It looks like Rittenhouse was acquitted today, and that he'll likely be the next young person to strike it rich through defamation suits. I've already seen the extremists on both sides and I'm not that interested.
I am interested in two questions.
1. If you believe that Rittenhouse should have been convicted, do you accept misconduct of the prosecution as an acceptable means to accomplish that goal?
1a. Is it appropriate for the state to withhold evidence, violate the constitutional rights of the accused, and defy the rulings of the court in order to get a conviction?
2. Will the acquittal of Rittenhouse (white) for killing/wounding other white men justify rioting/looting/violence/protests against "white supremacy"?
Any comment that doesn't start with simple, direct, unequivocal answers to these two questions, will be deleted. Once the questions are answered, I'll consider opening up any discussion.
17 comments:
From CeeSav (apparently a black woman) on Twitter.
"Nothing was heroic. This doesn't send the right message to our youth. If we don't meet violence with more violence.".
I might de construct this more in another post, but for now I'll simply point out that Kenosha was in the midst of hundreds/thousands of people who'd decided that it was appropriate to "meet violence with more violence".
No. No. No.
Of course.
I don't know that this was the case for your first two questions, but IF there were misdeeds, that isn't okay.
Now that I've demonstrated what straight, unequivocal answers look like, maybe you can do the same.
I fear that this trial will lend support to a very dangerous notion: That you can kill your perceived enemies without facing jail time as long as you say, "I was afraid for my life." This, of course, has been a tactic for many police and white men who have gotten off free for murder and causing harm for years (decades?) now. And it probably won't work for black folk or women, still. But given this tactic (kill, then cry and say "I was afraid!")...
1. Women have often been sent for prison for murder when they killed their abusers. Do you recognize that this is wrong and women should NOT be imprisoned for killing their abusers, since they can say, "I feared for my life..."?
2. When the police broke in to the house of Breonna Taylor and murdered her, do you agree that her boyfriend was justified for shooting at the police because he didn't know WHO was breaking into his home and he feared for his life?
If you still condemn women and black men for doing just what cops and this cow-boy do/did, perhaps it's not the stand your ground theory you support, just police and white men killing and getting away with it.
3. If so, ask yourself why? Could it be racism and sexism?
1. I absolutely don't believe Rittenhouse should have been convicted. I also believe he shouldn't have been indicted, or at least should've immediately been released by the state in a concession to all available...and truly exonerating...evidence that he killed in self-defense. (While not exactly similar with regard to the details, I also believe Travis McMichael is equally innocent of murder and also fired in self-defense, though he might not have needed to fire three times. That's a quibble. I've never had anyone rush me and try to wrest my weapon from my hands and punch me in the head in the process)
1a. There's no excuse for the behavior of the prosecutors, whose duty is to serve justice by seeking and adhering to the truth. We're dealing with lots of lefties here, so that concept is completely foreign to them, which makes the process all the more difficult. These prosecutors should be severely disciplined for their egregious rejection of those concepts in their race to a "win". They don't realize that a "win" for them is not jeopardized by seeing an innocent kid go free. That IS a win.
2. The left will spin anything to give them cause to riot an pillage. It's what they do. And in this fallen world, everything is racist, even when there is no racial component discernible to honorable people. Again, it's what they do.
And just a note about my first, clear, direct answer... It occurs to me that I noted the reality that I do not KNOW that the prosecution in this particular case engaged in any serious misconduct. Maybe they did and I don't know about it, but I factually just do not know.
I'm noting that because you said you wanted Unequivocal answers. I gave direct and unequivocal answers and my acknowledging the fact that I do not knowing this suggestion to be true is NOT an equivocation. It's just reality. I answered NO, to directly answer the question. IF misconduct was done, it was not right to do so.
Just because you all so often don't see direct, clear answers when they kick you in the shins.
"I fear that this trial will lend support to a very dangerous notion: That you can kill your perceived enemies without facing jail time as long as you say, "I was afraid for my life.""
Of course when the evidence supports the claim of self defense (video and testimony) then your strange narrative doesn't seem to make as much sense. That is unless you'd prefer that Rittenhouse had been shot by the felon (with an gun that it was illegal for him to possess), or been beaten to the point of severe injury or death.
"1. Women have often been sent for prison for murder when they killed their abusers. Do you recognize that this is wrong and women should NOT be imprisoned for killing their abusers, since they can say, "I feared for my life..."?"
I'll note that you don't provide any actual cases to make your point. I'll suggest that one reason why this might be the outcome is because some women don't kill their abuser in the heat of the moment, but instead engage in premeditated killing when they are not actually in clear and present danger. But, in the absence of anything specific, I have nothing else to offer.
"2. When the police broke in to the house of Breonna Taylor and murdered her, do you agree that her boyfriend was justified for shooting at the police because he didn't know WHO was breaking into his home and he feared for his life?"
I said that I agreed that he was justified to shoot back months ago. If the police don;t properly ID themselves, then a homeowner is justified in responding with whatever force they deem appropriate. Of course, in this case, the cope were also justified in returning fire because they were actually in danger.
"If you still condemn women and black men for doing just what cops and this cow-boy do/did, perhaps it's not the stand your ground theory you support, just police and white men killing and getting away with it."
When have I ever condemned "women and black men" for defending themselves? When have I ever suggested that only Rittenhouse and "cops" be able to defend themselves?
NOTE: GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU ARE CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY MAKING A CLAIM ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN THE PAST, YOU WILL NEED TO PROMPTLY PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM (CITATION AND A LINK) BEFORE ANY NEW COMMENTS WILL BE POSTED.
"3. If so, ask yourself why? Could it be racism and sexism?"
Since these questions are based on the falsehood referenced above, I see no reason to dignify them with answers.
"This, of course, has been a tactic for many police and white men who have gotten off free for murder and causing harm for years (decades?) now. And it probably won't work for black folk or women, still. But given this tactic (kill, then cry and say "I was afraid!")..."
Yes, self defense has been recognized as an appropriate defense by the US legal system for years. It sounds like you'd like to see it eliminated.
Andrew Coffee
Naeem Davis
Alex Hughes
Mychael Jenkins
James Nero
Darreonta Reynolds
Ansumana Jadama
Kyla Nundley
Keith Luncheon
Naquann Ware
Tabias Davis
Rodney West
Tyshawn Plowden
Gabriel Chavez
Sangsouriyanh Maniphonh
Enrique Quinones
Saeve Evans
Odell Allen
Wayne Issacs
Just to name a few, I can continue with the folks whose charges were dropped before trial or who weren't charged, but this makes the point nicely.
"And just a note about my first, clear, direct answer... It occurs to me that I noted the reality that I do not KNOW that the prosecution in this particular case engaged in any serious misconduct. Maybe they did and I don't know about it, but I factually just do not know."
Then you're just responding from a position of ignorance. The most egregious example was failing to provide the defense with evidence to which they were entitled.
"I'm noting that because you said you wanted Unequivocal answers. I gave direct and unequivocal answers and my acknowledging the fact that I do not knowing this suggestion to be true is NOT an equivocation. It's just reality. I answered NO, to directly answer the question. IF misconduct was done, it was not right to do so. Just because you all so often don't see direct, clear answers when they kick you in the shins."
Clear, direct, and unequivocal answers are rare from you, but on those rare occasions, I can usually deal with them. But thanks for this great example of you responding from ignorance.
Art,
1. I agree that Rittenhouse should have been acquitted, and that his charging and trial were likely political choices, not legal. I further would point out the fact that the media has been selling a false narrative that's facilitated (and continues to) much of the bullshit.
2. Agreed.
I'd also point out that it's reasonable to believe that Rittenhouse should have been acquitted, while also pointing out that he shouldn't have been in the position in the first place. (Neither should his assailants, but the left'll ignore that)
He'll likely be on the receiving end of significant settlements/judgements against the various media outlets who engaged in defamation.
Dan,
Just a reminder. If you don't provide proof of the claim in your earlier comment, your comments will languish in moderation until you do.
One last thought.
I firmly believe that one of the greatest disservices of the anti-gun political left is the fact that they are intent on preventing women and minorities from availing themselves of the choice to be armed as a means of self defense. I fully support the right of any American to engage in whatever legal means (and maybe even some that are not legal) they believe are appropriate to defend themselves, their families, and their property.
The reality was that the authorities in Kenosha, and in MPLS/St Paul, had abdicated their responsibilities to protect the lives and property of their citizens (to some degree), and that some armed citizens chose to step up and try to fill that gap. Had the cities and states involved chosen to do their jobs, this would be a different conversation.
Of course, had these folks looking for "justice" chosen not to loot, burn, riot, and pillage the property of the innocent we'd also be having a different conversation.
So here's a black dude with a criminal record illegally possessing a firearm and he's still found not guilty of murder. I'm sure the left will portray him as the black face of white supremacy:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-andrew-coffee?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
Kinda blows the leftist "would a black man be treated the same?" right out of the water.
I want to again take issue with this notion that Rittenhouse "shouldn't have been there". This is America. He can be wherever he wants to be and needs no justification for it. There should've been far more like him present to protect private property from leftist criminals destroying the town. Those leftist criminals were those who should not have been there because it is NOT American to pretend they were in any way abiding American principles in rioting, looting and destroying on the pretense that some criminal thug was unjustly shot by cops trying to arrest him for acting in a criminal manner.
Rittenhouse deserves admiration for putting his life on the line to help in such a dangerous situation.
"2. When the police broke in to the house of Breonna Taylor and murdered her, do you agree that her boyfriend was justified for shooting at the police because he didn't know WHO was breaking into his home and he feared for his life?"
I told Dan I would point out every instance where I find him lying intentionally. The above is such an instance. Police did NOT "murder" Breonna Taylor. That's a lie and one willfully told. The police and neighbors testified fair warning was given. That it wasn't heard by Taylor and her boyfriend, assuming that's the case, isn't a point of contention with me. I am willing to believe, short of evidence or testimony to the contrary, they did not and truly believed they were endangered by Taylor's former criminal boyfriend. And when the dude shot at the cops coming through the door legally, they returned fire as is their right and duty under the circumstances. I believe Dan fully knows these facts of the case, and yet persists with the abject lie that Taylor was "murdered". It's his racism exposed as well as his dishonesty.
"I want to again take issue with this notion that Rittenhouse "shouldn't have been there"."
In the sense that you are taking issue with this, I agree with you. He had as much of a right to be where he was than the rioters. My perspective is; 1. The duly elected authorities should have been doing their jobs and eliminated the need for anyone to fill that gap. 2. There are reasons why 17 year olds aren't allowed to engage in certain activities, we don't expect 17 year olds to have the judgement and maturity to deal with certain situations. 3. It's probably better to have said that it "wasn't particularly wise: for Rittenhouse to have put himself in that situation without anyone with him. 4. There is a reason why the standard for cops and the military is to enter into dangerous situations with a "wing man" or "back up" or whatever. Failing to do so is frequently followed by negative outcomes.
Don't get me wrong, I think he handled a crappy situation as well as he could have. I just don't think it was particularly smart.
Apparently Dan does occasionally take me seriously and my insistence that he prove his claims has caused him to determine that it's easier not to comment than to prove his claim or apologize.
Post a Comment