- This topic has 9 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Seems like it has taken quite a while for what seems to be a fairly clear case, with likely prosecutorial overreach:
https://news.yahoo.com/jury-rittenhouse-murder-trial-deliberate-110736753.html
-
-
-
-
-
The racial politics of this are appalling. The guy shot three ne’er do wells who, whether misguided or malicious, attacked him. He also shot at another one who was kicking him in the head, and missed. The video evidence was exculpatory.
I know one thing: Rittenhouse ought to thank his lucky stars that the FBI had drone cameras active (remember, there was no federal support allowed on the ground because nobody wanted Trump’s help during the summer of love). Had the drone footage not existed I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the kid would be a convicted double murderer.
Instead he is an unfortunate case study for the adage about “bringing enough gun” to a fight. Unfortunate only because like it or not, only a true psychopath (which Rittenhouse is not) gets away from killing another person without trauma.
So, let’s recap since I have followed this closely: young person decided to get together with a friend to help guard property during a period of looting and vandalism. The young person carries the only legal firearm allowed to him: a long gun (could have been a shotgun or a rifle). While perhaps he should have chosen pepper spray, he was lawfully carrying a rifle.
Young person is accosted by a somewhat erratic man who makes corroborated threats to him, who chases young person, “surprises” him, may have cornered him, and may have grabbed for his rifle (implying very close contact). The young person shoots the man four times, ultimately killing him. Without the FBI video all of this is conjecture but with it, the scenario is known to have played out (excepting whether or not the man grabbed the rifle, due to the quality of the video).
Young person then removed himself from the vicinity, ostensibly because the crowd around him begins to yell things like “get him” and “let’s kill him.” These threats can be heard on the video of him running away. These threats amount to enough concern for most individuals to fear for their lives. Nevertheless, he maintains course and does not brandish his rifle (meaning pointing it in a threatening manner).
He stumbles and falls down. This is the most unfortunate incident of the night (from his perspective), because it puts him in an instantly vulnerable position. He is subsequently kicked by “jump kick man” and discharges his rifle (twice) but misses. Jump kick man learns a lesson and leaves the picture. For some reason, skateboard man decides to attack, swinging his skateboard and contacting the young person in a highly aggressive manner…a clear threat. The young person fires at skateboard man, hitting him in the middle of his chest and ultimately killing him.
Finally, a man wearing a paramedic hat walks toward him, with hands in the air. When the young person looks away, paramedic man pulls a concealed handgun and points it at the young person, who shoots in his direction and wounds him badly.
The young person, having stopped three additional threats to him, two of whom made active and violent contact with him and one of whom pointed a gun at him, gets up and runs to the police line.
From the moment rittenhouse falls down, until he is up and moving away again, during which he is attacked by three separate individuals, is 12 seconds.
Now, a lot is being made of how this happened at a “protest” that related to BLM, but the reality is it was in the midst of civil unrest that in no way reflected a “protest.” That’s the only way race comes into this, and it is being milked dry.
I am not a fan of what Kyle Rittenhouse decided to do leading up to the need to defend himself. But, every action he took was lawful, from carrying the weapon to defending himself to leaving the scene because of continuing threats.
If anything, this case has led to fevered defense of people who were doing really bad things that night, one of whom was NOT Kyle Rittenhouse.
I can understand why people don’t like this. It conflicts with their worldview where nobody should have to pay for their actions with their life, and, like the DA said, sometimes you need to take a beating. While I understand that worldview, I reject it. It’s the same worldview that would have a 100 lb woman unable to defend herself against a 200lb man because weapons are icky.
In this case, Kyle brought the right weapon, and used it fairly adroitly. He literally threaded a needle of legal peril because he hit no bystanders, brandished at no bystanders, and escaped without significant injury. That’s the point of effective self defense.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)-
I would add that it wasn’t the drone footage that exonerated Rittenhouse, it was the footage from Drew Hernandez, Richie McGinnis, and others who decided to cover the riots in a non-narrative way. Last summer, in addition to the two described above, Shelby Talcott, Julio Rosas, and Brendan Gutenschwager filmed footage and livestreamed the riots. Without their footage, the media narrative would have buried Rittenhouse.
-
That’s fair rog. I was referring to the fact that there was no on the ground footage of the first shoot, and that the fbi filled that gap. For sure without the footage of the other two shoots he would be convicted for those. I mean, the media narrative was that all three attackers were unarmed even after people started noticing a gun in paramedic guy’s hand in still photos. The news media didn’t follow that thread even with clear photos surfacing.
KR owes his life to bystander and fbi video. Crazy to think it has come to this. Even with witnesses saying he was attacked, he would have been toast.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)
-
-
-
“I can understand why people don’t like this. It conflicts with their worldview where nobody should have to pay for their actions with their life, and, like the DA said, sometimes you need to take a beating. While I understand that worldview, I reject it.”
Me too. I’ll engage in further conjecture. The reason “some people” don’t like it is because they got fat and comfortable last summer. They were able to loot, burn and physically attack anyone they construed as an enemy. Local leadership totally ceded control of our urban centers to the mob.
In ten minutes Rittenhouse changed their risk profile. Good on him.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long -
A few thoughts:
- These were three genuinely bad guys, convicted of bad things, seeking to commit mayhem during civil unrest. These weren’t protestors as they’re generally defined.
- Kyle Rittenhouse faced a media onslaught (as did the Covington kid, and others) who desperately seek white supremacists where they generally don’t exist. The number of actual white supremacists in this country is a very small number compared with the “white = white supremacist” narrative of certain media and interest groups in this country.
- If the verdict had been anything other than not guilty on all counts, I fear what would become of our collective ability to defend ourselves and our property. It was such a ridiculously obvious outcome, yet there are numerous elements who are shocked, aghast, etc., when really they prefer anarchy and they certainly don’t want citizens to own firearms or for there to be a Second amendment.
- Those same interest groups and media keep using the term “crossing state lines” as if that’s somehow derogatory. Nothing illegal about crossing a state line. He had the gun legally, procured it in the state, and the interest groups are implying or stating that he went hunting for legitimate protestors.
- When I was 14, a friend of mine and I were walking in downtown Santa Cruz, one of the street kids took umbrage to our looks, and attacked my friend with his skateboard. The kid was never the same, had to drop out of school. It’s a big, heavy, edged weapon that should be treated as such.
- The fact that Grosskreutz was wearing a paramedic hat and the fact that his hands were in the air meant that he was disguising his intentions with the gun. He clearly tried to get the drop on Rittenhouse. Why this hasn’t been reported (or charged) is a mystery.
- The media keeps referring to Rittenhouse as “this kid,” essentially stating or implying that he’s too young to be a protective force in the middle of a riot, excuse me, a peaceful protest. 17 year olds enlist in the military. About 6% of enlistees are 17 (with parental permission), so there’s 5,000 – 7,000 17 year olds in the U. S. military at any time. They’re old enough.
- Part of the argument in favor of guns is that it levels the playing field. A much smaller or outnumbered person has protection…as did Rittenhouse.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.