"They simply don’t care about [Rittenhouse's] actual innocence. He is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough."

 

That's the conclusion of a very trenchant article at Legal Insurrection.  I'm going to publish a lengthy excerpt from it, because I think it sums up what we've seen coming out of that Kenosha courtroom for a couple of weeks - and the mainstream media's coverage of it.

The left wants power to be invested in the state and the state only, and they intend to be the ones in control of the state – and by “state” I don’t just mean an individual state such as Wisconsin. Their preferred repository of power is the federal government, and they want that power strengthened. That means that the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense must be quashed or at least greatly weakened and that only certain people will be allowed to have that right.

The message is that someone such as Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t primarily about Rittenhouse himself nor is it really about the situation in which he found himself that August night in 2020 in Kenosha. That’s just the pretext. The fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence that would overwhelmingly support his claim of self-defense is just a small obstacle easily brushed aside with a combination of media lies, prosecution lies, and threats to destroy the city if Rittenhouse is acquitted.

To the left, Rittenhouse the person is just a vehicle for delivering the message, which goes like this:

(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities, and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even their lives.

(2) The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the mob screaming for their destruction.

(3) The prosecution of those who would defend themselves goes hand in hand with the lack of prosecution, for the most part, of the rioters. This has the intended result of emboldening rioters.

(4) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). That will attempt to taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction (although that’s desired), because a hung jury will do for the purpose. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary in the case of a hung jury.

There's more at the link.

That's also why, if Rittenhouse is not convicted under Wisconsin law, I expect the Department of Justice to bring civil rights charges against him.  The powers that be dare not allow him to get away with armed self-defense.  It's as simple as that.  No matter how justified his conduct under existing law, it must be discouraged, lest others do the same thing.  In so many words, the laws are less important than politically correct policies, and must be interpreted and applied only in the light of those policies.

Notice, too, that such charges are only likely to be brought in jurisdictions that are already controlled and/or heavily influenced by the politically correct.  The thought of a North Texas jury finding Rittenhouse guilty, in the light of the evidence presented in the case, is laughable (as is the notion that charges would have been brought against him under Texas law in the first place!).  The jury would withdraw just long enough to have a cup of coffee and a good laugh, then return to issue a resounding, unanimous "Not Guilty" verdict - because people around here are used to being self-reliant, and understand that when a bad guy has to be stopped, sometimes he must be stopped the hard way.  It's not unusual for that to happen in these parts.  In Wisconsin . . . not so much.

We're seeing enormous, immense pressure being placed on our judicial system to conform to ideology in the cases it prosecutes and the verdicts it obtains.  The actual black-letter law is irrelevant, because the powers that be will interpret what they think that law should mean, irrespective of what it says or what juridical precedent shows.  Rittenhouse, and others like him, must be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness in order to intimidate some, and encourage others.

I warned about this, of course.  See these two articles from last year:

Self-defense under a justice system

that's no longer on your side

No, I wasn't being alarmist -

rather, I wasn't alarmist enough

In the Rittenhouse trial, and particularly in the egregious misconduct of the prosecutors, you can clearly see the reality of which I warned in those articles.

I can only conclude by pointing out that if you know you're going to be targeted for defending yourself, you have two choices:

1. Submit to being terrorized, possibly injured, even perhaps killed by those favored under the politically correct dispensation:
2. Stop them regardless.  After all, if you know you'll be charged with a felony for defending yourself, then every felony after the first one is effectively "free".  They can only punish you so much - so why hold back?

If all of us chose the second option, I have a feeling that pretty soon they'd run out of cops to chase us, courts to try us, and prosecutors who were prepared to take the risk of offending the vast majority of right-thinking Americans.  Certainly, if any official, elected or appointed, demands that I passively permit others to victimize me, my response is going to be... vigorous.  And that's putting it mildly.

This also shows the importance of the Second Amendment.  A disarmed society cannot defend itself.  Let's make sure we never allow ourselves to be disarmed - and treat those who try like we will the criminals to whom they want to give a free hand.

Peter