#233 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Tuesday December 28)
Good morning!
While a lot of readers send in comments on what I’ve written or what they’re thinking, often agreeing with me, there are those who don’t. From a friend, who clearly is an unhappy reader, his response to my analysis of the Rittenhouse verdict:
“Once again your Musings conveniently overlook pertinent facts.
The main stream media and Democratic politicians…directly created the conditions for rioting in Kenosha, by falsely accusing the police of shooting an unarmed Black man, James Blake. Several days into the rioting, which CNN & MSNBC reported as peaceful protest, Rittenhouse rightly or wrongly was concerned about the state of his community. There was NO evidence whatsoever to suggest Rittenhouse exhibited [vigilante] type behavior. However, the main stream media, Democratic politicians, and liberal activists, seized on an opportunity to create a false narrative that Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist going across state lines to kill Black people. One can only assume that Biden and media outlets will ultimately have to pay a significant price for deliberately slandering Kyle Rittenhouse. Furthermore, you should come to realize that more and more people will be arming themselves to protect themselves from the Democratic / liberal policies makers. Laws that are soft on criminals and scapegoating police offers for the disastrous results of the policies in Democratic run cities will only force more and more individuals to arm themselves.”
Just to reiterate, Rittenhouse was an under-age young man with the misguided view that his law enforcement services were needed. He was fully armed and smarting for engagement. Not surprisingly, he got engagement. Two men died who no doubt were violating the law by attacking Mr. Rittenhouse. Another was injured. But had Rittenhouse not been openly carrying weapons and provoking people in a protest rally, the crime would not have happened. He was not controlling or deescalating the violence as a self-appointed peace officer. He was there with different purpose—to challenge and provoke. The not guilty verdict has perplexed some (the prosecution didn’t make its case that this wasn’t self-defense). But while he had a right under the law to hold his ground and respond to force with reasonable force, was deadly force appropriate? Mr. Rittenhouse sought out confrontation, as most of the mayhem for which Rittenhouse was responsible occurred well-away from the police, who were busy doing their job containing the protest.
Here’s what Philip Bump, of the New York Times, had to say about the verdict: “The jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges, an evaluation that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was not acting in self-defense. What the jury did not do was determine that Rittenhouse acted properly on that evening.”
As David French, of the Atlantic, noted that “Rittenhouse not being guilty didn’t make him innocent. His being found not to be criminal does not establish him as law enforcement.” He continues, “[There is] an immense difference between quiet concealed carry and vigilante open carry, including in ham-handed and amateurish attempts to accomplish one of the most difficult tasks in all of policing — imposing order in the face of civil unrest.”
I agree with my friend’s conclusion that people increasingly are arming themselves and that we will see more of this. I think we increasingly will see vigilantes purporting to act as law enforcement, confronting and intimidating protesters, acting provocatively and insinuating themselves in public gatherings armed and ready to “stand their ground.” It is cause for great concern.As David French, of the Atlantic, noted:
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
From Ed Casal: “Donald Trump is an excrescence and America could cease to be a liberal democracy if he becomes president again.” Sadly, he is and it may because he might.
CONFUSION IS THE WORD OF THE DAY
I came across a post from a high school classmate regarding the incomprehensibility of the “Medicare Handbook” he received. I concur that it is impossible to wade through—much less comprehend. The manual, all 125 pages (plus sub-pages) provides little guidance and does so in the “Middle English” that is so typical of government documents prepared by committee. When joining Medicare, I also received a small pamphlet, purporting to be clearer than the handbook. It talks about “Part A” and “Part B” and then talks about “Part D” (for drugs), as well as lettered supplemental plans. It was no clearer…
I am a lawyer and in the finance industry. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent guy who follows the news in detail. Given my background, I consider the fact that this is so confusing either represents that (a) my cognition is declining, (b) government can’t write anything deliberate and clear, or (c) there is little effort to make the system clearer for reasons I can’t grasp.
If people trained in reading legal documents have a hard time translating the complexities of government-issued instructions, how does the average citizen deal with this?
Happy day,
Glenn
From the archives: