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
As someone who has worn the helmet several times, carried the long stick, and was involved in one protest that turned very ugly my advice would be to those who don’t have to be there is don’t go. We called it stick time, or batting practice.
This does not mean that Mr. Rittenhouse loses his right to defend himself, regardless of his age. Three low-lives attacked him.
The first a child rapist, multiple rapes, tried to take his firearm. Deadly force is allowed to prevent the taking of a firearm.
The second confrontation occurred with an individual that had multiple domestic violence charges, bail jumping, and a strangulation charge. He hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard even though Rittenhouse was trying to leave the area.
The third assault came from a member of a Maoist group. He had been previously charged with displaying a handgun while intoxicated, as well as pending charges of stalking the private vehicles of police officers by recording license plate numbers. His CHL had either expired, or was revoked for the intoxicated display of a firearm. Once again he assaulted Rittenhouse as he was trying to leave the area. He pointed a handgun at the head of Rittenhouse. There is no rule that states Rittenhouse has to allow him the first shot.
The legal question is did Rittenhouse have a reasonable belief his life was in danger in these three confrontations. Perhaps he shouldn’t have been there, but then again the three low lives should not have been there.
Poor judgement on the part of Mr. Rittenhouse, perhaps, but regardless of the verdict the City of Kenosha should at least have the decency to commend him for the killing of the first assailant.
As a reminder to everyone else there are no rules once the riot starts. It is not an Olympic Sport.
Your disdain for the maturity of “kids” is a very 21st century thing. We have just seen posts to the honor of 17- and 18-year-old WWII veterans who were noble in character and brave in action.
Would the curfew matter if Kyle was on private property?
I think you two are talking past each other. It can be legal to take gun to a riot, but still be a bad idea. Young men do a lot of things that legal and bad ideas.
He wasn’t at the business or defending the business when he was attacked. He was fleeing his attackers and in all 3 shootings he was under duress. I believe it’s illegal to use lethal force to defend someone else’s property (but not illegal to defend your own) in Wisconsin, but I don’t believe it’s illegal to defend yourself hardly anywhere on the planet. If Kyle shot a guy throwing a Molotov Cocktail into the business, that would be illegal, but Kyle shooting the guy who was trying to murder him with a gun is self defense.
In my opinion that took great self control to avoid shooting more people who were chasing him. He didn’t shoot randomly, and those who surrendered and backed off he let go. He only shot those presenting imminent threat to himself, and didn’t wound anyone with wild firing. By my estimation his self control and responsible use of his firearm was admirable – heroic even. How many of us would have been able to keep cool headed and escape a mob trying to kill us with so few casualties? Those rioters should be thankful it was Rittenhouse and not nearly anyone else in that situation. With almost anyone else in Kyle’s shoes there would have been a half dozen dead rioters.
Politicians- mostly liberal- failed this country. They should have put down the rioting immediately. The unintentional benefit of those Kenosha shootings is that there is one fewer pedophile on the loose. I won’t cry for a pedophile who died attempting murder.
He didn’t walk into a riot. He walked into a place of business in broad daylight. Thugs made it into a riot. Let’s not get this mixed up.
@jclimacus — OK, I’ll bite.
How do you “defend your home and family” if “you have a duty to attempt to flee before using lethal force”?
He didn’t carry into a riot.
This is the key point. I would advise my son to avoid the area. But once Kyle is there — he still has rights. And the lowlives’ presence does not invalidate those rights.
He did not take a gun to a riot.
That’s racist of you to notice.
Have you? It’s obvious if you’ve watched. Shame on me for not answering the question, but the footage — the FULL UNCUT FOOTAGE — answers it better than I could.
Since we’re armchair quarterbacking, would you say that the only reason that Rosenbaum selected Rittenhouse out to threaten with his life, and to chase down, was only because he had a rifle?
What if a 17-year-old Rittenhouse only had his medical kit and his fire extinguisher, and was walking down the street putting out fires and calling out for anyone who needed medial attention? Could it be he was singled out because he was young, and without a buddy, and a natural target for Rosenbaum’s aggression, whom he thought wouldn’t or couldn’t defend himself? What I’m getting at is that the only thing that we know resulted from carrying a rifle was that Rittenhouse used it to protect himself from several violent attackers. Since Rosenbaum was the instigator of the conflict and the impetus for the attacks, it’s very possible that the reason for the original attack on Rittenhouse lay solely in the mind of Rosenbaum himself, and that the gun only saved Rittenhouse’s life.
I don’t think you’re right. I think you are conflating self-defense with defense of property through turn of phrase. Those are different things. Is there a statute which uses the language you have substituted?
You also said he carried into a riot. Was that true?
The footage answers what question? (I’ve watched a lot of the trial footage when that Daily Caller reporter was on the stand, up to and including the first shooting. But I don’t know what question you’re asking about.)
Because when they turn from smashing windows to smashing your skull, it’s self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse acted perfectly in this ASIDE from the initial decision to go, which I would advise people to not do.
I am also a responsible carrier. I avoid trouble, because my piece is for disengagement. At the same time, if you decide that you will defend a thing with your life, you are still entitled to self-defense. The only salient point is a threat against you with credible force. And this was provided many times over, and certainly before each of the engagements won by Saint Kyle.
Kyle Rittenhouse refused to become a victim. If he catches a sentence, it will be to the shame of the goverment, and God-willing, to its detriment.
You’re starting to sound like Joe Scarborough. He wasn’t “roaming” anywhere.
I think I’m tracking. You’re a pretty fart smeller, but I’ll try to keep up.
Unless it’s the streets of Berlin or Paris.
I sympathize with your larger point, but what we are defending is the idea that Americans have rights, will not be mobbed out of them, and will use firearms to make the point.
I do not give a flying fig about hunting, or target practice except as it conditions me to defend my rights. Like many veterans, I didn’t come home to be told that my rights — my whole country — would be taken away by shifty Marxists.
F that.
I think the reaction to this case really depends on where you are online. The crazy echo chambers of Twitter and certain parts of Reddit aren’t surprising. But most places I’ve visited online (not Ricochet) don’t even realize it’s polarizing given how clear the video footage is.
I have leftist friends who are actually baffled by the Twitter reaction to this case.
Yes! This is why I ask if people have seen the footage. It’s more instructive than anything I can say. Those who have not seen it (uncut, in several angles) would not believe what I have to say about it anyway. The footage is just breathtaking.
He did not take a gun to a riot.
The footage of the actual incident. I watched it what, a year ago? Captivating! I’m not even watching the trial.
He got charged after only 36 hours of investigation. It would be interesting to see what they found out after that. That strikes me as some form of misconduct. Of course, this is probably about placating the mob.
It’s easy to wait for somebody that knows about gun law to analyze the situation and talk about it. People just don’t want to do that. I think it makes them look stupid.
It seems to be a pretty simple calculation for many DAs etc.
“If I prosecute him, and he’s convicted, BLM etc burn HIS house.”
“If I prosecute him and he’s acquitted, BLM etc burn HIS house, and the judge’s house, and the jurors’ houses.”
“If I don’t prosecute him, BLM etc burn MY house.”
This is one of the things they were talking about on the Adam Carolla reasonable doubt podcast.
Well I made that point in my original comment. I said up front I think he should be acquitted. That doesn’t mean it was a good idea for him to be in the area. It wasn’t.