Stamping out the right to self-defense
It’s jury deliberation time in the Rittenhouse trial, and while we wait I’ve been reflecting on the big picture of where we are right now. I don’t think there’s any way a case as weak as that against Rittenhouse would have been brought ten years ago and certainly not twenty years ago, and the fact that he was charged at all is a bad sign.
Not that we need any more bad signs. But this trial is a reflection of the ways in which the left has gained power lately, despite the fact that there’s been a current backlash against it.
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.
The message is that someone such as Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t primarily about Rittenhouse himself nor is it really about the situation in which he found himself that August night in 2020 in Kenosha. That’s just the pretext. The fact that there is an enormous amount of evidence that would overwhelmingly support his claim of self-defense is just a small obstacle easily brushed aside with a combination of media lies, prosecution lies, and threats to destroy the city if Rittenhouse is acquitted.
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.
Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty? They may or may not, but they simply don’t care about his actual innocence. He is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough. Rittenhouse is useful to them as an object against which to stir up hatred and to deter future self-defense from anyone not on the left, which is their larger goal. The individual is nothing; the goal is everything.
[Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.]DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.