Justice, or another killing supported by the court system? Kyle Rittenhouse
(picture from a bar the day Kyle entered his plea…used only because widely seen on Twitter)
Ok, here we go again. This is something that I have tried to say three different times and had to struggle to clarify it. Zimmerman only killed one Black man, which is horrible enough. However, things are even worse, Kyle Rittenhouse carried a gun across state borders (the state law in Wiscousin indicates that minors can only carry a “dangerous weapon if it is for target practice with an adult supervising and for hunting. He had no intention of doing either one but ended up killing two people and injuring another as a result of his illegal misdemeanor of carrying a gun illegally. There are those of us who have serious questions about the true justice that has been handed down. Personally, I have lots of doubts that justice has, in fact, anything to do with the verdict this judge and jury rendered.
Starting with Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon Martin, there is a history of police and others’ killing usually young Black men for very little reason other than racial profiling and fear. In the Rittenhouse case, race might seem a less important part of it since the two men he killed were white, but it was related to a racially based killing by the police. Not surprisingly, the “law and order” types are coming up with all sorts of defense for why Rittenhouse was simply a nice young man going to the town in another state to “help” the citizenry. However, protest is a legal right in this country. Rioting and destruction of property are not but I haven’t heard anything suggesting that either of the young men he killed was looting or destroying property.
There are a couple of questions that I wish to bring to bear on this issue.
First of all, those believing he got a just verdict have even tried to suggest that he was 18 at the time of the shooting. Every legitimate report I have seen indicates that he is NOW 18, which would have to have made him 17 at the time of the shooting. Now the state of Wisconsin lists it as a misdemeanor for a person under the age of 18 to be in possession of a dangerous weapon, which interesting doesn’t mean just a gun, but any object that can have a deathly result. What does that say about “innocent” in the case of killing two people while in the process of committing a misdemeanor? The only exceptions are for members of the military or while under the supervision of an adult for target practice or military service. So what military branch was Kyle with??
So, that leaves the second major question: what military branch was Kyle working with. Again although the judge insisted on seeing it differently, it appears that he wasn’t. The tact that the defense and the judge agreed to was that he was part of a “militia”, but what was this “militia”? He was not in the army, navy, or air force, nor apparently was he a member of the national guard and if so, not for Wisconsin but for his home state of Illinois. What does that leave us?? Apparently, the “militia” that he was involved with was another one entirely.
There are questions, and at least two articles in legitimate news sources telling us who that “militia” was and why that association certainly did NOT validate his presence with an AR-15 (a deadly weapon by anybody’s definition) in public much less his “right” to shoot two people dead. The “group” he was part of, apparently, was the Boogooloo Boys, another one of the violent so-called militia who has threatened arms against the United States government as far back as the Bundy land grab and as recently as the attack on the Capitol on Jan 6th. Aren’t those dangerous groups illegal? If not, they should be as it seems to me that they exist for almost totally racist reasons. Certainly, there are those, as with the fourth article that views them as illegal. I agree with that analysis.
So, if I am right, and I think I am, the whole “self-defense” claim would be made null and void because the boy should have stayed at home. I am almost of the opinion that if anybody is a “hero”, it should be Anthony Huber who tried to take the gun away from the kid. Certainly, if it had been a BLM protestor with an AR-15, all of those yelling about Kyle being a hero would have thought the person taking the gun or trying to be a hero. Interesting how politics and attitudes are so interconnected isn’t it?!!
The lawyers on both sides gave speeches with the defense celebrating a victory….but who really won a victory? I mean, I know Kyle won a victory, but did the American people and any real sense of Justice? The prosecution is going to find other ways to get what they feel is justice. I look forward to possible answers to some of my questions and hopefully true Justice.
