Tags
AR-15, Andrew Branca, Zimmerman, Andy McCarthy, Kyle Rittenhouse, Red Jen Psaki, Mark Richards, Richard McGinnis, ADA Kraus, ADA Binger, Judge Schroeder, Rosenbaum, Ziminski, McCloskeys, heroes
Kenosha small businesses prepared for the verdict
As this is written, the Prosecution is engaging in rebuttal to the Defense closing argument. Monday began with argument over jury instructions, which eventually turned into a disaster. But first, let’s review the major developments, prior to the judge participating in that disaster. The SMM Rittenhouse case archive is here.
*At long last, the misdemeanor gun possession charge has been dismissed! It was always a matter of law rather than fact, inappropriate for the jury.
*We learned a bit more about the provocation argument. It now appears Ziminski isn’t even in the blurry photo, only Kyle! I can’t make out any human form, but that’s what both sides are stuck with. Judge Schroeder ruled the Prosecution can’t claim it was a fact Kyle pointed his rifle at Ziminski. He was reduced to suggesting it was more or less, kinda sorta pointed in their general direction, which also can’t be seen in the photo. Remember: there was never any evidence this happened, only what ADA Binder wants people to see in the mass of undifferentiated pixels. He had the chance to have Ziminski testify and didn’t. That would come back to bite him later in the day.
*Regarding the reckless endangerment charge relating to journalist Richard McGinnis, the Judge ruled if shooting Rosembaum is self-defense, it would not possibly have been reckless conduct toward McGinnis, who said he was unharmed in any case.
*Perhaps the best thing that happened, after the jury instructions turned into such a disaster Judge Schroeder removed them from the courtroom, is he finally realized self-defense is absolute. If each of the charges was justified by self-defense, that’s it. The primary charge and every less, included offense mean nothing and can’t be considered. This is the law, and how it must be. The Judge, thankfully, finally, realized it and so instructed the jury. All they have to do with each charge is determine if it was self-defense. If so, nothing more is necessary and Kyle is acquitted.
Not a truth the Prosecution respects: Rosenbaum attacking Kyle
I’ll reserve my comments on the closing arguments until later, when I’ve had a chance to collect everything I need. In the meantime, however, I recommend you take these links:
1) The Andrew Branca Live link, which features his in-real-time comments on what’s happening. I recommend you us the “Load More” bar—you’ll have to hit it quite a few times—to get to the beginning of the day. It’s a brief, informative format that shows you what has happened, minute by minute.
2) This link to earlier in the day, where Branca confirms what he and I both know: this is a Bizarro World, backward case.
As expected, The White House can’t keep it’ mouth shut about this case. Red Jen Psaki, who will obviously say anything, did, as Townhall.com reports:
Red Jen Psaki, useful Idiot
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki was confronted during Monday’s briefing about why President Joe Biden falsely smeared 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse as a white supremacist during the 2020 election. Conveniently, she said they don’t want to comment on an ongoing case as the jury prepares for deliberation in his trial.
‘I’m not going to speak to right now is anything about an ongoing trial, nor the President’s past comments,’ Psaki said. ‘What I can reiterate for you is the President’s view that we shouldn’t have, broadly speaking, vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons. We shouldn’t have opportunists corrupting peaceful protests by rioting and burning down the communities they claim to represent, anywhere in the country. As you know, closing arguments in this particular case, which I’m not speaking to, I’m just making broad comments about his own view, there is an ongoing trial. We are awaiting a verdict, beyond that I’m not going to speak to any individuals or this case.’
Riiight. She didn’t “speak to [about] any individual.” Kyle Rittenhouse, and the many other men protecting Kenosha when the Politicians refused to protect it, were not vigilantes, and there are no such things as an “assault weapons. Is there any lie she won’t utter to support the narrative?
Consider this quote from Defense Attorney Mark Richards from his closing argument, via Fox News:
Provocation, another thing, think back to November 2nd when this case started, did you hear one word out of Mr. Binger’s mouth about provocation? You didn’t. Because it was never said,’ Richards told the jury. ‘But when his case explodes in his face, now he comes out with provocation.’
Exactly.
You also might want to take this link to Rumble.com, where you’ll find a compilation video of Judge Schroeder more than justifiably chewing out ADA Binger. Mark and Patricia McCloskey were also there in Kenosha, supporting not only Kyle, but the right to self-defense. You can find my writings on their case here.
Continuing, 11-15-21, 2115 MT: I’ve never seen anything like this. I’ve sometimes been asked to demonstrate the handling and use of firearms in court, but in every instance I cleared the involved firearm, and pointed it only in a safe direction, and moved very, very slowly:
Oh. My. God. Trying to convince the jury Kyle was reckless, ADA Binger snatches up Kyle’s AR-15 and wildly points it at audience in the courtroom—with his finger on the trigger! Suffice it to say no sane gun owner ever points a gun at anyone or anything they’re not ready to destroy.
In addition, no responsible gun owner ever accepts any weapon without first confirming, manually and visually, its charge status. The same is done when handing a weapon to anyone; you don’t hand people loaded weapons. This absolutely matches the bizarre and juvenile behavior of the Prosecution in the Zimmerman trial. Coincidentally, ADA Kraus, also during the Prosecution closing, told the jury there is no such thing as a left-handed gun. This is factually incorrect. Left-handed guns not only exist, many contemporary sporting rifles are ambidextrous; they can be easily configured for right or left handed shooters. Is the Prosecution truly so oblivious to the realities of firearms, or are they just arrogant, stupid and desperate? All of the above?
Once again, here are the counts being considered by the jury:
Keep in mind, we have no idea who Jump Kick Man is. He never testified and has never been identified. Likewise with the guy who tried to brain Kyle with a piece of concrete, which is what caused him to fall, giving Jump Kick Man, Jacob Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz the opportunity to attack Kyle, prone on the ground, within the span of a handful of seconds.
Judge Schroeder had to tell the jury to ignore Joe Biden’s statements about Kyle?! How did we get to this point? It’s certainly not Kyle Rittenhouse’s fault.
Binger called the rioters, looters, arsonists, violent thugs, both local and national, professional and amateur, the mob that chased down a fleeing Kyle and tried to kill him, “a crowd full of heroes.” They could not possibly have known what transpired when Rosenbaum attacked Kyle. They were responding only to the mob screaming for Kyle’s blood. Why would anyone, particularly a prosecutor, call the people who caused untold millions of dollars of damage in the town he is sworn to protect, people who ruined lives and fortunes, committed hundreds of uncharged felonies, “heroes”? Because he had no case; because he needed to demonize Kyle.
The media have, for more than a year and continuing today, claimed Kyle was illegally carrying a gun. The prosecution, under direct questioning by Judge Schroeder, very grudgingly admitted he did not, in fact, violate that law, and the Judge immediately dismissed it–finally. The only two people illegally carrying guns that night were Joshua Ziminski and Jacob Rosenbaum. Neither have been charged.
The question is, why would prosecutors, who can presumably read the same law, have charged Kyle with an offense they knew he didn’t commit? Why would they, for more than a year, knowing that to be wrong, continue to argue Kyle violated that law, only to finally admit what they knew all along until the moment the judge forced them to admit it? There are many reasons from incompetence to malice, but mostly, they got to argue that, repeatedly, before the jury, a jury who now can’t forget it, a jury whose deliberations will surely be, in part, affected by that malicious prosecution lie.
ADA Kraus claimed a skateboard is not a deadly weapon:
This too is an outrageous lie. Perhaps he would consent to lay on the ground and let Kyle whale on his neck and head with a skateboard, or any object of similar size and mass to prove his assertion? That skateboard was heavier, as hard and no less dangerous than an even longer length of 2X4 or a baseball bat. A great many common objects are capable of causing serious bodily injury or death if used as a weapon.
Binger also said “you can’t claim self-defense against an unarmed man like this.” “You can’t claim self-defense if you brought the gun.”
These are outrageous lies, all the more outrageous, because they are a purposeful lie about the law. Self-defense does not rest on whether an attacker is armed or unarmed. If what Binger said is true, no tiny woman would be able to claim self-defense if she were attacked by a large, but unarmed man and used a handgun to save her life. No hale and hearty young man would be able to claim self-defense if he were attacked by a mob and used his gun to save his life, and the law isn’t the least bit unclear about this. Self-defense is lawful when employed by an innocent, non-aggressor facing the imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, and as long as that’s a reasonable belief based on the circumstances at that moment, it doesn’t matter if the attacker is “unarmed.”
The second Binger statement is likewise an idiotic lie. He just wiped away the right to keep and bear arms. If he’s right, no one lawfully carrying a concealed handgun can ever claim self-defense, regardless of the circumstances, because “you brought the gun.” It doesn’t matter who brought the gun! Whenever anyone is out in public in a free state, they’re surrounded by people who “brought the gun.” It doesn’t matter who brought the gun. What matters is what they do with it, and if they are an innocent attacked by an aggressor, and if a reasonable person believed the criteria for the use of deadly force were present, they have an unquestionable right to self-defense.
Once again, gentle readers, take the link to the real time comments by Andrew Branca. In there, you’ll see the Prosecution’s arguments were full of outright lies about the facts, about witness testimony, about guns and about the evidence. It was rife with emotion and innuendo. The Defense was the opposite.
Also take this link to Branca’s followup article, which is essentially a rather negative critique of the Defense closing argument. While I agree, in principle, about some of the points he’s making, they seem to be more a matter of style than substance. There are many ways to make such arguments, and they are best made by people who were in the courtroom every moment, able to see the faces, body language and reactions of the jurors.
I wasn’t there, nor to my knowledge, was Branca. He has made no comments about the reactions of the jury. Mark Richards was present. Should the jury convict on any count, does that mean Branca was right and I am wrong? There’s no way to tell that either.
Indeed, I would have preferred Richards made some of the points he made more forcefully and more completely. I would have preferred he better anticipated the points made in the Prosecution’s rebuttal. But does that mean he was wrong? I’ve no idea. I know if I were on trial and I was using a self-defense argument, I’d certainly be glad to have Branca defending me.
Again, take that link and see for yourself.
Final Thoughts: Some say Kyle shouldn’t have been there that night. Binger certainly did. They say he certainly shouldn’t have been armed. But did he have no less right to be on the streets of Kenosha, intending to do good, than the hundreds, even thousands, who were there, intending to do and going bad? To who should we cede control of our streets when Politicians and police won’t do their jobs: people like Kyle or people like Rosenbaum, Ziminski and Grosskreutz?
I’ve written being there was a bad idea, and generally speaking, I likely would not have chosen to be there. None of that matters—at all—in the lawful calculation of self-defense. The place for Kyle—or anyone—to pay for exercising poor judgment, so long as it is not illegal, is not in the courts, and not in prison. Kyle is more than paying for whatever bad judgment he exercised. He’s going to pay for the rest of his life, which if his millions of enemies have their way, will be nasty, brutish and short.
It’s an issue I’ll deal with in a separate article in the near future. When those charged with upholding law and order, with ensuring public safety, refuse, when they abandon the public they are sworn to serve to the mercy of the mob, what then? Do honest citizens just give up and hope no one comes to burn their home or business and kill them? Do we plead for mercy from the merciless and insane? If we do that, do we surrender more than mere property?
More tomorrow.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Here’s to the far greater point of this case that will last well beyond it. The more armed “nutjobs” (more on that moniker in a bit) from either side that show up to these kinds of civil affairs, be they self-proclaimed “defenders of the realm”, vigilantes, EMT wannabes who are armed “just in case” they need to kill someone while they save lives, militias of all shapes and sizes…. when everyone is armed that go to “freedom of speech” civil unrest demonstrations like that in Kenosha… no one will recognize friend or foe. Someone will shoot in self-defense and the next guy assumes the first shooter is an “active shooter” so the second shooter shoots the first shooter. From there the cards come tumbling down.
This will all get worse with each civil demonstration in the future. I can easily see this kind of thing ending up being militia against militia…. which we all can see, a militia is nothing more than a gang pretending (or re-living) to be soldiers.
There was a time when combat medics went into combat unarmed. Why would an EMT need a weapon in a civil riot? Why wouldn’t an EMT be in a riot unmarked?
From Wiki…
“In modern times, most combat medics carry a personal weapon, to be used to protect themselves and the wounded or sick in their care. By convention this is limited to small caliber firearms such as 9mm pistols.”
Guns and the “newer” revised carry-at-will gun laws are an initiation for NUTJOBS (by my definition, people who have lost the ability at common sense judgement that owning a firearm and being allowed to prance around open society with it, means you should do so to assert your own behavioral dysfunctions with a tool of power over others). Another reason for a national mental health program.
Seems to me if anyone goes to those things with a firearm of any type (and we all know that prancing around with an “assault weapon” is presenting a outward image to others… a concealed handgun is not as dramatic a statement) is going there with the intent to kill someone… “hopefully” in self-defense.
It’s a sick state of affairs.
Doug,
Rittenhouse didn’t “prance”.
There was nothing “civil” about the vicious riots.
They were not “civil affairs” but illegal criminal activity.
He did not have an “assault weapon” (with or without quotes) but was legally carrying a long gun.
He could not legally carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.
Your biases are plainly evident in your rant.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
“Rittenhouse didn’t “prance.””
Ok.. would you prefer “sauntered”.?
“There was nothing “civil” about the vicious riots.”
Good thing everyone brought their guns, right?
“He did not have an “assault weapon” (with or without quotes) but was legally carrying a long gun.”
Yeah, yeah, I know the legal difference. Semantics don’t change the reality of the situation… and the effect of the imagery. It’s an assault-style weapon to the public.
“He could not legally carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise.”
At no time in the entire trial was Rittenhouse ever considering the purchase of a handgun anyway, nor dismiss owning one because of it being illegal…. desiring an assault-style AR from the beginning.
My biases? I think all parties there that night, dead or alive, contributed to the outcome. As my reply above indicates… the importance of this trial was not one bit about who killed whom and for what reason. It’s about people with guns thinking they have the power to impose their will, traveling to a civil unrest, whether seemingly righteous or with dastardly intentions, under the guise of some legal authority or a perception of a divine right, to create a situation that justifies “self-defense” killing.
Our Second Amendment at work. Are we proud yet?
Doug is correct, but for the wrong reasons.
People should not bring guns to riots–or
mostly peaceful demonstrations as they
are called when conducted by the right
people–BLM, for example, and auxilaries
from the shadowy Antifa. When the police
do not–or are not allowed to stop looting
and burning by the right people, then guns
definitely come out–I remember the Korean
shop owners sitting on the rooves of their
businesses, thus insuring their livelihoods
do not go up in flames. Also, people know
the difference between the “right people” and
“white supremacists,” and that is not condusive
to gun free zones. So, if one does not want
an ad hoc citizen militia involved, then “mostly
peaceful demonstrators” must be firmly
corrected into “peaceful demonstrators.”
A simple solution–no?
By the way, people who like power will always
work toward more power. Every man with
a job and family should keep a well-oiled
weapon within the safe and protected
confines of the home. Hurray! for the 2nd
Amendment.
Sam
Is a human life worth anything of material value in your home? More to the immediate point.. is anything inside a place of business of material value worth taking a human life to protect?
Let’s take it further. You decide you are now a civilian “hero” with a gun and you decide to head off to the nearest riot to help protect property and businesses from being looted. At what point do YOU personally decide the protection you are offering is worth a human life?
Think hard (if you can) about this one… the moral dilemma brought about by the Rittenhouse incident boils down to one singular concept…. the event occurred at all entirely because Wisconsin was open carry.
Doug,
You post: “Let’s take it further. You decide you are now a civilian “hero” with a gun and you decide to head off to the nearest riot to help protect property and businesses from being looted. At what point do YOU personally decide the protection you are offering is worth a human life?”
You make so many false assumptions, you must be doing so intentionally.
Rittenhouse did not fire his rifle to merely protect property, and there is no evidence that Rittenhouse would have fired his rifle to protect property. He testified that it would not be legal to do so.
So why bring a rifle?
Even without aiming it at anyone, it can be an effective deterrent.
For self protection, if necessary. A handgun would have been less wielding, but KR was barred by law from carrying one.
You claim the entire problem boils down to Wisconsin open carry law. What about the bad guys illegally carrying concealed weapons? How do you defend yourself from those ex-convicts?
You ask if any material possession is worth a human life. Wrong question. Nobody in this case was shot over material possessions. But, I’ll play along to a degree. Nobody should illegally and forcefully enter my home, unless HE thinks his life is worth less than my possessions. You see, those decisions are made by the criminals, not the defenders.
Doug said,
“Is a human life worth anything of material
value in your home? More to the immediate
point.. is anything inside a place of business
of material value worth taking a human life to
protect?”
This is a real slave mentality, the kind that
surrenders a free society because they are
not willing to die for one.
Samuel
Dear Samuel:
If we buy that kind of thinking, we surrender more than just our dignity. Criminals can do any damage they please, take anything they want, and we are helpless to stop them. We’ve seen the proof, throughout the blue states and cities, for nearly two years.
If we allow our hired hands–politicians–to abandon the rule of law, if we do nothing, if we accept a two-tiered system of injustice, what are we?
Mike,
What you said, and as our Founders understood:
“The protection of these (abilities to create personal
properties) is the first object of government.”
If the government ceases to protect citizens’ ability
to create and retain property, then the citizens of
that government must assume that task.
Samuel
Their own property? Sure. But to grab your gun and go out and look for people/property YOU think needs YOUR protection?
Hell, I have this benign and mindless job of being a security guard where I am paid to stand in a marked uniform and provide security and safety for people and property.. and I need a state certification to do just that, after some training in civilian powers of arrest… and I am unarmed…. and you are saying open carry is for protection at will?
Even armed security guards require a state license and certification training. Here’s our guard paradox… if you are an unarmed guard in a open carry state you cannot “carry” your gun while on duty.. yet you can wear the uniform, which makes you an easy target from any pissed off civilian carrying a gun. But, hey.. that’s why guards get paid minimum wage to assume that risk. There’s nothing more “God-given” and “unalienable” than being fully certified to use harsh language, backed up by pepper spray and handcuffs.
So it seems we have some strange gun hypocrisies going on.
Doug,
People sleep peaceably in their beds
at night only because rough men stand
ready to do violence on their behalf.
Or, If you are too fastidious to defend rights
and liberty against violent factions, then others
will work to your benefit.
Welcome to the world as it is.
Sleep tight.
Samuel
Those “rough men” are/were sanctioned by no one, accountable to no one, certified by no legal authority to perform in that manner… and likely the most important here… not permitted by any duly elected authority responsive to the people. These are self-serving authoritarians imposing their will and operating outside the Constitution.
Dear Doug:
The “rough men” to who Samuel refers are soldiers. Would you turn all power over to the government, trust them entirely for your salvation?
I trust in the Constitution, Mike.
Dear Doug:
The Constitution is only as good as the people willing to adhere to it.
Exactly. And if the people are not willing then it’s game over… and those “rough men”
can inherit what’s left.
Dear Doug:
You miss the point. Those rough men and women live to protect our constitutional republic, to protect those who make and maintain it, who stand for liberty. They understand that in the process, they may die, may never enjoy the benefits of liberty for which they fight. They do it for a cause greater than themselves.
Who are we talking here, Mike.. military people? Yep.. I fully agree. If you mean “friends & family & neighbors” with guns? You’re dreaming.
Now for something different.
I listened to a fair chunk of the televised trial and a variety of media reports across the spectrum. I would not want this bloke Binger representing me in court for anything as he is not very good.
I still can’t get the image out of my mind, when Binger was questioning one of his witnesses and basically made the case for the defence, of the other lawyer putting his head in his hands.
It doesn’t matter what your stance is on the trial as that was pure gold.
I reckon that “Doing a Binger” is going to become a common phrase to describe doing a shithouse job regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Now for something different again.
I was thinking of doing a parody of the Julie Andrews song “My favourite things” and take the mickey out of the response to the virus and the other global insanity over the past few years.
What do you reckon?
“Lockdowns and mandates announced without warning
Testing and masking right down to your kittens
Militant mobs are trashing the cities
These are a few of my covid things
Seeing my kids trying to learn online
Watching my quality of life in decline
Watching the elite flaunting their opulent life all the time
Seeing inflation ruining my bottom line
These are a few of my covid things
Chorus:
When Klaus talks
When Biden walks
When I’m feeling sad
I simply remember my covid things
And then I get real mad”
Now why doesn’t the spacing stay when I post?
Weird.
Dear mickmar21:
Good question. That sort of thing occasionally gets a bit odd.
…. and frustrating when the spacing provides context.
“The only two people legally carrying guns that night were Joshua Ziminski and Jacob Rosenbaum.” I think you meant ‘illegally.’
ear RNB:
Arrgh! Typo. It’s fixed. Thanks for the catch!
Doug said: “It’s an assault-style weapon to the public.”
No Doug, it’s a rifle. “Assault style” is just Democrat spin for the uninformed (that would be you). Weapons are ranked by their capabilities, not by how Democrats choose to describe them,.
Now Doug. You deliberately choose to the actions of the person who was in illegal possession of a weapon. You also chose to completely ignore the testimony of the man shot by Rittenhouse who said on the stand that he wasn’t shot UNTIL HE POINTED A LOADED GUN AT RITTTENHOUSE’S FACE.
You’re either a troll or a clueless dupe.
No, Mike.. YOU are the one wanting (along with other “gun-totters”) to make this case all about some divine sanctity of self-defense to justify weapon carrying. I almost could care less how this case goes because either way it’s the handwriting on the wall for future “altercations” like this for exactly the reasons I’ve already stated. Personally if I were on the jury I’d call it all self-defense for Rittenhouse, call it a day, and finally head home from this fiasco.
Morally that exonerates no one from the responsibility for being there in the first place and gun carrying itself all around setting the event into motion. Again.. the same old concept.. just because you can does not absolve someone from the moral responsibility of deciding if you should. This case is a chest-thumper for no one.
I know all about the functional definitions of “assault weapons”. I am sure you could convince yourself that an M777 177mm towed howitzer is simply a long gun given it’s barrel length is 16.7 feet. To the public it’s still a cannon.
“You’re either a troll or a clueless dupe.”
I am sure there are many other possible classifications as well… for all of us.
Forgive me for my Mike thing.. this was meant for Ken. Apologies to Mike.
Doug is correct, but for the wrong reasons.
People should not bring guns to riots–or
mostly peaceful demonstrations as they
are called when conducted by the right
people–BLM, for example, and auxilaries
from the shadowy Antifa. When the police
do not–or are not allowed to stop looting
and burning by the right people, then guns
definitely come out–I remember the Korean
shop owners sitting on the rooves of their
businesses, thus insuring their livelihoods
do not go up in flames. Also, people know
the difference between the “right people” and
“white supremacists,” and that is not condusive
to gun free zones. So, if one does not want
an ad hoc citizen militia involved, then “mostly
peaceful demonstrators” must be firmly
corrected into “peaceful demonstrators.”
A simple solution–no?
By the way, people who like power will always
work toward more power. Every man with
a job and family should keep a well-oiled
weapon within the safe and protected
confines of the home. Hurray! for the 2nd
Amendment.
Sam
“You can’t claim self defense if you brought the gun.”
Using that logic, you can’t file an insurance claim for your house burning down if you had smoke alarms and a fire extinguisher. For that matter, your buying the insurance policy in the first place is evidence that you wanted the fire to happen.
Similarly, if you wear a seatbelt, it means that you want to be in a car wreck.
And Kyle was violently assaulted, yet he did not shoot wildly or indiscriminately into the crowd. He only shot his assailants, and he didn’t continue firing after the danger was over. I trust him with a firearm more than I would trust Michael Byrd, Mohammed Noor, Alec Baldwin, or Bigger.
Binger.
I prosecutor in Multnomah County Oregon argued that the ex-wife of a professional, heavyweight boxer who had announced to multiple witnesses that he was going to show them how to “knock out a woman,” could not claim that she was acting in self defense because she shot him with a .22 caliber pistol. The prosecutor didn’t appreciate my suggestion that he go only one round with a professional heavyweight boxer or myself in a bare knuckle match.
Given the rioting mob, kyle had no reasonable expectation that any physical confrontation would remain only one on one. This is why most states have or had laws that dramatically relax the restrictions on the use of deadly force against rioters. Deadly force is also allowed against arsonists in most states. That prosecutor knows damn well that rioters don’t torch dumpsters because they hate dumpsters. Rioters torch dumpsters because they are on wheels which makes it easy to roll them against or into buildings. If the building is occupied, this arson can result in mass murder.
Dear Elmer Fudd:
What you said.
Doug said: “Morally that exonerates no one from the responsibility for being there in the first place and gun carrying itself all around setting the event into motion. Again.. the same old concept.. just because you can does not absolve someone from the moral responsibility of deciding if you should.”
So now you’re blaming Rittenhouse for being there. That’s quite the stretch, but not a surprise coming from you.
The simple truth is that none of this would have happened if violent and armed thugs hadn’t tried to murder a child. You can spin it anyway you want but the only person you’re fooling is yourself.
One good thing did come out of this. A convicted pedophile is no longer a threat to children.
Dear Ken:
One is tempted to say an unexpected death is always a tragedy, but in reality, when some people shuffle off this mortal coil early, things get just a little better for us all.
Except when the good die young. Then again.. one person’s goodness can be another’s badness.
I suppose in those tough decisions we can let our trigger fingers decide.. after all, once the bullet leaves the barrel where it goes is entirely up to God.
Dear Doug:
We all have not only the ability, but the necessity to make moral choices. Preventing a city from being destroyed by barbarians is normally thought a good thing. If the threat of force deters them, again, a good thing. If people with lengthy criminal records of violence and other crimes pay the price for their social pathology, it is reasonable to conclude humankind is not diminished by their absence, though it may, in a philosophical and altruistic sense, be sad a life was lost. Such criminal would not bother with that kind of sentiment, however.
Mike…
Ok.. then let’s get philosophical. Why is the only solution to fight crime the requirement to arm more of the public.. and not only that, but also passing laws to permit.. authorize… empower, public display, open carry laws, loosen restrictions for the public to make more gun purchases, make the concept of self-defense broader in scope with less legal jeopardy?
And, no, it has little to do with the de-fund-the-police nonsense or police not being respected and quitting or police fearful in doing their jobs for legal exposure.
“Preventing a city from being destroyed by barbarians is normally thought a good thing.”
And you do this by working up the public to act as informal enforcement posses, vigilantes under the guise of “self-defense”? Who has the authority to determine who is being “barbarian” or doing something “criminal”, and who is not? Then, who decides if they need to die on the spot… some “militia” police wannabe? That’s all assuming anyone on a dark street can determine friend from foe.
Seems to me, you wanna protect your house and home from all these alleged criminals.. go for it. But you want “permission” to extend some self-defense bubble outside the home and leave the interpretation of how and when to pull the trigger on that weapon you are brandishing up to the millions of gun owners… seems pretty socially asinine to me. You were a cop once. You want armed kids like Rittenhouse strolling the countryside or urban neighborhoods looking for “acceptable” targets for self-defense? In effect, police are now irrelevant?
Dear Doug:
There is no “loosening” involved. There is the Second Amendment, which does not establish a right, but merely acknowledges it, and free men need not apologize or plead to anyone to exercise unalienable rights.
And what law, pray tell, did any of those “vigilantes” break in trying to deter thugs from breaking the law when the politicians and police turned the city of Kenosha over to their tender mercies?
We have a “self-defense bubble” surrounding us wherever we are. It’s one of those unalienable right–self-defense–about which I spoke.
I had then, and have now, no problem with citizens doing just that. So long as they obey the law, more power to them. As a police officer, I was hired to do what they preferred not to do. Never once did I imagine they had no power to do it; They were merely delegating to me their power. And were I a police officer once again, prevented from serving the public–bless their heart–for doing what I could not, good on them. They’re sole receptacle of power; I just get to borrow it so long as they trust me with it. But again, they, and I, would be bound to obey the law, just as the honest, law-abiding armed citizens in Kenosha that night.
So what you are saying, as a (former) cop, you’re ok with a 17 year old (or any other civilian) strolling down the street carrying an “assault-style” weapon knowing enough of the law to use said weapon at his/her discretion, knowing what it means to serve and protect?
More to the point, how many nutjobs carrying a “military-style” weapon for the purpose of defending whatever it is they feel like defending in the moment, are actually thinking they just might not come home this evening because someone else was better at their weapon than he was?
No.. sorry… if one is carrying their long weapon in public they are for sure thinking they are cock o’ the walk and are looking for a dare.
Allyn…
My reply, while inspired by the KR events, was meant to be taken at face value. In other words, the moral implication in needing to carry a “long” gun at all, much less open carry a military style weapon. The law needs the semantics of deciding the category of weapons for making laws. The public goes by appearance and the results of its intended designed use. Just lobbing the word “style” after the description doesn’t clean up or change the outcome of its use… “AR style”, “assault style”, “military style”, blah, blah, all that to avoid saying “assault weapon”? I know the difference; I served in the military and used the “AR style”. I own guns. I know the difference… and I know when semantics becomes a fall back position when all other arguments fail.
“Even without aiming it at anyone, it can be an effective deterrent.”
A deterrent?? From what?? Because you decide to enter a situation where YOU feel you need to display a weapon to deter the actions of others against you? Or are you talking about a casual walk down to the corner grocery store? Honestly… if I ever see some armed nutjob, open carry state or not, strolling down the street with a firearm on over their shoulder, on a normal day… I am NOT going to feel safe one bit, nor will I feel the public is safe… and I will act accordingly to monitor what could unfold… even so far as to save the life of the schlepp carrying the weapon if need be. But that’s just me.
“Nobody should illegally and forcefully enter my home, unless HE thinks his life is worth less than my possessions. You see, those decisions are made by the criminals, not the defenders.”
Rather it seems to me that you having a gun “specifically for protection” means that you are willing to kill another human being with it.. or why have it at all. That’s valid of course. The question remains one of your… self. Can you live with having to do that? Oh sure.. it’s easy to sit in the Barko-Lounger sucking on a beer and proclaim you could easily kill another person in a “him or me” situation. It’s the living with it that can be the hardest and longer lasting effect. Just remember why so many of our GI’s come home with PTSD, with many killing themselves.
Let’s see how KR deals with what he did.. regardless of verdict. You’re looking for a “win” for 2A supporters and self-defense. KR’s life is changed forever.. and not in a good way. Maybe he deserves it, maybe not.
Doug,
A well documented fact is that far more people are killed every year in the US by “taking a beating” than by long guns of any type. What is rarely discussed is how many more end up with permanent brain damage after taking a beating. It is a lot.
The Assistant DA who recommended to just take your beatings is an idiot, of course. But my main point is that there are worse outcomes for enduring an unarmed attack than PTSD after exerting self defense.
Exactly the same consideration when a soldier is forced to kill an enemy to stay alive. Most of us would fight to defend ourselves and I am not suggesting otherwise. PTSD does not occur with every soldier killing someone… and none of us in a situation of defending ourselves is going to think “I better not kill this guy or I will get PTSD.” My entire point is that if you are carrying a gun then you intend to use it to kill someone if you feel your life will be threatened. The question then becomes, what about society is leading you to presume your life would be harmed, and the police would not be around, to the point you need to be armed?
I contend the whole idea of open carry is simply and completely for the old Colt adage to sell guns back in the 19th century… “God created man, Colt made him equal.” Sorta like the Freudian thing… compensation for penis size. Name your reason.
I am saying that you take the life of another for any reason you risk possible emotional after-effects that could linger and change your life, whether you are a big macho tough guy or a wimp. Then again.. maybe killing someone will just roll past you. Either way, you’re still alive.
Doug,
I live in Texas and I have never seen anyone open carry and I do not know anyone who has. Doing so is generally recognized to be a flawed idea. The reasons why the open carry law was passed here a few years ago are complex and not especially relevant to this discussion.
What is relevant, imho, is that KR could not legally carry concealed because of his age. His options were 1 carry the only weapon he had access to or 2 go unarmed or 3 let someone else put out the fires.
Joan of Arc was an illiterate teen aged girl who heard voices in her head. Should she have been the best person to lead the liberation of her nation? In a sane world, that is.
What the authorities allowed to happen in Kenosha was not sane.
1. Someone openly admitting to hearing voices in their head and then desiring to walk through the neighborhood carrying a firearm.. well… doesn’t quite mix well with me. So forgive me, but I shall pass on comparing Kyle Rittenhouse with Joan of Arc… if for nothing else than one of the major accusations against Joan that led to her being burned at the stake was that she was a cross-dresser… wearing men’s clothes, in spite of the fact that men’s clothes of the day included battle wear. Nonetheless, heresy is heresy. KR was a misguided teen.. not a noble crusader.
2. Regardless how complex the Texas open carry law might be does not change any ramifications that may come from it.. one being the result of KR in Kenosha.
3. Sanity?? “Now you’re talking semantics. What if I told you insane was working fifty hours a week in some office for fifty years… at the end of which they tell you to piss off? Ending up in some retirement village… hoping to die before suffering the indignity of trying to make it to the toilet on time. Wouldn’t you consider that to be insane?”
I’m sure you recognize the quote. My point being, whatever the City of Kenosha did or did not do, right or wrong, the only deaths were those caused by the single character who chose to go there and save humanity from itself… and was ill-prepared to accomplish the task. Sanity, you ask?
Dear Doug:
No. The deaths were the result of multiple violent felons who were encouraged to believe they could do as they willed. They just ran into the wrong intended victim.
Amazing.
Doug
The open carry law in Texas has zero connection with what happened in Kenosha. First of all, all 50 States allow open carry of a long gun as long as there is no menacing of others. Second, the Texas law was enacted to demonstrate (yet again) that liberalizing gun laws would have no detrimental outcome in the real world (it didn’t).
Recently, permitless Constitutional Carry was enacted here for the same reason. And will have the same result as sure as the next sun-rise.
I mentioned JdArc because she stepped up into a role that no one else in her world was willing to take on; not to compare her to KR as a person.
I realize the Joan of Arc reference wasn’t a direct comparison.. but you were trying to compare them as crusaders. But that’s neither here nor there. The connection to your Texas law, and those of the rest of the states, is simply that these laws do and will have consequences yet to be revealed. The Kenosha thing could easily be repeated in some form in Texas or anywhere else. It matters not the politics that went into creating the laws. (Scratching my head on this one… carrying a long gun is okay as long as it’s not carried menacingly?? Is not the whole idea in carrying the thing to, in fact, look menacing, or in the least, intimidating?)
It boggles the mind.