This week has been great fun for gun fetishists, defenders of an incredibly unjust system of justice, and wannabe vigilantes everywhere.
The trial of Kyle Rittenhouse has been an annoying rollercoaster of a ride for me. The problem is that I didn't want to fall into the trap of being all political and just simping for one team over the other—especially considering the amount of chode gargling from the Right when it comes to this Rittenhouse loser.
Even Congressman Matt Gaetz (Fl-R) is getting in on the action, saying;
He deserves a 'not guilty' verdict, and I sure hope he gets it, because you know what, Kyle Rittenhouse would probably make a pretty good congressional intern … We may reach out to him and see if he'd be interested in helping the country in additional ways.
For those unaware, Gaetz is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for his involvement in trafficking an underage girl across state lines for his sexual gratification. One must ask if the "helping the country in additional ways" Gaetz had in mind for his new teen BFF is helping the Congressman carry out his own nefarious teen activities? Which the so-called "peedo" haters on the right think is fine, by the way—just as long as it's one of their own that's doing the diddling.
There have been various stories from Leftist media about how Rittenhouse crossed State lines illegally with a gun. He didn't. Or that he was in illegal possession of a firearm. He wasn't.
Of course, making these easily refuted claims left the Leftists open to attack and ridicule for making up the entire story of Rittenhouse and his miscreant behavior.
An Aside: Have you ever spoken to a fundaMENTAList Christian? Ask them how Jonah was able to survive inside the belly of the whale? The answer won't be a sorry attempt at science or even an excuse that god made it possible. You will get something akin to;
The Bible doesn't say Jonah lived in a whale; it says he lived in the belly of a big fish.
Right. Because that semantic nonsense was the bone of contention? Well, the same thing happened throughout the Rittenhouse trial. As it does when discussing the law in general—all the time.
Like all liars, excuse me, I mistyped; like all lawyers, the goal is to ignore the bigger picture, morality, or societal norms and go for the technical, the pedantic, and the theatrical.
And this is not new. More than 400 years ago, although composed as a joke, Sir William Shakespeare wrote a serious commentary on society in Henry VI, Part 2;
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
Meanwhile, those on the Right also made up a bunch of baloney to defend their favorite little shooter.
They pretended he was there to protect his father's business. He wasn’t. That he was living in Kenosha. He wasn’t. That he was protecting a "gas station" owned by his grandparents. He wasn’t. That he was physically attacked in a life threatening way before he shot anyone. He wasn’t.
So, what do we Know?
Well, he did not stay with his father or his grandparents. In fact, it is not clear if his family even knew he was in town at the time. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha and stayed with Dominick Black—who had unlawfully purchased a rifle on behalf of his underage friend.
[Myth Busting Moment: The rifle in question is the AR-15. Despite Leftist pearl-clutching, AR is short for Armalite Rifle; it does not stand for Automatic Rifle, nor does it mean Assault Rifle. So, for clarity, the weapon used by Rittenhouse was a Semi-Automatic Rifle, which means that the trigger had to be pulled every time it was fired.]
Rittenhouse did not go out to protect his father's business. There is no evidence of him being anywhere near such a place. Also, his grandparents do not own a gas station in downtown Kenosha. This was nothing but a lie posted on social media, sucked up by the gullible, and has nothing to do with reality.
The place Rittenhouse and the posse of Gravy SEALS went to "protect" was an automobile lot called Car Source owned by the Khindri family. The owners were clear they didn't ask him to be there;
Did you ever have any discussions that day with anyone about protecting or guarding either of the Car Source locations or Car Doctor?
— Lead Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked.
No, sir.
— Anmol Khindri responded.
So, why was he There?
The simple answer to that question is because he wanted to be.
Like most kids his age, Rittenhouse has very few skills. And certainly, none in riot control or deescalating violent situations. He is not a police officer; he is not in any armed service, he is not a member of an organized militia. He was too young to be any of these. Heck; he was too young to vote. And he admitted in court that he had lied about being an Emergency Medical Technician [EMT].
Therefore, Rittenhouse offered nothing to the community of Kenosha that night except his immature, wannabe-vigilante, gun-wielding delusions and idiocy. And that immaturity and lack of experience caused the deaths of two men and the non-fatal shooting of another.
I have asked several people and have yet to find anyone who can confirm if Rittenhouse is indeed a psychic. This is important to establish as most of Team Shooter make the retroactive defense that it was perfectly okay to kill Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber because they both had criminal pasts and were terrible people.
First, that is nothing but a vigilante defense. So, no. And second, unless he had mystic powers, he couldn't have possibly known that. So, again, no.
How can anyone defend his presence there?
A former US Army soldier, Ryan Balch, who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, told the court;
He seemed like a young and impressionable kid … He seemed a little under-equipped and under-experienced as well, which is one of the reasons we kind of stayed with him.
Balch then testified to Rittenhouse running around telling everyone he was a medic and also that he had immaturely antagonized a protestor;
That's when I told him, 'Hey, don't say that. It can cause somebody to escalate the situation if they feel like you're making fun of them a little bit. So, just wasn't needed.
Also testifying to the court, former US Marine Jason Lackowski said Rittenhouse introduced himself as an EMT. He also testified that although Rittenhouse's first victim, Rosenbaum, was acting "belligerently," he didn't consider Rosenbaum a threat to him or anyone else.
So, what did happen that night?
Rittenhouse was interviewed by videographers at least twice before the first fatal shooting.
He tells the first reporter that it was his job to protect the business, even though, as discussed above, the business owners did not ask him to take on that task. The second time, he claims to have been pepper-sprayed and is offering medical assistance to those walking by—they don't take it.
Rittenhouse talks to some cops while carrying his rifle for a bit. Then upon leaving the Car Source lot, he is prevented from returning by the police.
A few minutes later, while in a parking lot, a gunshot rings out. Rittenhouse turns towards the sound of the shot just as the unarmed Rosenbaum lunges at him, attempting to grab the rifle. Rittenhouse shoots four times and hits Rosenbaum in the head. He dies.
Rittenhouse runs and phones a friend. He doesn't call 911. He phones a friend like he's on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. The immaturity of the teenage vigilante shooter is once more on full display.
A group of people chase him and shout;
That's the shooter!
We now have a group of people who think, rightly or wrongly, that they are chasing down a murderer. Three people rush towards Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse runs, trips, and falls to the ground. Anthony Huber, carrying a skateboard, runs at him, and, attempting to disarm the shooter hits him in the shoulder—For his efforts, he is shot in the chest and dies.
The third victim, Gaige Grosskreutz (who survived although had his bicep blown apart), was carrying a pistol. However, he didn't have it in him to shoot Rittenhouse even after watching who he described as an "active shooter" kill two other people. He told the court that;
That's not the kind of person that I am. That's not why I was out there. It's not who I am. And definitely not somebody I would want to become.
At the end of the block, the police do not respond to the gunfire. So, Rittenhouse puts his hands in the air like he just don't care and walks towards them.
[Note: the rifle is still slung across his chest and remains easily grabbable.]
He walks in front of cop cars; witnesses are screaming at the cops that he just shot some people, yet they let him keep walking. Eventually, after passing three police vehicles, he walks right up to the fourth one and backs away from the door.
This is crazy, of course. And it seems highly unlikely a black man who had just shot three people, killing two, would be allowed by the cops to walk so far while carrying a rifle before receiving a hole in the head.
But we are not here for speculation. And, for now, let's just pretend those things don't happen.
After The Trial
I'm not going to go into the intricacies of the trial at this stage because the basic facts don't change from the above, while the rest is just liar speak. Oops, I did it again. Lawyer-speak.
Rittenhouse was found not guilty.
So, in some ways, one could argue that he got away with murder. In other ways, he was a stupid child who shouldn't have been allowed to be in that situation, and the fault lies with his trash parents and the greater society that corruptly looks the other way. I tend to lean towards the latter.
Ultimately, I don't think we should have Gravy SEALS vigilante types with weapons out on the streets during protests or riots. They are way too keen to shoot and never make situations better, and they just make them all the more violent.
Doesn't There Have to be a New Law?
Yes. Vigilantes cannot exist in a civilized society.
We need a law stating any person knowingly engaging in a violent situation and unable to prove their personal property, family, or close friends are in danger, or if they have not been deputized by law enforcement or government authority, then they cannot plead self-defense in the event of injuring or killing a person.
Basically, they knowingly put themselves into a violent situation. Therefore, if they kill someone, it is immediately a homicide case.
Even if society attempted to change the law like this, though, which would be difficult due to the number of wannabe hero shooters in the United States, it wouldn't change the past.
As Attorney Julie Okulski said while we debated the issue;
Even if we now make it a crime to do what Rittenhouse did, we don't retroactively apply the law here. We don't punish people who don't have notice of what the law is at the time they committed an act that has since been criminalized. There is good reason for this.
You're railing against the verdict and believe that it enabled vigilantism. I see it entirely the opposite. I see the acquittal as an acceptable verdict given the law and facts and circumstances of this case. If the jury had done what you wish, if they had found him guilty based on their feelings of what the law should be, THAT would be vigilantism. Because that would require the jury to depart from what the law actually says in favor of what they think it should be.
Okulski is correct; of course, if we apply the absolute letter of the law to the Rittenhouse case, then the jury had no choice but to acquit him.
And that is fine, I’ll begrudgingly accept it, for now.
Moving forward, we need to ensure this type of thing doesn't happen again. The law really must change. Although I know that is wishful thinking and seems impossible to achieve.
Ultimately, vigilantes are so not cool—no matter how much I like the Batman—and we need to do everything we can as a society to stop the madness. Who’s in? Molloy