we really have lost.
Sorry, not so. Some moral truth is known through human reason, like the fact that murder is wrong. Other moral truths transcend human reason, and can only be known through Revelation – for instance, that the highest form of the moral life is the Imitation of Christ. This distinction has been the moral foundation of Western Civilization for millennia.
Keeping in mind that not all killing is murder.
Yes. Aristotle provides a lot of insight into the nature of virtue, and if we consider a “hero” to be someone distinguished particularly by the virtue of courage, I think it is possible to find reasonable grounds to distinguish a hero from the non-hero.
No, as in defend himself. Is that illegal in WI? I don’t know the specific law there. But I am fairly confident that a rioter initiating deadly force is on less solid legal ground than a person threated by that deadly force. If that is not so, then we are late with the hot lead.
If “courage” is the issue, you didn’t address the question of whether Rittenhouse is a hero before declaring him to be not a hero.
I’ve often said that Rush Limbaugh is my hero. Courage had a lot to do with it. Past the 1990s I didn’t like listening to him, and I’m too cowardly to explain why because a lot of his fans here will dislike my saying it. But for all his faults, he was still my hero. I never said Rish Limbaugh was “a” hero, though.
I do not prefer that people defending themselves be crucified as preferable to employing deadly force in that defense.