It takes a nation to protect the nation
Although this issue isn't about the four freedoms problem, as a symptom of the collapse of democracy and rule of law and equality before the law, it is useful to capture a record here.
Two things here strike me.
-The do-gooder whites supporting BLM.(another violent black criminal shot be police).
-Rittenhouse thought that he was doing the right thing protecting property and prepared to administer medical aid, there is a right to bear arms to protect life and prperty in the US.
Also can you imagine the reaction if he had shot blacks.
I could not access the video here but all such things have very much to do with everything that is going wrong in our societies right now.
Global oppwarming, covid 19, Islam, migration and freak shows and fanatics everywhere.
All I wish for is a quiet and comfortable life in a normal society.
Hear hear! I increasingly find that the biggest burden of democracy now is that it requires us to get involved in so many issues that really, we just haven't go time for. Well those of us busy working haven't got time; all the low lifes supported by activist organisations or in parasitic jobs have got loads of time for harassing us with these issues.
The jury returned the right verdict - this time. 'Not Guilty' on all charges.
The whole gruesome trial and torture of Kyle Rittenhouse was political from the start. The prosecutor was determined to avoid the obvious evidence and make it mean something else. I thought of a review of 'A Quiet Place' in Frontpage magazine by Mark Tapson. The title could have been written for this Trial. 'White Gun Owners, The Left Hates You'.
'If you are a White, law abiding gun owner, never forget: The Left Hates You.
The Trial also wanted not only reduce gun rights and usage but also abolish the principle of self defence. Basically saying, you loose your right to self-defence if you provoke violence and you do that by walking around with a gun.
The Left of course also wanted to make the trial all about Race. A local congresswoman (black and democrat) was challenged and said even though KR only shot white people those people were at the 'protest' in solidarity with Black people and therefore KR was acting like a white supremacist.
Kyle on grifters ; https://voxday.net/2021/11/23/he-was-always-sketchy/
Right, never talk to the press. Unless you are sure who they are. Fox seems safe. and there are a couple of minor media news networks that I trust.
There were two slimy rhetorical tricks the Prosecutor Thomas Binger tried to use in order to make his case against Kyle Rittenhouse easier.
The first was the repeated challenging by Binger to KR about “did you intend to kill the victims when you shot at them?” The purpose of the probing of intentions was to elicit from KR that he had bloodthirsty inclinations. That he came to the riots intending to kill and maim; that he was in fact an ‘active shooter.’ This last phrase was intended to link in the minds of the jurors that KR was just like the murderers in the recent past who randomly killed people at schools, churches and at music concerts. He was little better than those people. But, but…KR refused to budge. His intention was to defend himself. “But didn’t you know your AR-15 could kill people, and when you shoot people you can kill them, and therefore any shooting must have reflected your intention to kill them?” No No No. KR, though only 18 years old, was not going to be bullied by this sophisticated smarmy lawyer who wanted to advance his career by putting KR away for the rest of his life.
KR’s was intending to save his own life. He wanted to stop the threat to his life and was of course aware that by shooting his rifle it might, just might, kill his attackers. KR weathered this storm.
But the next smarmy trick was more sophisticated. This time Binger spoke on a more philosophical level. ‘Is human life more important than property?’ In general, most people would answer in the affirmative. Binger had also asked the jury the same question and they all said yes, raising their hand to confirm that human life is more important than property. But the general is not the particular. And even the general needs context to have any meaning.
For example if someone comes to destroy your house, steal your food, steal or destroy your means to make a living or indeed provide for your own life and family then NO, that thief’s human life is not more important than property. When the Holodomor genocide (Ukraine) began, all Stalin and his henchman did was steal property (food, grains, farm implements) and kill anyone who resisted. Slavery is a consequence of not having any property or control of property.
But because everyone in the courtroom fell into this trap, Binger was able to ridicule KR and portray him as a hypocrite and a liar. KR actually acted to save property (and maybe human life for who can control a large fire) by putting out fires. He actually prevented a church from being put to the torch. But these efforts were portrayed as a cover for his real purpose, that of killing people. If KR really believed that human life was more important than property he would have just left the fires to burn; indeed he would not have even shown up to defend a friend of a friend’s business from the rioters.
But this second point was a huge distraction, a slight of hand by Binger to change the subject of the trial. For none of the charges linked KR to having to make a choice between saving human life or letting property be destroyed. KR never had to make that choice but Binger wanted the jury to make that choice and conclude that KR should not have been there at all, simply to save property.
The following was written before the verdict of the jury. The stakes were very high in this case and had national and constitutional implications. The trial was never only about KR and the charges.
“The prosecution is doing its level best to imply that Rittenhouse, if not an out-and-out vigilante, was certainly looking for trouble. They have amplified the social media criticism that his actions were meddlesome and that he ought to have minded his own business. He ought to have stayed at home; he ought not to have brought a gun; he ought not to have left the car lot he was supposedly protecting; he should have let fires burn instead of putting them out; he should have let bleeding people bleed; he ought to have called 911 if he was worried about events in the streets; he ought not to have spoken to angry protestors; he should have let people beat him up. It is better, in this line of argument, to be killed than to act in defense of one’s person or community.”
As a friend said, whether those other issues are true or false it is beside the point. Those are not the charges. ‘Ought’ is not reality. The real questions are to do with those charges. Just what was KR supposed to do in those few seconds he was being attacked? Binger would say that since he started the violence by bringing a gun and allegedly pointing it at someone (no real evidence of that was presented, just a fussy picture and a sarcastic remark) KR had no right to self-defence, because he provoked the violence against him. Indeed, the men he shot were acting to protect the community from KR who had an AR-15 and were therefore must be violent and intent on killing.
The Left failed this time but they will be back to take away guns from law-abiding citizens and prevent those guns from being used for self-defence. In effect the Left has partially won. The imprisonment and trial of KR is an ordeal most people would not want to endure. Charges should not have been brought against Kyle. The State is supposed to protect you and provide for you in all circumstances. Independent actors are to be discouraged and punished.
Other links can be found here
"For example if someone comes to destroy your house, steal your food, steal or destroy your means to make a living or indeed provide for your own life and family then NO, that thief’s human life is not more important than property."
This issue should have been dismissed as a philosophical question. But if one is going to engage with it, I think the more important point from the above example, is that the distinction between human life and property is an artificial one. This is more clear in your later example of the Holodomur.
You would give away all of your property in exchange for being allowed to continue living, but if the choice results in your dying of exposure and hunger. Then you have to fight to defend your life and your property.
The thing is, what would you personally do if someone broke into (or just walked into) your house. In regard to yourself, your spouse or children.There are many scenarios. And in some cases resistance with deadly force would actually save you and those that you care for from death, abuse or injury.
You have a right to live a comfortable and secure life. The society you live in is duty bound to protect you. If the society fails in this you have a right to arm yourself and protect yourself and your property, if necessary with deadly force.
The right to protect yourself and what is yours is natural. The means by which you do this is decided by your culture. Life and property are not one and the same. Self-defence is above the law, but how you protect your property has to be regulated by law.
This issue should have been dismissed as a philosophical question.
Exactly Alan but the only one who could have engaged at that level would have been the 18 yo Kyle. And that smarmy attorney knew that Kyle would not be up for that. Perhaps the jury did that in closed session but maybe not, since they all raised their hands when Binger ask the question to them.