Highly Misplaced Honor

KR

Just read the following in Heather’s latest newsletter:

The far-right, pro-gun “Second Amendment Caucus” today hosted Kyle Rittenhouse, the 19-year-old who shot three men, killing two of them, in summer 2020 during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and who was later acquitted of homicide. 

Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO) made the following comment about Rittenhouse’s appearance:  

“It was an honor to have Kyle join the Second Amendment Caucus. He is a powerful example of why we must never give an inch on our Second Amendment rights, and his perseverance and love for our country was an inspiration to the caucus.”

Is it just me or do others find it not only disgusting, but sickening as well, that a person who needlessly SHOT AND KILLED two individuals and walked away scot-free is given accolades such as this?

How can ANY individual who respects human life and all it stands for declare that Kyle Rittenhouse’s actions were a “powerful example” of the “rights” declared in the Second Amendment?

Perhaps it was the way I was raised, but it is so completely beyond my understanding that ANYONE would heap praise and verbal trophies of approval on an individual who KILLED two people (and injured a third) using a gun that he should never have had in the first place!

I’m sorry, but I simply cannot agree that allowing an individual to buy, own, and use a gun to shoot and kill others and then walk away scot-free was the goal behind those who wrote the Second Amendment.

The personal ego already has a strong element of dysfunction, but the collective ego is, frequently, even more dysfunctional, to the point of absolute insanity.
–Eckhart Tolle

42 thoughts on “Highly Misplaced Honor

  1. It is sickening, indeed. But you must remember this, Nan…..JESUS!!!! See, JESUS owned guns and killed himself many a Roman and non-Christian with them back in the day. Remember this famous Bible verse, “And thus Jesus pulled out a .357 Magnum and said unto Pilate, ‘DIE, you stinking non-Christian, woke, liberal bastard!!! DIE!!!’ And thus Pilate did die with his brains spattered all over his beautiful new white toga. And on this day, Christianity was born.” Matthew 25: 18-21.

    Liked by 10 people

  2. I’m with you, Nan! It is beyond disgusting and sickening and enraging! Kyle Rittenhouse AND his mother should be sitting in a prison cell! Instead, the Republican Party honours him and has plans to make him a member of Congress as soon as he’s eligible! This speaks volumes about the lack of integrity of the Republican Party. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. Nan: “…not only disgusting, but sickening as well, that a person who needlessly SHOT AND KILLED two individuals and walked away scot-free…”

    Jill: “I’m with you, Nan! It is beyond disgusting and sickening and enraging! Kyle Rittenhouse AND his mother should be sitting in a prison cell!

    Rittenhouse killed two people in self defence. The facts are unequivocal but matter not one whit to those whose faith-based beliefs already REVEAL The Tribal Truth (TM) that Nan’s sentiment so well encapsulates. What, exactly, is disgusting and sickening and enraging?

    Yoda: ‘Stronger is the tribalism here than respect for what’s true.’
    Me: “Faith-based belief poisons everything.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Somehow I KNEW when I posted this that I would get this kind of response from you since you have extensively pointed out your POV on other posts related to the very misguided actions of this young person. And I wasn’t wrong, was I?

      Please honor my request that this post not be turned into another discussion/battle of “faith-based” ideology and accept that this is my stance and it will not be changed by further “evidence” of my wrong-thinking. Thanks!

      Liked by 3 people

      • You reduce the point of the post about ‘celebrating’ gun violence by (once again) retelling a preferred narrative that simply isn’t true. Why continue undermining the validity of your main post (suggesting the tribal acceptance is somehow important or adds validity when it does exactly the opposite)?

        Like

        • Do I need to repeat what I wrote in my above comment?

          Further, in case you missed it, this post was more about the Republican Party honoring a kid who killed two people simply because they want to further their twisted idea of what the Second Amendment stands for. The fact that I happen to disagree with the jury’s verdict is besides the point.

          Liked by 3 people

        • You disagree? Well, that’s handy. Creationists disagree with evolution, too. See? Everybody is entitled to their own truth, I guess… which then removes the common ground for criticizing the issue (and using evidence from reality to substantiate it) over ‘celebrating’ the 2nd with those who have participated in gun violence. Your point is reduced by including something YOU claim is the case but which in fact is not true.

          Look, this matters because what’s independently true – beyond whatever you and I might prefer to believe – needs to be the baseline on which positions can be justified. If you remove this requirement and substitute preferences, there can be no common ground with those we disagree… all we offer is simply an appeal to tribalism. That’s very much part of partisan problem.

          That’s why I included that aspect in my original comment about tribalism: it’s easy to build silos; it’s hard to build consensus. Appealing to the former serves to divide and that is the biggest problem I think each of us needs to address starting with ourselves. Let’s ALL respect what’s true first and foremost and put aside our tribal differences when understanding a raised issue like you’ve done here. If we can’t do that (or are unwilling) then no matter what the issue or problem might be, we only add higher walls and more entrenched beliefs against any solutions or consensus we must find together in order to address it together.

          Liked by 1 person

        • “Please honor my request that this post not be turned into another discussion/battle of “faith-based” ideology and accept that this is my stance and it will not be changed by further “evidence” of my wrong-thinking. “

          Liked by 4 people

        • It would possibly be a good idea, tildeb, to either look a bit more closely at ‘the facts’, or look up what the word unequivocal means. Is everyone really entitled to their own truth? What does that even mean?
          What seems likely (though perhaps not unequivocal) is that if this impressionable 17 year-old had stayed at home that night then 3 innocent people would have not died. I think the local businesses that he was allegedly protecting would have been fine too.
          Your point about the dangers of tribalism are valid, and apply to all tribes. It’s of much bigger concern when one tribe promotes the idea of arming themselves with deadly weapons in order to add weight to their ‘truth’.
          Nights when a misguided teenager is on the loose with a military weapon are rarely going to end well.
          Promoting one of them as a hero is ludicrous.

          Liked by 7 people

      • Nothing to see here. tiledb is just doing his right wing concern trolling. Again . Because he is SUCH a true blue liberal ( u like you bad bad tribalists !!!)and the big threat to modern America are the woke leftie tribe.

        lol.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Seems to be traveling under the misassumption that only the nutballs have guns, know how to use them and are only waiting for the shooting to start ~ to see the whites of their eyes, so to speak ~ to shoot back. I 1) encourage that misassumption, and 2) am looking forward to it.

          Like

    • It’s certainly debatable that his actions were self defense. The law may have allowed that defense, but as the old saying goes “the law is an ass.” I don’t think one should be able to inflame a situation that causes others to attack you (in the interest of their own self preservation) and then kill them using self defense as a justification. Of course, others opinions may vary.

      What I think is more interesting is how the far right celebrates that piece of shit, and is just another example of how repugnant the Republican party has become into in the last 20 years. That seems to be Nan’s point.

      Liked by 3 people

      • The 20 person jury unanimously accepted the credibility of Rittenhouse’s fear that his life was in imminent danger and that he had to shoot Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz to save his own life. Unanimous. Not believed. Convinced… BY UNEQIVOCAL COMPELLING EVIDENCE. Belief plays no part here. Opinion plays no part. Those who disagree with the unanimous verdict and then hide behind such wiggle words to continue to deny reality are not treating the overwhelming and mutually supportive evidence from reality that the jury found unanimously convincing. You’re not operating on evidence. You are operating on something else. For those who have stayed away from reality to keep their beliefs pure regarding the fictional narrative about how evil Rittenhouse and his murderous attentions were, there is this:

        Rittenhouse testified that Rosenbaum behaved “hyper-aggressively” towards him, chasing him down and making a grab for Rittenhouse’s rifle, testimony that was corroborated by witnesses’ video evidence.

        In the second instance, Rittenhouse testified that Huber had attacked him, hitting him with a skateboard, a statement that was also corroborated by video evidence. Two witnesses supported the defense’s claim that Rosenbaum had acted aggressively toward Rittenhouse prior to being shot, being described as lunging for Rittenhouse’s gun and attempting to provoke a reaction from Rittenhouse.

        Grosskreutz, the victim that had survived the shooting, initially broadcast as the prosecution’s star witness, wound up giving testimony that bolstered the defense’s claim. Grosskreutz testified that, after he heard the shots fired in the first shooting of Rosenbaum, and was approaching him, Glock pistol in hand, as Rittenhouse shot Huber. Grosskreutz testified that he initially approached Rittenhouse with his own hands in the air, his Glock held limply in one hand. However, when he saw Rittenhouse adjusting his weapon, Grosskreutz brought his arms down and moved toward Rittenhouse, holding his gun pointed at Rittenhouse. This was the moment when Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz. The defense team emphasized the aggressive and hostile appearance of Grosskreutz’ stance and approach in justifying Rittenhouse’s claim that he feared for his life.

        If any one of you found yourself committing the same presumed ‘murders’ in identical situations that Rittenhouse experienced – being attacked and fearing for your life from these violent protestors – I would hope more people here would respect what self defence MEANS and would stand by your side exercising it rather than throw you and anyone who defended you under the narrative bus to seem like a member in good standing of the Ever-So Righteous Tribe. Reality and what’s true in fact should be the primary consideration. That’s what you are arguing against.

        Like

        • “If any one of you found yourself committing the same presumed ‘murders’ in identical situations that Rittenhouse experienced – being attacked and fearing for your life from these violent protestor”

          Here’s the thing. I would never be in an identical situation. I don’t own any guns. I don’t carry a weapon. I don’t bring gasoline when the fire is already out of control.

          Rittenhouse set the fire and then worried about his own life because of the dangers that he presented to others.

          Rittenhouse is a piece of shit and deserves no respect from anyone, even if the laws are currently written so as to find him not guilty by reasons of self defense.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Not the point. He was separated, chased, cornered, threated, assaulted. But no one seems to think these violent protesters did anything to bring about the results. Nope. It’s all one sided. Except the jury didn’t go along with the narrative so many here have endorsed without caveat because… well, evidence. That’s why I say including the discredited narrative when talking about gun violence is not helpful. But it IS very much tribal.

          Like

        • And the point of my post –that YOU continue to overlook in your rush to discuss “tribalism”– is not so much whether the kid was guilty or not guilty, but rather that the Republican Party HONORED him for exercising his Second Amendment “rights” to carry a gun. The fact that he killed two people and severely wounded a third with that gun is a mere trivial point to them.

          Technically, he shouldn’t have even had the gun. The individual who gave it to him was charged in November 2020 with two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death. (Apparently he took a plea deal.)

          Liked by 4 people

        • Right… it’s the honouring of gun violence that is the issue worthy of condemnation. Not Rittenhouse. That’s why I say declaring him to be some kind of murderer (murder means unlawful death, which does not fit Rittenhouse’s case… those were found to be lawful deaths and – whether you agree or not – IS the fact) takes away the legitimacy of looking at gun violence generally and criticizing specifically how the interpretation of the 2nd causes this social dysfunction that results in so many deaths.

          Like

        • @Tildeb. We agree, that gun violence is worthy of condemnation, but is it not the case, that by rising Rittenhouse – really just a nother victim of the ridiculous “interpretation” of the 2nd amendment – to a pedestal is a fairly alarming sign of the depth of the problem? Was this topic post not precisely about that? Is it not true, that the court descision to redeem him and especially the adults responsible of him, are an obvious part of the problem about the issue on the 2nd amendment fairly liberal interpretation? Did the court serve the actual law, or even your sense of justice? Or was it a farce? Did not the court descision mean, that from now on anyone who pull the trigger first and lives to tell the tale of how threatened they felt has every right to do so? If Grosskreuz had shot first, when Rittenhouse “adjusted” his gun, would he not be a murderer? Would he have been found of having done a “legal killing”? There would most certainly have been one less fatality. Was Stalin not a murderer, because no court of law ever found him guilty? Perhaps a court could make the case he acted in self defence? May we not call him a murderer? Is that a “fact”?

          To me, both the court descion to ignore circumstances, that led to this tragedy – that it was no mere accident in self defence, as both Rittenhouse and Grosskreuz had armed themselves for the evening out – and the fact that political opportunists are able to run their sick agenda by hero worship of a happless kid, who has ended up killing people, who were not trying to kill him, or even rob him, but most likely just disarm him. A kid with a gun in a public space.

          The tribalism I see there, looking at this from the outside, is the sort created by those very same populist politicians using this young “brave” as a totem animal, with nothing less than a religious fervour. Not the people condemning them, condemning the court that did no service to justice, or condemning the shooter who intentionally brought a gun to the situation and then, surprize, surprize, ended up using it to kill people. Albeit he has been subject to heavy indoctrination and propaganda and was h just a kid. I am sure you want to call for objectivity, but are you sure you have your facts right?

          Liked by 3 people

        • Look, I can relate to Rittenhouse, as when I was young I lived in a bit of a rough neighbourhood and I had to defend my life and limb a couple of times with violence. Mostly because I am a stupid individual with a talent for getting myself into trouble. In his case I mostly blame the adults, the poor legal system and a culture of violence and guns.

          Maybe I am looking at this somehow the wrong way. In Finland the police officer who met him just prior to the shooting would have taken him into custody and confiscated the weapon. Finnish police would not have allowed any armed militia to gather and if private property was in danger they would have responded in minutes to a distress call by the owner of the car depo, the vigillantes were supposedly defending. If the police would not have the manpower to oversee the demonstrations and riots, they have the right to call on the military. If the shooting had taken place here and it had been deemed to have happened in self defence, the verdict would have most likely been a conviction about firearm violation and a nother on exessive violence (skateboard and bare hands vs a gun), and propably one of involuntary manslaughter. There would have been a conviction, but the sentence would most likely be a lot more leanient, than anything in the USA.

          I am not saying my society is perfect, or that the US is thoroughly rotten, far from it. However to me the reasons that led to this tragedy and the way it was and still dealt with are symptomic of a bigger problem.

          Liked by 3 people

  4. Never know, might just have to throw down a tyranny of a minority imposed upon the majority.

    Could be an out-of-control government, could be an out-of-control religion.

    I’ve read the Second Amendment a thousand times (metaphorically), in three languages (really), and nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say anything at all about a tyrannical government (or religion), nor does it define either the majority, or the minority; just says “in case we need to rise up in rebellion someday and throw down a tyranny of a minority imposed upon the majority.” In fact it doesn’t even actually say that but that is moot in the generally accepted vernacular, is beside the point, the implication handed down to us (((over the ages))) is we might need to rise up in rebellion someday and throw down a tyranny of a minority of ignorant, racist loudmouths, or an ideologically stacked panel of non-elected vigilantes handing down edicts in the dark … imposed on the majority, imposed on the rest of us.

    Shorter, less obtuse version: these times (interesting aeh?) define their version …

    Liked by 3 people

  5. I read this this morning and it disgusted me. Just like Bobbert and Greene disgust me and the people who support this spoiled sick brat who got away with murder! This really shows the utter injustice of our legal system. Imagine if he had been black or Hispanic!

    Liked by 5 people

  6. And this from USA Today

    “Even before Judge Bruce Schroeder’s questionable in court behavior, in the pre-trial phase, the judge kept prosecutors from offering evidence of Rittenhouse’s association with the alt-right group the Proud Boys and his prior, and arguably relevant, statements about wanting to shoot unarmed civilians with an AR-15 over property crimes. And during trial, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger poked holes in Rittenhouse’s lawful self-defense claims on cross-examination, and in his closing arguments.
    That’s because “self-defense” and “lawful self-defense” are not the same. 
    In common law doctrine people are allowed to defend themselves against a perceived imminent attack. But there are rules and exceptions, including proportionality and provocation. Binger did a good job emphasizing this in closing arguments when he told the jury, “You cannot claim self-defense against a danger that you create.”

    Even if he did not set out to kill anyone, Rittenhouse should have anticipated that, as a civilian patrolling the streets with an AR-15 during a protest that was getting progressively out of control, he might end up killing someone, or get killed himself. He was, in fact, the only person that night who killed anyone.”

    Liked by 9 people

  7. This is one event that I and most people in Australia could not believe, the judge is clearly corrupt, simply a biased political pawn and a biased right wing jury was set up and chosen . How does the law of the US swallow such an obvious scam and why don’t the families of the murdered men take out a civil case? How do these so called Christians blatantly defy their god by using lies and misinformation while expecting they will go to heaven?

    Liked by 4 people

    • sklyjd, I was just about to bring up the judge myself. The judge should have been thrown off the case before it even went to trial. He dismissed the charges related to illegal possession of the weapon claiming Wisconsin has conflicting laws and that there was a law that indicated a 16 or 17 yr old could legally possess a firearm. He was flat out wrong and Politifact pointed that out. The law pertaining to someone his age carrying a rifle pertained ONLY to hunting situations. Except when hunting in Wisconsin, someone his age is not legally able to carry a firearm. The trial was covered pretty extensively here and it was blatantly obvious that the judge was biased in favor of the defendant from the beginning. He maintained an antagonistic attitude towards prosecutors through the entire trial. He refused to allow the prosecutors to call the victims of the shooting “victims” but did allow the defense to call the victims “looters” and “arsonists”. The whole thing was a textbook example of judicial bias from the beginning.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Nor am I surprised by the occasional commenters here, who stick up for these horrible types of people, who have such obvious “anger management ” issues, themselves.

      Liked by 6 people

  8. No matter what the law says/has said on the subject, this gun fondling asshat went to another state looking for someone to shoot, and found a few he did shoot. Reprehensible.

    Predictably, the gun fondling R party has elevated this little sack of shit to a place of honor. It’s a R wet dream to actually shoot “bad guys” with their guns. Oh, and they have the power to determine who are the “bad guys.” Damn convenient.

    Neither Rittenhouse, or the party that supports him, harbor the morality, or common decency, of a Nazi sympathizer.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. It would be ridiculous, if it was not so tragic. Had he been shot by someone seeing a suspicious looking civillian individual alone in the street with a gun acting threateningly, would they now call the shooter a “good guy with a gun” and “a powerfull example” who prevented a tragedy?

    Liked by 3 people

      • Why, thank you. I just do not get it.

        If the events had turned out just a little different and Grosskreuz had shot Rittenhouse, when he “adjusted” his weapon, would the same judge and jury have come to the same conclusion? That it was self defence and therefore a legal killing? If not, then why? If they had come to the same conclusion, that would mean, that this is a precedence for when ever two armed people meet, who ever shoots first can go free. What an interresting combination it makes with the totally free right to bear arms.

        In any case the conclusion from the trial is , that circumstances have none what so ever to do in evaluating wether a killing was in self defence, or manslaughter, or murder. Only the emotions of the survivor count. We can no longer ask wether those killed felt threatened, were they acting in self defence, or in common public interrest. Nobody assumes they were acting out of pure spite and malice, or that this was some kind of robbery? That would make the gun lobby argument of guns preventing crime rather redundant.

        What is it, that they think they are celebrating in building a hero image around Rittenhouse? Being attacked for carrying a gun and barely surviving it, when a nother person carrying his got shot by Rittenhouse? Being just a fraction more inclined to kill, when scared wittless, than the other dude who had brought a gun to a demonstration, or what?

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Speaking of “sickening and disgusting,” as long as politicians like Lauren Boebert keep getting elected and reelected by voters who must be blind not to see how morally corrupt she is, it is obvious that mass murders will continue to be condoned and even justified by those who have no business being in office….and yet we call our country a “shining light on the hill.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Do remember that Bobert very nearly lost her reelection bid, even though the district was further gerrymandered to make it lean more Republican. It was extremely close (554 votes, or about .17% of votes cast) and she could have easily lost.

      We are seeing backlash against these extremist MAGA clowns. They had a hard time in the last election, and are being rejected by most people. My hope is that one day the Republican party will be rid of them, and come back to sanity, but I don’t know if that will ever happen. Until they do, they’re going to keep losing elections. That makes me smile a little bit.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I posted elsewhere earlier (https://homelessonthehighdesert.com/2022/11/21/encouraging) about how encouraged I am that a civilian did more in twenty seconds than the entire Uvalde Police Dept. and a shit-ton of heavily armed backup could do in a day. I think the Q Club incident is a Rubicon that’s been crossed, the straw that’s breaking the camel’s back ~ one person didn’t back down, didn’t like a Lucky Man lay down and die, and others joined in. That’s what it’s gonna’ take: a mob overwhelming and subduing the nutballs, however that may turn out.

        Way everybody loves Russia these day’s it’ll probably turn out like their revolution …

        Liked by 1 person

      • yet half the voters still chose her. “Maybe the problem is not the politicians. Maybe the problem is the people”-George Carlin

        But hey…our prolific commentator here knows Trump people who are in-tuhleksuhls. and we need to reach out to them (or else they may gun us down,)

        Liked by 2 people

        • If one could sway, say, an additional 1% to vote Democrat by reducing the fuel used to prefer this wingnut, Boebert would have lost. THAT is my ongoing point you seem incapable of grasping. THAT is the challenge for the rank and file Democrats to insist the party promote rather than creating an even greater divide between tribes.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Yes Tildeb, you may have a point, but as an outsider to US politics I would say, that it appears to me you would demand the Democratic party (and both the indipendent media + entertainment industry) should abandon reason, justice and conscience for lunacy, lies and inequality to persuade back into their flock a bunch of dudes who have already lost their integrity. Like here in the case of Rittenhouse, so that you ask people to act like it was not a travasty. Even if the court case was not as corrupt as it appears and it was all about self defence, while he and especially the adults responsible of him go free and his victims (oh, they were not allowed to be called that by the judge – because if you tried to disarm a happless kid with a gun in a public place and were shot by him you would not be a victim, or something) families get no justice, you are annoyed at this topic post abhorring the fact, that he is raised on pedestal by political opportunists?
          Even if strategic move to give up principles you seem to desire would not lead to division and defeat of the Democratic party, but to win elections, would it not be a hollow victory?

          Liked by 1 person

        • True, but one needs to look at the bigger picture. This was a mostly rural, heavily red leaning district and she still nearly lost. Had the Republicans put forward a more “moderate” (a term I use very loosely) candidate they would likely have won by 10 to 20 (or maybe even more) percent. That tells you just how much these polarizing figures are damaging to the Republican party’s election chances. We saw this same story play out across the country. It’s part of the reason the red wave never materialized.

          The big question on my mind is: Will the Republicans learn anything from this, or will the MAGA faction continue to drive the party? Will they accept that Trump is a loser and that they need to move on? Time will tell I guess.

          Liked by 4 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.