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:
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:
- Submit to being terrorized, possibly injured, even perhaps killed by those favored under the politically correct dispensation:
- 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.
I'm trying to imagine the mental gymnastics needed to file Civil Rights charges against a white man for shooting white men, and I think I've sprained my frontal lobe.
I mean, I know they'll do it, and they'll manage to convince the mindless left that it's justified, but this is tipping into Cloud Cuckoo Land.
I believe that one or two of them were Jewish. However, I don't know how true that is, nor how he could possibly have know that at the time.
I would love to see this turned around on them by pointing out that this whole situation is the result of the state allowing these riots to take place and riotors to go free. It is almost like it is a sanctioned activity.
On one point made by the Legal Insurrection author, I have stated for years that the Democrats have wanted to turn the states into just subdivisions of the national government like counties are in the State of Texas. Most nations do not have the separation of State and Federal government as the US does; that is why the Democrats are so enamored of European nations. And too, they want to use California as the model of government -- dictatorship of the executive.
There is an all out war on America as founded by the Democrats. The removal of self-defense against the Democrats' selected groups is one facet of that. My prayer is that Kyle Rittenhouse is found Not Guilty by reason of self-defense. If not that, then a mistrial with prejudice. The Federal DoJ will still try to do something to him in either instance. But, I believe if the jury returns a Guilty verdict, the Federal DoJ will still try some BS move to try to nationalize the verdict.
The Democrats want us to only "Bow down to Zod".
I would buy the "self defense" claim if this Rittenhouse kid was carrying, say, a .38 caliber pistol with him "just in case" anything happened, and he had an actual legitimate reason for traveling out of town/state and being in this particular town/city, and was merely "taking precautions" due to the social unrest taking place there at the time.
But tagging along an AR-15 on a presumably "casual" out of town trip as a "potential self-defense" measure? That seems a bit too elaborate and superfluous to me.
I'm sorry, but I can't buy into the notion of "self defense"----this kid comes across (to me) as somewhat of an instigator.
Anyone, ANYONE who steps outside the 'dominant leftist-socialist paradigm' must be punished, no matter how legal their actions are.
Which is why Zimmerman got shafted, in the media, financially and socially.
Why the McCloskys transitioned from leftist lawyers to rabid rightwingers after being screwed over by the very system they lavishly served.
Step away from 'Leftyism is Good' and you will be punished.
Correspondlingly, support 'Leftyism is Good' and you can literally get away with murder (often having your charges dropped to low level garbage.) You can get away with working as a lawyer and also fire-bombing a police car. And so forth and so on. Heck, you can even be a career violent offender with a huge drug possession and sale past and take enough of your own drugs that you die from it and the Left will find some cop to blame your death on.
Tal Harsfeld obviously hasn't watched the trial.
Kyle Rittenhouse lives just outside of Kenosha (his home is in a suburb of Kenosha). His father and father's side of the family live in Kenosha. His JOB was in Kenosha. He travelled to Kenosha to help clean up damage from the previous night's riots. He stayed when he was asked to help protect some of the businesses in town. Had he carried a pistol, he would have been in violation of state (and possibly federal) law. The rifle was legal for him to carry, and NEVER CROSSED STATE LINES. He didn't bring it - it belonged to a friend.
Tal's argument comes down to "he shouldn't have been in that part of town, that late at night, wearing what he was wearing". He probably applies the same judgement to rape victims.
You are raging moron so I would say your opinion carries about as much weight as a fart on the wind.
My initial comment was addressed to the raging moron, known as Tal Hartsfield, fyi.
It would sure be a shame if the prosecutors in the case and sundry other PTB all caught a case of Arkancide over the weeks to come.
But that's none of my business.
Tal, this is a great example of how byzantine and rococo the gun control laws are. The black letter of the law is completely divorced from common sense. And so while it might make sense that he should carry a .38 rather than an AR, it would be illegal for him to do it because the Solons who write gun control laws are what they are.
This is also why the most useful part of any concealed carry training class is an overview of the laws. I have a thick book on those, and that's in gun-friendly Florida.
@Tal Harsfeld...I believe Jesus would differ, being prepared is a basic tenet when walking into potential harms way. If KR had no weapon (regardless of size or color), he'd be dead, by either the first, second, or third felony-level long rap-sheet attacker. And if none of those did the deed as they expressed, then the crowd -- and as we saw all last year, they'd all walk away scot-free.
I find it instructive that there is no mention in the MSM (as far as I know) that Kyle is a mixed race kid. I haven't seen any details of the parentage. Doesn't fit the narrative, of course.
It will be interesting to see how, or even if, a civil rights claim can be made against Rittenhouse, given the circumstances documented during his current trial. Granted that everyone involved possessed rights at the time of their interaction(s) together, but I can't think of any requirement for a citizen to defend the rights of another over his own. IANAL obviously, but I believe the defense to such a charge is in the charge itself.
The "crime" Rittenhouse is being put through this show trial over is simply being an insufficiently cowed White male. That is it. We are in the midst of a race war that most people on the "Right" refuse to recognize.
Oh and "Tal", you are a moron and/or a troll.
When you start to see the Tory Newspaper Offices burned and their printing presses smashed, you'll know what time it is just like back in'75.
What really has the left browning their shorts is the understanding that there are potentially tens if not hundreds of thousands of Kyles out there in US flyover country. Late teen to mid twenties men and women who have failed to become completely indoctrinated by the corrupt socialist education system, and do NOT hate this country for all the perceived evils that system beats into them.
All Kyle did was attempt to be a good citizen and help out his neighbors while trying to see that he had the means to protect himself.
And all here do notice the tactics of the steaming troll who inserted his lies into the discussion. As Dragon Lady points out his remarks in no way conform to the evidence brought forth in the trial itself, rather his comments are straight off the left and MSM talking points.
Post a Comment