We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Sunday, November 14. 2021
Scott on the trial, at about the 1:09 mark.
I still feel that the kid was foolish to be there downtown in his home town with a rifle, but I can't remember being 17 years old. I can imagine it, though. I did lots of things at that age but we never had violent riots.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Trials are supposed to be about crimes. Whether he showed bad judgement is only relevant if the prosecution can show that he was an intentional provocateur, either over time or in the moment. If so, he loses his right to a self-defense claim.
Because of this, I have tried to pay no attention to all the media attention of whether he showed good judgement or not. Maybe yes, maybe no, I have not considered the matter. Only at the margins does a situation arise in which it should be considered.
Interesting that what George Floyd did and his specific judgement leading up to his being taken into custody were loudly denied to be at all relevant. Maybe so. But it seems inconsistent.
Liberals Accuse Rittenhouse Of Trying To Avoid Punishment Through Legal Loophole Known As ‘Trial’
Re: I still feel that the kid was foolish to be there downtown in his home town with a rifle…
To my mind, no more foolish than 17 year olds enlisting in the army for WWII (or any other war for that matter).
The pundits the Prosecution aren't wrong. Kyle was there to intentionally provoke. In an anarchic, riot environment, to extinguish arsonists' fires and offer medical assistance IS provocative.
His choice of firearm was unwise, I think. A handgun would have been more maneuverable in tight quarters, just as accurate and easier to conceal.
But our Constitution permits us to carry any gun of our choosing. So it doesn't matter what I think. Right?
Okay, young Kyle was really dumb to cross the border to hel defend a friend's business. That being said, he showed serious restraint in only firing at those who were seeking to kill him.
I've followed this (and the Chauvin trial) pretty closely. (I should probably get a life, but I also read NSTB accident reports). Kyle was likely foolish, but when the police aren't around to protect property, citizens protect themselves and property. However, being foolish isn't a crime.
Self defense isn't a crime.
With the known threats to the judge and especially the jury, it's likely Kyle will wrongly be found guilty of something.
I remember so many comments on events where something happens and the chattering class lament that no men stepped up. And now that a man, of young age, stepped up to help his community they lament that he shouldn't have been there. Yes, he stepped up and it went bad for him. But he kept his head and kept his life. He's being tried to suppress any future "stepping up" and as a hopeful political stepping stone for those in government.
But by all means, condemn him for being there, condemn him for stepping up, but for God's sake, stop inspiring these young men to step up by asking where all the men have gone when something happens and no one steps up. Or maybe rethink your words.
Yes, like most Lincoln Project republicans on MF, they think they can have it both ways - condemn the loss of traditional values, then condemn the one who stands forth. All this talk about how foolish the boy is is stupid, and plays into the hands of corporate media narrative, which includes threats for a "wrong" verdict. If you are really following the trial, you know better, unless you are a rino shill or a libtard.
Biden was foolish to withdraw like he did from Afghanistan, giving up the Bagram Air Base BEFORE evacuating civilians. His actions resulted in the deaths of many - including 13 US soldiers.
...and yet the propaganda branch of the Democrat party (the main stream media) remains silent.
If I were to imagine teenage foolishness, it would invariably involve some element of irresponsibility, some kind of motivation for having fun and getting some kicks, and no consideration of consequences. Drugs, girls, fast cars, low-grade criminal mischief.
I'm reminded of the scene in Scent of a Woman, where the Colonel appears on the day of the formal inquiry to advocate for the young protagonist Charlie. He slams the headmaster for his sham inquiry, outlines Charlie's qualities of honor, responsibility and character, and then points to the real culprits. He speaks plainly and resets the debate.
A desire to protect a town under attack, and a motivation to take action, and a consideration of the consequences is what Rittenhouse is guilty of - traits that were misguided enough to land him into deep trouble, where he is standing alone. There are no adults to guide him through this aside from his defense team, which is making a mediocre showing at best. The adult institutions are mostly all lined up against him. Where is the Colonel, I wonder?
To think Kyle foolish is to think the roof Koreans were foolish...they are defending lives and property. Nothing foolish about it. The foolish were antifa and blm thinking they could destroy the city and a mayor that didn't prepare.
And keep this in mind if you are considering (or already have) a YouTube subscription:
YouTube cuts off Rekieta Law channel coverage of Rittenhouse trial
Remember, the mainstream media is lying to you, constantly, either through commission or omission. They are working very hard at keeping you both uninformed and misinformed.
IMHO he shouldn't have taken a gun, it is a self fulfilling prophecy; "take it and you will use it". Second, he shouldn't have been there after 5PM, bad things happen after dark. Third, if his intent was to help he should have been in a large group of people there to help, large enough to discourage the bad guys from attacking them. Fourth, stay away from crowds, i.e. he shouldn't have been there at all.
The prosecutor claims in closing that Kyle "had other options" than shooting. He was on the ground on his back, had just been clobbered with a skateboard, one guy had a handgun pointed at him and the other was grabbing his rifle barrel. In what way exactly did he have other options.
The prosecution is also claiming that by bringing a gun he no longer could claim self-defense. That is such a load of crap.
If Rittenhouse were a rooftop Korean (foolishly defending themselves and their property during anarchy), would there have been a trial?