The Swamp logo

The Trial That Shouldn't Exist

by MJ Duffy 2 months ago in opinion

The Kenosha Tragedy

Honorable Judge Bruce Schroeder

THE TRIAL THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPNED

The murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18-year-old accused of shooting and killing two men and injuring a third person. He was charged with First-degree reckless homicide, two counts of First-degree recklessly endangering safety, First-degree intentional homicide (the worst charge he faces), Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 all with the “use of a dangerous weapon” factor which in the state of Wisconsin this increases the penalties for anyone committing a crime with a dangerous weapon.

This case has many in the country doing what it seems to do best. This is to jump on social media, take sides, scream racism for some odd reason and systematically destroy the accused person’s name long before any decision is made in the case. They even began to mock the now 18-year-old boy for crying on the witness stand. As the case starts to unfold and the evidence favored the position of self-defense that the defendant was claiming people did not stop and think that they could have misjudged him, they decide to step on the gas and begin to blame the judge, the jury selection is now in question as well and it is becoming obvious that people, even those who have placed politics at centerstage in their lives have little faith in the justice system. Should we go back to throwing people in a well and if they swim, we burn them for being a witch or the devil and if they drown then we say… oops I guess we were wrong about this one. Can we not have justice in this country without half of the population becoming outraged regardless of the facts surrounding the case?

The TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT

Our country had some bold opinions about this case from the very beginning. Most notably came from the man campaigning for the office of President of the country. He shared a screenshot of Rittenhouse wielding a gun on Twitter denouncing white supremacists during his campaign efforts in the 2020 election. For many people this is as far as they need to read to understand what kind of problem our country is dealing with. How someone running for President of the country did not advocate our judicial system and tell everyone to wait with him for the countries lawful process to take place is beyond my rational contemplation… no he went straight to public shame and racism which is a damn shame to say the least.

PROTEST vs. RIOT

Despite all of the opinions about this case itself one has to take a step back and think… why the hell are we not doing something about these riots? I understand that we now have certain media outlets that like to witness people setting a building on fire and then call it “mostly peaceful” demonstrations, but I have always had a clear line drawn in the sand that depicts a peaceful demonstration and riots and luting in a completely different category all together. For example, if a peaceful demonstration is taking place and those involved in the demonstration decide to march from one location to another you will often see people standing outside of their homes or businesses witnessing the event firsthand. During a riot where there is luting and property destruction, fires etc. those same people are locked inside their homes praying they are not going to become victims of the riot. Protests can be heated and still remain one hundred percent peaceful.

This was not a peaceful protest or demonstration it was a riot. There were people setting private property on fire, there was damage to buildings, like schools and churches, you know… where our children go every day. This is another case of our government failing to protect their citizens in a huge way. People love to get this twisted up and think it’s about civil rights or the right to protest. I for one strongly believe we as American Citizens should be allowed our right to congregate and protest a serious matter, which was what this could have been. People protesting with some sort of government representation present along with media sources on scene reporting the issues in an honest, non-bias manner… and then searching for some sort of resolution. This is what we did in America not too long ago. People were not allowed to walk down the street and light whatever they wanted on fire or destroy an entire car lot full of vehicles. Those people were called criminals and there was a time when these people would get arrested and charged with whatever crimes they decided to engage in instead of the peaceful protesting or demonstrations.

DID SOMEONE CALL MULLIGAN

This murder trial should never have taken place. The 17-year-old kid should have never been able to engage with the crowd in any manner because the Police or National Guard should be doing that. Instead, they sat in their armored vehicles and watched kids cross in front of them armed with semi-automatic rifles and no one thought that maybe this is not such a good idea. Don’t get me wrong any good cop would have been tortured in those vehicles, watching the city they love get destroyed, watching people die for no reason. This call was made by someone in a position of authority over the police department. Fun fact- good cops protect and serve but we don’t ever see them on social media or mainstream news. We see the few that screw up and hurt the rest.

*** read what they should have done at the end. No one on the left or right or like myself just an American will disagree with this suggestion… in fact it should be put into place tomorrow.

IN THE COURTROOM

After watching much more of this trial than I probably should have I did see some positive signs of our government working as it should. For example, the judge in this case Bruce Schroeder, currently the longest standing circuit judge in the state of Wisconsin is known for his tough sentences but has also looked for reasonable solutions in the past to help prevent the people that come before him from being repeat customers so to speak. He has helped keep this case from getting out of hand on several occasions (and I believe he already knows what the outcome of the trial will be… just like the prosecution knows… but I will explain that in a second) Kyle Rittenhouse’s attorney Mark Richards is also well known in the area, and he came off as the guy who is going to shoot straight with the witnesses and the jury. He’s tough but well respected. The Prosecution was led by Assistant Kenosha County District Attorney Thomas Binger who had his hands full considering how he had the burden of proof, which in this case there was a mountain of videos taken over the course of the night that the shooting happened and multiple witnesses that were not really able to open up this case for the prosecution.

FINDING THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM-

It was hard for me to make this one-character judgement call which is something that I have learned to attempt to do when I am a bystander. I will try to find the smartest person in the room as far as the attorneys go and that will often indicate the layers of complexity that they will use in prosecuting or defending the person on trial. It was really hard to tell in this case… but I will say this Thomas Binger was not only smart, but he had balls of steel in his relentless pursuit of (what I am trying to believe is) the truth in this case and not just a win. The truth comes out, then there is a fair and just trial then the system we have entrusted our freedom, our lives to is still working. If it is a win, he’s after… we are in some dark and troubling times. Going back to my previous thought about the smartest person in the room and Thomas Binger as a candidate is because of how he opened up his cross examination of Kyle Rittenhouse. (This also goes back to why I think the prosecution and the judge already know how this will end)

REMIND ME AGAIN WHAT’S THE 5TH AMENDMENT?

Mr. Binger attempts to paint Kyle Rittenhouse as an opportunist that stayed silent for the whole case until the very end and after consuming all of the testimonies and other evidence, he was creating his “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it” defense. Now Mr. Binger knew exactly what he was doing when he started his cross examination out the way he did… which was in front of the jury no less. He tried to implicate guilt on Kyle’s right to remain silent. This was a double-edged sword as well. First off even though the judge asked the jury to step out of the courtroom so he could plant his foot squarely in Mr. Binger’s rear end what the Judge could not do is make the jury not hear that line of questioning and because of the implications that arise from this problem, the defense has every reason to call for a mistrial, which they did, and I believe with the stipulations that no secondary trial could be performed. If Thomas Binger had a winning case, he would have approached Kyle Rittenhouse completely differently. Mr. Binger called it attempting to impeach the witness, which again if this were a winner, he would have manhandled the witness, asking questions that would decrease the witnesses ability to stay focused and calm and as soon as the tipping point was clearly on the horizon, he would be able to connect the line of questioning which was from what I could see, about five different angles, and go in for the knockout blow. He did not do that. In fact, his first line of questions were not for Kyle at all they were for the Judge, testing the honorable Judge Bruce Schroeder’s chin immediately. This is where the case for the second candidate of the smartest man in the room comes into play.

The Judge stated that he couldn’t believe that the prosecution went to the 5th amendment, one of the oldest most well-known laws in the book for 40 or 50 years (not quoting but what the Judge said was close) I believe if this man thought that the prosecution had any chance in hell of winning this case than that opening line of questions would have to be considered grounds for a mistrial that he could have strongly considered if the defense raised the issue properly. He couldn’t responsibly allow a trial to continue on and possibly have the outcome tainted as the prosecution was not attempting to uncover facts, but they were trying to paint the evidence of what happened the night of the shootings based on what was going on in the courtroom that day, shifting the focus of the case from evidence collected to mannerisms on display in the courtroom. After several additional problems with the prosecution’s line of questioning and requesting the jury to leave the courtroom and come back and leave again the Judge had seen enough to know that the prosecution was either looking to retry the case or they needed the jury to absorb some extra data that they should not have been exposed to… potential win/ win. But, the Judge, like Mr. Binger had already seen all of the evidence and like Mr. Binger already knew this kid did not murder anyone.

We all know Judges have to make decisions on big cases all of the time. The defendant will waive the right to a jury trial and the judge hears the case. This being said for the purpose of suggesting that the judge is not only competent but expected to make the right call on every case. This case is going to a jury trial and will be decided by them. I can’t imagine the mental competency the judge has to maintain during this process. Judges of Bruce Schroeder’s tenure have seen it all and I have to wonder what it feels like to see all the evidence in a case and then watching the defense blow the case and someone innocent go to jail or watch the prosecution make all the wrong moves and a very dangerous person go free. How much should a Judge intervene to make sure justice is done? Think about that for a minute. I would not want their job, but I see a solid man watching over this case.

I did find value in the ruling that the people shot were not to be considered victims of a crime during this case. That one simple alteration in wording made me think that the Judge was really looking at this case as this person was innocent until proven guilty. This is how it should be too. It also prevented the prosecution from saying victims enough times that the jurors could believe they were victims and if there are victims there has to be someone victimizing them which again would implicate Kyle Rittenhouse long before a decision of his guilt was determined by a jury. I also liked how mad the Judge got, I felt like it was the righteous anger he was entitled to when his courtroom was temporarily put under construction for the new playground. One where prosecutors can say or do anything they want. After erupting into several stern advisements for the assistant district attorney the Judge would humble himself as to not take centerstage, but he made one thing clear, he was not going to let a single underhanded tactic slip by him.

The reason finding the smartest man in the room was so hard was because now the third possibility, the defending attorney, who could have steadily repeated the words “Objection your Honor” for leading the witness or not asking a question at all and just making comments that the witness was supposed to agree with… I suppose. Instead of constantly objecting (but it is only fair to mention there was still plenty of objections) he just allowed his client Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18-year-old kid answer each question with the most appropriate answers any defense lawyer could ever ask of their client. The fact that Mark Richards allowed Kyle to answer questions that he could have objected to kept paying off which is a good lesson for people to see and understand. He knows Kyle Rittenhouse well and surely helped instruct him on how to answer questions honestly and directly and not add anything that wasn’t asked of him. This was exactly what Kyle Rittenhouse did when he took the stand.

HAND ON THE BIBLE-

Many people will advise against putting the defendant on the stand no matter what the circumstances are. Mark Richards has probably advised many clients against testifying in their own case. Why did he allow Kyle to take the stand knowing the kind of pressure the assistant district attorney would impose on him? He could anticipate the questions that were about to be given to the defendant and if they were all asked in an effort to show the defendant as a power-hungry teen with a thirst for violence, Kyle would simply answer the questions honestly and most of the questions would only support his wholesome lifestyle and decision making. Kyle is a young man who, despite the national notoriety of a double murder accusation, would be what most Americans would consider as a great kid. Having five children myself, and like most other parents with a bunch of kids I’ve had my fair share of being lied to and I watched Kyle dodge maybe 2-3 questions with a “I can’t recall” answer** Kyle Rittenhouse was involved with numerous respectable organizations. He was a Jr. Cadet to his local police department and in a similar program with the local fire/ E.M.T. He was a lifeguard and I dare say if this riot shooting and trial doesn’t change him deep down at the very root of who he is, Kyle Rittenhouse will be a great benefit to whatever community he belongs to... someday. Getting back to why he was able to stand up to a well accomplished and ready for the task at hand prosecuting attorney… he was being honest and could honestly answer everything thrown his way. Honesty wins over trickery every time.

**USING “I can’t Recall”

When asked a question that requires an exact time and place or exact details that mean a lot towards the case one would often recall the most favorable version of the events in question. That could also end up being a lie and one lie exposed in a case will change the outcome. If you cannot remember every detail that is asked instead of taking a shot at the question, don’t even attempt to answer it with half-truths… it is best to answer “I can’t recall” instead. I’m not suggesting that you lie by any means, I am simply pointing out that your mannerisms explaining something you partially remember will look like you are lying most of the time. This could be seen by the judge and jury. “I can’t recall” may also give the same impression because you may remember in part so it may feel like and therefor look like you are providing a dishonest answer but remembering something that you could not recall later is better than remembering something differently than you stated earlier.

WHY WAS THERE A RIOT in KENOSHA WISCONSIN?

On the total opposite end of the honesty spectrum, I watched the mainstream media try to spin this case into racism (in fact almost anywhere that you read about this case they just have to mention the race of everyone involved) and how outraged they were that a minor had a gun at a riot where there were many, many guns present. The mainstream media (most not all) described the protest as a justifiable response to a police shooting where a young man was tragically shot and crippled when they attempted to serve him a warrant and arrest him. Some sort of fight happened and the one who was shot admitted to having a knife… somewhere… one version of the story was he was just jumping into his car to run while others suggest that he was trying to continue to fight with law enforcement. Personally, who the hell fights back against the police when they have a warrant? This shows that the one fighting is dangerous to anyone… if someone is willing to physically fight law enforcement officers, they will fight anyone.

If I physically fought the police, they would probably shoot me as well… and I understand how difficult the concept of waiting for your day in court can be, I have been arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and I remember thinking, I did nothing wrong and I’m going to jail on a Friday night. I spent days in jail had to spend way too much money to get out and then had to prove I was innocent in court… what a hassle. But if I pushed my argument with law enforcement at the time of arrest, I could have made one wrong body movement and been shot, and they would not get charged if my body language could be misinterpreted as a potential threat… that would be on me.

*There is a link to a YouTube video following this story. If you want an injection of hope for the future of our children, then their discussion on how to use data driven information to educate people from police interactions to changing how failing schools can turn things around by implementing known but underutilized methods creating a huge impact on the kids in those schools. go check it out

Did he deserve getting shot? I immediately lean towards no if he had no gun but here is the problem…if you wrestle with a police officer, they have a gun and if you are a skilled fighter, you know there are dozens of exposed areas on someone wearing moderate body armor that one fast strike could disable them for long enough to lose possession of their gun. This type of situation happens to the police in every state. This doesn’t happen very often because they will shoot before it gets to that if they have to. I am not justifying any actions whatsoever I am just stating what I know to be true. So, this is why there were riots. The man was shot, and the courts looked at the case and knew they couldn’t get a conviction on any charges, so they did not bother trying to charge the police officer. This was seen as unacceptable which I understand how it was not just this one event that created the problem but this on top of many other events.

I have watched over a hundred videos while writing this (I get distracted sometimes) and I couldn’t believe how police behaved on more than one occasion. This is on one hand. On the other hand, I watched several very normal looking traffic stops end with someone in the vehicle opening fire on the police for what looks like no reason. I assume they had a warrant, or they were sitting on something that would give them many years in prison. This is reality for the police, when someone dives into their car they could come out with their wallet and cell phone, but they may come out shooting. Should we expect the police to take the first bullet before they protect themselves?

The Kyle Rittenhouse case was all over social media and as expected, those commenting on social media did so with two completely different narratives displayed and unfortunately, they coincided with their political affiliations, so one side displayed support for Kyle Rittenhouse who they see as the victim in numerous assaults that could have all been potentially lethal. The other side suggested that the riots were necessary and that he lied the entire time he was testifying. Then the all-time low point of the public comments begin when the 18-year-old boy broke down and cried at his MURDER trial, saying it was all fake, a big act. It was highly offensive to watch for me personally because this kid was trying to help, and the rioting and hate was too much, and it simply swallowed his ass up. According to video evidence there was one point that Kyle Rittenhouse was being chased by just about everyone visible in the video. (I couldn’t count but I would guess over fifty people) It was terrifying to watch. To put some perspective on this I could see where the AR-15 rifle was at all times in the videos. It was out in the open either in one hand or at times in both hands. These people chased after him knowing he was armed. They didn’t care because they could immediately see what many of us witnessed throughout the trial, Kyle was no thug, white supremacist looking for people to murder. He was young and ignorant and thought he could keep people at bay just by having the rifle on his person and then he was in a crowd with many people that looked at Kyle and could predict very little resistance from him while they took the weapon from him. This is what seemed to take place when the first person was shot. He had his hand on the barrel of the gun. This also makes many reporters and the prosecution quite guilty of lying to the public as they insist that the first two people involved in the shooting were completely unarmed and never touched a gun. I believe grabbing the barrel of someone else’s firearm after threatening to kill that same individual is not only having their hands on a gun but just cause to pull that trigger if the gun was yours. If he did not, we would be talking about the tragic death of Kyle Rittenhouse shortly after. This is why the Judge was not allowing the people involved in the shootings to be called victims. They could be considered in the act of committing a crime against Kyle when they got shot if his self-defense claim holds up. This is also why vigilante is not the appropriate terms either. If he is found guilty then those shot would be victims at the hands of a vigilante… one that infiltrated the riot posing as someone trying to give medical care to people who got hurt. The perfect disguise for a white supremacist that just wanted to shoot someone in front of 50 people with their cell phone on record. I will stop there because it is a ridiculous notion.

ONE DAY MAINSTREAM MEDIA WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Despite what was being said about him by mainstream media, which should be mentioned that they immediately spun this into a political hotspot as they raise the question of gun control, people acting as law enforcement and self-defense, which some of these reporters have to either start writing their own material or get the hell out of the business. One should not report to others if they cannot even tell when someone is authentically crying. Without naming any of the media sources in an attempt to keep some separation from my opinion and that of the left or right, I can’t see how this case could be mentioned and mentioned in great detail without a highly emphasized undertone of this… this kid shot people because once again the police were told to stand down. They were not told the National Guard was on the way so get all of the non-lethal crowd control methods at their disposal ready and they were going to go into the riot and allow people protesting peacefully to do so and then remove anyone that was clearly breaking the law.

Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, in an initial confrontation and just moments later fatally shot Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27.

TRY TO SEE ALL PERSPECTIVES

Gaige Grosskreutz is another layer to this case that has to be addressed. Gaige said he was there not as a rioter but as a protester and one who was trying to help other people as things started to get out of hand. Separating myself from all I had learned about the case and only using Gaige Grosskreutz’s words as evidence I was able to see things from Gaige’s perspective. If he did not physically see how the shootings took place, then the first instinct from someone trying to help his fellow man could be to confront the shooter, especially if said person also had a means to protect himself. I can only speculate what was running through the minds of those two at the time when they had their interaction, but I know they had crossed paths an hour earlier, and they did so with no incidence, so it was what happened in between the times they first met and the second that everything changed. Keep in mind I am just trying to speculate on both behalf’s without my opinion or knowledge of what was said outside of the courtroom getting in the way.

Gaige may have been the biggest victim but there was one slight problem. Once he was brought to the hospital and told his friend Jacob Marshal that his only regret was that he didn’t kill the teenager when he had his chance which his friend then posted on his social media account for the world to see Gaige looks more like someone who was at a riot representing the People’s Revolution Movement and then got himself shot raising a gun to shoot and kill Kyle Rittenhouse but not having the nerve to pull the trigger. Let’s not forget that he then was allowed to testify against Kyle in court… and was then invited to a national TV broadcast and posed as someone wanting to help. It is human behavior at its absolute worst. It reminds me of the man who sues his neighbor whose house he broke into and was robbing when he got caught and got his neighbor beat his B & E butt up only to get sued. What a joke. Luckily, Gaige did not have to tell the truth on the stand in court, which he did not. Everything he did was caught on camera and he did Verbatim what Kyle Rittenhouse described. Another witness from the prosecution that solidified the self defense claim of the defendant.

Is THIS the NEW USA?

This is really another sad chapter in an ongoing state of decline that the United States is experiencing. None of this should have happened. Since when do we need to arm ourselves and protect our property and ourselves when we have a long-standing relationship with our public services like the police departments. What are we waiting for? When do we take steps to end this ongoing behavior? Do we wait until… (for example) the child of a real psychopath gets killed at one of these riots and after their child’s murder the parent attacks the crowd killing 300-400 people? Will we need something that horrible to shake our elected officials out of whatever delusional slumber they are in and get them to act. Or are they doing exactly what they had planned? Allowing the public to form mobs and riot cities throughout the country only to use the events as a basis for another kind of action. Would you prefer the military be our police force? If you think reasoning with a police officer can be difficult, try replacing the officer with someone from the marine corp. This is a different level of authority all together. One I am extremely grateful for and also one that I never want to see walking down the streets of this country unless it is in a parade allowing the public to offer respect for their service. This is what other countries do when the police force is deemed inadequate.

As badly as individual police officers may have acted it was made so much worse when the system itself failed and those who murdered did not get prosecuted and those who had just cause to use deadly force had no real system in place to show the public what had happened and why. We need someone other than a police chief to tell us that the police had just cause to shoot for both their sake and the public’s sake. Instead, what we have is a media with a lynching mob mentality that simultaneously have the uncanny ability to forget every false accusation that they publicly displayed even one day prior, every spin of relevant stories that the public would turn to and depend on the media for, is no longer even remotely considered anything more than an influenced narrative either from the government itself or whatever big tech or pharma company is paying the most. This trend will end soon. We already see multiple newscasts that are rock solid from former reporters that could not tolerate the system. They are now on their own with daily news podcasts and their followings are exploding.

CAUSE and EFFECT

One last remark about the root cause of the shootings. The root cause was not a kid had a gun and he was out past curfew. No that is not the root cause of this at all. The root cause is that governing officials are not following the law. If you do not enforce the law and lawlessness is invoked, then those people in society that see themselves as ones needing to help others will fill in the gaps left by politicians ignoring the law. Riots are illegal. Stop them. Looting is illegal stop it from happening.

**if you think this was bad just wait until another event similar happens and there are 10,000 illegal immigrants in the crowd knowing that they are not in our legal system so even video footage of them will do little to subdue the rioting. Americans know if they are out in public, and they have someone record them doing something highly illegal it will be all over social media and the police will come knocking at their door eventually. But if you’re here illegally there is no such fear potentially restraining your behavior. My point with this example is there can be grave consequences when elected officials do not follow the laws that were in place when they took office or laws that are still in place now.

Back to the case… based on the line of questioning offered by the prosecution during the cross examination of Kyle Rittenhouse and how the only logical reason that those tactics were applied to this case would be because the evidence speaks loudly in favor of self-defense. This is a good thing for America, and I say this with great care and with respect to those families who have suffered a great deal from this. We cannot limit self-defense as a response to being shot or being stabbed. There has to be a reasonable point of no return that the aggressor has to cross and then the ability to defend yourself or your family must be recognized. Grabbing the barrel of a rifle belonging to someone you threatened to kill qualifies as that. Assaulting someone in possession of a firearm out in the open is also a qualifying factor because if the assault had been administered with a little more accuracy, then the weapon would have been taken from him and quite possibly used to kill him. This leaves the third person who was shot in the arm. In a court of law my first instinct is to tell the truth and I always assume those testifying are doing the same, that is until telltale signs of lying are displayed. From Kyle’s vantage point he had another person trying to kill him. As soon as he saw the gun it was verified in his mind, and I understand there are differences in the two gentlemen’s stories but considering what had just transpired and the fact Kyle Rittenhouse must have felt like the entire crowd was out to get him (which it looked the same way when I watched some of the footage) the second the gun hand moves in the direction of my body I have to pull the trigger or risk dying myself that day. That is still self-defense all day long. If Gaige Grosskreutz were someone who really cared about the safety of others enough to engage a man with an assault type of rifle surely, he would have had more planned than a heart-pounding showdown exchanging looks of disapproval.

But this was not the case at all. In fact, he allowed his associates to expose his true nature and reason for being at the riot by saying his only regret was that he didn’t kill the 17-year-old. This rounds out everyone shot at by the defendant as people who were posing a clear and present danger to his life.

The last charge was based on a bullet traveling too close to a reporter. This should be a simple decision for the jury. If Kyle is found guilty of murder, then the charge of recklessly endangering safety stands as well. If the murder charges are ruled as self-defense, then the reporter was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. I also have my personal perspective on this part of the case. Reporters that are good at what they do have a good eye for things. There was a good chance that the reporter was following him around to watch someone smash Kyle Rittenhouse to pieces. My brain tells me this could be the case, but my heart wants me to believe that the reporter was proud of Kyle Rittenhouse and wanted to show how brave one kid could be, screaming “who needs medical” while in a riot.

THE PREDICTION

I think the jury will look at Kyle’s age and actions leading up to the shootings as factors consistent with someone honestly trying to help in a hopeless situation. Every shot was fired with no time for him to think so he instinctively chose life or death in all cases… and hate to say it but the prosecutors line of questioning and his highly skilled use of calmness when he was insulting the witness or when he was not happy with an answer and tried to redirect a new more favorable answer is also felt by the jury and may come back to hurt the prosecution as well. Jurors on the fence may consider his actions and questions as desperate and we all know you can’t be desperate and an ass at the same time, nobody likes that.

They acquit him on all counts except for the minor in possession charge and I can’t see them dismissing that charge because the case clearly shows he knowingly possessed it and even though Kyle stated that he thought it was legal for him to possess it, the judge reminded the courts that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The defense has to be careful with any new lower charges as well. They know it is no olive branch and they have to relay the intent of the prosecution to the jury if possible. Giving the jury more options to punish can at times reiterate to a jury that the district attorney’s office really thinks this person is guilty. The question that has been asked and the situation that I see as one of the few hurdles the defense will still need to address in the closing arguments will be that Kyle Rittenhouse was a minor with a gun, one who should not have been on the street after curfew or in possession of the firearm. The proper response will probably be that no one should have been there. This could have ended long before someone died and twenty or thirty people would have a court date for minor offenses compared to a double homicide.

WAKE UP-

We need to wake up as Americans and defend our name, our streets, and our people. Destroying public and private property is NOT American. It goes against everything that we work for. Defending our cities is not unamerican or racist but it is the legal responsibility of law enforcement. We can protest without violence. A good example is the LGBT movement. They have managed to create a sense of urgency everywhere they protest, and they became such a dominant public force because of their aggressive but nonviolent approach. Agree with them or not, they have got the public demonstrations down to a science proving you don’t need violence to be heard.

POLICING

No one wants bad cops patrolling the streets, but no cops are worse, so a reasonable solution is to investigate officers that are questionable. The public should record every and all interactions with law enforcement and tell them this is what you’re doing and then treat one another with respect. This becomes harder to do as we get mixed signals from the government. We have certain politicians and once again media sources that talk down about the police constantly instead of conducting investigations and removing people who are problems from that line of work. There is a good comparison that I like to use between the police the politicians and parents. The politicians and media being mom and the police being dad. Mom makes all the rules and tells dad when their children (the public) should be punished and how to punish them. Then she constantly talks bad about dad whenever she is talking to her children so whenever dad and the children have interactions there is preestablished tension. We all know what kind of dysfunctional family life this sort of behavior will promote. Parents that praise each other have children that look up to them and parents that hate on each other allow their children to see and adapt their treatment towards each other as a model of how they are supposed to talk to and treat their own parents. This has to stop because it is creating the possibility for the future of our country to be their country. One where the citizens do not have a police force to turn to, they have a federal military dictating when we can leave our homes and where we can go once, we do. Police do not need defunding they need MUCH fewer laws to have to enforce along with some healthy exposure during interactions with the public.

Here is how to manage a crowd in riot conditions without the use of force and without a single law enforcement officer getting harmed or harming others. Use an army of 200+ drones all with live feeds to a centralized location. Record people destroying property and causing worse crimes. If the drones could be armed with audio and the operator happens to see violence, then the pilot flies closer and warns those involved that they are being recorded and that the police will press charges if someone gets hurt. If the drones could be armed with small canisters of ink (invisible would be best) and just drop a few drops onto people damaging property or a person harming someone else, it can then help law enforcement single out problematic people as they leave the area. If a shooting occurs keep a camera on that person until they can be safely extracted and brought into custody. If law enforcement could make a drone presence work just one time it would change how people acted in the midst of a demonstration. They may have second thoughts when police pull up and pick out one person out of a group of ten because they witnessed that person destroying someone’s business or luting a store or worse all through the use of a remote-controlled drone asset. This could also be an effective way for citizens and law enforcement to band together and help one another in a common goal. Now don’t mistaken what I’m suggesting. I think the protests should run their course but without destroying our cities. This is a method to watch without changing the course of the protest into violence simply because there is a police presence and a way to hold people accountable for their actions.

In the future I would much rather see someone like Kyle Rittenhouse operating a drone from a safe distance than see him on the street in the midst of a riot.

Finally… my deepest condolences to the families of the those shot and killed, to the families of those other people involved whose lives were severely impacted. Regardless of who is at fault the families will suffer the loss of their loved ones and you, the family members and close friends did not deserve this.

WE ARE THE SOLUTION

We need to operate from the perspective of love and compassion and never from hate or unforgiveness. We need to be involved in all aspects of our governing body. If you don’t trust your local police department… become one and make a difference in your neighborhood. We are not a country filled with hate. We are not a racist country. We need the voices of the American people that believe as I do to become louder than those who say the word racist fifty times a day. Do I need to remind them that a thief thinks everyone around them are thieves as well?

Watch this video on how using data driven information can shape a better perspective. They discuss policing and education reform with hands on experience. These are good people doing influential work and this is a link to a video that holds great merit. One of the strongest points made was how people (myself included at times) use data that supports our views or arguments while we disregard data from the same source if it does not line up with how we want to represent our views. These are the types of people we want teaching our children, no matter if your black or white, rich or poor or somewhere in between. These gentlemen have got it right and have exerted a great deal of effort to do so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwAK9qbOrAg

opinion

MJ Duffy

Read next: American VP-Elect: Everything you need to know about Kamala Harris

Find us on social media

Miscellaneous links

  • Explore
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Support

© 2022 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.