The Kyle Rittenhouse case, which I talked about on my podcast, This Week in Common Sense, reveals a deep divide.
One side thinks young Mr. Rittenhouse is guilty because he clearly sided with property-owners by cleaning up graffiti, putting out fires, caring for the riots’ victims . . . and carrying a big, scary-looking rifle; the other points to the facts of the altercation between Rittenhouse and the three men he shot, judging the shootings self-defense.
On Monday, the lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, insisted that “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun,” despite that not being Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse also wasn’t the only one with a gun.
While the prosecution tried to undermine self-defense by declaring that Rittenhouse had instigated the whole scene, the media relentlessly feeds a general prejudice against the idea that citizens should be armed and for the notion that we must rely upon the police alone.
Dissonant with this, however, were the months of leftists excusing, when not cheering, “protests” turned violent in which not only property was destroyed, but people were killed. To top off this cultural license to mayhem, progressive mavens pushed the opposite of state protection: let the mob run riot.
Followed by “defund the police.”
The leftist/statist argument seems to be: You mustn’t protect yourself with deadly force, instead relying upon the state — except when we (the left) riot, then no protection for you!
This is a recipe for civil war or tyranny or both.
Not civil peace.
Meanwhile, as Rittenhouse’s jury deliberates, everyone assumes that leftists itch to take an acquittal as another excuse to riot.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Democrats: Dissonance on Self-Defense”
There have been several comments that say “maybe” the prosecutor intentionally threw the case because he wants to cause
George Floyd- type riots.
Stranger things have happened.
Great column, except for the first word of the title, which seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter.
Good catch, at least in part. This view that I address on guns and riots is ubiquitous among Democrats in Congress, and the WH, so I do not back off the correctness of using “Democrats” in the title. But through several revisions direct comments by major Dems were struck and so using Democrats in the title is out of place with the script. Plus, it makes the piece seem more partisan than it is, which is a negative generally — and specifically with my audience. Though, as mentioned, there is a partisan dimension.