Left opposes self-defense?
The murder trial of young Kyle Rittenhouse, the only noteworthy prosecution to come out of the 2020 Kenosha riots, has become a surrogate for a war that the American Left has long tried to keep under the radar: the war against the concept of self-defense.
The Left finds itself in a quandary. They cannot say “you have no right to self-defense” in so many words. They must get there in another way, a roundabout way, but one in keeping with their longstanding effort to defang America’s police departments. Create technicality acquittals, and erect restrictive rules of engagement for police. Build red-tape barriers to keep private security guards from being armed and trained. Overrule the castle doctrine in the courtroom. Build in so many restrictions to self-defense that it becomes a toothless defense.
In the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the self-defense case is so obvious that the prosecution had to resort to a claim of provocation, that the young man’s armed presence was itself a provocation. The evidence is clear that he was one of many (if not enough) law-abiding citizens who arrived in town in the hope that a show of solidarity in support of the business district would dissuade the protesters from further rioting. Sitting there with a gun, as one of hundreds of other property owners and supporters with guns, should have -- theoretically at least -- discouraged the demonstrators from escalating into violence.
...
The Left has now redefined this concept as “provocation:” He shouldn’t have gone there in the first place.
...
Do you think it ever dawns on the left that if the rioters had not rioted in Kenosha that none of this would have happened? Do they think there is a right to loot and commit arson, but not one for self-defense? That is just bonkers.
Comments
Post a Comment