When Everyone Is Armed Security

This will be a pretty short post because I really only have a few questions about the recent verdict by a criminal court and jury in Kenosha, Wisconsin the other day.

Admittedly I did not closely follow the story because events like this have sadly become regular occurrences (weekly? monthly?) across the U.S. over the last decade or more. However, when a dear family friend stopped by to visit yesterday she asked Mom and I what we thought about the jury’s decision in the case. Not knowing much about it to even say three words, I looked it up online on several news websites to familiarize myself with details. My very first question was Who exactly were the victims killed by the shooter? and second, Were those killed protestors armed with weapons drawn? I found my answers to these questions on NBC5 Chicago’s website here. I was pleased NBC5 Chicago provided some background on the three victims.

To my slight surprise I read that all three men shot by Rittenhouse were white/caucasian men. Though the original incident that they were protesting was a (white) police officer firing 7-shots into the back of an African-American man, Jacob Blake, which paralyzed Mr. Blake from the waist down. Later the white police officer was not charged for the shooting of Blake though the incident was captured on cellphone video by a neighbor. This trend by law-enforcement on ethnic minority persons has become a national powder-keg, deservedly and understandably so. This is why Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz—the three victims of Rittenhouse—were at the Jacob Blake protest in August 2020.

Kyle Rittenhouse, then 17-yrs old from Antioch, Illinois claimed ‘to be offering armed security’ with his loaded AR-15-styled semi-automatic rifle around the protesting crowd then supposedly had to defend himself against Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz who, as he asserts, ‘wanted to take his life.’

All sorts of questions began swirling in my head after reading these accounts, including a plethora of unproven presumptions by all parties concerned. I am really struggling to find the understanding and wisdom of these angry people, protestors, armed protestors, law-enforcement, and the priority of non-violent grievances by citizens! What am I missing? Why wasn’t there longer and more forethought BEFORE acting on intense emotions? In fact, I have so many questions like this that I’ve tried these last two days to condense them down to these few questions, yes, some rhetorical:

  • Was 17-yr old Kyle Rittenhouse trained and licensed to legally or morally “offer” legitimate security and safety with other trained riot-officers?
  • Was Rittenhouse trained and licensed in the field of psychology and necessary Crisis Management techniques to “offer” peaceful security?
  • Does an AR-15-styled semi-automatic rifle, fully loaded, and ready to fire project an air of calm and peacefulness to a volatile crowd?
  • Does a teenager armed with this military-grade weapon, but not dressed in any recognizable law-enforcement uniform or in riot-gear as law-enforcement project an air of calm and peace?
  • If an unarmed protestor sees civilian clothed, heavily armed boys or men (or women) coming toward them in a weapons-ready posture, will that unarmed civilian protestor immediately feel safe?
  • Did Rittenhouse previously know—or have a friendship with—all three men he felt attacked him and wanted to kill him? Did the three victims know Rittenhouse at all?
  • If one wants to deescalate a highly intense, possibly volatile situation and encourage “cooler heads to prevail,” would coming armed with an AR-15-styled semi-automatic rifle, fully loaded, screaming(?) and postured to fire at you immediately… project the best way to “help” someone relax, become civil, and calm?
  • Continuing from the previous question, did the Kenosha Police Department and/or Riot Division ask the general public—even people from out-of-state like Rittenhouse—to come out and give armed security to the event/protest, especially unchecked, untrained citizens?

How many of you would want random, untrained citizens being your police-peacekeeping force and calling themselves 2nd Amendment Militia?

I come up with several more questions that arise from answers to these above eight questions and more. However, I’ll refrain because as I mentioned, I did not follow the entire story and court proceedings. I was and probably still am unaware of key proofs and refutes. But I will close with these further ponderances…

When one is surrounded by fellow statesmen and women, fellow Americans or fellow human beings, or if you are part of a peacekeeping force in a volatile situation or event, or better yet, if you are a member of The United Nations (UN) or very supportive of the UN’s role among (unruly) world governments and vicious regimes… would you attend meetings or negotiations fully armed postured to fight, harm, and kill then with body-bags present, proclaim you were offering safety, peace, and security? Should implications by appearances be completely ignored, completely overlooked as impertinent? Doesn’t the opposite behavior bode much better for non-violence, mentally unstable, inciteful antagonizers or intentional criminal negligence?

I don’t know, maybe I’m just way out of touch with what represents common decency these days. 😔

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

66 thoughts on “When Everyone Is Armed Security

  1. Even those of us who read about what happened, watched the videos of what happened, and listened to the “descriptions” of what happened at the trial … are just as unable to answer your questions as you are.

    There are those who are adamant that he was justified in his actions, but I’m sorry. I’m not convinced.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I am not the least bit convinced either Nan.

      I do understand the “right to defend one’s life, family, and property” WHEN a thief, burglar, murderer, or rapist trespasses uninvited onto your owned property, stopping an intruder in defense of self or loved ones—just as the Native American Indians did in the 1600’s to 1800’s against the white Euro-Americans—BUT… outside of that legal right on your owned private property? No, absolutely not! That’s an entirely different set of parameters. I think the prosecution really screwed up with their agenda—excluding the judge in the case’s severe restrictions upon them.

      But let it be known that I don’t think it smart one bit for Gaige Grosskreutz to be carrying a weapon (drawn) while pretending to be an EMT onsite. That was stupid on his part. Carrying and bringing lethal and loaded weapons to a/our Constitutional Right to publicly protest peacefully our grievances was one of the most imbecilic decisions Grosskreutz made. And it seems it cost him a bullet or two in the arm from Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz is very lucky to come away alive!

      And the skateboarding victim? What a moron he was for attacking a psychotic-like armed boy (wielding an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle) with nothing but a skateboard! Again, the lack of serious forethought by all parties concerned utterly baffles me beyond comprehension.

      Is everyone here so hopelessly ruled by their emotions and anger? Are our (pre-?) selected jury members so tunnel-visioned and short-sighted to not recognize the excessive (intentional) criminal negligence?

      I just can’t think or understand these mentalities Nan. I’m at a loss.

      Liked by 2 people

    • And then you have a handful of lives that will be marked forever — in terrible ways. I doubt Rittenhouse himself will ever recover from this. A very unfortunate mess. Where were the families of all these people to stop them putting themselves in danger?

      Liked by 5 people

      • You are exactly right Pink, “marked forever—in terrible ways.” At least the general public is beginning to become fundamentally aware (as insufficient as that is) to PTSD and its horrible ripple-effects. But there is still a very long way to go in providing these mental-health patients with adequate treatment, much less EXCELLENT treatment nationwide.

        Where were the families, parents, aunts, uncles, etc? Excellent question Pink. I’m not privy to Rittenhouses’ family dynamics or history, but generally speaking, these types of mentalities and behavior are taught to malleable children/teenagers. Taught either directly or indirectly, intentionally by immediate and/or extended family members. Or the negligent careless shooter-criminal was surrounded by or surrounded them self with those ‘shoot first, ask questions later‘ elements.

        Have I missed anything? I haven’t researched Rittenhouse’s family background. ❔

        Liked by 4 people

  2. Here’s a good short article by Jess Singal that explains the facts of the court case and not the social justice make-believe narrative or the heroic alt-Right bullshit widely distributed and still championed by so many – not least of whom write and speak for mainstream media – who should know better, who should be willing to change their support from believing in the fictional narrative or the heroic myth to accepting reality first and foremost. It’s almost like being honest. Well, clutch my pearls.

    Once that acceptance is achieved, the secondary issues of why armed militia is welcomed by businesses, local citizens, and police should be seriously critiqued. How on earth has this come about? What about the role of elected representative who utterly fail night after night after night to provide adequate protection and law enforcement while mouthing support for defunding then police to looting and burning mobs should be held to account, should be criticized for rushing to the front of the social justice and twitter nazi mob terrorizing and destroying without restraint, and pretend to lead by vilifying anyone and everyone who disagrees with the fictional narrative or the heroic myth about Rittenhouse. By all means review gun laws that seem to the rest of the world to be truly batshit crazy. Unless you’re living in the nuthouse.

    But how about we get back to agreeing that what’s true actually matters as a foundation upon which such discussions need to share. Without that fundamental shared respect – and it has almost disappeared from the public forum – no solutions, nothing good, nothing corrective, nothing that unites us is going to happen. If that doesn’t start with each of us, then who the hell is supposed to help bring it about? Which identity group ‘owns’ the right fictional narrative?

    Good grief.

    We will continue to suffer the slide into isolated partisan and increasingly hostile camps that abandon the vast majority of voters caught in the middle… as if they are all racists and bigots and stupid and unpatriotic enemies of the State if they don’t go along with the various narratives. Yeah, that a good election strategy (satire). And if the 15 point shift by middle class suburban Virginia voters across all other group categories away from the Democrats and into the arms of the gleeful Republicans is of no concern to narrative believer, then we can kiss this democracy goodbye when and NOT IF Trump sweeps back into power and completes his dismantling of the liberal democratic state. And this is going to happen because so many normal people caught in the middle of this narrative bullshit idiocy are so sick and tired of being lied to and led astray by so many believers from so many camps.

    Bottom line regarding Rittenhouse and the three people he shot? Given the choice to select among the four which person I would want as a neighbour? Yup. Rittenhouse. Hands down. That’s how skewed the reporting has been about this case.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dear Dwain and tildeb,

      Whether the defendant is guilty and the verdict is just or not, there are a great deal of implications and ramifications regarding a diverse range of issues across multiple spheres of life and influence, of which I have no time to elaborate here.

      May you enjoy your weekend!

      Yours sincerely,


    • I must agree with you on this one Tildeb…

      That’s how skewed the reporting has been about this case.

      But it only took me to read many various reporting organizations and the Kenosha City public records from that precinct to deduce in the end what a legal farce actually happened there.

      And I’m terribly afraid of the precedent set by this case might entail. I’m worried Tildeb, I’m EXTREMELY worried now what risks I would be taking if I took to the public squares, unarmed, protesting peacefully, and what random 2nd Amendment Militia “offering their unskilled, untrained, illegal” security help… would do to PROVOKE me with their loaded weapons drawn, to my family, or to dearest friends marching for what we believe in with conviction. WTF kind of country has this become? It is not a Republic Constitutional democracy anymore, that is clear. Let’s call a spade, A SPADE delusional hyper 2nd Amendment patriots.

      Liked by 5 people

      • I find it remarkable how little press or critical commentary there is about people showing up on a third night of causing injury and terror, setting fires and destroying business and livelihoods, and causing all kinds of willful damage… as if this is just fine and dandy and reasonable civil behaviour because it fall under the banner of ‘demonstrating’.

        Equally remarkable – to me, anyway – is the lack of criticism of local officials that allowed this situation to be a nightly event without any strong response to restore law and order over the destructive mob. It is truly astounding to me that when armed citizen militias appear on this third night, everybody seems quite smug climbing aboard the anti-gun train and castigating those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect property with an armed response, that they are the ones who should have stayed home, that they’re head hunting, that they’re looking to cause violence, that they’re white supremacists and racists and Trump supporters and yada, yada, yada.


        If such a mob came down your street looting and burning and destroying property without a strong police response, I suspect many might have an enlightened moment of understanding, an appreciation for those rare individuals who will step between you and the mob with the armed capability to protect you and yours. That’s actually what good neighbours do, what civil communities do when threatened by a destructive mob, what every citizen worthy of the title should be willing to do, rather than go along with the idiotic charade that violent mobs are virtuous and those who stand up to them are the worst of the worst.

        Liked by 1 person

        • an appreciation for those rare individuals who will step between you and the mob with the armed capability to protect you and yours. That’s actually what good neighbours do …

          Surely you jest! You actually believe the neighbors and citizens of a town should be the ones to “step between”? I’m hoping I misinterpreted your comment!!

          Liked by 2 people

          • When government fails to provide security and protection from lawlessness, who else but citizens, Nan? From where is this magical intervention supposed to come: perhaps the ‘demonstrators’ themselves like those who took over the ‘autonomous zone’ in Portland that has produced not just massive damage costing hundred of millions of dollars but an astonishing rise of ongoing violent and deadly crime?

            Liked by 1 person

            • Did you happen to read grouchyfarmer’s comment?

              Sure, in a life-threatening situation, one might hope for outside assistance from “citizens,” but to say this should be SOP? Nope. Can’t go along with that one.

              Liked by 2 people

            • It should never BE necessary. When it is, it’s a failure of leadership. That’s why the lack of sustained criticism by the mainstream media against those who have not just allowed but propelled lawlessness – be they city or state or federal leaders – is so incredibly dysfunctional. The main stream media should have been highlighting this FAILURE anywhere and everywhere mobs were allowed to rampage… even if the mobs were (and still) are pretending to ‘demonstrate’ for the woke dog whistlers. Instead, we get non stop bullshit about a particular kid who in reality was being chased and attacked and had the misfortune of having to defend himself. The more important question is why this situation was ever allowed to arise not just once, not just twice, but three times in Kenosha by those who could have altered it? There’s your target. Not Rittenhouse.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I agree with parts Tildeb, but wholeheartedly disagree about Rittenhouse’s innocence. My other comments here explain my position about his culpable degrees of intentional criminal negligence.

              Aside from this powder-keg subject, I always appreciate your comments and prospective Sir. 🙂

              Liked by 2 people

            • Of course the “Big Picture” is as you have presented it. Nevertheless, the incident and the trial were about an individual … not public/social policy. Certainly a correction of the latter would help prevent incidents such as this one, but the question (for some) still remains related to the innocence or guilt of Rittenhouse.

              Liked by 3 people

        • Yes Tildeb. I want to step to the side of caution and clarity here though. Your ‘neighborhood’ example is when violent, looking to harm Mob individuals TRESPASS onto your owned property searching out “targets of opportunity.” Yes…

          That’s actually what good neighbours do, what civil communities do when threatened by a destructive mob…

          Literally defending our threatened lives, those of loved ones, and our owned property, yes of course that’s what any sane, reasonable person has every right to do. However, that was NOT what Rittenhouse from Antioch, Illinois was doing in Kenosha, WI. I’m assuming you don’t mean to imply they are both the same thing. One is rightly defending one’s safety/life-lives and property… the other is going out seeking trouble, inciting trouble, while also armed with a highly lethal AR-15 style assault rifle; and the 17-yr old boy was not even legally trained, licensed, or appointed by legitimate law-enforcement to “provide security” and crowd safety. I see the two as night and day.

          But I feel sure you don’t see the two circumstances as equal. 🙂

          Liked by 3 people

          • Here’s the narrative: “the other is going out seeking trouble, inciting trouble.” You’ve taken it onboard because – I think – the mainstream media has pushed this in place of facts, in place of any desire to find out what is true. That’s what the court case and all the testimony clearly revealed. We’ve been sold a narrative that IS NOT TRUE IN FACT.

            When you are operating by such an ‘opinion’, of course you already have your conclusion. It’s predetermined by your imported beliefs. Those beliefs come from those who have sold you the narrative. This is no different than those who operate by religious beliefs, sold their narrative by those who benefit from it.

            The ‘details’ you are using here are part of but not the whole story into which we put actions to determine intent. That’s why we have this little thing called ‘due process’. But you will note that any result that did not confirm the narrative has ALREADY been dismissed as ‘evidence’ for bias. In other words, any result that doesn’t align with the false narrative – ie what’s true – is to be used to support the conspiracy aspect that is wedded to this kind of thinking. It’s boilerplate faith-based belief in action! And if you question this heads-I-win, tail-you-lose narrative, why, then you’re a Very Bad Person and Immoral and you should be dismissed.

            When due process is rejected a priori like in this case, a red flag of GIGANTIC proportions should be raised in your mind: you are being fooled, being lied to, being manipulated, being expected to toe the party line. And that party line is deeply and committedly not just illiberal but actually anti-liberal. Going along with it, I think, has such a profoundly destructive affect to the liberal project that it reminds me of Lincoln’s great warning, that believing such a narrative and being a supporter of it is our ongoing individual test of our civic dedication to the liberal democratic experiment:

            “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war.

            We have direction if we truly are dedicated:

            “It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.”

            Each of us needs to stop believing in bullshit and start acting on principle. Not to do so is a failure of our personal leadership over ourselves.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Tildeb,

              I completely disagree with your first three paragraphs above—that is, if the “you” word you are using indicates me personally. If you are speaking “in general” about anyone falling into that category of a person with preconceived “imported beliefs” (bias) concluding prematurely “due process,” then that is a different implication. But that latter group does not at all include me I’m afraid. 🙂

              Allow me please to share a very REAL personal experience I went thru during my years as an Intake Coordinator or Needs Assessment Coordinator—working in clinical admissions but with financial coordination with the Business Office—at a Psych/A&D hospital…

              Part of my responsibility as that IC/NAC was to assess an “unreferred” person’s viability for our hospital’s psychiatric and/or Dual-Diagnosis chemical-dependency units. Unreferred by a staff physician; they randomly called or walked in for help. These people/families talked with my office. Also, our office was On-call After Hours, 24/7, 365-days a year, i.e. between 9:00pm until 7:00am, always available by phone for the graveyard shift nurses & support staff.

              One particular night while On-call, starting around 2am—when bars close and most psych/A&D patients typically flare up—my pager goes off for an Emergency Assessment; usually by phone. This 40-50 yr old drunk I had the pleasure of helping just had a bad falling out at home with family after he’d been out all night drinking (possibly drugs too) and he fled the house before police could arrive there. He called us for help.

              After many questions put to him, particularly whether he was suicidal or homicidal, I determined that he did indeed deserve (need) immediate admission. I setup the staff doctor On-call for his admission to our Acute Unit asap. One and a half hours later our Acute Unit called me to ask where he was—a no show for the appointed time of 3:30am. I called him back. He suddenly decided he no longer wanted/needed help. Normally end of story.

              An hour later he called our Emergency Line again, crying for help. Things had gone worse with his family members and he sounded inebriated still. Once again, I setup re-assessment, then admission for approx. 4:30am. Again, he was a no show. This is typical alcoholics behavior.

              At 9:30ish AM the hospital lobby receptionist calls me to tell me this man has arrived for his prepared admission into our Dual-Diagnosis Unit. I had the unenviable task to go out to him and tell him that because he did not show for his 4:30am admission time, he was going to have to wait to get back to the unit—four others were ahead of him, three were there waiting also for admission.

              Barely 15-mins later our lobby receptionist called me again, in a panic, and told me “Dwain, you better get out here real fast. Mr. So-n-So just said he was going out to his truck for his rifle” …so he could get admitted immediately! Hurriedly I walked out to the lobby then out the main front doors, found he had reached his truck already and had his rifle in hand standing in his opened truck door. I slowed my walk and calmly told him, “Mr. So-n-So, there’s no need for that. A lot of patients and nurses on your unit will get real upset if you walk into a Psych Hospital carrying a hunting rifle inside. Not good buddy.

              We chatted a bit more there at his truck—the hospital windows were full of scared onlookers—and I explained I could go ahead expedite his pre-admission back on the Acute Unit in his room. His irate demeanor changed to less agitated. But I told him I’ll have to hang-on to his rifle, safely locked up in our CEO’s CFO’s safety until his discharge. He agreed and handed me his rifle. At the doors of the lobby I handed the rifle to our CFO, who was MORE than happy to stow it away, locked up.

              My point to this story?

              I was unarmed, no bulletproof vest on, and was properly trained in Crisis Management & Suicide Prevention techniques; utilized them naturally with the somewhat brief rapport we’d developed ALL DAYUM NIGHT with his belligerence and then threat. Tildeb, naturally this does not have a happy ending every single time in every case. Some mentally unstable people are unrecoverable when the disorder/trauma has gone too far untreated and unaddressed. Now, a specific question for you…

              If I had gone out to Mr. So-n-So’s truck armed to the teeth like Rittenhouse, or any number of past craved gunmen in identical/similar situations, postured to fire my weapon at total strangers… how likely was I to succeed at deescalating Mr. So-n-So that late morning? What might have happened if I had approached him, like a SWAT member decked out in Velcro-fatigues, knees bent and weapon drawn and pointed at him?

              And Tildeb, I have been in practically identical situations THREE times in my life—completely unarmed—and successfully deescalated very irate (white) men with weapons unholstered and postured to use. Granted, I don’t want to keep pushing my luck, BUT… there is a TON to be said about CORRECT appearances projected in volatile, possible deadly Crisis situations. I’ll say it every single time: WEAPONS ARE NOT NEEDED by ordinary untrained citizens in public forums, squares, or large numbered private-property events/festivals. Period. That is the responsibility of licensed, highly trained law-enforcement IN PROPER, IDENTIFIABLE UNIFORMS! This is even MORE true when correct Crisis Management & Suicide Prevention techniques are easily procured, learned well, and properly utilized. Almost ANYONE can learn them and use them. “Shoot first, ask questions later” is an asinine, multiple body-bags-filled life motto and I’ll never agree with any untrained, unlicensed teenage boy or adult man who says otherwise heavily armed out in the public sectors.

              So apologies, I cannot completely agree with your comment above. But that’s okay; we can agree to disagree, as we’ve done before Sir. 😉

              Liked by 4 people

            • My point is that you, meaning you, are importing a belief about Rittenhouse (due process revealed whether that belief was justified). My point is that that belief is not true. My point is that starting your opinions on what is not true means you are exercising a faith-based belief and then drawing all kinds of conclusions that are just as counter-factual. This is not good if – and its obviously a BIG if – one is not concerned with what’s true.

              I also think people are being led to this belief by main stream media (and other people in positions of authority who stand to gain status by going along with the narrative in this woke culture). MSM is NOT concerned with what’s true but in selling a narrative. And I think people who believe in the narrative need to remind themselves that they are supporting, as I tried to explain, not just an illiberal movement but an anti-liberal movement that will fracture the country because they are not acting in either its founding principles or its continuation… like due process. This is bad. This is very bad. I think that beliefs that are later shown to be wrong or misinformed or that do not align with what seems to be the case after reality arbitrates should change their beliefs. That would be good.

              For example, you seem to have no idea that the first person who Rittenhouse killed was a suicidal psychiatric patient released earlier that day, a psychotic person who on video earlier in the day had threatened to kill Rittenhouse, promising he would do just that if he had the opportunity, a guy with a very violent history, a guy who lay in wait for Rittenhouse, a guy who then chased Rittenhouse when separated from his group guarding the car dealership (when the police line moved) down an alley and who then went so far as to lunge for and grab the barrel of Rittenhouse’s rifle. In your mind, Rittenhouse was the mental patient here! Rittenhouse was the one seeking conflict. Rittenhouse was out ‘head hunting’. None of this is true. All evidence shows Rittenhouse was trying to get away from this psycho but that the guy wanted Rittenhouse to either die at his hand or be killed by Rittenhouse in the attempt.

              You ignore his work earlier in the day spending hours scrubbing and washing and trying to remove graffiti from a local high school, offering and giving first aid on several occasions during the daylight hours to the peaceful demonstrators who went by the dealership.

              Where did you get that notion of psychiatric instability and violence seeking if not from mainstream media because the court documents and video and drone footage CLEARLY shows Rittenhouse doing his best trying to get away from this crazy person for several blocks and then the two who attacked him shortly thereafter. You believe some calming conversation should have preceded this quickly unfolding and unprovoked attack on Rittenhouse. You believe Rittenhouse had no reason to be there. Therefore you believe Rittenhouse carrying a rifle means he wanted to kill people. But you completely ignore (probably because you are unaware) his willingness to give aid, presume that he had no training to give such aid when in fact he had some training, unaware that he worked as life guard in Kenosha and stayed with his father in Kenosha and who had friends and relatives nearby in Kenosha. Where does any of this factor into your psychiatric assessment? Well, it seem it doesn’t.

              To me, it seems clear that you did not follow the court case or really have much knowledge about it EXCEPT from what the mainstream media has been selling you. It’s VERY clear to me that you have no idea of the context in which this tragedy unfolded, no regard that the next two who were shot either attacked him directly or pointed a load revolver at his head when he was on the ground after trying to run away. Somewhere you think young Rittenhouse should have done this or that to align with your de-escalating interventions and utterly fail to take into consideration what ACTUALLY went down, what the ACTUAL conditions were, what the ACTUAL context was. I’m reading nothing BUT blame aimed ONLY at Rittenhouse and a complete and utter pass to spread that blame around to either the repeated violent mob activities that were going on at the time including the discharging of firearms weapons or the people charged with keeping the peace. There’s a REASON why the police line was where it was and working in tandem (although poorly coordinated) with this civilian militia. And it wasn’t because they wanted to help Rittenhouse kill some rioters and arsonists.

              But worst of all, I’m reading comment after comment that follows the woke script narration and distrusts the due process that revealed what actually happened… substituting a narrated belief of fiction in place of fact to maintain it. That’s not good. It undermines exactly that which can pull such divergent camps of people back together again: a common set of values based on liberal principles.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Sheesh, tildeb! GET OFF THE SOAPBOX! This is probably the umpteenth time I read your “argument,” along with your contempt for the “Woke” generation.

              Believe it or not, others have opinions too. Yours is not the be-all, end-all perspective!

              Liked by 3 people

            • Sheesh Nan, if only you could stop telling me what to do. This is probably the umpteenth time you have told me to stop pointing out the dissemination of false information is counterproductive to respecting what’s true, stop showing my contempt for the illiberalism that drive this disregard for what’s true, to stop decrying illiberalism and support it in the name of something else, and to stop explaining why it is illiberal and what contrary affect that support has to the ideals in whose name it is being spread. Most importantly you’re telling me to stop explaining why going along with illiberalism in all its public forms is part of the very problem that is fueling the decline of liberalism. You think being shown in a variety of ways how liberals are being fooled into being illiberal, in the name of some liberal value the act undermines, is just too tedious to be considered as being part of the problem. You think criticizing illiberalism is ‘only’ a perspective and that once stated should be enough as illiberalism continue to gain momentum and fuel the rise of both populism and autocracy. I think this contrary voice to illiberalism you hear from me isn’t loud enough, isn’t supported enough, isn’t heard enough. And so I WILL say so in spite of you neither hearing what I’m saying nor supporting the message not because you haven’t read the words but because you continue to support illiberalism – in this case, anti-liberalism – in a variety of ways. In this case you intentionally try to undermine due process. You. Nan.

              Just like an atheist criticizing people who support and act on religious beliefs contrary to these same liberal principles, the atheist who is told by believers to get off the soapbox, who receive ‘correction’ from the accommodationists who insist that they are the ‘I’m an atheist, but…’ critics who want to appear more conciliatory than critical and so go along with dismissing critical atheists and tell them to stop talking, like the atheist who is told by believers to stop talking and accept the incompatible religious beliefs about reality as if they were another way of knowing, I find the same treatment from so-called ‘liberals’ like you. And I find this highly hypocritical and problematic. Illiberalism is not an equivalent but some different kind of liberalism any more than religious belief imposed on reality is not an equivalent but different way of knowing. And when illiberal opinions result in support for anti-liberal opinions (like dissing due process) that are then justified by other so-called liberals, you bet your ass I’m going to call people out on this hypocrisy.

              Perhaps you don’t grasp the importance and danger of LIBERALS accepting a false narrative and defending it by mainstream media like so many have regarding the Rittenhouse case. Perhaps you don’t grasp why this feeds directly into supporting those who claim mainstream media is Fake News. Guess what? IT IS FAKE NEWS. And those who go along with it even AFTER it’s been shown to be fake news are the True Believers whom really are part of the problem dismantling a liberal democracy from within. Such people are appropriately called collaborators.

              The bridge that can bring Democrats and Republicans together rests on the foundation of what’s true. This becomes obvious when a natural disaster strikes and people put aside concerns outside of what is immediate and real. If people on either side of this identity divide are unwilling to trust that foundation, are unwilling to change their beliefs and opinions to align with that foundation, are unwilling to even support the notion in the hope of protecting their silo and sacrifice their liberals principles to do so, then I think NOT speaking out over and over and over again against anyone supporting illiberalism is a failure of citizenship.

              Just shut up? No. Not going to happen, Nan.


            • I find the same treatment from so-called ‘liberals’ like you. My political stance is a mixed bag — and I would appreciate you keeping that in mind when you mention me in your tirades. Thanks. 😘

              Liked by 3 people

            • I’m not mentioning your politics; I’m mentioning your values and principles, which also seem to be quite flexible. This is not a compliment.


            • Tildeb, I appreciate the fact that both you and Nan have not started any inappropriate personal insults—which would violate my rules of “Netiquette” available on my Main Menu bar—and not that either of you are the least bit that way. I imagine both of you have already read my page on “Netiquette.” 🙂 For that I do thank you both for not doing so DESPITE the fact that this subject matter is certainly controversial and a powder-keg with a shorter than usual fuse. I knew this and the risks going in and with publishing this blog-post.

              That said, I think it might be best Tildeb to allow things to simmer down awhile, let it lie. That IS NOT to say you have been given a “gag-order” here. Of course you are still welcome to express your ideas, opinions, values, beliefs, experience, etc. Perhaps a slight change of direction is in order? Now, I do not mind soliciting the concept of iron sharpens iron discussion and debate. After all, that is an integral mechanism and dynamic of true democracy in a Republic, BUT done with ever-present patience and stoic, composed diplomacy. And believe you me… I am STILL a work-in-progress when trying to practice what I preach. This subject matter does challenge even our best efforts. I do understand this. I feel I know both of you pretty well and I know BOTH of you have good intentions and good hearts. Nan, many times you’ve had to “check me” on my words and language a few times and in every single case you did so with superb dignity and respect toward me. I am always grateful for your classy touch with me. Tildeb, I’ve seen the same from you multiple times here on my blog as well. Thank you Sir.

              I do not wish to quell the debate/discussion here, but I will mention… let’s not forget our good natures and that in some/many ways the three of us and those in our WordPress circles do see eye-to-eye on most issues if not many issues.

              With respect and gratitude for both of your feedbacks and perspectives, thank you. ❤️

              Liked by 2 people

            • I understand , Prof. So let me leave you with a couple of questions and see if you can find the link between them:

              Why have a trial if only one predetermined outcome will be accepted as legit?
              Why have an election if only one predetermined outcome will be accepted as legit?


            • I’ve made my case/position quiet clear. I still stand firmly and respectfully where I’ve stated my position to be with Rittenhouse’s case. We can leave it at… agree to disagree and there is no “winner” between the two of us, and simply let others and prosperity decide on the final judgement. 🙂

              Thanks as always for your continued feedback, perspective, and worthy critiques. I do always appreciate them Sir. ❤️

              Liked by 3 people

            • Dear Dwain and tildeb,

              I would like to add that Rittenhouse is likely to face further trials at the civil and/or federal courts. In any case, the bar of proving a defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is very high in the criminal court, as opposed to that in the civil court. Furthermore, once the defence team was successful in limiting or focussing the case to one of self-defence, it was destined to be very difficult for the prosecution team, who could no longer bring many other matters into consideration. In addition, Caucasians have a much better advantage and are much more likely to receive positive outcomes whereas non-Caucasians or people of colour have been statistically far more likely to be convicted and also sentenced far more heavily.

              Yours sincerely,

              Liked by 1 person

            • This also reminds me of creationists who tell the biologists that they’ll just have agree to disagree, as if the incompatible positions have equivalency even though reality only agrees with one side of the ‘debate’. The narrative about Rittenhouse being the worst of the worst or the best of the best are both fictions. This kid, trying to do what he thought was the right thing in alignment with his appreciation for law enforcement, ended up being the play toy of those trying to sell false narratives. We shouldn’t allow that to continue as if it were an equivalent opinion. This whole thing was and is tragic and destructive. That is the guaranteed result of tolerating violent mobs by local authorities no matter what nice label is slapped on this rampaging pig. And those who cash in on selecting a victim and creating a narrative about him are just as deplorable. And that’s from both the Left and Right.

              Liked by 2 people

            • That is the guaranteed result of tolerating violent mobs by local authorities no matter what nice label is slapped on this rampaging pig.

              Agreed. But my position is adequately stated (and opposed to yours, perhaps partially) and I’ll leave it at that Sir. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

      • From Bari Weiss’ substack article about the main stream media’s non stop narrative that Rittenhouse was a “White supremacist” with no connection to Kenosha, that he brought his gun to Kenosha over state lines, that him having the gun was illegal per se, etc.—and it shows one-by-one how the media had misled the public on each point. According to Weiss:

        “This wasn’t a disinformation campaign waged by Reddit trolls or anonymous Twitter accounts. It was one pushed by the mainstream media and sitting members of Congress for the sake of an expedient political narrative—a narrative that asked people to believe, among other unrealities, that blocks of burning buildings somehow constituted peaceful protests.”

        And that’s what I keep reading over and over again, that Rittenhouse ‘targeted’ peaceful protesters. He did no such thing. This is 180 degrees from what’s true. So why is this misinformation still being used by so many so continue to frame the acquittal as something bad rather than as something good? Why do so many people still want to commit to what Ziad Jiliani calls ‘oikophobia’ (the opposite of xenophobia), which refers to being fearful of one’s own native land? This seems to be a common theme to all institutions overwhelmed by progressive ideology, to ‘do the work’ to repudiate all things liberal, repudiate all things Western, repudiate all things American, like a fair trial in this case. Yes, how very very horrible. Let’s get out there tonight (like last night) and get back to burning and looting and destroying because that will fix everything.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. All I have to say is this: As a person concerned with the safety of society, I carry a small thermonuclear device with me in a backpack at ALL times. One never knows when violence will erupt which will require me to take out two or three full city blocks with my device. I’m carrying this weapon because the second amendment allows me to and because I’m deeply concerned about the safety and well being of my fellow man. Thank you, and my God have mercy on you if you piss me off after I’ve spent a full night binge drinking with my hand on the detonator of my nuclear device. $Amen$

    Liked by 4 people

    • Jeff, I thought a few different times to use a closely similar metaphor as you have… your small thermonuclear device in your backpack to demonstrate culpable degrees of intentional criminal negligence. But my metaphor is a very VISIBLE (terrorist-style) lit up, suicide vest with FAKE squares of C-4 explosives, wires, and a visible digital clock with “3-seconds” on the display. I am walking around the protesting crowd with the EXACT SAME intentions as Kyle Rittenhouse, or anyone else at a protest they them self hate and are searching out opportunities to incite, harm, or kill.

      This “projected appearance” goes for ANYONE armed and postured to fire at total strangers immediately—on public property or privately owned property such as a music festival—where “shoot first, ask questions later” is the madman’s unstable cry. Or in my metaphor’s case: blow everyone up first, sort out trivial details later.

      Recognize the sheer insanity of angry Mob-persons heavily armed, postured to fire and unload magazines of lethal bullets, on public or specific private properties!? No, no, and again NO! One cannot label themselves “2nd Amendment Militia” projecting fear and terror to total strangers… and call that “providing safety & security.” Plus, again, law-enforcement had not signed off on deputizing a 17-yr old boy! I’ll never buy that pile of B.S.

      But alas, I haven’t had the opportunity to present this metaphor of Culpable Degrees of Intentional Criminal Negligence… yet. 😉

      Liked by 4 people

        • 😄

          But I recognize by laughing at your clever humor, I have less dignity and less (no?) shame. I apologize. 😉

          This is indeed a very serious subject. I am indeed heartbroken for those two families of the killed by a cognitively dysfunctional teenage boy who should’ve NEVER owned an assault rifle and was completely in the wrong. Undeniable.

          But these States of the supposed Union have some incredibly EFFED UP senses of justice, particularly judges and juries in this Kenosha case. I think President Biden should’ve not commented at all on the verdict. Let’s hope later appeals on other indictments obtain full, correct justice. 🤞🏼 Crossed fingers.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Let us hope, but I’m sadly doubtful. We are on a track to bloody, violent upheaval in this country. A house divided simply can not stand. We’re not only not standing, we’re practically flat down on the floor with our ears stuffed and eyes closed. Bad, bad times are ahead, methinks.

            Liked by 6 people

  4. For what it’s worth I am trained and licensed and I wouldn’t have been within twenty miles of that situation down in Kenosha. One of the first things civilian self defense/firearm training do, or should do at any rate, is tell you to not deliberately put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation in the first place.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Bingo Grouchy! Wholeheartedly agree.

      …is tell you to not deliberately put yourself in a potentially dangerous situation in the first place.

      In our legal jargon here that is called “culpable, intentional criminal negligence.” However, what Rittenhouse did and any other civilian clothed non-police, non-riot officers there with weapons, and especially drawn, ready to fire at total strangers was much more horrid, much more intentionally negligent than driving drunk and running over pedestrians or slamming head-on into a school bus’s fuel tank. 😣

      Liked by 4 people

      • You are certainly right about that. No rational parent is going to permit their 17 year old kid get anywhere near that. Everyone knew this protest was going to turn bad. Basically she was deliberately placing her son in danger by driving him up there.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Mary, in my years of teaching primary & secondary Social Studies, History, and Texas or American Government, I have dealt with SO MANY parents exactly like you allude to. Less than appropriate parenting.

        However, Ms. Wendy Rittenhouse driving her son to Kenosha is apparently highly suspect, if not false:


        PolitiFact.com is a source and non-profit organization I usually (almost always) trust for “facts” and fact-checking. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

          • Of course, this is what some people continue to harp on … that too many rely on the “popular” news media without investigating things more thoroughly. In most instances, it’s not that big of a deal, but this case has created a firestorm!

            Liked by 2 people

            • You are very correct, Nan and this makes it very difficult to know the truth about many things. And it’s extremely difficult to address this media and politicians problem because both sides do it. I do apologize.

              Liked by 2 people

            • No apology needed! I think most of us are guilty at one time or another of not looking at things closely enough. Especially considering today’s media reports that too often are more political than accurate!

              Liked by 2 people

            • Mary,

              Just a few decades ago our nation had proper institutions of journalism and investigative reporting—ala the days of Dan Rather or Jim Lehrer and many others from those days gone by—that could be trusted for ACTUAL unbiased (as is humanly possible) reporting. The dawn/birth of the internet-www became and today has become a train wreck of “Freedom of the Press/Speech” by more importantly PRIVATE business interests and political ideologies. There’s no denying this.

              However, it has always been up to the individual citizens of American democracy to be their OWN fact-checkers, by going to public libraries, like those lost days of proper “expertise” demands, and compiling a 5-10 page extensive Bibliography of various support, counter-points, etc, et al, as was once done… in the days of Rather and Lehrer and before them. The problem now is that tried and true process championed by journalists like I mention and many more, some Pulitzer Prize winners, is that it takes WAY TOO LONG to do that proper legwork, equitable investigation & homework as Nan correctly alludes to. 😒

              Welcome to the Age of Disinformation (on privately owned platforms) Running Amok.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Mary, it is a bit off-topic here, but you’ve reminded me of a very well-done 2015 film entitled “Truth” starring Robert Redford as Dan Rather. I think it worth sharing here, pondering, and reexamining our obligations as Americans in a (struggling, supposed) Constitutional democracy where “Freedom of the Press/Speech” is NOT without accountability and ethical practices, checked and enforced! Here’s the Trailer to the movie…

              P.S. Another excellent film along the same lines of ‘Freedom of the Press’ and the full purpose and parameters of that Constitutional First Amendment are illustrated, contrasted, and compared quite well in The Report (2019) starring Adam Driver as Daniel J. Jones, the former U.S. Senate Investigator on our CIA’s torture-tactics post- 9/11. Again, this is off-topic here, but worth the mention. 😉

              Liked by 1 person

          • No worries. In a complete cluster-fuck of this entire ordeal beginning with a (white) Kenosha Police Officer getting off scot-free from shooting Jacob Blake 7-times in the back, paralyzing him (for life?)… to Rittenhouse getting off scot-free for shooting & killing two men (attacking him) and wounding a third, falsely posing and testifying that he was there as “Security, crowd safety, and property protection” from protestors is honestly an abomination of our Constitution’s explicit and implicit rights and protections as well as laws prohibiting actions for and by Americans.

            Again, I say (as a non-licensed criminal attorney) that 1) Kyle Rittenhouse was NOT deputized by any proper law-enforcement agency to carry, on PUBLIC GROUNDS, an assault rifle, nor was he trained by any sort of civil riot-geared protection agency! And 2) He was NOT there legitimately protecting his own property.

            Furthermore, by projecting a false appearance and weaponized with one of the country’s most FEARED assault rifles… Rittenhouse was BEGGING for trouble, and as a result shit his pants when he FALSELY feared for his own life! Had he been legitimately trained by law-enforcement then licensed, he never would’ve panic as uncontrollably as he did.

            Now, of course all this presupposes that an immature, misguided, hormone-raging 17-yr old teenager is even aptly suited for what he was pretending wrongly to portray.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Watching from Europe, Paul Mason, the author of “How to Stop Fascism,” observed that “the rise of political murders, unpunished by the courts, was a key stage in the fascist process” in 1920s Italy, where Benito Mussolini took power with the support of the squadristi — paramilitary squads of teen vigilantes from the “Voluntary Militia for National Security” who carried guns, knives, and sticks and attacked rallies by political opponents they deemed “pro-Bolshevik.”

    “Today,” Mason wrote on Twitter, “we witnessed that stage begin in the USA.”

    From the Intercept

    Liked by 5 people

  6. First the ACLU disregards due process to keep the false narrative going, then MSNBC’s article, “Kyle Rittenhouse Trial was Designed to Protect White Conservatives Who Kill – The shooter’s homicide acquittal coddles conservatives and may lead to even more violence,” which has recently been pulled (404 no found). But these show the same problem: selling a narrative that isn’t true to those who want to believe it is, and doing so by refusing to uphold and respect the role of due process. Due process is what is being thrown out here and by organizations once principled but now woke staffed by those willing to do so.

    We are bearing witness to – and often going along with – the transformation away from and repudiation of – a liberal democracy. We are empowering mob rule as a substitute. And mainstream media is helping this happen and sticking to the woke script to do it.

    This is on our watch. We are the ones allowing this to happen by going along to get along. It’s not going to end well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • My primary focus Tildeb were my eight questions—with several sub-questions—and I can sum up in three bullet-points MY OWN disgust with the outcome of the 18-yr old’s trial the prosecution totally flubbed-up:

      • The culpable degrees of Rittenhouse’s Intentional Criminal Negligence for bringing a loaded AR-15 style semi-automatic assault rifle to a Constitutionally endorsed protest (peaceful!!!) postured to fire at total strangers. Had the teenage boy been properly parented, educated, trained in law-enforcement, and deputized by the Kenosha Police Dept. or SWAT team… my argument would be utterly different here.

      • Rittenhouse was NOT on his own private property protecting his life or property. He went to Kenosha uninvited to be any sort of legitimate “security & safety” onto PUBLIC GROUNDS with a loaded assault rifle—i.e. projected appearance (motive) opposite of true 2nd Amendment Militia. Period.

      • All that was (probably?) required at the Kenosha protest was legitimate Riot-geared Police, in easily identifiable uniforms. What was the WORST possible gathering were immature, unruly, teenagers or adults searching out opportunities to fight, scuffle, or worse… use unauthorized lethal force on unarmed protestors. Now, the problem arose with the fact that Grosskreutz foolishly was armed, but ironically the one acting as an EMT. Yet, Rittenhouse shot him too! WTH?

      As you have pointed out Tildeb, the whole ordeal in Kenosha, BY Kenosha law-enforcement was (purposely?) inadequate and DID NOT protect our citizens from harm and unauthorized, illegitimate “Security” intervening. In fact, had there been proper law-enforcement already there and Riot-police already there…. I’d imagine that they would’ve shot and wounded (or killed) Rittenhouse. What a total cluster-fuck it all has been.

      Bottom-line? I feel my above three bullet-points still stand, and stand correctly. Horrible, painful lessons learned. Let’s hope our nation does much, MUCH better next time. Thanks Tildeb. ❤️

      Liked by 3 people

      • From these events, I think 5 charges were laid. After due process, a jury came to a unanimous verdict and Rittenhouse was acquitted of all 5.


        Of course there are all kinds of issues surrounding how the case came about and people are free to wonder about all kinds of possibilities as to what caused or motivated whatever. That’s fine. That’s something that will produce lots of arguing and disagreeing and whatever. But that’s not what’s going on here, Prof, nor anything to do with the concern I have raised.

        What the mainstream media and many other people both inside various institutions and organizations have done after creating and then sticking to the false narrative vilifying Rittenhouse and widely reporting it as if true, should be of unquestionable concern to all. It’s a direct move away from collecting pertinent facts and reporting on them straight into championing propaganda.

        The trial demonstrated this narrative to be factually wrong.


        So the True Believers are now blaming the other half of the country for conspiring to ‘hide the truth’ in order to explain the discrepancy between what is believed to be true and what actually is true. This is straight up conspiratorial thinking. What’s a risk is paramount to ALL of us: due process. Due process is being rejected here because it is responsible for disagreeing with the narrative using facts. So let’s all doubt due process as a ‘tool’ of the oppressor!

        What we are seeing by True Believers is a doubling down typical in all kinds of denialism. We can recognize it. We can criticize its use. We can disregard the deniers and make fun of them for sticking to their denialism. I see none of that. What I see is either a kind of quiet acceptance or cowardice when challenged. Due process? Who cares? How many Likes does it have?

        But please notice that deniers accuse the doubters, the ‘Others’, the critics, for doing EXACTLY what they themselves are doing: denying reality!

        That’s a clue we’re dealing with post-modernist thinking of the religious kind… where to question the premises of or doubt the narrative’s social conclusion is strictly forbidden… unless you want to join the ranks of the despicable and deplorable enemy!

        Hello post modern thinking in action: wokeism on the Left and alt-Right authoritarianism of the Right. It’s the same thing and it grows only by denying reality and getting others to go along with the charade.


Go Ahead, Start the Discussion!

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s