The Kenosha drama surrounding Kyle Rittenhouse has resulted in a peculiar societal divide. On one side, we have a widespread assumption that his motivations were sinister from the start, and he set out with an intent to murder, or at least intimidate peaceful people exercising their rights. On the other, a kid who went to help his community during a period of unrest took steps to protect himself in advance was forced to defend himself with lethal force to fend off assailants.
The jury seems to have decided in favor of the latter position, and those holding the former view are now outraged. Wherever you fall on this debate, I ask that you read though my arguments and address them in good faith. I can divide my own position into three parts: tactical wisdom, natural rights, and legality. I will then offer my own conclusions. Feel free to challenge any of this in the comments.
I strongly advise against joining major protests, regardless of where you stand on the issue at hand. Crowds tend to represent the least common denominator, provide cover to bad actors, and be influenced most by the worst people. Still, he had no less right to be there than anyone else.
I also advise against openly carrying a weapon. I am as pro-gun as they come, but I also acknowledge that the majority in any urban setting is ignorant and fearful of armed citizens. They are prejudiced, and this prejudice needs to be recognized.
I should note here that, to the best of my knowledge, Rittenhouse was forbidden by law from carrying a concealed handgun. The rifle was the only legal option he had in exercising his right to bear arms for self-defense. It worked to get him out of a bad situation, whether he had any business being there in the first place or not, and was apparently never brandished as a threat to anyone until he actually defended himself. If you are planning to carry a weapon, make absolutely certain you treat it with all due respect, and follow all the proper rules to safely handle it.
Self-defense is one of our most fundamental rights. It is an expression of life and liberty at the immediate point of trespass. It is not constrained by age, gender, race, or any other factor. The only prohibition is coercive force against anyone who has not initiated aggression first.
Humans are tool-makers and tool-users. Firearms are especially efficient tools for launching projectiles. Neither owning nor carrying a firearm is inherently a crime. Using a firearm for self-defense is not a crime. Only actual threats or violent acts are criminal by any rational measure. There is no inherent conflict between the right to bear arms and the right to peaceful protest.
No evidence was presented at trial to show Rittenhouse had violated anyone's life, liberty, or property. Instead, we saw time after time people choosing to harass and mock him, and he did not respond violently. Only when he had reason to believe he was under attack, as he was already retreating from conflict, did he shoot anyone.
No one has a right to attack other people. The individuals who are characterized by the media as "Kyle's victims" were the ones who initiated violence. The victim of assault and battery is under no obligation to match the weapons of his assailant, or wait until some injury threshold has first been suffered, before responding with force sufficient to stop the attack.
There is also much uproar over Rittenhouse crossing state lines, but that can be readily dismissed by pointing out that the state line in question divides what is really a single metropolitan area. Political boundaries have no bearing on rational discourse, and geography does not influence the existence of rights any more than skin color or gender.
I see no moral or rational reason to consider Rittenhouse a criminal based on this standard of universal and reciprocal natural rights.
To my mind, legality is the weakest foundation for rational argument. It is just the opinions of legislators, and changes moment to moment as legislation is generated. However, many people are trying to cite laws and his age as proof of Rittenhouse's guilt.
For those unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States Constitution reads,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Folks tend to get hung up on the opening words, "well regulated," but this never meant, "restricted by the federal government." The phrase essentially meant well-equipped and trained, and it is the militia which justifies the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear (own and carry) arms from violation by the government.
But what is the militia? According to the media, it's a bunch of ill-educated, racist rednecks with assault rifles and an inclination toward terrorism. However, according to 10 U.S. Code § 246, Rittenhouse was by definition a member of the unorganized militia even at 17. It is precisely the existence of the militia which justified explicitly protecting the right to bear arms from infringement.
I admit a lack of knowledge regarding the state laws in question, but as someone who grew up a midwesterner myself, I assure you that many a 17-year-old has long since passed hunter education and shot deer and waterfowl. The specific laws cited by the prosecution seem to cover only firearms prohibited under the National Firearms Act and subsequent legislation. Setting aside the blatant federal infringement in those laws, Rittenhouse's rifle was not a "short-barreled rifle" or machine gun. It was a bog-standard AR15.
So far as I can tell, and as supported by the trial reports, I must conclude that the rifle was not illegal. Carrying it was not illegal. He never used it to commit assault or any other illegal act. He only fired when he was the victim of assault and battery, which is within the legal scope of self-defense. The acquittal was a long-overdue but proper application of the law in this case.
The second amendment no more grants the right to intimidate protesters than the first amendment grants protesters the right to commit assault and vandalism. However, it appears we have a significant portion of the population which believes there is a right to commit violence against strangers in response to feeling victimized.
The courts are corrupt. We saw a kid subjected to an expensive and time-consuming trial when those of us following the actual evidence have known all along the case was self-defense. The prosecution resorted to framing Rittenhouse's proper choice to remain silent as if it were evidence of guilt. They withheld evidence from the defense. Their lawyer even brandished an AR15 with no concern for firearm safety in a marked contrast to all images of Rittenhouse from that night in Kenosha. The justice system did not work, even if this case seems to have concluded with a decision I believe was correct.
The media lies. Rittenhouse has been portrayed as a murderer ever since the initial events. He has been subjected to systemic trial by yellow journalism, including naked assertions and efforts at guilt by association. We have seen this time and again for years, so the only surprise is how well it still works. Remember Nick Sandmann, the punchably smug MAGA hat kid? It turned out literally none of the initial reports were true, but hatred and condemnation were everywhere.
I don't know whether Rittenhouse secretly harbors any prejudice. It shouldn't matter, though. Even the most disgusting people have the right to self-defense. It disgusts me to sound like a neo-conservative apologist or a Trump-humper here, but the media has a very real political bias, and this trial has revealed its prejudice to a wider audience. I am astonished at the hypocrisy and dishonesty here, though. A white guy shot three other white guys who attacked him, but it's somehow still a matter of racism? We need to fight toxic masculinity unless we get to make fun of a teenager trying to process trauma most of us will never experience in the middle of a trial for his freedom?
We can use this trial to move forward into a better society built on adherence to a higher standard of truth, or we can continue the partisan divide. I fear the latter. Just look at the Asch conformity experiments to see how easily people can be swayed toward falsehood.
"That intelligent, well-meaning, young people are willing to call white black is a matter of concern." —Solomon Asch
This particular case sees me siding with "The Right," but "The Left" is not the only side which routinely engages in witch hunts and character assassination instead of applying principles to analyze facts and evidence in pursuit of truth. We need to demand a higher standard instead of chasing the latest hype and clickbait revenue.
If you're not on Hive yet, I invite you to join through PeakD. If you use my referral link, I'll even delegate some Hive Power to help you get started.
