It is jury deliberation time in the Rittenhouse trial. Who knows? They may even reach a verdict as this post is being read. While the evidence is overwhelming that shows that Rittenhouse acted to save his own life, who knows what the jury might do. A decade ago this case would never have been brought to trial.
Why was a trial even held? Where are the scales of justice when they are needed?
A post by “New Neo” over at Legal Insurrection delves into this issue.
New Neo noted:
The left wants power to be invested in the state and the state only, and they intend to be the ones in control of the state – and by “state” I don’t just mean an individual state such as Wisconsin. Their preferred repository of power is the federal government, and they want that power strengthened. That means that the right to bear arms and the right to self-defense must be quashed or at least greatly weakened and that only certain people will be allowed to have that right.
Can there be any doubt about this? The events of the last two years show this to be true. After George Floyd’s death from a drug overdose, Democratic administrations in city after city allowed people to riot, burn, loot and commit general mayhem with impunity.
The FBI who managed to arrest more than 600 people for walking through the Capitol Building, seemed unable to locate more than a few individuals for the crimes of rioting, looting, etc. Most of the individuals located were later released without bail. Very few ever ventured anywhere near a courtroom for accountability. Compare that to the fact the people who have only been charged with trespassing are still languishing in jail in DC’s Gitmo.
Neo goes on:
To the left, Rittenhouse the person is just a vehicle for delivering the message, which goes like this:
(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities, and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even their lives.
(2) The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the tender mercies of the mob screaming for their destruction.
(3) The prosecution of those who would defend themselves goes hand in hand with the lack of prosecution, for the most part, of the rioters. This has the intended result of emboldening rioters.
(4) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). That will attempt to taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction (although that’s desired), because a hung jury will do for the purpose. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary in the case of a hung jury.
Neo asks the question: Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty?
My answer to this is of course they do. If they don’t, they are among the most inept people ever to occupy a prosecutor’s chair. Coming back to the point that Neo made above, the intent is to convince people across the country that carrying a firearm is provocation and nullifies any claim of self-defense.
I wonder what Reginald Denny would say to that.
On April 29, 1992, 39-year-old construction worker Reginald Denny was pulled from his truck in Los Angeles and beaten within an inch of his life by several individuals. Denny was unarmed. His assault aired on live television, but due to rioting, police refused to enter the fray to save him. Would the outcome have been different if Denny had been carrying?
How does one protect one’s self, one’s family and one’s property when the government refuses to do so? What recourse does one have when the government decides to abandon the rule of law?
Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber died because the expectation was that there would be no accountability for these men for any actions they took since they were aligned with the approved narrative by the Left.
Rosenbaum had threatened to kill Rittenhouse and then had chased Kyle down.
Huber had used a skateboard to try to beat Kyle senseless while he was on the ground.
Grosskreutz pointed a Glock at Kyle’s head from three feet away.
If Rittenhouse had “taken a beating” as the prosecutor has suggested, would it have stopped at just a beating? Anyone who has witnessed mob violence knows that it only stops when the mob becomes disinterested or the police arrive. Reginald Denny survived only because four individuals stopped the beating that was going on.
These men felt that they were justified in any actions they took including beating and possibly killing a 17-year-old on the streets of Kenosha. This kind of thinking was the result of Big Media and politicians condoning what went on in the summer of 2020. The responsibility for these deaths reside with the politicians who supported violence as a means to an end.
Does this matter to those who support this persecution of Kyle Rittenhouse? It does not. The prosecutor said openly in his closing arguments. This case is bigger than Kyle. They are trying to set the precedent that if you have a gun, you forfeit your right to self-defense. If they win and convict Kyle, they will run with that. Suddenly, you can’t use a gun for self-defense. Ergo, why would you even need a gun in the first place, unless you’re planning to overthrow the government.
We all know what the next step would be. The outright banning of guns for anyone not aligned with the ideologies of the ruling class.
The time to fight back and preserve our basic God-given rights is now regardless of the outcome of these jury deliberations.
New Neo’s entire post can be found here.
On the Larger Goals of the Left in Bringing Rittenhouse to Trial