The Kyle Rittenhouse case – involved in jury instrucitons today, and going to final attorney summations today – is plenty complicated, but about some fairly simple questions:
- Did Rittenhouse instigate or participate in instigating two different deadly-force incidents in which he used lethal force on four people, with two dead, one seriously injured, and one missed (who has disappeared from public view)?
- Was his fear of death or great bodily harm reasonable?
- Was the threat to his life immediate?
- Was his response reasonable – enough to end the attack on him?
- DId he make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to disengage?
Proving or disproving those five points for two incidents and four shootings has taken eight days of testimony and over a year of pre-trial wrangling – all very complicated – but the questions themselves are fairly simple.
But as far as the media and the large culture are concerned, this trial isn’t really about the facts of the case.
This case is about America’s tribes – the “four Americas” that George Packer talked about last summer – projecting their views of each other onto each other via a teenager who jumped into the deep end of the pool head-first.
“Smart” America, the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton crowd, see in Rittenhouse the bitter gun-clinging Jeezuz freak they picture that other tribe of Americans being; they earnestly exclaim “Nobody needs a gun like that” (ignoring the fact that four people tried to kill him). They think Rittenhoue is an intellectual symbol of all they detest about that other America. This includes most, but not all, media coverage; Big Media has cast its lot with “Just America”, and it shows in much of the coverage.
“Real” America seems. him as a lone sentinel of freedom, fighting back against the (politically favored, socially immunized) mob that is ravaging our centers of thought and commerce (and Kenosha). A kid from bedrock America, good and true, a bone to be chewed by a “blue” culture and media (ptr) who are siding with the rioters
“Free” America sees this as another show trial, like Bernard Goetz, a symbol of a state run amok that is actively crushing liberty.
“Just” America, naturally, sees Rittenhouse, the person and the case, as a symptom of “white supremacy” and the base, violent nature of the army of straw cis-men they face.
Indeed, with few exceptions, the higher the social status of the person commenting on Rittenhouse, the less their commentary actually has to do with the shootings in Kenosha or the facts at trial.
Everyone and everything in our society today is a metaphor, it seems.
One of the lawyers on the stream I’ve been watching made that exact observation, MP.
They’ll go at the curfew violation hard, now.
Emery wrote:
“this shit is ridiculous”
Obviously referring to his own commentary.
The problem Progressives have with this case is schizophrenia over Private Ownership of Property. On one hand, they want to have nice things; on the other hand, the supply of nice things is not infinite so there must be a method of allocating who gets the nice things. In the USSR, nice things were allocated by party rank. In the USA, nice things are allocated by price. Both ways produce unequal results: some people inevitably end up with more nice things and That’s Not Fair.
It is possible to live in a society in which no individual owns anything – such as a commune or monastery – but those are small-scale and self-selecting. It’s never worked in a large-scale, long-term society. Self-interest is rooted in human nature.
If society addresses the unfairness by banning private ownership of property, then Progressives lose out on having their own nice things. If society allows private ownership of property, then the unfair distribution will cause the Have-Nots to steal from the Haves. If the allocation method was price, the Haves will justly complain that they traded hours of labor for the money to buy their nice thing and had to give up the opportunity for Nice Thing B (food on the table) in order to buy Nice Thing A (car in the driveway to get to work to earn the money to buy the food). The Haves will defend their nice things, with force if necessary, and justify force by equating carjacking with stealing food out of their children’s mouths.
Society could prohibit individuals from using force to defend their private property, but that system won’t work for long. The Haves being robbed won’t stand for it. The usual compromise is society offers to provide public force. You cannot use lethal force to defend your own private property, you must leave it to the professionals. The police will defend your private property for you. This is known as the Social Contract: we agree to give up certain rights as individuals, because government will take up those burdens for us.
That works until the government stops providing police services. When the mayor orders the police to abandon certain parts of town; when the district attorney refuses to prosecute certain people; when the council abolishes the crime of theft for ‘small amounts’ meaning under $1,000; then ordinary citizens can safely conclude the Social Contract has been breached. If the Social Contract is no longer in effect, the rights which citizens gave up now revert back to the citizens. The right to use force in defense of private property, including lethal force, is back on the table.
And that’s the heart of the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Government refused to provide protection. Government broke the Social Contract. The business owner was forced to seek his own protection. Kyle stepped up to provide it. The Have-Nots objected and tried to kill him. He defended himself. He had to. The police refused to.
The concepts have been understood for thousands of years, for those who bother to learn. Every time Progressives undermine them, society gets weaker.
Joe Doakes wrote:
Government refused to provide protection. Government broke the Social Contract. The business owner was forced to seek his own protection. Kyle stepped up to provide it. The Have-Nots objected and tried to kill him. He defended himself. He had to. The police refused to.
The rioters came predominately from democrat constituencies (blacks and college students), so Democrat politicians told the police to stand down, the national guard was not called out by Democrat governors. Over half the cases against those arrested were tossed by Democrat prosecutors.
The effort to blame the violence and property destruction of the George Floyd riots on “umbrella man,” “white supremacists” and “police provocation” is ludicrous. It doesn’t even rise to the level of gaslighting.
My analysis of the Kyle Rittenhouse case is not a legal analysis, it’s a socio-political analysis. What if I’m wrong? In any given situation, how could one tell whether the Social Contract has failed?
Use the “Leave it to Beaver” test. Watch a dozen re-runs of the show. Look beyond the storyline of any particular episode to discover the societal norms, assumptions, behaviors and conditions which the viewing audience took for granted: safe drinking water, sanitary sewer, secure elections, honest politicians. Parents were involved in children’s education. Nobody feared drive-by shootings or riots.
Now look at today’s society. The water in Flint, Michigan, was tainted for years. Half the electorate believes Lesko Brandon cheated and took bribes (10% for The Big Guy). Millions of first-time gun owners won’t rely on cops. PTA equals Domestic Terrorist while fully-automatic spray-and-pray is unpunished and burning down the 3rd Precinct is a mostly peaceful protest.
Looking at the last two years, it’s fair to say the Social Contract is battered, if not shattered but that’s not the worst part. The worst part is the battering is intentional. Progressives have deliberately abandoned the old ways, ‘replacing what works with what sounds good.” They are destroying America, the last best hope of freedom in the world.
Weapons charge dismissed.
jdm,
Beat me to it, but, It ruined Emery’s day and narrative, so it’s all good! 😂
My apologies, boss. I’m never quite sure when a SitD post is stale or not. Which is why I didn’t do a link.
The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial on Friday said he’ll instruct the jury that unless the state proved the teen’s AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully short barrel, he can’t be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.
Glad to see I correctly interpreted the WI statute in my November 12, 2021 at 5:30 pm posting.
Emery Incognito on November 13, 2021 at 6:22 am said:
AR-15s are illegal for 17 year-olds to open carry in Wisconsin.
https://imgur.com/gallery/q6udo
Bill C:
We all know that Emery is sitting in his mommy’s basement, seething with rage that ANOTHER of his missives failed.