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 wonder if that’s true. Maybe it depends on the definition of “in.”
He was also violating the curfew. And the exception of “open carrying a rifle” is no small thing. He’s now brought a lethal level of force into the situation and escalated it. And because he’s just a relatively small teenager, his only option if he gets into a confrontation with someone is to threaten them with the rifle. Which he did a number of times that evening, and it worked until he ran into a crazy guy who wasn’t intimidated. But that’s a situation that could be anticipated. Riots can contain any manner of crazy, criminal people. This isn’t open carrying a rifle on Main Street on your average Tuesday afternoon. It’s carrying it in a situation where it’s likely you’ll eventually run into someone who will force you to shoot them. That’s why I say he was an accident waiting to happen.
How does that song go? “No one needed killing more than they did?”
One less child-rapist, for example. I don’t see the down side.
The question is with respect to “protecting a business.” Why bring an AR-15 to protect a business if its illegal to use lethal force to protect property? If he’s standing there, and they start smashing windows, he’s got to step aside and let them. So what’s the point?
How about standing in front of the business so they have to attack you to get at the business, and then by attacking you they justify self-defense? Nice and neat.
And the adults who click their tongues at children doing what they should have been doing.
Well there is downside for Rittenhouse, at least. I believed him on the stand when he broke down and said he never wanted to shoot anyone. I think he just wanted to walk around with his gun and feel “cool”. His teenage mind never faced the real possibility that he’d actually have to shoot someone. He was clearly bewildered by the fact that Rosenbaum kept chasing him despite having the rifle pointed at him. Then after shooting Rosenbaum, the mob chases him and he’s got to shoot more people. That’s what mobs do and why you should stay away from them. He’s in therapy now for PTSD and I believe it. His life is changed forever, and whether justified or not, he’s got to live with the fact that he shot three people and killed two of them, a terrible thing to live with. That’s some down side.
Really? How’s that working out on the infighting between the Right-sided gays,
atheistsagnostics, and the trad cons?It is wrong for MEN to his in their houses while their neighborhoods and communities are wrecked. It’s a shame it was a kid out there. Where were the MEN?
I’m no lawyer but I doubt that strategy would stand legal scrutiny. You have a duty to attempt to flee before using lethal force. That’s one reason Rittenhouse has a good case. He was running away from the people who attacked him, and only fired when he could no longer flee because he was knocked down.
So Rittenhouse has got to flee rather than use lethal force in defending himself, which leaves the question as to what the point is in bringing an AR-15 to defend property.
As was pointed out at trial, the curfew was not being enforced. When the police abdicate enforcement of each and every law of civilization, then no one at all can enforce the law? Binger asked Rittenhouse rather smarmily why he didn’t just call the fire department, why did he feel it was his place to put out a dumpster fire? And Rittenhouse said that the fire department, with which he was associated as a cadet, was busy putting out other fires. When Binger asked him why he didn’t call 911 when he saw dangerous things, Kyle said that (I don’t remember which word he used, but) the police were standing down [or were busy elsewhere].
When Kyle approached a police vehicle to surrender telling them that he had just shot or killed someone, the police told him to back off or they’d pepper spray him, and to go home (and also go to bed or some such).
When the police abandon a town to criminals and rioters, doesn’t someone else have to step in and save property from the arsonists? Or should we just let it all burn down?
You go to the business to protect the business. You bring the rifle to protect yourself.
And they’re not just smashing windows, they’re setting an entire car lot worth of inventory on fire, among other acts of destruction.
Yes, I agree completely. There’s a breakdown of adult responsibility all around. In not enforcing order in the community, in allowing a 17 year old to roam around with a rifle (I blame the parents for that), in spreading lies and disinformation about the nature of what was happening. A complete breakdown. In many ways I think Kyle Rittenhouse is a victim.
Are you serious with this BS? Why go armed to the grocery store? Why go armed to church? Why go armed ANYWHERE? Hell, why even have a 2nd amendment at all.
Enforced or not the curfew was still the law. The fact that some people were violating the law isn’t an invitation for everyone to do it. I’m just amazed that people think sending a 17 year old out into a riot with an AR-15 is a good idea. If I found my son grabbing a rifle to go out into a riot, I’d take it from him and change the combination on the gun safe.
Defend your home and family in a riot? Sure. Go out roaming the streets with a rifle? That’s asking for trouble.
The response to Kyle should not be condemnation but shame. We should be ashamed of ourselves for letting this get this far. We’ve been so critical of the people that show up to protect people and property where the police are not that we never stop to think of what happens if we ALL stand down.
The riots around the 2015 speeches is where this needed to be stopped. Remember the town around Berkeley on fire over Young Conservatives hosting conservative speakers? We failed them. We failed in 2020. We failed Kyle.
Rittenhouse wasn’t going to the grocery store, or church on a Tuesday afternoon. He went out into a riot armed with an AR-15. I’m still amazed that people think that is a good idea.
I don’t know if it’s asking for trouble in a literal sense, but it has extra potential to lead to trouble.
Oh. So we can only defend ourselves if we are in church or a grocery. We can’t defend ourselves while giving medical aid to people at a riot. So that’s the limit of our 2nd amendment rights.
Its good we have that cleared up. Let’s just let the cities burn.
So does not being armed in a situation like this. Heck, I’m of the opinion going CAMPING unarmed is asking for trouble.
It is not the state, but the city. Soros invested wisely, when he started buy DAs. Operation Chaos.
I don’t know about Wisconsin, that’s not true everywhere. It’s called stand your ground, and it was introduced because prosecutors would say things like, Well why didn’t you hide under your car from the man with the gun?
We are talking about a 17 year old carrying an AR 15 in a riot. I take it your position is we either allow this or the 2nd Amendment is toast? Really? I feel like I’m in crazy ville.
He said over and over and over in court, that the rifle was to protect himself, not property.
The answer is obvious: The one carrying expects the AR-15 to be a deterrent. The expectation is wrong when the mob decides the one carrying doesn’t have the balls to use it. When they attack, then use of the AR-15 is a matter defending oneself, not the property. I saw this play out back in the 1970s. Nothing has changed.
And sometimes the law is wrong. When the police abdicate their duty and their job in enforcing the law, then someone has to to it. That’s part of civilization, too. One does not allow arson, looting and murder just because the police are too woke or too timid to enforce the law.
I would think the question of whether someone was literally asking for trouble would be of great importance in a court of law. Since we’re talking about a court of law here, we might do well to distinguish risk-taking from asking for trouble.
It is better have a loaded gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.
High school kids roaming the streets with AR-15s is not the answer.
I have an LTC here in Massachusetts. Despite the strict gun laws and liberal bent in the Commonwealth, there are a lot of gun owners and gun clubs here. Gun owners are very organized and insist on good training at the clubs and strictly responsible use of firearms. This isn’t just for safety but for public relations. We work hard to dispel the “crazy gun owner” stereotype.
It pains me to see here on Ricochet people defending the stereotypes we try to live down – like the idea that defending the 2nd Amendment means allowing 17 year olds to open carry AR-15s in a riot. This is just the sort of crazy idea the gun grabbers like to attribute to us as justification for condemning us, and here we are proving them exactly right. It’s depressing.