Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr, David Thornton, Jay Berman

Thank you David, Sanity in an insane world is always appreciated. The nuances of the law often mislead us from ultimately being responsible for doing the right thing. Something each of us have control of.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

This discussion makes me think of ‘A Few Good Men’ …

Dawson : [after the verdict was read] I don't understand... Colonel Jessup said he ordered the Code Red.

Galloway : I know but...

Downey : [nervously] Colonel Jessup said he ordered the Code Red! What did we do wrong?

Galloway : It's not that simple...

Downey : [anxiously] What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!

Dawson : Yeah we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy.

Yes, they were acquitted for the murder charge but they were dishonorably discharged from the Marines.

They still paid a price

And It was acknowledged by Dawson…that it was bad judgement “We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves. We were supposed to fight for Willy.”

Here’s the deal for this Rittenhouse case…

Let’s just put ourselves in the defendants place…

If we haven’t broken the law, non of us should be convicted just because people don’t like our decisions, yes we feel that there should still be consequences.

Unfortunately…it’s not right to establish a new law and then retroactively charge us with it.

We …us …notice I use those words instead of he, him, them …

This discussion has to apply to all.

Put yourself in the chair/cell

How would we feel if we hadn’t broken a law but were convicted ?

That’s just not acceptable.

And don’t say “I never would have made the choice Rittenhouse made”

If we find ourselves being charged for any crime … we want the law to be applied as written. It’s what’s fair and right.

As far as judgment is concerned…

Bad judgment isn’t always illegal right?

(Every day on the freeway I see bad judgement that might not be even illegal but still could cost someone their life if not corrected in real time)

Think of this…

Hasn’t it been all of our “bad judgement” for not addressing laws for situations like these already?

So …if we need to adjust the laws to deal with people that go to these riots/demonstrations, then we should do that.

But we can’t hold people responsible for laws that don’t exist.

I agree with David’s last sentence a lot

“We have issues with which to deal”

David you also wrote this….”Rittenhouse acquittal could have the unintended consequences of making other would-be “citizens on patrol” think that it is okay to lock and load and head downtown when the protests start. It isn’t.”

The consequences should be that we create legislation to address for the future.

This statement “And an acquittal would be bad for the country”

I completely disagree …

If the law wasn’t broken.. acquittal is the right verdict.

Right verdicts for everyone in every case is always good. And that goes for every country on earth.

Sorry… but I think you probably agree.

Thanks for the discussion:)

Expand full comment

"If the law wasn't broken..." If I understand the law, it is profoundly illegal to kill people. The defendant freely admits he did so. The crux of your argument is that no law was broken. The entire premise of the defense is whether breaking the law in this instance was justified, umm, because the law was clearly broken. A guilty verdict would merely indicate that that there was insufficient justification to break the law. Either verdict is fundamentally legal.

Expand full comment

Hi Amy,

I appreciate your feelings

I’m sorry

But …

There is no such thing as profoundly illegal….that’s not real


Killing is not illegal…murder is.

As we as other wrongful death charges that can be brought depending upon the state.

Determining the verdict…

Not up to me or you

The crux of my argument is “if” no law was broken “how would we want to be treated? ”

Not that no law broken

The crux of my argument is “follow the law”

Part of that is a trial and a jury.

And only the 12 jurors decide.

And they only decide based on the evidence that they were legally presented…

Not public opinion or things those outside the jury may have seen that was not presented as evidence.

That’s the same way you would want to be treated right?

Did you know that some of the victims were convicted criminals?

That was not presented to the jury …so they will decide without that information (because it’s not evidence)

Maybe some of us found out about that and it colors our opinion…

But it’s not evidence.

Some might argue that the Jury should have heard about those convictions…but that’s not the Law so they are wrong.

Do you see?

If Rittenhouse is guilty he’s guilty


I was commenting on the original post …

David said…”An acquittal is bad for the country”

The crux of my argument is that if we don’t follow the law , that is bad for the country.

And if we as a country get handed a verdict that follows the law and ends up in acquittal…then if we think the law should be changed, we work to change it.

It’s the only way.

Expand full comment

It is not profoundly illegal to kill people in all circumstances. The law was not clearly broken until and unless the jury says it was. I understand your argument even less than you understand the law.

Expand full comment

The defendant admitted he killed 2 people. His defense acknowledges this. Confessed murder. Murder is not legal. (Unless you are living in Afghanistan, in which your "no law was broken" may apply.) This case is merely to determine whether he was justified to break the law, which would negate his guilt. No movie references are needed. A law was broken. Let us see if the jury agrees to negate the existing status of the crime.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

I personally believe he went fully intending to do harm. Taking a gun to a protest/ riot just doesn’t spell “ patrol “ to me. It seems more like intent to cause bodily harm or murder.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

You may be correct but you really do not know.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

I did start with "I personally believe". If someone is approaching me with a gun I am going with that belief.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

True. I should have simply said that my default position when it comes to another person's inner thoughts and motivation is: "I don't know". I sincerely apologize. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

So, when the riots/protests come to your neighborhood and the local administration tells the police not to confront but to loosely contain and the state government refuses to call in the national guard to forcefully put an end to the riot/protests, what are you going to do. Protect your property like the St Louis couple or run and hide.

Expand full comment
Nov 17, 2021Liked by Chris J. Karr

The St Louis couple is a terrible example: they weren't in any danger, nobody was on their property (or heading towards being on it), and they started point guns at people with fingers on the trigger.

Apply that to Rittenhouse: he wasn't even on his property or in his hometown/state.

There's a big difference between defending yours/your neighbors' property, and heading across state-lines with an illegally owned weapon.

Expand full comment

He did not cross a state line with an illegally owned weapon. The weapon was already in Wisconsin and the judge ruled it was not illegally carried.

Expand full comment

Straw purchases ain't legal, are they?

Expand full comment

Technically Curtis is correct. His friend made the purchase with his money because they knew it was illegal for him to buy the weapon. You would think there would be some charge for carrying and brandishing a weapon you are not legally allowed to possess but this is America so yeah.

Expand full comment

I get where your coming from but the story he told is that the dude bought it and kept it until he could legally obtain it. That's why he didn't have the gun with him, he had to pick it up.

Expand full comment

He did not cross the state line with the rifle. He did not make the straw purchase. The judge ruled his carrying the rifle was legal. We do not make up laws just to further our preferred narrative.

Expand full comment

They were right to be armed as a precaution but I wish they had gotten more weapons training. The thugs tore down a gate into a community with private streets. I would have been concerned. The St. Louis couple had every right to possess and display firearms on their property in a private community. They did not shoot anyone.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the link. The gate looks damage to me and the thugs were invading private property.

Expand full comment

Interesting you say "thugs" all the time, when you see no destruction of property at hand. But that's no surprise

Expand full comment

Yep, little insight into just what ole Curtis is.

Expand full comment

I don't think I agree with you on the comparison being bad, but, that was not what I asked. I asked a direct question which I think is at the root of the issue here.

Expand full comment

The problem you have is you're trying to use a "come to your neighborhood" argument in regards to someone who was not in their neighborhood. The question is ultimately unrelated to Rittenhouse's situation entirely.

Expand full comment

So, if they came to your property with clear intentions of doing harm (say burn it down) or attacked you or your family with pipes bats etc. and you saw no evidence that the administration was about to stop it, would you use lethal force to protect your property?

Expand full comment

Again: how does this apply to Rittenhouse?

Expand full comment

Sorry you don't see the issue. Hope it never comes to your neighborhood.

Expand full comment