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
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

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