He was accused of a crime, and I have focused on the crime and whether there was evidence to convict. Whether he showed good judgement or whether he is an exemplar of important virtues is a valuable discussion, perhaps. But it does not have much to do with whether he committed crimes. The prosecution did go for something that is first cousin to that, whether he was a provocateur. If they could have shown evidence for that I could be convinced of its legitimacy. The principle that you can't provoke and then claim self-defense certainly seems sound and worth keeping in law. But in the end they had evidence not even that convincing to people who wanted it to be true, and keeping evidence from the defense ticked off a lot of people who would have loved to have found a way to convict him.
Those who still have this idea about deciding whether he was a good person, or whether the rules of justice should change in response to this Tuesday's political fads, or what would have happened if he had played Scrabble instead * have a very strange view of justice, where we debate who is worthy of life and who is worthy of death, as opposed to looking at specific acts. Rather chilling. If you imagine the sc-fi short story that would be built off that, you can see it's a world you wouldn't much want to live in.
I don't even think that would be much slope to slip on. You'd already be pretty near the bottom.
*and if everyone had played Scrabble that night instead?
You'd think the distinction between crime and value would be an easier one to grasp. But the rioters' crimes are excused by the purity of their cause. Rittenhouse's lack of crime is condemned by the impurity of his cause.
There’s a useful discussion about virtue even where crimes have been committed, in determining just punishment. Someone who was really trying to do well might deserve less, or even none.
There’s another use to the questions of virtue and Vice, morals and such. This has to do with our right as a self governing people to change the laws if we find they ban virtuous behavior, or license viciousness
And there’s a third thing too, which is that sometimes a legal defense could be mounted on multiple grounds. Choosing the wisest grounds is prudence, usually, but it is a consideration if you are choosing between trying to excuse your client on a privilege claim, versus trying to show that in fact they behaved in a way that needs no excuse because it was right.
Yeah, the whole thing seemed like a young kid who shouldn’t have been in a bad situation, but I couldn’t see any crime committed. It was clearly self-defense.
Why I despise the Left, Item 223658789662125665...
In this case you really prove to be a vincibly ignorant twit. You believed the mainstream media. Just look at the links on Instapundit, read them and shed your stupid illusions.
“Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods”
He killed a pedophile and another utter scumbag trying his best to beat his brains in with a skateboard and blew away the arm muscle of a felon with an illegal gun he pointed at his head, (not charged at all by the STATE for illegal possession of a firearm) and you carp about something stupid and meaningless and what wasn't there.
READ THE REAL story. Instapundit. Links. Real news.
Did you even know he was in his hometown? Or are you one of the terminally stupid that believes the media in this case?
HMS D, I have. And that's one more reason for me to despise the Left/Democrats/media.
The videos were collected long ago, except for the ones the FBI made. I watched them long ago, and probably thereby rendered myself unsuitable for jury service because I already knew too much about the cases. In only one of the incidents was there the slightest doubt about what was going on--if the others weren't self defense, the phrase has no meaning. And in the first encounter, a reasonable man would have assumed his life was in danger and responded accordingly. The FBI video clenched it: Self defense all down the line.
I have a bad feeling about the Waukesha murders. Too many people believe the lies about Rittenhouse and the trial--and the nation. I hope this was a random nut, but I don't think it was.
Maybe he shouldn't have been there. Or, maybe if more people acted as he did there would have been no riot. In the real world he was there, they attacked him, he defended himself: not guilty.
People want to convict him because 1) if he were black he would surely have been convicted, 2) he shouldn't have been there and his presence offended the rioters-for-a-good-cause, 3) somebody needs to pay because the cops shouldn't have shot that guy, 4) etc. These people somehow never image other counterfactual scenarios where public officials acted responsibly and suppressed the riot before there was significant destruction.
"Maybe he shouldn't have been there. Or, maybe if more people acted as he did there would have been no riot. In the real world he was there, they attacked him, he defended himself: not guilty."
That's as good a quick summary as I have read.
I imagine no one wishes Kyle Rittenhouse hadn't been there more than Kyle Rittenhouse.
Post a Comment