When 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people in Kenosha, killing two, the left quickly came up with a narrative of an alt-right white teen racist who was illegally carrying an AR15 rifle he had illegally brought across state lines, who committed murderous crimes out of malicious bloodlust. It wasn’t long before each of the allegations in that apparently false narrative crumbled. Fortunately, the sequence of events was captured on multiple smartphone cameras, for all the public to see.
Even some voices from the left have had to admit this. At the Chicago Tribune, Eric Zorn is probably the most anti-gun of their resident columnists. But even he had this to say last week.
Mr. Zorn needs to look closely at the photo which accompanies this blog entry. At the instant of the shot that struck his last assailant, that man is pointing a Glock right at Kyle Rittenhouse’s head. The kid’s just-in-time shot probably saved the downed boy from a bullet in the brain. By the way, the man with the pistol was later quoted by one of his friends as saying his only regret was that he didn’t kill the teen, and “empty the clip” into him.
And, there are legal analysts whose take is that the fine points of Wisconsin law were not violated by Kyle Rittenhouse carrying an AR15 where and when he was.
This is going to be a very interesting case to follow…
I’m curious about the admissibility of the “empty the clip” comment in court. Would it take screw-up on the part of the prosecution to be allowed?
I’ve turned off the news and trust no newspapers. But I did catch Zorn’s article the other day. What a shock it was. I’m so used to hearing only the left’s side being propagated by the press I nearly got whiplash as that headline went by and I was backpaging fast as I could to see if it read what I thought it said.
You surely anticipate, as I do, though, that the counter to the above photo’s depiction of a handgun pointed at Kyle before he shoots is that the handgun would not have been drawn in the first place if Kyle didn’t have a gun himself. It’s force meeting force. Had Kyle not had a gun, the left will say, he wouldn’t have drawn the attention of “peaceful” (sic) protestors in the first place, no one would have been shot at all. That they were showing they were armed enraged the protestors: “How *dare* you try to intimidate us with your weapons.”
It’s just another one. Just another event that’s split our family here. I’m on the “right,” and I’m amazed at Kyle’s restraint. Each time he holds off, each time he resists the urge just to fire away but reacts only when he has no other choice. But … to my inlaws I’m no longer familiy, they’re *that* emotionally possessed by BLM narratives and anti-NRA and 2A rhetoric. And it’s not just *this* family. It’s America. We’re in a civil war all over again, this time over guns. At the very foundation of all this is guns: police using lethal force (primarily using their weapons, except in George Floyd’s death); police showing up armed and in riot gear at “peaceful” protests (again I use quotations with that word in that context).
Never before have civilians *needed* to go armed against their own countrymen this way. Am I right?
So “interesting” just doesn’t seem to be the right word to me as we wait for the results of this case. If we truly ever were a country founded on reason, those days are long gone. What the courts decide no longer matters. When the court decision goes against the BLM narrative, protestors and the opportunistic deviates who wait to hear the time and place of the demonstration will return to the streets again. We have to go through this again and again.
In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, and I’m afraid all other incidents this year, you choose a side — and then you wait to see if you’re still invited to celebrate the holidays with your family this year or will spend them home alone.
This is a nightmare we can’t wake up from anymore.
I am in a (slightly) different place. I made an observation of fact regarding the GOYA boycott vs Buycott. I was met buy ‘He’s an axxhole’. I asked ‘Trump?’ ‘No, the CEO of GOYA.- came the reply.
I started to say I knew the man, had conversations with him, knew some of the family and more than a little about the company and the circumstances, their charity I and was cut off: Not interested in facts, not even first hand information. The only thing that mattered was the MSM and TDS narative.
I was stunned at the viscous reaction. It was viscous.
My different place?
I don’t want to associate with such people, family or not. And thus, I find I must decide if I can accept holiday (or other) invitations from such individuals, at the risk of hurting others.
I am well past keeping quiet & it may be the end of a significant part of my family life. It is not that I expect everyone to agree but dialogue is important to me. And so is the free sharing of ideas and the discussion (even dispute) of facts.
It is a nightmare. History repeats and that is my bigger worry. For my children & grandchildren. And even for those family, friends and strangers that disagree with me. I would say that many know not what they do. Sadly, many do and either don’t care or are too short sighted biased to see realities.
Zorn knows what the photo shows, he simply chose to blatantly lie to paint Grosskreutz, a low-life, criminal guilty of domestic battery, as the “victim” when anyone with half a brain can recognize that he’s the one attempting to perpetrate a violent act. As soon as there was no threat, Rittenhouse lowered his weapon and continued to retreat.
From the linked to article:
[That final shooting “will be the most serious problem” for Rittenhouse at trial, Kling said. ”The guy did have a gun in his hand. But he wasn’t pointing it at or threatening Rittenhouse.”]
Umm, not so fast, given the picture showing him pointing the gun at Kyle and the guy’s statement that he regretted not killing him … sounds like Chicago – Kent College of Law has a good example of how attorneys, even law professors, should make sure they have all the facts before they advocate a position on a subject.
I agree with Zorn on one thing – I think and hope that Kyle will walk.
Unfortunately I couldn’t read Zom’s comments. I browse in private mode and am not going to subscribe to a newspaper that I’d never read just to read one item. Not complaining, just letting you know since I expect others to have the same issue.
Thanks for your hard work in attempting to make the truth available in spite of all who have an agenda and are more than willing to lie, cheat, and break the law to promote it.
I did read Mr.Z’s micro-essay and it is filled with inflammatory and disingenuous statements ranging from “weapons of war” to, “”The guy did have a gun in his hand. But he wasn’t pointing it at or threatening Rittenhouse.”
The inane conclusion that being chased, this young man, obviously trying to flee the mob yelling (“Beat him up!” “Get him! Get that dude!” and “Get his ass!” ) and after already trying to take his weapon; falling to the ground where he was battered and finally shooting the man with the gun aimed at him, then claiming it (shooting in self defense) was unnecessary because he “wasn’t pointing it at” Kyle is absurd. To claim Kyle wasn’t being “threatened” is absurd.
Anyone, armed or unarmed, who assaults someone who is obviously armed can only be considered as a fool or a fanatic. (Even if they think of themselves as a hero.)
This last doesn’t include LEOs who as a matter of course have to do this on a more and more regular basis.
In either case an imminent danger.
Guy holding the pistol is a felon so thus a prohibited user. Has he been charged with that yet?
*Prohibited possessor*
On the one hand, anyone getting shot can be unfortunate. On the other hand, not enough violent, intimidating, hysterical, maniacal, egocentric, chemical-infused, deranged, delusional, pyromaniac, demolishing, stupid, mob-minded, wannabe “protesters” NOT getting shot by anybody may be unfortunate, as far as it might fail to prevent touching of innocent others with violence. If we are going to have less violence, let’s have law-and-order from the get-go. Criminals, especially those who try to resist or flee from apprehension, are making life difficult for everybody, not just themselves. EVERYBODY should always keep in mind that almost never do any videos capture everything pertinent to any event. Potential influence from Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) may not be far from removing video as evidence altogether.
Zorn’s choice of words is interesting. Instead of saying Rittenhouse will be found innocent, he said “he will walk”. Implying he wasn’t innocent and escaped justice. Disgusting, but useful, choice of words.
I read recently in an article by Mark Chestnut writing for the publication Firearms News, that a 24 year old mother named Jessica Whitaker was ambushed and murdered by a BLM fanatic after they exchanged words. Seems Ms Whitaker was walking with some friends in Indianapolis after watching a July 4th event when they were confronted by several BLM protestors who shouted “black lives matter!” prompting her to respond with “all lives matter.” The BLM devotees then pointed guns at Ms Whitaker’s group and they produced their our firearms, resulting in a brief ‘Mexican Standoff’. After awhile both parties parted ways, but apparently one of the BLM criminals decided to ambush Ms Whitaker’s group under a bridge and fired shots which killed her. Little if any coverage of this heinous murder was reported in the news.
Note: The Bureau of Land Management was not involved in this incident.
Laws = the rabbit hole?
Being threatened, chased and attacked by multiple assailants for putting out a fire, irrelevant. Running away even though armed, irrelevant. A brick wielding assailant is ‘unarmed’ and no demonstration of a potentially lethal threat. Those attacking are not vigilantes or criminals nor held to the same or any standard regarding putting themselves in harm’s way though they did so for much more nefarious reasons and in much more egregious a way.
Sure.
Rabbit hole. Yup.
But he went down the wrong one.
It surely will be interesting to see what this country and world will look like when everyone is forced to think the way he does and he doesn’t have to worry about the rabbit holes of laws, hypocrisy or reality.
Well, not really.
Maybe the reaction of citizens will be interesting? No again me thinks.
I can imagine based on history, human nature, current cultures and trends.
Notice the word ‘forced’ used in the above comment. I probably should have said ‘if’. Yet I see unmistakable transitions taking place … I wonder, the snowball effect.
If one understands how the law works, then this Kyle Rittenhouse case is very simple to judge. However, people (in general) don’t understand the law and, therefore, tend to clutter up the case with a bunch of irrelevant material.
For example, a lot of people seem to think it is important to know that the three men that Rittenhouse shot all had criminal records. This has nothing to do with the case. Kyle Rittenhouse did not know this when he shot them. It played no part in his decision to shoot. Just because they had committed previous crimes does not mean that Mr. Rittenhouse was entitled to execute them. Their previous criminal history is irrelevant and immaterial to this case.
There is also a video floating around the internet that purports to show Kyle Rittenhouse getting involved in a dispute with some other young people and punching a girl. The quality of this video is poor and one cannot be certain that it is Mr. Rittenhouse in the video. I gather that the idea of publicizing this video is to tarnish Mr. Rittenhouse’s character. This is also irrelevant and immaterial. The people chasing Mr. Rittenhouse on the day of this incident were not doing so because he (maybe) punched someone months ago. They knew nothing of this prior incident.
Others, mainly left-wing gun-grabbers, feel that Mr. Rittenhouse committed some kind of “original sin” when he showed up to help people during this protest/riot while carrying a rifle for self-defense. They seem to think that, by doing so illegally (as a minor), his behavior somehow “justifies” people in trying to disarm him. This is also irrelevant and immaterial to everything except the charge of “carrying a dangerous weapon while being under the age of 18”. Adults can legally carry in Wisconsin. It is an open carry State. Kyle Rittenhouse did not have his date-of-birth tattooed across his forehead so no one knew that he was only 17.5 years old at the time of the incident. In another six months, he would have been absolutely legal. None of the people who chased him could have known his age or that his possession of a rifle might be legally questionable.
Others speculate that Mr. Rittenhouse did something to “provoke” people into anger. As a matter of fact, this may be true. There is some video evidence that Mr. Rittenhouse used a fire-extinguisher to put out a dumpster fire that the “Peaceful Protesters” had started. This may have angered Joseph Rosenbaum who may have been the arsonist who started the dumpster fire in the first place. Nevertheless, any such prior dispute between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum is also irrelevant and immaterial.
What, you say? How can THAT be irrelevant? Easy. The law does not want people to hold grudges and to continue feuds. So, the law frowns upon cases where one party to a dispute seeks to continue or re-start a dispute once it is resolved. Therefore, the law takes the position that, once a dispute is over, then IT IS OVER! If someone works to reignite the trouble, then IT IS A NEW DISPUTE not a continuation of the old one.
So, how do you know when a dispute is over? Again, it is easy. The law says that when one party stops fighting, clearly signals that they don’t want to continue and walks away, then the dispute is over.
So, even if there was a prior dispute between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, that dispute ended when Rittenhouse clearly showed, by running away, that he did not want to continue the fight.
Therefore, irrespective of WHATEVER had occurred before, when Rosenbaum chose to chase Rittenhouse, throw something at him, and then attempt to disarm him, Rosenbaum was being the AGGRESSOR in an ENTIRELY new dispute that had NO CONNECTION to ANYTHING that occurred earlier that evening. An attempt to disarm a person (except by a law enforcement official) and in the context of this civil unrest, must be considered an attempt to use lethal force by the aggressor (Rosenbaum) against the defender (Rittenhouse). Rittenhouse was, therefore, acting in self-defense when he stopped this illegal and potentially lethal aggression by shooting Rosenbaum.
In a similar way, when Rittenhouse again retreated and ran from the area, he signaled (again) that he wished to end all dispute. When he was again chased, this time by Anthony Huber, Gaige Grosskreutz and others, then these people become the aggressors of yet another, brand-new dispute. When the mob caught up with and attacked Rittenhouse and Huber tried to disarm him and with Grosskreutz advancing upon him with a firearm in his hand, then (again) Rittenhouse was justified in using lethal force in self-defense against the aggressors who were attacking him.
So, if the law is properly followed in the Rittenhouse case, none of the felony charges have any merit. They should all be dismissed due to it being clear-cut cases of self-defense for all three shootings. When you weed out all the irrelevant material that people are throwing in to “clutter-up” this incident and (instead) just follow the law, the case for self-defense becomes crystal-clear. It is not even close!
The only charge that has any merit (at all) is the misdemeanor weapons charge and, as Mas notes above, even that one is far from being a sure conviction.
If you read through WI law, a person UNDER the age of 16 cannot carry a rifle unsupervised. A person over that age cannot purchase such a weapon, but can in fact possess one.
There is not one charge that should stick in this case.
Another interesting case born out of the protests:
https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/grand-jury-charges-white-bar-owner-with-manslaughter-in-shooting-death-of-black-omahan/article_7ec77c96-94be-5c5d-9e43-fbff9845c51b.html#tracking-source=home-breaking
I’ll wait to see how it portrayed on a Law and Order episode before picking a side. Hollywierd never gets it wrong.
You mean Follywood? These criminal incidents in liberal controlled cities would be more appropriately portrayed in the now defunct TV series Police Squad. At least we would have gotten a few laughs out of it. In fact Joe Biden would make an excellent replacement for the late Leslie Nielsen if this series was ever rebooted. Whereas Mr. Nielsen used his great acting skills to play an idiot, Biden just needs to be himself.
Posting this again. Joe Huffman has a White House petition to charge the prosecutors in Kyle Rittenhouse’s case under 18 U.S.C. 242 – “Deprivation of rights under color of law”.
The videos show pretty clear self-defense, and even the “carrying a firearm while under 18” law, if read in full, is more geared toward unlawful hunting and not civil unrest or self-defense. The officers at the scene, who presumably witnessed all or part of the shooting, waved him by when he attempted to turned himself in to them; clearly they didn’t consider him an aggressor. A “preponderance of evidence” — not just reasonable doubt — shows Kyle acted lawfully.
However, Kyle’s surviving attackers — including the man who tried to execute him with a handgun — are walking free, while Kyle himself is being held in prison for defending himself. Kyle has done nothing wrong, but his rights are being deprived by partisan prosecutors.
Sign the petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prosecute-district-attorneys-who-charged-kyle-rittenhouse-murder-under-18-us-code-ss-242
Mr Zorn has the printable sneer down to an art form, and can carry it off at length. I can’t recall reading better, although I might have. To be fair, I’ve spent a major portion of my life “down the rabbit hole” of use of force law. He, very obviously. has spent his in some self conceived space where reality is a self generated concept. It’d take entirely too much space to deal with his various issues so I won’t bother.
The case will be interesting-so long as you’re not the accused. OTOH, it does appear from things Zorn notes the prosecution has stated that they may have a rather hard row to hoe. Please note the MAY.
Comments are closed.