I’m going to be blunt

If you are outraged by the Rittenhouse verdict then there is one of three possibilities: You are ignorant, you are stupid, or you are evil. Although you might be in more than one of those categories simultaneously, there is no fourth category*.


This is the “benefit of the doubt” category.

You might not know the actual situation, despite there being multiple witness descriptions of the events leading up to the shootings and video from multiple angles. You might not know that Kyle worked in Kenosha (the very definition of “having business” there). You might not know that his father lived in Kenosha. You might not know the personal relationship between Kyle and the person who’s property he was helping guard. You might not know how deadly a gas station fire can be. You might not neve know that what set off the mob was Kyle acting to extinguish a burning dumpster being pushed into a gas station. (Oh, wait, a claim–entirely made up purely out of whole cloth–was later made that they weren’t pushing it to a gas station but to some overturned cars. A distinction without a difference since the gas station was right there and there’s little difference in it being ignited by a burning dumpster or burning cars.

You might not know that there is no legal requirement that “sometimes you have to just take a beating” when faced with an angry mob that has made verbal threats to kill you. You might not know that there is no legal bar to crossing state lines to clean up graffiti (why Kyle was there in the first place) or to help guard someone’s property. You might not know that it was perfectly legal for Kyle to be carrying a rifle for his own protection–which was why the judge dismissed that charge out of hand. You might not know, in fact, that he could only carry a rifle or shotgun. The law did, explicitly, forbid him from carrying a handgun.

You might not know that being armed for your own protection, even with something that other people can see (such as a rifle) is not, legally speaking, “provocation” and, does not turn any attacks on you into “mutual combat.” You might not know that the prosecutor was just making things up in presenting such a claim.

You might not know that the first person what Kyle shot had made verbal threats to kill him (motive) and then demonstrated means and opportunity by trying to grab Kyle’s weapon. You might not know that the second person shot by Kyle first assaulted him with a deadly weapon (attempts to dismiss it as “just a skateboard” neglect the fact that it’s a wooden plank, a club, that’s perfectly capable of killing someone, as was demonstrated recently in another case). And the third? You might not know that the third admitted, in court, that Kyle did not shoot at him (hitting him in the arm) until he. pointed. a. gun. at. Kyle.

You might not know that nothing that Kyle did prior to a violent mob attacking him was illegal and, therefore, did not eliminate his right of self defense.

And, not knowing any of that, despite the fact that all of that information being readily available, it’s conceivable that you could be outraged at Kyle being exonerated.

The problem is, all that information is readily available. And to continue to remain ignorant of it almost requires being willfully so, which is to fall into one of the other two categories.


Okay, perhaps you do know all or most of the above. But, you just can’t wrap your head around the idea that those things add up to justified self defense. You grasp at straws. “He shouldn’t have been there” and can’t seem to grasp the idea that as a free citizen in a mostly free country he had every right to be there. Indeed, he had more right to be there than did the rioters. Perhaps you can’t grasp the idea that this argument, if valid, wouldn’t apply just to Kyle but to anyone. It is to claim that not only should Kyle not have been there but nobody else should have either. And, thus, the rioters should have just been left alone to loot and burn to their hearts’ content and never mind the damage caused, the livelihoods ruined, the people hurt, and the lives lost.

And so, having the information you just cannot draw the conclusions that Kyle had every right to be there. He had every right to be armed in his own defense. And, as someone in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, he had every right to use the force necessary to stop an angry, violent mob from killing him.

You have the information, but you’re too stupid to draw the conclusions.


But maybe you do draw the conclusions. You know good and well that Kyle, in the situation in which he found himself, acted entirely properly first in acting to extinguish a fire that would have destroyed much property and put other lives in danger (if only the lives of those tasked with extinguishing it once it gained a foothold and firefighters were eventually able to get to the area). You know good and well that the villains of the piece are the rioters, not Kyle.

Perhaps it serves your purposes for the rioters to continue. Perhaps you get political advantage by supporting “protests” which allow you to demonize others for political gain. Perhaps you see the protestors/rioters as being on “your side” and, thus, anyone opposing them is on the “other side” and has to be the bad guy. Perhaps, in this you’re playing Drazi Politics.

In that case, I have some bad news for you: You are one of the bad guys.

*Okay, I’ll modify that slightly. One might be outraged that there was a verdict because there was a trial. Kyle should never have been charged in the first place. And since the prosecutor was not ignorant. He had full access to all the information I referred to above. He was not stupid. One really doesn’t obtain that kind of political office while being truly stupid (or at least without being a mouthpiece for someone not stupid). The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

30 thoughts on “I’m going to be blunt”

    1. I’m outraged that it even went to trial. The self-defense was clearly evident. But hey, the D.A. thought he’d score political points, by throwing a poor white male to the howling mob.

      There’s now talk of a ‘Kyle’s Law’ to protect the innocent from malicious prosecution. . .


  1. The morning after the incident, when I saw the charges that were levied, I actually thought the prosecutor was one of the good guys. Why? The initial charges were so clearly wrong….I thought he was responding to severe local political pressure to bring charges that absolutely couldn’t be sustained. I thought he was playing a risky game of charging Kyle in such a way that he could drop the charges & plausibly let Kyle off. I thought he was making the best of a rotten situation. Little did I realize….. It simply didn’t occur to me (for some time) the evil bastard was dead serious w/the charges….


  2. The evil left’s hypocrisy is no more brazenly evident than the fact that Grosskreutz (sp?…you know…vaporized bicep boy) has STILL not been charged for being a felon in illegal possession of a firearm, while moronic woketards are protesting to have Kyle kicked out of ASU.


    1. His felony burglary conviction was expunged.

      …in spite of a lot of that rap sheet looking like it had parole violations left, right and center, including misuse of a firearm before it had been purged, which you’d THINK would mess up the “fulfill all terms” thing required for that deal.


    2. I think if I were the head of ASU, I’d immediately waive his fees and put him on a full scholarship.

      Geez! He’s attending remotely! WTF are those snotty brats afraid of?


  3. Anyone who votes for Democrat Party candidates as the Party now is structured and manned is themselves either is massively stupid, willfully ignorant, or evil. For that reason, I now pretty much avoid people who still identify as Democrats.


  4. And, thus, the rioters should have just been left alone to loot and burn to their hearts’ content and never mind the damage caused, the livelihoods ruined, the people hurt, and the lives lost.
    I will say there is one argument counter to this, and that is that the police should have handled the riots. (Leaving aside the fact they did not.)

    My argument against that is that it still doesn’t negate the right of the citizen to be armed in defense of his town against marauders and villains. If you believe otherwise, then I might suggest you’re a statist, interested only in being a subject of the powers that rule you, and are in no way a real American. So, we’re right back to those three choices, again….


  5. Kyle had a right to be at the scene to protect the property, of course. But I don’t know if it was wise to go alone. It would have made a big difference to have multiple armed defenders at each threatened business or home. I think the lesson of Kenosha should be that Patriots need to develop a better strategy to counter the leftist loonies. The Antifa goons are organized. They show up when the call goes out. Most of them are white felons and degenerates, as in Kenosha. But they are organized. There will probably be another manufactured crisis before Christmas. Next time, show up to defend America, but bring two or three other citizens. Know your rights. Practice your skills. Be Kyle-times-three!


    1. The being alone bit was supposed to be a quick run down the street and back only while he was down the street the police li e moved, cutting off his direct return forcing a detour during which he ran into the would be urban terrorists.

      “Fog of war” really.


    2. He was with a group. And he spent a lot of the evening evidently accompanied by at least one other person. But, then he got split off. This would have been a good place to institute a buddy system.


      1. Buddy system. Excellent plan. I didn’t know he started out with a group. But, I think we still need a better strategy. I am very open to what that might look like.


        1. My thought on Kyle being with a Buddy when he (and his Buddy) were attacked is that the Left would have been Screaming About Two White Supremacists Kill Innocent Protesters. 😉


    3. He did go with others, somehow he got seoerated, helping people, cleaning graffiti , and putting out a dumpster fire. They should have stayed together.


  6. One person cited Snopes to me about some fact of the case, that may or may not be related to any of the charges. She told me she trusts Snopes.
    I stated that I don’t. I’m now curious to see if Snopes is accurate about the “crossing state lines with a gun” unfact. If they get that wrong, why does anyone trust them with anything else about the case?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Perhaps you can’t grasp the idea that this argument, if valid, wouldn’t apply just to Kyle but to anyone. It is to claim that not only should Kyle not have been there but nobody else should have either. And, thus, the rioters should have just been left alone to loot and burn to their hearts’ content and never mind the damage caused, the livelihoods ruined, the people hurt, and the lives lost.

    Of course, if “nobody should have been there”, that would seem to include the rioters. Now what?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: