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.
Was Rittenhouse as Big as the OJ Trial?
There’s a grain of truth in this tweet from Dinesh D’Souza. In some ways, this was the O.J. trial for those of us who believe in the Second Amendment and the right of self-defense. We followed it with the same passion and the same interest, but our interest wasn’t due to the celebrity nature of the defendant.
Kyle Rittenhouse may have been the defendant, but what was really up for grabs inside that courtroom was our ability to protect what matters most to us. Kyle defended his life against three felons who used a variety of methods of lethal force. If Kyle were to be found guilty of murder in any of those incidents, it would have established a precedent that the politics surrounding a criminal case can override the merits of the case itself. That he was declared innocent of his crimes by a jury of his peers gives us hope that we might get through this craziness with our Constitution and our sanity intact.
The war is not over, but a major battle has been won. Onward to victory.
Published in Law
I would make only one correction.
I understand this sentiment, given that these things aren’t in the news much, especially national news, but it’s worth pointing out that things like the Rittenhouse verdict happen all the time in this country. The law of self defense is alive and well, as is the 2nd amendment.
Even in my small town public defender’s office we had a self-defense not guilty verdict on a murder charge just this past summer (my contribution was minimal but our office did a great job.)
These highly publicized political trials are not the only thing happening in the court system. In fact, they’re a minuscule microscopic portion of the cases being processed, so small that you can’t fairly draw any conclusions about legal trends from them.
The media is looking for clicks, and despair and dread and fear generates them very well. But things really aren’t as bad as the popular media (right and left) would lead you to believe.
Conservatives followed this case closely because the (D)/MSM/Culture Combine deceitfully quickly made Rittenhouse a case of racist white supremacy, active shooter mass murder, …. throw in the 2nd amendment issues to boot and the Left had their narrative written within days and there was no veering off the good Lefty narrative no matter the facts.
While Rittenhouse had as much right as the protesters and rioters to be in Kenosha that night, I would never recommend having armed 17 year old kids standing guard of other peoples businesses in the throws of a violent riot.
The Rittenhouse case has given the liars on the Left an immoral
liecause to hold onto and perpetuate theliecause which they still promote even more after the verdict ….If Kyle Rittenhouse had never shown up in Kenosha that night the (D)/MSM would still be pretending the burned out City of Kenosha destroyed by mostly white Antifa lunatic criminals never happened.
I disagree. The left doesn’t believe in any right to self-defense at all, and have implemented this belief in law in large parts of the world (The UK, f.e.). Some U.S. states require homeowners to retreat instead of defending themselves (Massachusetts, last I checked). Public show-trials like this, with the help of lefty prosecutors and judges, are tools to advance the same restrictions elsewhere in the U.S. Shifting the Overton Window to set the stage for changes in law.
It is good that the judge in this case wasn’t a lefty tool. The right to self-defense is under attack wherever the left holds the reins of power.
The duty to retreat was part of the right of self defense at common law. It’s ancient. The idea has always been that deadly force should be a last resort. Self-defense by its nature has always been a very case specific analysis, so these general rules like the duty to retreat, or like it’s opposite – stand your ground – are always looked at in the context of the case facts. They are attempts to control the margins to prevent gross injustices that can happen in either direction. But most of the time, juries have been able to reach the just decision under either regime.
The “Stand Your Ground” and “Make My Day” laws are more modern modifications. So the trend is actually to expand self defense. People seem to have the idea that something like the law of the old west that we see in movies – everybody open carrying, showdowns in the street, posses and mobs – is a historic portrayal of the law, but it’s not. I don’t mean to say those things didn’t happen. I’m only saying those events don’t represent the law very well.
And I disagree with Dinesh calling Rittenhouse “our guy.”
The right of self defense is a universal right,and it applies to everyone who lives in this country.
When the powers that be decide that burning, assaulting and rioting are a-ok, (Just as most city poo baa’s have decided) why do we not expect men and 17 y-o boys to step up? As has been said we will soon become the wild west otherwise.
From the first day of Rittenhouse going to defend Kenosha and defending himself against marauders, I can’t help thinking of the Seven Samurai. What is a town to do? Hire Seven SEALs* to teach the town how to defend itself? Maybe.
*and Rangers and Force Recon
Not in your own [expletive] home.
Who was it that said “an Englishman’s home is his castle” a long freaking time ago?
No, I don’t think that the Rittenhouse case was larger than the OJ Simpson case, however I do think that like O.J. Simpson, Rittenhouse could well lose the civil lawsuit by one or more of his victims.
I agree that the State did not convict Rittenhouse beyond a reasonable doubt. But given how long the jury deliberated. I believe that a majority of jurors could conclude that Rittenhouse should be held legally responsible by a mere preponderance of the evidence in a civil trial for the two men who were killed and the one who was injured. Also, I believe that the person who illegally provided the AR-15 to Rittenhouse can be both criminally convicted and found to be civilly responsible.
1)Not even close- the OJ chase seen was covered live by every major network as was the trial and back then the networks had a much greater domination of the news cycle than today. News is much more fragmented and selected by the viewer-so people see more of what they want (and the slant they want-much easier for the Left).
2) Rittenhouse isn’t “our guy”- he isn’t even a hero-he just made sure he wasn’t a victim of Huber, Rosenbaum et al. Fortunately for him the politically motivated prosecution was also incompetent.
My point is that self defense is not in danger. The trend in recent decades is to expand the situations in which it is available. This ought to be good news.
Hear hear.
I am perfectly ok with the entirety of his actions that night. He also exhibited remarkable trigger control and was steady under fire.
Again. It wasn’t provided”illegally”.
I was unaware that the gun was provided illegaly. Are you sure about that?
I understand that it was a straw purchase, in that 17 year olds can’t buy guns. I am not positive about this, but am repeating what I have heard.
The bigger picture is that the Progs want to withdraw the protection of the Police and the National Guard, encourage Mobs to destroy us and our property, then persecute ( not a typo for prosecute ) anyone who defends themselves or others. They hate us and want us destroyed, and really don’t care about the niceties of how.
Its not clear there was a straw purchase. The gun stayed in Wisconsin, in possession of the purchaser. I think Mr. Black has bad lawyers.
Rittenhouse could also lawfully be in possession of a long gun in Wisconsin.
Preface: God chose to make me good, rather than a lawyer, so do not take this as legal advice.
But.
It comes down to what “possession” means versus “ownership.” For instance, in Florida, unauthorized minors are not allowed to possess my guns.
As it turns out, I have authorized my (minor-aged) sons to possess my guns as they see fit. :D
They can’t OWN a gun yet, not until they turn 21. We can have the discussion about why it’s okay for an 18 year old to control a 155mm howitzer in the military but NOT okay for him or her to own a 22LR rifle at the same age some other time…
On that night it was in the possession of Mr. Rittenhouse.
Okay.
Rittenhouse like the Simpson case is only relevant in establishing for most sane Americans that our Legal System is irredeemably incompetent, corrupt, and vile and uninterested in justice. Dinesh D’Souza peaked in 1993.
Your right on that evening Mr. Black allowed Mr. Rittenhouse to use the rifle.
What I mean by possession is that Mr. Black kept the gun at his house, and when they went shooting together allowed Kyle to use it.
I am willing to entertain the idea that agreeing to buy and hold a weapon in trust until someone turns 18 is the same as a straw purchase, but I don’t think its what anybody had in mind.
No different than dads buying hunting rifles for their young sons to learn to hunt.