Kyle Rittenhouse and the militia obligation

There’s an angle on the case of Kyle Rittenhouse that I haven’t seen even hinted at in the media.

Section 246 of US Code Title 10, entitled, “Militia: composition and classes” reads:

“(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are:

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

That is, all males of military age who are or intend to become citizens of the United States are under federal statute the “unorganized militia”, and have the duty of the militia to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic (as both naturalizing citizens and members of the armed forces swear to do).

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17-year-old male and thus a member of the unorganized militia under black-letter Federal law. When he armed up to defend a friend’s business during a breakdown in civil order, he was acting precisely as all members of the unorganized militia have a legal and Constitutional duty to act in like circumstances.

And yes, shooting violent criminal insurrectionists is included in that duty. Rittenhouse would have been justified in doing so even if he had not been acting in self-defense against lethal threats to his person.

So let’s not hear any more nonsense about a teenager having no business being in that situation. Kyle Rittenhouse recognized one of his core duties as an American citizen and performed it with exceptional skill and courage.

838 thoughts on “Kyle Rittenhouse and the militia obligation

    • >https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/award-kyle-rittenhouse-medal

      I could quibble with on the grounds that Rittenhouse doesn’t deserve a medal for doing the ordinary duty of every citizen. But damn, he was exceptionally skilled and cool under lethal threat, and he did shoot three Communists.

      So yeah, I signed it.

      • ESR, I usually don’t get drawn into these discussions but does the prospect of potentially you being mistaken and condoning the deaths of several people who might not have deserved to die (regardless of whether they were in the right or wrong) worry you? Do you ever impose higher standards for your confidence in your beliefs when the damage that a mistake would cause increases in scale?

        It would be a very unusual circumstance normally to trigger anyone to not only condone but enthusiastically support the deaths of fellow citizens regardless of what the context was. So I wonder if you have considered how much of a part the emotion of scoring a point against a tribe you very much disagree with might shape your beliefs here. I personally would be pretty horrified to look back in the future and realise that, regardless of how much I disagreed with someone or wanted to see them locked away for what they had done, I had rubber stamped their murder.

        • ESR, I usually don’t get drawn into these discussions but does the prospect of potentially you being mistaken and condoning the deaths of several people who might not have deserved to die (regardless of whether they were in the right or wrong) worry you?

          Not addressed to me, but I’ll give my answer…

          Why would it?

          This is just about the most open and shut self defense case that ever open and shutted. Despite the digging Kyle appears to be so clean you would think he was a plant. And the people he killed were:

          1. A guy who raped multiple 11 year old boys when he was ~18 and should have been in the ground long ago.

          2. A guy who amused himself by beating the shit out of his girlfriend and strangling her.

          • I dug into this and they are definitely not spotless characters, however you dice their history. However, there’s not very much clear evidence as to the specific details here. It seems quite clear that they both were convicted on some rather eyebrow raising charges, but there’s precious little reliable evidence as to exactly what the content of those crimes was. The most I can find is an unverified presentencing report for Rosenbaum. Given that a number of the sites reporting this also seem to claim that the injured man was guilty of a burglary that he was fifteen years too young to commit, it would be nice to have some more reliable evidence. Do you know of anything more substantial out there on these two?

        • >Do you ever impose higher standards for your confidence in your beliefs when the damage that a mistake would cause increases in scale?

          Of course I do. But in this case both the law and the facts are exceptionally clear.

      • > he did shoot three Communists

        The only condition where one could possibly celebrate that would be if was open warfare going on against an enemy who can’t be reasoned with and who clearly intends to kill, colonize or enslave. Popular rhetoric notwithstanding, that just ain’t so. Doing it anyway is downright indecent. Worse, it normalizes the warfare mindset, unnecessarily inflames the other side, and makes conflict more likely to happen, especially when you have a public standing. Please, help unpolarize.

          • Actually instead of being glib let me go through each point….

            The only condition where one could possibly celebrate that would be if was

            ….

            open warfare

            Check

            against an enemy who can’t be reasoned with

            Check

            and who clearly intends to kill,

            Check

            colonize

            Check

            or enslave.

            Check

            Popular [firey but mostly peaceful] rhetoric notwithstanding, that just ain’t so.

            False.

            Doing it anyway is downright indecent.

            There are reasons for rules like “Don’t speak ill of the dead”. It keeps cowards from being nice while a person is alive and then slandering them when they can no longer defend themselves just to name one feature.

            But a person does not achieve sainthood by croaking. They certainly don’t achieve sainthood by getting killed in the commission of a crime.

            And I never pretended that they were anything but scum before their deaths.

            Worse, it normalizes the warfare mindset,

            Several decades too late to be worrying about that.

            unnecessarily inflames the other side,

            They do quite enough self-inflamation. I refuse to be held hostage by the other side’s emotions.

            and makes conflict more likely to happen,

            Again: they are pushing this as hard as they can. Since submitting is not an acceptable option that leaves destroying them. If we are lucky this can happen on the cultural level before it gets too violent.

            especially when you have a public standing. Please, help unpolarize

            If someone has “public standing” they are in a position to name evil where it walks. No one is benefited by pretending that evil is good.

        • >The only condition where one could possibly celebrate that would be if was open warfare going on against an enemy who can’t be reasoned with and who clearly intends to kill, colonize or enslave.

          Oh…you mean like every Communist, ever?

          >Please, help unpolarize.

          I will not. Cities are literally burning. We are now past the point where trying to “unpolarize” does anything but give aid and comfort to the enemies of civilization.

          • > Oh…you mean like every Communist, ever?

            There is no communist invasion force openly posturing to invade and occupy the United States. Those “communists” are a bunch of misguided kids, and there aren’t even that many of them. Some of them are committing property crimes, and some are recklessly endangering people. Catching a people in the act of arson *might* justify violence, and being attacked by them very likely does. But this is crime, it simply does not meet any reasonable definition of war, let alone an all-out struggle. What happened is a tragedy, and celebrating those deaths is an act of barbarism. Woe the man who became what he abhors.

            • >There is no communist invasion force openly posturing to invade and occupy the United States.

              No. Instead we have a violent Communist insurgency within our borders. They are determined, murderous totalitarians who will shoot you for wearing a MAGA hat. And it is time to end them.

            • Your argument seems to rest on the enemy being open and at or above some arbitrary, yet unstated numerical threshold.

              Clearly you’re unaware of the level of destabilization a relative few can do to a country. When those few are setting up autonomous zones in major American cities with the express intent of throwing off the duly elected government, with the blessing of their local officials (and national political figures), you don’t even have to get into the billions in property damage and the hundreds of lives lost as a direct or indirect result of what has been openly stated to be an insurrectionist movement.

              A rag-tag band of misfits searching through the cushions for weed money doesn’t exactly have the means to execute major property damage and destabilization efforts throughout a country of this size.

              If these are all mostly communist/marxist revolutionaries, and I am wont to take them at their word, I get why you would carefully choose the words “openly” and “invade”.

              It is incumbent upon those who wreak violence upon the nation, and their political enablers who have been calling the other side a basket of deplorable racist, sexist, xenophobic Nazis who are bitterly clinging to their guns and religion to “unpolarize”.

              We’ve been trying it the liberal democratic way for decades. They are changing the rules. If you don’t like that, talk to them.

      • This seems a bit too far, although I’m open to being mistaken. I could see charging anyone with murder when a homicide is in evidence and they appear to be involved, as a pro forma matter, expecting an investigation to run its course and absolve him (or, if something exceptional turns up, indicting him). If that charge is necessary to ignite that investigation, then this seems to me like necessary routine. If the investigation happens regardless, then the charge looks spurious.

        Thing is, I really don’t want to penalize DAs for doing their lawful jobs.

      • >I mean 246, of course

        By the looks of the revision history these sections of Title 10 have been renumbered more than once, and my reference was formerly correct.

            • I see buttons to up- and downvote. Perhaps you have some mod that’s concealing them.

              What -I- miss is the ability to be notified when a new post appears. That seems to have gone away on for me on multiple browsers.

    • >However, I think the President has to specifically call upon the militia to act.

      That’s not the case.

      When the U.S. is in a state of war the President has the legal option to perform a militia callup, incorporating organized militia into the line military for the duration of the war only. However that is the only power the President has.

      The unorganized militia was explicitly intended to not be controlled by President or government, because one of its principal duties is to organize armed revolt against overreaching central power.

      • > because one of [the unorganized militia’s] principal duties is to organize armed revolt against overreaching central power.

        Wait, you are saying that the Federal Code explicitly provisions an entity that could destroy it by force if necessary??

        <8-O

        • >Wait, you are saying that the Federal Code explicitly provisions an entity that could destroy it by force if necessary??

          Yes, I am saying that. This was part of the design of the Constitution,and the Code reflects that.

        • Yes, and the second amendment refers to this with the phrase “security of a free state”. That is, the security of a free state against insurrection, or a foreign invader, or a federal government usurping powers not granted to it by the constitution.

          You will also find that several of our states have constitutions that also explicitly acknowledge the right of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms if needed.

      • I disagree. U.S. Code Title 10 Sections 251 through 254 define the conditions under which the President can call up the militia to suppress insurrection and enforce the laws within the United States. They don’t distinguish between the organized and unorganized militia. Furthermore, without a Presidential call-up, any group (such as Antifa) could claim that laws are not being properly enforced and that they are legally entitled to organize and arm themselves to enforce the law “properly.”

        • >Furthermore, without a Presidential call-up, any group (such as Antifa) could claim that laws are not being properly enforced and that they are legally entitled to organize and arm themselves to enforce the law “properly.”

          You are correct. That is the state of the law.

          • Not surprisingly, this seems to me a rather anarchist interpretation of the law. Pretty much anybody is justified in taking arms against the citizenry and institutions under this reading. A group of armed Mexicans can come in and liberate ICE camps alleging themselves to be intending to become citizens and alleging that ICE are domestic enemies. Some nut can shoot up a Walgreens and say he’s part of the unorganized militia defending the community against Hispanic invaders, etc. It boils down to living at the mercy of whatever team has the largest group of armed dudes. Not sure how that is a desirable state.

            • >Not surprisingly, this seems to me a rather anarchist interpretation of the law.

              It’s what the Founders intended, nevertheless.

              Your pathological scenarios are pretty well foreclosed by the requirement that the militia moves under just three circumstances:

              1. Under Presidential callup in time of war.

              2. In response to a local collapse in civil order (the Kenosha case).

              3. In revolt against tyrannical overreach by government (the Battle of Athens case).

              These constraints are part of the intended design. The Founders were not anarchists, but they did have a minarchistic distrust of centralized power and did not intend for the U.S. to have a standing army. They didn’t really have the concept of government-run civil police, either; the only model available to them was the Roman vigiles.

              • Again, this is quite broad to my eyes. BLM can show up armed and try to burn down police stations, etc (as in Kenosha and Portland) by claiming they are an organized militia moving under #3 (assuming extrajudicial executions by police can be considered tyrannical government overreach)

                • > burn down police stations, etc (as in Kenosha and Portland)

                  Functionaries of government could be legitimate objects of revolt, per #3, assuming all other avenues of redress are exhausted. See the Battle of Athens case, which culminated in election shenanigans by the tyrants. Also, “When in the course of human events,” and so forth.

                  In a BLM-type case, when there is a lack of avenue exhaustion, coupled with the etc (when etc looks like the burned-out private businesses and homes in Kenosha), any moral legitimacy such a movement has is completely lost.

                  If BLM looked like the Battle of Athens case, yes, they would be in the right to forcefully remove those in power preventing the will of the citizens from being enacted. Instead, it’s just a bunch of chanters by day, and AntiFa-posing-as-BLM violent commie agitators fomenting riots by night, demanding that all legal process not merely be elided, but actually destroyed.

                  • The problem here is that the legal process is broken if you’re a Black family trying to get justice for police overreach. Combine “qualified immunity” with the general unwillingness* of DAs to charge the police,** the power of police unions to put murderous officers back on the street, the willingness of officers to cover for each other and the willingness of right-wing media to amply “he had a marijuana conviction” into “that n****r deserved to die!” I’d say the Black people probably have an awesome case for forming a militia on the basis that the government is doing a lousy job of vetting police officers, training police officers, disciplining police officers, removing police officers who have broken the rules, prosecuting police officers who deserve it, and treating Black people far worse than they treat police who kill unarmed Black folk…

                    If you believe that 50-100 million in property damage is adequate cause to form a militia, then you’d have zero cause to argue against Black people who do so, particularly in the absence of government action to reform the police. Of course, this would happen on a city-by-city or state-by-state basis… note that what I said about organizing a militia and being either a hero or a schmuck applies here as well – you’d have to make your case most carefully!

                    Or for that matter, what happens when a Black person gets pulled over by one of the officers who’s already shown up on video killing an unarmed Black person? It seems to me like a very legitimate case of self-defense – the officer being shot has already shown up on video shooting unarmed people and (possibly) demonstrated racist reasons for doing so!

                    * This seems to be changing, but only in the post 2-3 months.

                    ** They haven’t even charged the men who killed Breona Taylor!

                    • Thank you for saying that. I’ve been warning that cops are dishonest
                      lazy greedy murderous thugs since long before most BLM members were
                      born. I certainly don’t support anyone burning down businesses and
                      killing innocent people, but if they only target police and their
                      property, if I’m on their jury I’m voting not guilty.
                      —–
                      Speaking of juries, has anyone interviewed jurors who acquitted killer
                      cops? I’m curious if they were intimidated into their verdict. “Nice
                      wife and kids you have at your home at 123 Main Street. It would be a
                      shame if they were killed in a wrong-address SWAT team raid.”

                    • The problem here is that the legal process is broken if you’re a Black family

                      It’s even more broken if you’re a Black family trying to get justice for the much much more common case of a non-police, usual fellow Black, shooting.

                      The effect of the BLM movement tends to make Black-on-Black shootings even more common and make it even harder to get justice. And for some reason the lives of these victims don’t seem to matter to the self-proclaimed “Black Lives Matter” crowd.

                    • > The problem here is that the legal process is broken if you’re a Black family trying to get justice for police overreach.

                      Gosh, by an astonishing coincidence, the legal process is _also_ broken if you’re a white family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond) trying to get justice for police overreach, or a family of _any_ race trying to get justice for police overreach.

                      But by all means keep flogging the issue as purely and entirely racial. Maybe with enough support like that the rioters will succeed, and in a few decades whites will again be the slaves of blacks like it was a few centuries ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_slavery). Let’s keep that beautiful cycle of history going without trying to, y’know, improve anything.

                    • Darrin, is there some reason why $20,000,000 and 12.5 years in jail for the police-officer who shot her, all happening in less than two years, don’t seem like a just outcome?

                    • Brionna Taylor was killed in a shootout between her boyfriend and the cops. Even if the boyfriend genuinely thought he was fighting burglars, and so if he had killed any of the cops he would be innocent, that doesn’t change the fact that the cops *weren’t* burglars, and had the right to shoot back. So they can’t be charged for her death.

                    • Eric, I had a reply to troutwaxer that seems to have been spammed? I couldn’t see it on friday, and when I tried to submit it again it said I already had and couldn’t submit the same comment more than once.

                      Key points were that it took over a year for anything to happen to Justine Diamond’s killer cop, but the BLM movement couldn’t wait even a week to start rioting. That long delay is broken, no matter the eventual result. There was a bit more to it.

                    • >Eric, I had a reply to troutwaxer that seems to have been spammed?

                      I just looked in the spam folder. Didn’t see it. Sorry, I don’t know what happened.

                    • The link in my history was to comment 2448995 if that matters at all.

                    • @Troutwaxer
                      on 2020-09-05 at 20:28:54

                      It’s an entirely appropriate outcome. That’s what justice looks like. If it wasn’t for his union-negotiated health benefits and peer pressure, Noor’s partner wouldn’t have defended him. The evidence showed pretty clearly that Noor not only should never have been a police officer, but that it was affirmative action and diversity policies of the MPD that put him on the force despite many warning signs. This was mostly on the MPD and their poitical masters, but they can’t be held accountable except financially. Unfortunately, they don’t pay, their taxpayers do for electing such PC idiots.

                      Are you actually arguing that because other cops got off lightly or scot-free that Noor should also have been let off? Yes, the thin blue line often protects bad cops and it attempted to do so here, but failed. Do you have a problem with that? my problem is that too often the .gov’s defense of bad cops succeeds.

                    • @Troutwaxer
                      on 2020-09-05 at 20:28:54

                      Had I been that dumb MFer’s partner, I’d have thrown under the bus for firing through the driver’s side window, directly in front of his partner’s face. At the very least, Noor permanently damaged his partner’s hearing. It’s quite likely he’s suffering tinnitus for life. Noor was a f***wit, as were the people who let him become a police officer in the first place.

                      Chauvin probably shouldn’t have been allowed to continue to serve as a police officer, but George Floyd killed himself with a massive overdose of fentanyl. His lungs weighed 2-3 times as much as they should’ve due to pulmonary edema. That’s why he was complaining of not being able to breathe before the cops ever laid a hand on him, and Chauvin was following department policy by restraining in that manner until the ambulance arrived. It’s unlikely George Floyd would’ve survived if he’d stumbled right into an ER at the moment before cops arrived on the scene. He was a dead man walking.

                    • @ Larry – I hope this appears directly under your post

                      >>> Are you actually arguing that because other cops got off lightly or scot-free that Noor should also have been let off?

                      Of course not. Noor had clearly done exactly the wrong thing and deserved what he got.

                      As to whether he was an affirmative-action hire I’ve seen no evidence on that one way or another.

                • >, etc

                  Militias (and regular Armies) never have carte blanche to, for example, purposely burn down homes or to loot businesses.

                  • Nobody said that. The issue in question is, assuming that the killing of unarmed Black people represents inappropriate government overreach, can Black people form a militia for the purpose of addressing that issue by attacking police or police stations. Note that I’m not taking a position on that subject, just noting that your reply did not address the claims of the post you’re replying to.

                    • Just police stations? Probably under some circumstances, though occasional “inappropriate…overreach” is *way* too low of a threshold…particularly when there are regularly enforced laws against it.

                      But it’s the “etc” part that was the big problem.

                    • If BLM or even Antifa were self-aware enough to publicly present that as their stated justification and intended goal, I for one would have no problem with that _specific_ part of their theory.

                      In practice, all I have heard (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8708#comment-2426332) are “FUCK CAPITALISM! BURN IT ALL DOWN!” and “we live in a society where goods and material items have more value than black lives. It’s a profound and legitimate form of protest.”

                      I don’t consider myself under any obligation to connect the dots for them from communist screeds like that to a more principled position.

                    • If the best evidence against BLM you can find is some idiot cheesecake looter and the person who said they’re “profound” I’d say they’re doing pretty well.

                      The best evidence I can find against the Republican Party is 196,000 thousand people who died of COVID-19. Or should I point to what’s happening to the post office, or Trump’s relationship with Putin? I promise you I can play that game all day long! Shall we have a match?

                    • > evidence I can find against the Republican Party

                      Except we weren’t discussing “evidence against either political party”, we were discussing justification for forming armed militias to resist either citizens destroying private property, or tyrannical government overreach. (In neither case is any militia so formed empowered to go destroy _private_ property, in case you thought this was merely an issue of a few scattered “idiot cheesecake looters”.) Are you capable of focusing on an actual argument in progress, or does everything need to devolve into a “but Republicans have done bad things so you lose, ha ha!” shit-flinging fest? (And yet again, since I’m not a Republican, why should their behavior reflect badly on my own political position any more than it does on your own?)

                      Show me a group of armed revolters storming the White House with the stated goal of putting an end to either Covid-19 complacency or insidious Russian influence, and _then_ see if I make any objections of the form “well they’re not a militia because blah blah backpedal”. THEN you get to call me a hypocrite, not before.
                      As long as it is still black-owned businesses getting burned down, and black children getting shot, there’s a pretty low limit on how seriously I’m gonna take accusations of hypocrisy directed at me.

                      > I promise you I can play that game all day long! Shall we have a match?

                      The fact that Leftists think of destruction and killing on a nation-wide scale as a “game” neatly explains their feigned horror when the proles finally muster the courage to put up what resistance they can.

                      But unlike Leftists, I have never felt a compunction to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t do with their lives, so by all means, knock yourself out.

              • In time of actual or threatened war a state governor is also allowed to call up the militia and fight (Article I, Section 10).

  1. Thank you for saying!
    I’ve mentioned this in comments in a couple of places, but it hasn’t attracted much attention.

    I’ve also been waving §246 around for awhile now. Seventeen year olds are high school juniors. Raise your hand, everyone who thinks our public schools, and the bureaucracy that runs them, including the unconstitutional federal Dept. of Education, are adequately preparing students to accept the responsibilities and exercise the rights of militia membership.

    My hand, of course, remains down–because far to the contrary, school systems and teachers unions cannot even commit to allowing teachers to arm themselves in defense of their students–or even to defend themselves against young thugs who would not even be in attendance if not required to do so.

    Beyond that, teachers need to be exemplars of citizenship–including exercise of their right to arms. (Oh, you have a religious objction to being armed? Fine, but you cannot then be a public school teacher. Easy peasy, eh?)

  2. The way the country is currently divided, and using the unorganized militia law as a basis, and incorporating the recent media campaign promoting civil disobedience and violence in the streets after the November 3rd election; this could well be a catalyst that triggers the genesis of Civil War 2.0. Plan accordingly.

    • Previously I had been assuming that Chicago’s restrictions on getting permission to own a handgun were onerous enough not to make it worth the effort of attempting. After my son and some friends of his were attacked a couple of weeks ago, I said fuck it, I will jump through whatever hoops they put in front of me.

      Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Chicago’s laws had relatively recently been pre-empted by substantially less restrictive state laws. I immediately applied for an Illinois FOID. Of course wiki says the waiting period is about ninety days due to “backlog”, which is pretty piss-poor for exercising a constitutional right. Gotta start somewhere though.

  3. I’d love to see this argument make it to SCOTUS.

    I think what he did wasn’t illegal, wasn’t immoral, but was possibly unwise because of the laws in his state. I think he’s likely to get the short end of the stick, both in the courts and in public opinion because of the media. Also, the wisdom of the militia for organizing on Facebook is not great.

    My personal thoughts — militia groups should hold back until it gets a bit worse. Like, police start quitting in large numbers. Let things get really bad in the worst run liberal cities, give the citizens in those areas an opportunity to cry uncle and re-establish law and order. Alternatively, have the idiots disband the police so milita + private carry becomes the de facto only solution for defense.

    BTW: the above are opinions weakly held. I can be convinced otherwise.

    • My personal thoughts — militia groups should hold back until it gets a bit worse. Like, police start quitting in large numbers. Let things get really bad in the worst run liberal cities, give the citizens in those areas an opportunity to cry uncle and re-establish law and order. Alternatively, have the idiots disband the police so milita + private carry becomes the de facto only solution for defense.

      While I can certainly understand the appeal of this kind of accelerationism, I think you’re underestimating how bad things can get. For example, I don’t think the leftists in charge actually plan to disband the police, but rather replace them with British-style “woke” police who will enforce laws against thoughtcrime but not against rioting and arson.

      • >British-style “woke” police who will enforce laws against thoughtcrime but not against rioting and arson.

        Oh, they’ll enforce laws against rioting and arson, all right. On all persons who are not protected client groups of the state.

    • “Unwise”? He shot two thugs who were trying to kill him. He tried to avoid them, they chased him down. It’s ludicrous to suggest that letting them kill him was a “wiser” course of action.

      • You’re declaring a false binary. He had at least one more choice, which was to stay home, which means, BTW, that he would have been obeying the wishes of the Kenosha chief of police.

        Did anyone else notice that everyone Kyle shot was White?

        • > He had at least one more choice, which was to stay home,

          And let petty thugs and Commie revolutionaries run roughshod over a friend’s hard-earned property? I don’t think so. But please, let’s all hide from these people and let them “burn themselves out,” destroy all our property, and never let anyone actually do anything. Millions of dollars in property will be lost, but hey, that can all be replaced, especially with insurance, right? And at least we still have our lives, right? A life not worth living, but we still have it, right?

          Here’s what you don’t seem to get about property. It’s not just “things that belong to people.” It represents investments of time, time which the people investing it will never get back. When one destroy’s property, that’s a part of people’s lives that he is destroying. By doing this, he is essentially committing a partial murder. A part of a person’s life–gone. Think about that.

          • I’m betting that the “Rittenhouse came on ta friend’s request” thing will evaporate once the facts come out. But assuming it really happened that way, the proper reply to such a request goes something like this: “You want me to put real bullets in my gun, stand guard over your business, and shoot people who I think might be out to damage it? You want me to possibly execute people who haven’t been arrested or convicted of any crime, in a state where there is no exception in the statutes on self-defense for defense of property? So what you’re really saying is that you’d like me to take a fall for you, because you’re unwilling to take this risk yourself? I thought we were friends, but maybe you should ask someone else to be your patsy!”

            And if the friend said, “No, I need someone to stand outside with a can of pepper-spray and look tough, but not get in any fights,” then I might go for it, in which case I wouldn’t bring a gun.

            But I very much doubt that Kyle’s “friend” wanted him to kill anyone, except perhaps in the heat of an angry moment – and if Kyle agreed to use deadly force during that angry moment, maybe the DA could add a conspiracy charge.

            The proper response to such a request is probably, “The possibility of making things worse if I come out there is greater than the possibility of making things better. How about if I give you some money for a security guard from a legitimate company, that way if someone gets hurt you can sue the security company and neither of us gets in any trouble.” – One of the obligations to a friend is to help them be sensible.

            • I’m betting that the “Rittenhouse came on ta friend’s request” thing will evaporate once the facts come out.

              They have. That’s where this is coming from.

              And if the friend said, “No, I need someone to stand outside with a can of pepper-spray and look tough, but not get in any fights,”

              Thanks for demonstrating that it’s impossible to underestimate your intelligence. The relevant rule here is “don’t make threats you aren’t prepared to carry out”. If you’re going to “stand around looking tough”, you need to be prepared to get in a fight in case the rioters aren’t suitably intimidated.

              in which case I wouldn’t bring a gun.

              In which case you probably would have been dead. On the plus side it would have spared us from having to listen to your “wisdom” about how to deal with rioters.

              • If Trout was actually that dumb the posts would be littered with spelling and grammar errors. “You loosers need to take law course aswell, alot of this is cope. Learn teh propabilities.”

                This round of the [liar or idiot] game comes down firmly on liar. Reflexive lies because the folk Trout knows in meatspace would shun them for not telling these lies. Though I can’t explain why Trout is running around looking for opportunities to be intimidating into lying to strangers. That’s real weird, even compared to e.g. me.

            • > But assuming it really happened that way,
              > the proper reply to such a request goes
              > something like this:

              The proper response during the opening stages of a civil war is to stand with your friend and protect his life and property.

              If this means killing someone (or several someones) who are trying to destroy civil order, then THEY made that choice. THEY chose to go into the streets and violate the lives and property of people who had NOTHING to do with their main grievance.

              And let’s also be clear that the *source* of their grievance was the Ministry Of Truth ONCE AGAIN failing to accurately report the events of a crime where someone was shot for *ATTEMPTING TO REACH A WEAPON*.

            • > So what you’re really saying is that you’d like me to take a fall for you, because you’re unwilling to take this risk yourself?

              More like “you need extra _help_ defending your property, because single-handedly trying to defend it against gangs of marauding rioters is not really feasible?”

              Again, you have the _right_ to decline your friend’s request, and not exercise your _right_ to help them. You don’t have any “right” to forbid _others_ from exercising their rights in such a matter.

              • Thinking about Troutwaxer’s post reminds me of Anonymous Conservative’s “amygdala theory”. Without getting into the neurology.

                Basically, Troutwaxer is extremely uncomfortable with conflict and thus has to denigrate anyone who engages in heroism to avoid feelings of inadequacy. My (soon to be ex) boss has a similar problem. Whenever anyone mentions an instance of a soldier doing something heroic in his presence, he has to reply with a snide remark about “testosterone poisoning”.

          • I’ve been trying for a day and a half to figure out just what the heck Troutwaxer intended with that “snipe”, and I am still coming up blank.

            Was there _really_ a hope that a bunch of us would do a double take and say “Oh shit, I thought he was just shooting up some black dudes! You tellin me _whiteys_ got shot? This changes everything!” But that just seems too monumentally stupid for me to be able to believe.

            • Based on the kinds of shit he’s said here in the past, Trout seems to genuinely believe we’re all a bunch of racist troglodytes.

              Which, you know, I don’t really get. If he actually thinks that, why would he even be here? Is he secretly a deeply bigoted racist ass, but he knows he’d be shunned by the losers he hangs out with, so he comes and chats here on the assumption we’re openly racist, hoping to find the first kind of acceptance he’s ever known in his sad, repressed and deranged life?

              What frustrating cognitive dissonance that must be for him, right? Like the loser kid who follows some group of teens around he assumes have drugs, and keeps talking about how much he, like, totally hates drugs guys, but he’s giving a big wink-wink-nudge-nudge to them indicating his coolness. But the teens are just regular boring sober young people hanging out, and they keep giving the annoying kid weird looks and tell him to piss off, but the little brain-damaged idiot never catches on; he just threatens to call the cops on them for having drugs when they won’t give him any.

              That or he’s just, yes, too monumentally stupid to be believed. Whichever tests strongest, I suppose.

              • > Is he secretly a deeply bigoted racist ass,

                He’s at best a left-leaning liberal and at worst a progressive.

                Which means he *thinks* about people in terms of classes, be they economic, racial, educational etc.

        • Fuck you, you leftard piece of shit. He chose not to sit by idly while your commie friends burned down his friends’ homes and businesses.

        • > he would have been obeying the wishes of the Kenosha chief of police

          The Chicago chief of police wouldn’t give a fuck if whitey me or my whitey family were killed. By rolling over and allowing the small subset of the current “Movement” to execute their stated goal of “we gotta kill _all_ the whiteys this time”, we would be “obeying the wishes” of that Movement subset and those (bluish) portions of our government that give them tacit support.

          The subtext of this entire thread, in a larger sense one of the themes of this blog (esr may forgive or correct me for speaking out of turn here), is the circumstances under which we should or should not be “obeying the wishes” of our “elected” overlords.

          And one last question before you stamp my straightjacket with “alt-right anarchist moonbat” and have me hauled off to the re-education camps: do you consider yourself bound and behold to obey each and every of Trump’s wishes? I sure don’t, and isn’t that a large fraction of what the Left as a whole (and its Three Musketeers here) claim to be about?

        • Ah, the Kitty Genovese theory. Stay out of it and let the victims suffer because the police either can’t or refuse to protect them.

        • His lack of wisdom was being there, and even moreso, being there without support. He crossed state lines borrowed a rifle, and did what can be perceived by the courts and the media as looking for trouble. Once he was attacked, yeah, he stopped his attackers, which is good.

          • “Wisdom” these days is mostly showing itself to be folly.

            “Wisdom” says to let the mugger have your wallet, it’s only money. Let him rape you, once he is satisfied he’ll leave you alone and you wouldn’t want to anger him.

            A pox upon all of that noise.

            • “Wisdom” says to let the mugger have your wallet, it’s only money. Let him rape you, once he is satisfied he’ll leave you alone and you wouldn’t want to anger him.

              It’s well known among people who lived through domestic break-ins that home defense with a firearm is toxically masculine folly that can leave you dead. If someone breaks into your house, you should let them steal your stuff because it’s better than them taking your life, which they won’t hesitate to do if you draw your piece on them. Besides which, if you keep your gun unloaded, you have almost zero chance of loading it before the thief notices and shoots or otherwise attacks you; and if you keep your gun loaded you are a danger to yourself and others in your home.

              It’s kinda like how you should never lock your car doors — because a thief stealing stuff from inside your car is better than the thief stealing your stuff and breaking your window.

              • if you keep your gun loaded you are a danger to yourself and others in your home.

                Don’t do dumb, won’t have boom. It isn’t a hard concept.

                if you keep your gun unloaded, you have almost zero chance of loading it

                At least you got something right. This is completely correct; that is why any home defense or carry gun stays always loaded.

              • Forgot:

                home defense with a firearm is toxically masculine folly that can leave you dead

                TIL: a pregnant woman defending her husband and children both born and unborn is “toxic masculinity”.

                Such a wonderful concept. Is there anything it can’t explain?

              • “It’s kinda like how you should never lock your car doors — because a thief stealing stuff from inside your car is better than the thief stealing your stuff and breaking your window.”

                Right, and I shouldn’t lock up my house so the burglars don’t break down my door when they rob me.

                Bloody hell, that whole post is a canonical example of fractal wrongness. It is equally wrong from every direction and at every conceivable level of detail.

                • I would give real money to find out from a reliable source if Jeff keeps his own doors unlocked or not.

                  Again, the same song from the Left; sauce for the proles is certainly not fit for the Politburo.

              • > It’s well known

                Can I ask by whom exactly?

                After what I consider a reasonable amount of googling, the most recent study on the subject was from 1995:

                https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6853&context=jclc

                In which they reached pretty much the exact opposite conclusions, namely:

                ” Previous
                research has consistently indicated that victims who resist with a gun
                or other weapon are less likely than other victims to lose their property in robberies and in burglaries. Consistently, research also has indicated that victims who resist by using guns or other weapons are
                less likely to be injured compared to victims who do not resist or to
                those who resist without weapons.”

                and even more aptly:

                “victims who resisted with some kind of weapon were less
                likely to have the rape attempt completed against them.” (I’m certainly hoping you weren’t intending to characterize a woman defending herself from rape as exhibiting “toxically masculine folly”.

                You can take the sneering mockery of me for posting a 25-year old study as stipulated. If you have anything more recent, especially one that actually supports your contention, I would be very grateful.

              • You and I are in partial agreement about the first point. If someone breaks into my home at night while I’m asleep, I barricade my family into my bedroom, camp out behind my mattress with my rifle, and hope they don’t come upstairs, while the wife calls the police. They try to break down to the door to my room, I have to assume they want to do me harm, and I have to fight back. But if they’re only going to steal my stuff and leave, yeah that sucks, but I’m not risking clearing my house over stuff that can be replaced.

                Not locking car doors — that’s crazy. I’ve never had a car “broken in to”, but my wife, who forgets to lock her car doors regularly, has had the contents of her glove compartment stolen multiple times. Maybe crazies who are dumb enough to live in places like San Francisco where people take such thefts as a given will make a different calculus, but maybe don’t live in a place where people breaking car windows is normal?

              • How in the f*** do you know that in a home break-in, all they want is your “stuff”? Maybe they want some happy fun time with you and/or your wife before killing you? How do you know?

                Unless you’re a complete idiot, keeping a loaded gun readily accessible (but safe from children) is not a danger. Well, maybe it’s a danger for Jeff Read.

                • In the case of a home break-in, if I have an ability to retreat or barricade my family in my room, I’m going to take that option, period. If they follow me, or try to kick down the door to my room, I must assume they wish me or my family harm, and I’ll act accordingly. But particularly in the “bump in the night” scenario, clearing your house is the tactically inferior option. You could turn a corner and get yourself killed.

                  Your assessment of who should have access to a loaded gun is a bit of an over-generalization. Keeping a loaded gun accessible isn’t always a great idea. Spouse with mental issues, unruly teenagers, living in a crowded apartment building, etc. can through a wrench in the works.

                  Being armed is an individual choice that requires a cost-benefit analysis. I tend to agree; I carry concealed in my home, and would do so outside of the home if my state allowed it. But I’ve also received a fair bit of training, invested quite a bit in equipment, and am confident of my ability to quickly determine what’s beyond my target in my suburban home. Much like I’d not want others to restrict me of such rights, I don’t want to force such responsibilities on others. I absolutely think it’s a man’s duty to defend his family at the potential cost of his own life, but the specific tools and tactics employed are up to the individual.

                  • >But particularly in the “bump in the night” scenario, clearing your house is the tactically inferior option. You could turn a corner and get yourself killed.

                    True. Best to fort up in one room, armed, and call the police. You can’t count on them to come, but you should do it anyway in case you have to shoot the intruder – it will look good at trial if some asshole DA decides to prosecute.

                    • T’is why self-defense insurance is highly desirable if not essential. DAs prefer easier prey than well-funded defendants whose war chest is out of reach.

                  • “Being armed is an individual choice that requires a cost-benefit analysis.”

                    I had the opportunity to own several guns about three years ago, including a 1911 which looked like it was built an U.S. Army armory in 1912 and a Walther P-38 from 1963 which fit my hand perfectly and was a very good-looking gun, but at the time I had someone in my household who I could not trust around guns… I still regret not keeping the P-38, but I had to do that cost-benefit analysis, so I arranged for them to got elsewhere…

                    -sighs-

                    • P38’s are pretty common, particularly if you’re looking at post-war samples. They were manufactured until 2000, if I recall correctly. You’ll likely have additional chances to get one. I’m a big fan of them, but they aren’t rare.

                      What I really wish I could get was a Luger. They’re just really neat; love that toggle-link action. They happen to be prohibitively expensive for me. Plus, I don’t like owning guns that are so valuable I wouldn’t want to shoot them.

                    • >What I really wish I could get was a Luger.

                      Why I don’t want a Luger: they don’t tolerate field conditions well. Tolerances are too tight – if you get any grit at all in them they have a bad tendency to stop working. Or so I’m told. I don’t have direct experience.

                    • You’re in luck.

                      https://lugerman.com/

                      These are reputed to be made like a Swiss watch and dead reliable. Unless you get any dirt in the works that is, but that’s true of any Luger.

                    • You’re in luck.

                      https://lugerman.com/

                      Yeah, I’ve seen lots of videos. Those are super nice, but they are well outside my pricerange for a range toy. I have about $1000 into my AR-15, not including optics, and that’s the most expensive gun I own. The only other gun I’m looking to spend about that on is a Winchester ’92 in .357 magnum — I really want a classic lever gun. Plus, if the laws in NJ keep going the way they are, they’re going to ban semi-autos, and a lever gun is the next best thing for home defense.

                      No judgement on people that can afford to drop that on something cool — more power to you. But that just doesn’t make sense to me. I’d rather spend that money, frankly, on more training.

                  • I agree, Aaron. Retreat and call 911. Fight only if necessary. I’d only been thinking of keeping a pistol safe from kids, I hadn’t considered others. Of course, “readily accessible” for me is on my person from the time I put on my pants in the morning until I take them off at night. And then it’s in the bedside drawer until morning. Everything else is locked up.

              • > and if you keep your gun loaded you are
                > a danger to yourself and others in your home.

                That’s bullshit.

                Pure unmitigated bullshit.

                That shit is based on the Kellerman study, which even Kellerman admitted was crap science, but he was anti-gun and it made for good propaganda.

            • You’re conflating the ordinary right to self-defense with some made-up right to do something really stupid without facing consequences. If, despite having done every reasonable thing you could to avoid action, you are in fact attacked there’s no reason to avoid defending yourself – assuming you have good reason to believe you can take your assailant(s.) YMMV, I guess – my tactical possibilities are different than Eric’s for example.

              But that’s a very different question than whether you should take stupid risks and show up in a place where law enforcement has made it very clear that you’re not wanted, with a loaded weapon in your hand, while claiming that you’re there to help solve a problem which your actions actually make much worse, when a moment’s consideration would have told you to stay away.

              • You’re conflating the ordinary right to self-defense with some made-up right to do something really stupid without facing consequences.

                This is nonsense, even by your standards. Are you arguing that the business owner doesn’t have the right to defend his business? That he doesn’t have the right to call in his friends given that rioters have already spent two days burning the town? That they have the right to defend their business in the abstract, but have a duty to retreat and let the rioters burn it down if it comes to that?

                See, that’s how ridiculous your position sounds when spelled out clearly.

                • I think this one depends on something something [all life is sacred] something. It would be okay to burn down every house in America as long as it’s to save one life. Right? Right.

                  Of course it’s a lie…even setting aside the fact that your life is a kind a property that you own, the “peaceful protests” kill about 7 unarmed blacks a month, and they don’t even cover the entire country. Compare 0.8-1.25 unarmed blacks killed by an entire country of police a month. I think I’ll call out Troutwaxer for being a mass-murdering psychopath now, further down though.

              • >But that’s a very different question than whether you should take stupid risks and show up in a place where law enforcement has made it very clear that you’re not wanted, with a loaded weapon in your hand, while claiming that you’re there to help solve a problem which your actions actually make much worse, when a moment’s consideration would have told you to stay away.

                I am curious, have you watched the video footage from that night? Not just of Rittenhouse’s engagements, but before? Because having done so myself, I assure you that your paragraph above was most definitely not the case. There’s video of the riot police tossing the armed group some water bottles, and saying, “We appreciate you being out here.” There’s another of one of the men in the armed group relaying that the cops had told him, “We will push them your way, because you guys can handle them.” There’s video of Rittenhouse saying he was out there to render medical aid. There’s video of him offering medical aid to protestors and rioters that go by.

                So it was most definitely not the case that law enforcement made it clear that the armed men or Rittenhouse were not welcome for a risk of making the situation worse. Hell, I’ll argue that as much as it sucks that people were injured and died that night, Rittenhouse’s engagements had a positive effect on the riots, because the protests calmed right the hell down on the following days, with no further arson or assaults. When there is a clear risk of getting killed if you try to attack someone or set things on fire, it seems that attempts to attack people or burn things are far less frequent. Funny how that works.

                • Both the county sheriff and the Kenosha police chief told the militia people not to come. Obviously the cops on the ground felt differently, which might just have something to do with how the whole business in Kenosha went down…

                  • > Both the county sheriff and the Kenosha police chief told the militia people not to come.

                    [Citation Needed]

                  • Both the county sheriff and the Kenosha police chief told the militia people not to come. Obviously the cops on the ground felt differently

                    One group were on the ground concerned about their town being burned down. The other consists of political appointees.

            • Let the mugger have my wallet rather than engage in violence? Yeah, that’s a no-brainer. If I shoot the mugger, I’m probably out $20K or more in legal defense in the best case, and I’d rather not kill if it can be avoided.

              Rape? No, he get’s two to the chest and one to the head. Those are not equivalent. If someone wants to do harm to me or my family, I will apply lethal force to stop it.

              • That’s why anyone with more than a room temperature IQ buys insurance. Just like when driving a car, and you buy more than the minimum liability coverage. If someone has the drop on me with a gun, yeah, I give the wallet up. If they try to force me or my wife to get in a vehicle, no. I’ll draw and risk getting shot on the spot rather than being taken somewhere else and being disposed in possibly much worse ways. So would my wife.

                • > If someone has the drop on
                  > me with a gun, yeah, I give the
                  > wallet up.

                  There’s this concept called “masking the draw” where you use misdirection to cover what you’re doing.

                  Since a lot of guys carry their wallets in their back pockets, this can be done with the off hand (eyes are drawn to more rapid/erratic motion).

              • > Let the mugger have my wallet rather
                > than engage in violence?

                Now do you know that when he gets your wallet he’s not going to get mad because there’s only 20 bucks in there and decide to cut/shoot you anyway?

                > I’m probably out $20K or more in legal
                > defense in the best case

                “Best case” is that you spend 4 hours explaining your actions three or four times to the police, then go home and have a beer.

                While there are vast murky areas, there are also some very clear lines to that murkiness. Make sure that not only are you on the better side of that line, but that you can *clearly articulate* in plain (meaning not “terms of art”) language why you shot that person, and the physical facts of the case match more or less with what you said AND you’re not in some progressive shithole like Chicago you’re likely to lose a nights sleep, have some PTSD (unless you get your head right before hand) and get on with your life.

        • To my understanding of WI law, and I admit I can be corrected on this, it is not, in fact, illegal for a 17 year old to carry a rifle.

          WI law section 948.60 “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” in subsection (3), enumerates three exemptions to 948.60.

          (3)(c) This section only applies to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or shotgun if the person is in violation of s 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss 29.304 and 29.593.

          Kyle was carrying a rifle, therefore, IF Kyle was not also in violation of ss 941.28, 29.304, or 29.593, THEN s 948.60 does not apply, and Kyle was legally carrying the rifle.

          Let’s look at those sections:

          941.28: Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

          The rifle was not short-barreled, therefore Kyle was not in violation of 941.28.

          29.304: Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

          Kyle is 17 years old, therefore he was not in violation of 29.304.

          29.593: Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

          This section relates to the issuing of hunting permits, and does not apply. Kyle was not in violation.

          Therefore, Kyle was legally carrying. I am open to being corrected on this, but have not yet heard a convincing case.

      • He violated a WI law related to the age requirement for carrying a rifle….which is a BS law, of course.

        These absurd charges are likely going to result in him facing trial. That’s where jury nullification should take over.

        Kyle should walk scot free if there is any true justice left in America.

        • > He violated a WI law related to the age requirement for carrying a rifle….which is a BS law, of course.

          Do you disagree with my read of the relevant WI law, above? If so, what am I missing?

          • The WI law can be read so that “possession” of a weapon does not include borrowing one from a friend, which is what Kyle did. That is part of the case his lawyers have made.

        • >Excellent — I’d love tiers between $20 and $100 when you get a chance. I was at $25/mo on Patreon.

          I’ve created a $50 tier. I read somewhere that if they’re spaced too close together potential patrons tend to get a sort of analysis paralysis.

  4. But to do this duty, one requires appropriate equipment. It would seem then that federal law virtually requires military aged males to possess military grade rifles.

  5. I don’t think the idea that he’s part of the militia is going to go anywhere. First, (and leaving aside that Rittenhouse is being tried in a state court on state charges,) discussion of the President calling out the militia is all over sections 251, 252, and 253 of the same law you cited. Also, note that all the examples where the law has been used in the past 70 years were all when a state’s law enforcement argued against a federal judge’s order and refused to obey – clearly an insurrection, as a large body of armed people refused a Federal order and stated they would not allow it to be carried out.

    Second, what’s happening in Kenosha doesn’t meet the definition of an insurrection – it’s certainly a riot, or a series of riots, no arguments there, but unless there’s an organized group of people trying to kill all the local police or shoot up the city council it doesn’t qualify as an insurrection.

    Third, even if the idea that Kyle is a member of the militia is correct, it’s not a “get out of jail free card.” You can’t say “I’m a member of the militia and I was self-dispatching when I killed that guy.” The whole idea of that statement shits all over any credibility the idea of a militia has left in 2020. At the very least something has to be happening which justifies it – the idea that the Federal government has done something so horrible that a rebellion needs to take place, thus justifying self-dispatch doesn’t apply here – and I doubt a riot qualifies. Hypothetically, if this were being tried in federal court the judge might look at the circumstances of what’s happening in Kenosha and make a judgement call about whether there was an insurrection, but I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    Fourth, who cares about the political affiliations of the people he killed? In the U.S. people may choose whatever politics they prefer, and are not executed for this. It’s a longstanding tradition and one you should appreciate, as your politics are so whacked I sometimes think you had a close encounter with Cthulhu!

    Fifth, in the absence of a (judged as) legitimate insurrection, people are entitled to a trial before they are executed.

    Sixth, note this from the Washington Post: “He (Kyle Rittenhouse) had attempted to join the Marine Corps in January, but was disqualified from serving after discussing his options with recruiters, said service spokeswoman Yvonne Carlock. She declined to specify why he was disqualified, citing the service’s privacy guidelines.” Arguably, he was disqualified from militia duties after being rejected from the armed forces, clearly for some fairly obvious reason – note the specific phrase “…was disqualified from serving after discussing his options with recruiters…” Things like a medical or psychiatric exam apparently didn’t need to happen.

    • > Also, note that all the examples where the law has been used in the past 70 years were all when a state’s law enforcement argued against a federal judge’s order and refused to obey – clearly an insurrection, as a large body of armed people refused a Federal order and stated they would not allow it to be carried out.

      By your logic, declaring one’s city a Sanctuary City is an act of insurrection, since the city is refusing to enforce federal law. Trump would therefore be justified in calling up the National Guard and taking those cities by force, no?

      > Second, what’s happening in Kenosha doesn’t meet the definition of an insurrection – it’s certainly a riot, or a series of riots, no arguments there, but unless there’s an organized group of people trying to kill all the local police or shoot up the city council it doesn’t qualify as an insurrection.

      In many Democrat-controlled cities and states, the local government is refusing to enforce the law on Antifa and BLM–at least, as long as they leave their Rightful Rulers alone–while enforcing it with a vengeance on any opposed to those two. The US Constitution, meanwhile, guarantees a republican form of government. How can we even call them republican governments if they’re refusing to enforce the law–or worse, enforcing it arbitrarily? Would that not place them in a state of insurrection?

      > Third, even if the idea that Kyle is a member of the militia is correct, it’s not a “get out of jail free card.” You can’t say “I’m a member of the militia and I was self-dispatching when I killed that guy.”

      No, but you can say, “That guy was threatening to kill me when I killed him, and I didn’t even provoke him.”

      > In the U.S. people may choose whatever politics they prefer, and are not executed for this.

      That was true right up to the point Antifa and BLM decided that anyone to the right of Mao is irredeemably evil and must die. Seriously, try wearing a MAGA hat anywhere in a Blue city. Don’t be surprised when thugs in black masks show up to beat the crap out of you–or shoot you dead, as happened to one poor soul in Portland, OR.

      > Fifth, in the absence of a (judged as) legitimate insurrection, people are entitled to a trial before they are executed.

      Agreed, but again, those cities and states are refusing to enforce the law on Antifa and BLM. The fault, then, lies not with Rittenhouse but with the state of Wisconsin and the city of Kenosha.

      > Arguably, he was disqualified from militia duties after being rejected from the armed forces,

      I guess it depends on your definition of the words, “able-bodied.” He seems pretty able-bodied to me.

      • By your logic, declaring one’s city a Sanctuary City is an act of insurrection, since the city is refusing to enforce federal law. Trump would therefore be justified in calling up the National Guard and taking those cities by force, no?

        Kenosha isn’t a sanctuary city.

        In many Democrat-controlled cities and states, the local government is refusing to enforce the law on Antifa and BLM–at least, as long as they leave their Rightful Rulers alone–while enforcing it with a vengeance on any opposed to those two.

        What is the law on Antifa and BLM? I don’t think they’re subject to special laws. If you mean laws against rioting and/or looting, the vast majority of protestors aren’t violating them.

        No, but you can say, “That guy was threatening to kill me when I killed him, and I didn’t even provoke him.”

        It’s possible Rittenhouse will get off on some charges, on self-defense – I’ve got no arguments there – but that doesn’t relate to Eric’s idea that he is a legitimate member of the militia. (Apparently his lawyer is very, very right-wing. The kid could get convicted when he should walk because his lawyer is politicizing the case when he should be depoliticizing it.)

        That was true right up to the point Antifa and BLM decided that anyone to the right of Mao is irredeemably evil and must die. Seriously, try wearing a MAGA hat anywhere in a Blue city. Don’t be surprised when thugs in black masks show up to beat the crap out of you–or shoot you dead, as happened to one poor soul in Portland, OR.

        Commies tend to show up at any protest, frequently against the wishes of the protestors – they’re very well organized in that sense. Also, most of the protestors are not members of antifa – that’s mainly a west-coast thing – and most are not commies.

        The idea that simply wearing a MAGA hat is enough to get you beat up or shot at in a Liberal city during times where there isn’t a riot is nonsense. (Remember that most places are really some shade of purple.) The guy in Portland who got shot – they shot his killer too, BTW, who was apparently a local criminal – was part of a 600 car caravan which showed up looking to “counter-protest” the BLM protest. Apparently they were firing paintballs, so it’s fairly obvious what happened and how – this is why non-violence training and leaving your stupid Colt-45 penis extensions at home is important regardless of your politics. Do I really have to comment on the appropriateness of showing up with items that could be mistaken for real guns while counter-protesting against people who took to the street over the George Floyd murders, in an environment which everyone seems determined to make worse?

        Agreed, but again, those cities and states are refusing to enforce the law on Antifa and BLM. The fault, then, lies not with Rittenhouse but with the state of Wisconsin and the city of Kenosha.

        So IF the officials of Kenosha aren’t enforcing the law THEN high-school kids get to bring guns and kill people without trial? Contemplate the morality of this for a little while before you reply.

        This kind of behavior doesn’t make the situation better. I’ll give you some logic for those people who think they’re a member of the militia and imagine that “helping the police” is a good idea: Recognize that Kenosha has a local, homegrown protest and the police don’t want a bunch of amateurs coming in from out-of-state and trying to “help,” because now the police have to deal with two misbehaving groups who are inclined to fight each other! Then do the sane, logical thing and STAY THE FUCK AWAY, so nobody else gets killed!

        I guess it depends on your definition of the words, “able-bodied.” He seems pretty able-bodied to me.

        I suspect that any notes the recruiter made will come out at the trial. We’ll see what happens. But if a branch of the military rejected him for some cause relating to his attitude you probably don’t want him running through a riot with a gun.

        • > If you mean laws against rioting and/or looting, the vast majority of protestors aren’t violating them.

          What is with you dishonest fucking Commies talking like this? “Some people were actual protesters! Therefore, the riots don’t matter, shut up about the riots, la la la la!”

          Trout. Trout, my boy. Tell me. Did you watch any of the Kenosha riots? They were extensively live-streamed. I was watching Night Two (the night of the inferno) and Night Three (Night of the Kenosha Kid) as they happened.

          Did you watch the park in front of the court house filled with black-clad agitators, many of whom were throwing rocks and fireworks (read: explosives) at the police guarding that building? And those who weren’t doing that, were actively protecting (read: aiding and abetting those that were? For hours after an unlawful assembly had been declared and they had been ordered to disperse?

          Did you watch the wide-spread destruction and vandalism? The businesses being set on fire? The old man who was cracked in the skull for attempting to defend his business on Night One?

          When people like you make this bullshit excuse that “the vast majority of protesters” weren’t rioting, it reveals either fucking evil levels of dishonesty or destructive levels of ignorance.

          Given your history here, and the kinds of outright lies you have said about people here, I’m inclined towards the former.

          Nothing else you say after this matters, because it reveals that you aren’t even engaging in an discussion with the same ground truths. And I believe, at this point, that you are doing so deliberately.

          Say “hi” to Winter for me, because you’ve just been placed next to him in my box labeled “dangerously dishonest, do not bother to engage again.”

          • What is with you dishonest fucking Commies talking like this? “Some people were actual protesters! Therefore, the riots don’t matter, shut up about the riots, la la la la!”

            You mean like how you hypocritical fucking conservatives say “Some cops are good people! Therefore, Rodney King and Mike Brown and George Floyd and Jacob Blake don’t matter, shut up about police brutality, la la la”?

            Lived experience has taught me that ACAB is a useful first approximation. The rule of law, and the legitimacy of law enforcement, has totally broken down in the USA. The government has utterly broken its compact with the people. In an environment like that, you can expect riots and looting, as those whose only commitment to abide by the law comes from fear of enforcement suddenly find themselves able to act without restraint. But this is a bed that your political kind made, so now you get to lie in it.

            • You mean like how you hypocritical fucking conservatives say “Some cops are good people! Therefore, Rodney King and Mike Brown and George Floyd and Jacob Blake don’t matter, shut up about police brutality, la la la”?

              Yeah sort of, except the proportion of bad cops is like <0.001% rather then 20-70% as with the "protestors". And none examples you sited are actually examples. So really nothing like that. Also, you're either a liar or an idiot (possibly both).

              • (The dashed lines are intended as paragraph
                breaks, as I haven’t been able to get normal
                paragraph breaks to work here. Sorry.)
                —–
                “The proportion of bad cops is like
                <0.001%"? Then it's an astonishing
                coincidence that four cops were present
                while one of them was slowly murdering
                George Floyd, and the other three did
                nothing to try to save him. The odds of all
                four being bad is one in a hundred million
                trillion by your numbers. —–
                Where do you get your facts? From high
                school civics class, Dragnet reruns, and
                Officer Friendly's visit to your First Grade
                Class? Well, so did I. Then I learned
                better the hard way. —–
                I've obviously never been murdered by cops,
                but I was severely gaslit by them. They
                lied to me about the evidence against me,
                and since I believed that cops were good
                guys who would never lie, and since there
                were five of them who all agreed, and since
                I had no recollection of committing the
                alleged crime or any other crime, I was half
                convinced that I was criminally insane, and
                came very close to suicide for the first and
                only time in my life. After all, the
                chances that five cops would all be bad
                would, by your numbers, be one in ten
                trillion trillion. The odds of my being
                criminally insane were obviously much
                higher than that.
                —–
                Today I know that that's called the Reid
                technique. It's a very bad way to gain
                knowledge of a crime, but a very good way to
                get confessions. It works on about a third
                of all guilty people and on about two thirds
                of all innocent people.
                —–
                Never again will I trust anything a cop
                says, or answer any police questions. I
                hate crime, and wish I could help fight it
                by cooperating with police, but I hate being
                falsely convicted even more. The cops are
                just another criminal gang, different from
                MS-13 only in that cops speak slightly
                better English. —–
                The real proportion of bad cops is somewhere
                around 95% to 98%. The other 2% to 5% are
                rookies who will soon quit or be forced out.

                • Your calculations are assuming IID sampling, which doesn’t really apply here. Bad cops train bad cops, and bad cops congregate together.

                  I don’t want to be mistaken for a cop apologist (I have cop friends but also have been on the wrong side of the law more than once, so my position is N U A N C E D), but raising a small number to a power in IPython or whatever does not a rigorous analysis make.

                • The proportion of bad cops is like
                  <0.001%"? Then it's an astonishing
                  coincidence that four cops were present
                  while one of them was slowly murdering
                  George Floyd, and the other three did
                  nothing to try to save him. The odds of all
                  four being bad is one in a hundred million
                  trillion by your numbers.

                  Agreed, it would be. Except that’s not what happened. Four cops were present while George Floyd died of a drug overdose. He was acting aggressively, so one of them tried to restrain him, they then rushed him to the hospital.

                  • He died of a overdose? It’s just a
                    remarkable coincidence that this happened
                    when his windpipe was being crushed against
                    the pavement and while he was complaining
                    that he couldn’t breathe? Opioid overdoses
                    kill by knocking you out and supressing your
                    breathing reflex. People dying of an
                    overdose never complain that they can’t
                    breathe. Also, he was 46, so it’s very
                    unlikely he was using drugs for the first
                    time. What would be a lethal dose for you or
                    I is harmless to a chronic user. And I don’t
                    trust reports from police-aligned crime labs
                    anyway. Did an independent lab find any
                    drugs?

                    • > It’s just a
                      remarkable coincidence that this happened
                      when his windpipe was being crushed against
                      the pavement and while he was complaining
                      that he couldn’t breathe?

                      He was complaining about not being able to breathe while he was in the cruiser before the police put him on the ground. This is proven by the bodycam footage that leaked.

                    • >He died of a overdose?

                      Yes, Keith, it looks like he did.

                      I’ve changed my mind about this case. I no longer believe Chauvin killed him. The video evidence that he was already ODing and having respiratory trouble while upright is compelling.

                    • Yeah, it’s nothing more than ordinary medical malpractice – Chauvin isn’t a doctor, how was he to know that he should have done CPR instead of the throat-crushing maneuver? The difference in symptoms is soooooo difficult for a layman to understand!

                      -Facepalms-

                      For your next move, Eric, how about you sell me a used Pinto, one with a gas tank that’s only slightly crushed…

                      -spits-
                      -sighs-

                    • (This is a reply to esr, whose reply to my
                      post has no reply tag.) Look up the symptoms
                      of fentanyl overdose. Its victims don’t
                      complain of being unable to breathe, they
                      lose their desire to breathe. Before
                      that they lose consciousness. Again, it’s
                      an astonishing coincidence if someone died
                      when someone blocked his windpipe for eight
                      minutes, if he died for completely unrelated
                      reasons. Eight minutes is just a
                      three-millionth of his life. Do you think
                      you would survive for eight minutes with
                      your windpipe blocked, even though you’re
                      drug-free? (But then I also think that a
                      covid death counts as a covid death even
                      if the victim was overweight, so what do I
                      know?) Do you agree with me that killer
                      cops and cop killers should be treated
                      exactly the same? Do you doubt that if it
                      had been you who had been crushing his
                      windpipe you’d be serving a sentence of life
                      without parole today? (Had it been in
                      Virginia rather than Minnesota, you’d
                      instead get the death penalty.)

                    • >Do you agree with me that killer cops and cop killers should be treated exactly the same?

                      Yes.

                      >Again, it’s an astonishing coincidence if someone died when someone blocked his windpipe for eight
                      minutes

                      But the Minneapolis medical examiner has said all along that there as no sign of the kind of crushing damage that would have killed Floyd by physical strangulation.

                      Which is a fact I knew before I changed my mind about this case. That fact troubled me, but I didn’t update my beliefs away from “Chauvin murdered him” until I saw the video of Floyd going into OD convulsions.

                      Bear in mind that Floyd was complaining of being unable to breathe while still upright, with no pressure applied to his neck.

                      The inference is clear; Floyd was already a dead man walking when the cops accosted him. Possibly he could have been saved by immediate heroic treatment for the fentanyl overdose, but I now think he was just minutes from death at the time the cops intervened and could not have been gotten to a hospital in time.

                      I can also tell you what would change my mind back: if it turns out there was in fact evidence if crush damage to Floyd’s throat that the ME missed or suppressed. I’ll follow the facts, whatever they are.

                    • Also,

                      The 911 call was leaked. The police were called for an apparent counterfeit bill, AND that the guy passing the bill Appeared severely intoxicated an indicated he was going to drive intoxicated.

            • > George Floyd and Jacob Blake

              Hypocritical is lumping people like Jacob Blake and Rayshard Brooks, who were aggressively resisting arrest (in Brooks’ case with a weapon wrested from one of the officers) in the same category as a man at best passively resisting an arrest on a non-violent accusation.

              Hypocritical is declaring by fiat that this is entirely a problem of “fucking conservatvies” when Minneapolis and Atlanta are both thoroughly Democratic cities (and Minneapolis in a thoroughly Democratic state).

              Hypocritical is sweeping under the carpet the brutal murder of eight-year-old Secoriea Turner at the hands of the very people claiming to be “peacefully protesting” the death of Brooks, because _her_ murder doesn’t quite fit the Black Lives Matter narrative the left needs to push right now.

              If you, like Winter, are too squeamish to tackle the issue of an eight-year-old girl being shot in the head in the name of your Movement, then how about another black adult male, Calvin Munerlyn? I asked about him _waaay_ back in your “Michiganers are fucking idiots!!!” tirade in the Final Warning thread, to complete silence. But apparently Black Lives only Matter when it’s a whitey, or better yet a white cop, doing the killing; a bunch of low-life criminal thugs killing a hard worker, dedicated family man, and upstanding member of his community just isn’t news, and certainly isn’t going to pull in the rioters — oops sorry “peaceful protesters”, in sufficient numbers, now is it?

              • I must quibble a bit with your characterization of Minnesota as a thoroughly Democrat state. The balance between the hard-left inner Twin Cities metro and the conservative outstate is quite close; Clinton won the state but 30,000 votes in 2016, and there was a Republican governor as recently as 2010.

                The Twin Cities themselves, though…

                • Thanks for the correction.

                  I think it was back in the Final Warning thread where there were a lot of leftist claims that George Floyd’s murder was yet another example of “racist redneck” violence, to which I responded by pointing out that Minnesota had gone democrat in nearly every presidential election in just about the past hundred years. But that’s obviously too one-dimensional to justify “thoroughly”; sorry for the over-generalization.

            • > You mean like how you hypocritical fucking conservatives say […]

              Ah, Jeff. Verily, verily, I say you are the dumbest motherfucker who comments on this blog. You are but a souless clay doll, forever cursed to possession by false narratives and destructive ideology. So empty are you of logos that you live within a paranoid delusion merely because someone has told you that it is so. Verily, where the dog barks at the hand, you, Jeff, hump the ideological leg of whatever filthy beggar comes nearest; the master is but a mirage to you.

              I say unto you, Jeff, that you knowest not what you speak, nor do you know aught of me, and in so doing is your arrogant ignorance exposed, your clay facade torn asunder to reveal naught but that which is of the basic bitch.

              Therefore do I bestow upon thee, Jeff Read of the Blog, Dumbest and Most Hollow, the rank title of Trout’s White Knight, Resplendent in Dicksucking Vainglory.

              Blessed Be Our Bitchy Lady,
              Hail Eris
              All Hail Discordia
              fnord.

              • All Hail Discordia.

                All Hail Disnomia (which is a much more correct description of a riot venue).

                • Given the stupidity, BS, and just being an all around PoS you engage in while sober, you’re in no position to talk.

                • > This is a perfect example of why you shouldn’t post when you’re drunk.

                  As Dr. Troutwaxer is now dispensing free diagnoses of alcoholism to us here, I am no doubt required and obliged to confess that I have for some time now been possessed of the belief that if I could somehow run the moral equivalent of

                  git log –author=”Jeff Read” -G”You don’t have the right to”

                  on this blog and charge a nickel a hit, I would be able to keep myself, ktk, and anyone else here so inclined supplied with enough booze to keep us blissfully indifferent to Leftist apologia for the remainder of our natural lives.

            • > Rodney King

              If you’d watched the whole Rodney King video you will see Rodney King *LAUNCH* himself out of his car at the police officer nearest to him after a high speed chase. So right there are two felonies, one of them violent. He continued to resist arrest all the way down. Note that this video was NOT shown on TV until after the verdict was read.

              They also (and I only heard about this from a police friend) did not discuss how part of the training that the LAPD received was in these sorts of situations to beat the pavement/ground around the resistor to distract them. Most of the blows in the short clip shown before and during the trial were NOT aimed at King, they were an attempt to keep him from focusing on the people trying to arrest him.

              Yet another “win” for the Ministry of Truth.

              > Mike Brown

              Mike Brown as a violent thug who *attacked* Wilson. Wilson shot in self defense.

              The whole “Hands Up Don’t Shoot” thing was a *LIE*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hands_up,_don%27t_shoot

              > George Floyd

              Floyd, again, was resisting arrest, under a heavy (some say lethal) dose of Fentanyl, and was complaining about not being able to breath EVEN BEFORE he was put in a compliance position. The officer who was blamed for his death knew him from a job where they were both “security”, which is to say bouncers, which means he had a rough idea of how well Floyd fought.

              Note also that in this case the officer was *fired* within 72 hours, and arrested within 96, so he WAS being held accountable (even if he’ll walk after the jury sees the whole footage).

              > Jacob Blake

              Blake was violating a restraining order to “visit” a woman he was accused of sexually assaulting. Then he got into it with police when they showed up to prevent his “visit”. He was fighting his way (e.g. resisting arrest) back to his car WHERE HE HAD A KNIFE when the officer who was holding onto him AS HE REACHED IN shot him.

              Note that some members of the National Felons League have Blake’s name on their helmet.

              I guess #metoo has gone from “hashtag me too” to “pound me too”

              Why did you pick those four cases Jeff? You’re well connected and smart enough to know better.

              Atatiana Jefferson? Oh. Wait. Officer indicted on a murder charge.
              Abner Louima? Oh, wait. Officers *convicted*, and one serving a 30 year sentence.
              Rayshard Brooks? Oh, wait, Police chief resigns, officers charged EVEN THOUGH Brooks failed a breathalyzer, resisted arrest, jacked the officers taser AND attempted to use that taser on the officer.

              You, and the rest of your proggy fellow travelers have helped create these large areas of the inner city where drugs and violence are cultural norms. Then you demand the police expose themselves to these violent predators and get all upset when violence begets violence.

              50 years (2.5 generations, more in some areas) of *complete* Democrat control of the teachers unions, decades to generations of Democrat control of the largest[1] cities in the US–which means Democrat control of the police forces–training, budget etc. and this is what you get.

              And, like most Progressives, when the mess comes home to roost you blame it on Conservatives.

              White people are killed and beaten by police *all the time* (numerically more than blacks), and when you adjust for police contacts get killed/shot about as often.

              It’s just that blacks tend to get more police contacts.

              You, of course, will blame that on racism.

              I, of course, will blame that on 4 generations of the “War On Black Families” (aka “War on Poverty”) started by Johnson, as constant drumbeats of racial and cultural disharmony from the left, the constant refrain that rich “owe” the poor, and that it’s all the fault of the Republicans.

              [1] New York is the exception here, except no one things Guliana is a conservative. He’s just not a Progressive.

              • >You, and the rest of your proggy fellow travelers have helped create these large areas of the inner city where drugs and violence are cultural norms. Then you demand the police expose themselves to these violent predators and get all upset when violence begets violence.

                You forgot one thing William, they “demand the police expose themselves to these violent predators” to keep them safely segregated in the parts of town where the latte liberal set doesn’t have to go. You’ll notice the local Leftwing Pols were content to let these riots happen until they started showing up on their own doorsteps.

            • You mean like how you hypocritical fucking conservatives say “Some cops are good people! Therefore, Rodney King and Mike Brown and George Floyd and Jacob Blake don’t matter, shut up about police brutality, la la la”?

              You have it backwards. Some cops are bad people, but none of the four you named ran into those. The cops who dealt with them all did the right thing — except that in Rodney King’s case, after he had finally stopped resisting and the legitimate need to hit him was over, one cop failed to notice that for a few seconds, and landed six extra blows. According to the second jury, only those six final blows were wrongful. The entire beating until then was justified, because it was necessary in order to effect his arrest.

              Floyd died of a drug overdose. The cops were doing the best they could in restraining him until the ambulance they’d called would arrive.

              Brown was a vicious thug who finally attacked the wrong person. And Blake was a dangerous felon who was resisting arrest, and reached into the car; to all appearances he was either reaching for a weapon or planned to get in the car and drive off, neither of which were acceptable options.

              • The problem here is that you’re cherry-picking names. Tamir Rice was a twelve-year-old child who didn’t do anything wrong. Neither did George Floyd, Ahmaud Aubrey or Akai Gurley. Did I mention John Crawford III or Rumaine Brisbon?

                • Cherry-picking names?! I quoted the four names that were in the comment I replied to. All four were incorrect. Now you give some more names. Who’s cherry-picking?

                  Tamir Rice didn’t do anything wrong, but the cop did nothing wrong either. Actually that’s not true. Rice did something very wrong, he was just too young and innocent to know it. He was just playing and didn’t mean to frighten anyone, but nobody else had any way to know that. The cop saw what appeared to be a mid-teenager pointing a gun at him and about to kill him. He can’t be expected to have known that Rice was only 12, or that the gun wasn’t real. Rice’s death was like that of a toddler who runs into traffic and is killed. Not his fault but not the driver’s fault either.

                  George Floyd died of a drug overdose. The police had nothing to do with it, and did everything exactly by the book.

                  The facts on Aubrey aren’t in yet, and will come out at trial. The video evidence is ambiguous. Experts such as Andrew Branca see Aubrey deviating from his path to deliberately confront McMichael the Younger and grab his weapon; if he did that then the shooting was justified. Others don’t see that. We will have to wait and see.

                  Akai Gurley’s death was simply a freak accident, due to a cop’s momentary carelessness. The cop was appropriately punished.

                  Crawford and Brisbon I had to look up. Crawford appears to have been the victim of a reckless 911 caller and a jumpy cop. And ultimately of the public hoplophobia deliberately pushed by the left, which leads people to panic and call 911 at the sight of someone in Walmart carrying a gun. Crawford also bears a small part of the blame, for waving the gun around in a careless manner, just because he knew it wasn’t real, without thinking that others weren’t to know that. But that’s the smallest part of the blame.

                  As for Brisbon I can’t see what you’re referring to. He refused the cop’s orders to put his hands up, ran from the cop, then wrestled with him, and put his hand in his pocket. What was the cop supposed to think, or to do? Brisbon had no right to act as he did, and he effectively committed suicide.

                  • Obviously in your mind killing a Black person is always justified, even the children. Dude, you’re gonna burn!

                    • Huh?
                      “Obviously” you are making sh*t up on the spot, and arguing in bad faith.

                    • Maybe you need to be more convincing about your lack of hatred for Black people. Your posts read like a propaganist’s wet dream – except the one about sanctuary cities, I thought that was very intelligent.

                    • > Maybe you need to be more convincing about your lack of hatred for Black people

                      Nothing Milhouse said made any reference to the race of those involved in the incidents.

                      Show me a case involving a white boy waving a toy gun in a park, a idiot (of any race) hoplophobe making a completely unnecessary 911 call, and a cop of any race having been fed a complaint of a white teenager threatening people in the park with a gun, and I can state with no hesitation I will have exactly the same reaction as to the case as it actually happened.

                      The problem is that despite your being wrong about this being “obviously” a racial issue (again this is frigging _Cleveland_, not some “redneck racist enclave), you are right in every other way about this case being a horrible tragedy.

                      A kid shouldn’t be shot for playing with a toy in a park. Except a kid shouldn’t be “threatening” other people with a toy gun in a park, unless they’re people he’s already playing with who are aware it’s just a toy and he’s just playing. Except an idiot shouldn’t be making a 911 call about an obvious toy (the way the kid is “waving” it should make it immediately obvious whether it’s plastic or actual metal). Except if a person actually _is_ ignorant about handgun appearances, and too panicked to think clearly about the weight issue, discouraging people from making such calls might reduce the rate at which actual crimes are reported. Except even if a call is made, the answering cop should at least evaluate the situation themselves instead of firing out the window while still driving up. Except in a large fraction of situations a cop has a fraction of a second to decide if an actual weapon is being drawn on them before reacting. Except a cop should be more sensitive than a civilian to the weight difference (and thus speed at which a kid can “wave” one around) between a toy a real gun.

                      One can go _very_ deep in this chain without any of the links _requiring_ racism as the relevant explanation. Speaking for myself, I believe that in an area with a strong gun culture, a) parents teach their children basic gun safety rules from a young age, including the one that you don’t point a gun (even a toy one) at a stranger except in self-defense; and b) there are fewer idiots around to drop a dime on some innocent kid carrying a toy.

                      My assumption when I started reading further was that Cleveland, being an urban area, has strong gun control. In fact wiki claims that Ohio law permitting carrying currently “pre-empts” whatever local laws used to exist (much like the situation I referred to much higher in the thread, that IL laws now pre-empt formerly very restrictive Chicago laws). My guess here is that the gun culture in Cleveland proper has not caught up with that of other parts of the state.

                    • Milhouse is constantly quoting some very unpleasant statistics, of which I am very suspicious. He sounds like every other idiot who ever imagined that race, not poverty and 400 years of oppression, causes the problems he’s pointing at.

                    • He sounds like every other idiot who ever imagined that race, not poverty and 400 years of oppression, causes the problems he’s pointing at.

                      You do realize it’s not hard to frame your “400 years of oppression” and “poverty” theories in such a way that they make falsifiable predictions. (Hint: Blacks aren’t the only people who were ever oppressed and there exist poor people who aren’t Black.) BTW, those predictions turn out to be false.

                • There’s a large space between “Doing nothing wrong” and “Doing nothing illegal”.

                  > Tamir Rice

                  I’ll go half way with you here.
                  The cop that shot him was a real loser and shouldn’t have been on the force. His training officer was a nitwit, and shouldn’t have been in that position. Everything of consequence they did in that encounter was wrong.

                  But Tamir Rice was a *really* large (IIRC around 6′) 12 year old who was playing with an airsoft pistol (which are *really* exact replicas) that had the orange “this is not a gun” bit removed. He was doing this in a park, and had *allegedly* aimed it at people.

                  That’s not “nothing”.

                  > Akai Gurley

                  Was not *intentionally* shot, Liang was inadequately trained, and two “rookies” should never be working together, but it was not a deliberate shooting. This is in an entire different category.

                  The problem is that while both sides of this would agree that police need more training, my side says they need to get better–much better–at fighting in general and at shooting in particular (I would require all police to do *at least* 4 hours of martial arts a week in an art that focuses on grappling, and at least 2 hours of shooting a month) while your side would preach racial awareness training, LGB++ training, etc. etc. and then wonder why so many people are getting shot.

                  > Ahmaud Aubrey

                  Was not shot by police, and there was (apparently) no evidence to contradict the witnesses. When such evidence was produced they nailed the fuckers.

                  > Neither did George Floyd

                  Passing a counterfeit 20.
                  Attempting to drive while intoxicated.
                  Resisting arrest.

                  That’s not “nothing wrong”.

                  > John Crawford III

                  Wandering around a Walmart waving a rifle around randomly is not “nothing”. Yeah, it was an a bb gun or air rifle, but it was a move so STUPID that it beggars the imagination.

                  So again not “nothing wrong”.

                  > Rumaine Brisbon

                  Are you serious?

            • “You mean like how you hypocritical fucking conservatives say “Some cops are good people! Therefore, Rodney King and Mike Brown and George Floyd and Jacob Blake don’t matter, shut up about police brutality, la la la”?”

              No, this is an example of vomiting out a strawman.

              Doesn’t that sort of creativity get tiring after awhile?

          • “Say “hi” to Winter for me, because you’ve just been placed next to him in my box labeled “dangerously dishonest, do not bother to engage again.””

            Another example of commenters using Insults when they have run out of reasonable arguments.

            • It’s not like a vending machine, you know. You guys refusing to engage in, or outright ignoring, arguments raised against you until someone gets fed up and realizes you’re not worth arguing with isn’t “running out” of arguments.

              If you’re _not_ “dangerously dishonest”, you’ll be willing and able to explain why lambasting the majority of participants here as “condoning” various atrocities you’ve declared by fiat (without any “reasonable arguments” supporting that accusation) is not an “insult”, while immediately getting your hackles up at any perceived “insult” to your special snowflake status.

              • I’m gaining amusement at these folks’ seeming inability to just not respond. I’m not sure what “reasonable arguments” Winter is even referring to here, since I have rather deliberately not engaged with the Dutch Commie in quite some time. Very strange.

                • @ktk
                  “what “reasonable arguments” Winter is even referring to here,”

                  Arguments based in fact or law, with evidence or witness accounts.
                  Most arguments here are very long on opinion and ideology and very, very short on facts.

                  For instance, I still remember the large number of arguments presented here on COVID-19 as a Hoax by the Democrats. We are now at 194,000 deaths from COVID-19 and still counting. This includes more than 1000 health care workers
                  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/26/us-health-workers-covid-19-deaths-lost-on-the-frontline

                  Arguments based on facts would have saved many lives in these cases.

                  • COVID-19 is also known to spread through the air, and to cause long-term organ damage in 75% of those infected with it. So even if you don’t die from it, you’re in a shit ton of trouble — even if you’re young and healthy.

                    And Trump admitted to downplaying the dangers.

                    The blood of those 200,000 is on Trump’s hands! Once again, any result in November other than a landslide victory for Biden will throw the legitimacy of the U.S. government and/or the collective sanity of the American people very much into question. This is no longer a question of respectful disagreement between two opposing camps. Not when one camp is usually right and the other is wrong to the point of mental illness!

                    • I’m sure Governor Cuomo placing covid patients in nursing homes, deliberately and explicitly rejecting federal assistance in the form of a naval medical cruiser and field hospital, had no impact whatsoever.

                      Seriously, dumbest person here. At least you used to provide some interesting insight on occasion, the rare moment of clarity. Now it’s just screeching emotion. Someone call Jesus, Jeff’s got a demon in him! Hurry!

                      Haah! Next he’ll start raving psychotically about the impending right-wing death squads.

                      Don’t worry, Jeff baby, I promise to let the RWDS’s know to leave you alone. You’re safe with me, dearie. Shush, shush…

                    • @Inkstain
                      “1)”

                      The defining line in that piece is: First study of its kind has found that nearly half of hospital patients showed no damage at 12 weeks

                      That is the same as: More than half of the patients still show damage after 12 weeks. That is in line with other studies, e.g., in Italy:
                      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768351

                      And there are many reports of people who have persistent, cripling, symptoms months after a mild COVID infections.
                      https://inews.co.uk/news/coronavirus-post-viral-effects-after-covid-19-chronic-fatigue-long-term-health-440730

                      More than 6 million people have been infected in the USA. Even a fraction of 6 million is still a lot

                    • Just this morning I heard a recording from Trump telling a journalist in February that he knew how dangerous and deadly COVID-19 was. But he did not want to tell the Americans to prevent panic.

                      It has to be admired how Trump played the gullibility of his supporters, the alt-right, and the lot of the A&D guys alike.

                      See it for yourself:
                      https://www.news.com.au/world/watch-the-tape-of-trump-admitting-to-playing-down-covid19-to-avoid-panic/video/001c1da9cd6dc5f2a9a6482b01b6dcb7

                    • More fakery. There’s nothing secret or nefarious in that recording. Trump told Woodward exactly what he publicly told Jim Acosta at the press conference on March 30. That he was being responsible by not sensationalizing it and causing a panic. Do you not agree that that was his job?!

                      And if you listen to what he told Woodward about the facts as he understood them that day in February, they turn out to have been wrong. So if he’d panicked himself, and gone out and publicized them, he would have frightened people for no reason. He took the mistaken things he’d been told seriously, but didn’t lose his head about them, so when months later they turned out to be overly pessimistic he doesn’t look like an idiot.

                    • Trump’s non-response to COVID19 has been debated previously here. Any idea that he did the right thing is 100 percent delusional. If you go back to the right thread (I forget which one) Trump’s mistakes have been done to death.

                    • Trump has done as well with this disease as any president could be expected to do. We can’t ask any more than that.

                      If we’d known in advance how exaggerated the “experts'” fears were, and how limited the virus’s effect actually is, we would never have agreed to the vast overreaction that has been taken. Trump fell for those fears too, as we hear in the Woodward recording. Thankfully he didn’t lose his head, but he was persuaded to take measures that in hindsight were unnecessary and destructive, and he’s since been trying to rectify at least some of that damage.

                    • @Milhouse
                      “Trump has done as well with this disease as any president could be expected to do. We can’t ask any more than that. ”

                      Delaying the response to COVID-19 has been shown to be the leading predictor of high death rates. That there are now close to 200,000 dead Americans from COVID-19 and not 50,000 0r 2,000 is purely the result of a delayed, or no, response.

                      Germany has a population of 80 million and only 10,000 COVID deaths. They acted fast and that had an effect.

                      That Trump told the Americans that he would stop COVID dead in its tracks in April was a public health disaster.

                      That he knew this was false already in February makes it a case of criminal misgovernment.

                    • And just how many of those deaths are died from Covid19 and how many merely died with Covid19?

                    • COVID-19 is also known to spread through the air, and to cause long-term organ damage in 75% of those infected with it.

                      Liar.

                • “I have rather deliberately not engaged with the Dutch Commie in quite some time.”

                  Yeah, I know facts and reality are not welcome. When there is non-Political Correct speech uttered, names are called and insults fly, but mostly, ears are shut and eyes are closed.

                • Note the Dutch Commie’s completely delusional assertion above that I made some kind of argumentation in some imaginary thread not in evidence.

                  Really, what do we make of this? These people are literally conjuring debates out of thin air, then using the lack of argument in said imaginary debates as proof of their victory. All because I simply mentioned his name! Deranged!

                  I guess it’s possible this is referring to some thread elsewhere I just don’t remember taking part in, but I find that rather unlikely.

                  I do encourage the DC to continue his lunacy though; it does a better job of undercutting any of his own rhetoric than anyone wasting real energy on him.

                  • @ktk
                    “Note the Dutch Commie’s completely delusional assertion above that I made some kind of argumentation in some imaginary thread not in evidence.”

                    I was writing about the alt-right, or the right sec, in general.

                    However I seem to remember having had earlier conversations with someone with the handle ktk. However, if you say we did not conversed before, I take you on your word.

                    And again, ad hominem attacks are the mark of the loser.

              • “You guys refusing to engage in, or outright ignoring, arguments raised against you”

                Pot, meet kettle. When arguments are raised against USA cops, e.g., 1000 people killed a year, fining black people as a source of income as in Ferguson, etc. you feign ignorance and reject all evidence.
                Reference:
                https://priceonomics.com/the-fining-of-black-america/

                When you accuse someone of lying or dishonesty, that is name calling unless you specify the lie or the dishonesty. And I see it happening whenever people run out of arguments.

                • > you feign ignorance and reject all evidence.

                  Sorry when did I do that? Your link points to some external site, not a post I made on this blog.

                  Objecting to the injustices and excesses of the state, largely consequences of increasingly Leftist policies over the past several decades here, up to and including police brutality, are a large fraction, some might say the principal component, of the Libertarian position. You are doing far worse than preaching to the choir on this subject, because a brutal police force is the sine qua non of YOUR ideological precursors on the Left (Soviet secret police, Nazi brownshirts, etc etc ad nauseum).

                  But you’ll never acknowledge that, because it’s far easier to toss out a bunch of dubious claims, then dump the objections from posters with a _variety_ of political views here in one big can and slap a “see I told ya they wuz all racists” sticker on it.

                  Again, nobody has “run out of” arguments. They’re the exact same arguments you ignored the last bajiliion times you made your same claims. They don’t have “sell by” dates on them.

                  • “Objecting to the injustices and excesses of the state, largely consequences of increasingly Leftist policies over the past several decades here, up to and including police brutality, are a large fraction, some might say the principal component, of the Libertarian position.”

                    The question is, do the Libertarians actually do anything to help the oppressed in their struggle for equal rights? Yes, they call for militia’s to use violence against them. See the OP.

                    They consider it much more important to kill “communists” than to stop violent fascists. That is clear.

                    • >They consider it much more important to kill “communists” than to stop violent fascists.

                      Oh, we’d cheerfully kill violent fascists, too. If we could find any in the U.S.

                    • @esr
                      “Oh, we’d cheerfully kill violent fascists, too. If we could find any in the U.S.”

                      You mean like James Fields who drove a car into marching demonstrators? Or all those admirers of Breivik, like Christopher Hasson and his breathren?
                      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/02/christopher-hasson-coast-guard-neo-nazi-far-right

                      Neo-Nazis are alive and kicking in the USA. Just read the daily stormer and their admiration of Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik.

                      And the KKK is still very much alive too.

                      Not to forget Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, and Theodore Kaczynski all the way back to Charles Manson and before.

                      I would say, you would be spoiled for choice. Although I would object to using violence against them.

                      I think “Kill all Fascists” is a self referential utterance.

                    • @Ex
                      “George Orwell”

                      I do not really understand your reference. There will always be corner cases, but those who are called Communists on these pages are difficult to align with those that were called Communists in Orwell’s times. However, I do not see much differences between Old-style Nazi’s and Neo-Nazi’s.

                      But the dictionary says:

                      Fascism

                      a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

                      And Communism:

                      a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

                      Two differences are clear: Fascists are both Nationalists and Racists, Communists are not.

                      Now, if we look at the Democrats, including its left wings, they are staunch believers in Democracy, so would not fall under this definition of Communism. Neo-Nazi’s and the like are both Racists and Nationalists, and want to abolish Democracy. So they obviously fall under the Fascism definition.

                      Now, you might want to widen the definitions, but you should do so for both Fascists and Communists.

                      PS: If you now say that Stalin was a Fascist, I won’t object. Feel free to assume that Stalin believed in anything.

                    • Winter, you’re delusional. The number of “violent fascists” in the USA is statistically equal to zero.

                      Fields was promptly arrested, and will be in prison for the rest of his life. And he’d just been attacked by a mob of violent communists, so he decided to take revenge. Now he’s paying for it. Had the communists not attacked him, their naive and peaceful ally would still be alive.

                      The KKK does not exist. At all. There are a handful of reenactors who like to play at being the KKK, and assuming grand titles, but they don’t do anything.

                      The panic-mongering piece of nonsense you linked to from the Grauniad gives no facts, just leftist fantasies.

                      The communists are out in the open now, visible and hurting people and property. Where are these supposed fascists? Nowhere. The left is resorting to making up narratives about people like this wonderful young man Rittenhouse, making him out to be some sort of fascist, out of whole cloth. They even tried pretending he was some sort of racist, but they gave that one up after about five minutes when everyone laughed at them. Or is that what you meant with your reference to racism.

                      Oh, and there aren’t any “oppressed” in the USA, so there’s nobody for libertarians to “do anything to help in their struggle for equal rights”. BLM is not about oppression, it’s about communist lies, and about overthrowing the USA by force.

                    • “Winter, you’re delusional. The number of “violent fascists” in the USA is statistically equal to zero. ”

                      So they are still more prevalent than the number of violent Communists, which has been zero since 1985.

                      People have been killed by perpetrators that fall under the definition of “Fascist”. And quite a number of Fascists have tried to kill people or were preparing to do so in the USA.

                      On the other hand, anti-fascists have been responsible for zero murder during the last 25 years in the USA
                      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/27/us-rightwing-extremists-attacks-deaths-database-leftwing-antifa

                      Left wing terrorism has been absent in the USA since 1985.

                    • >So they are still more prevalent than the number of violent Communists, which has been zero since 1985.

                      You know, trying to gaslight this way when violent Communists are literally burning down American cities is not likely to work very well.

                    • Left wing terrorism has been absent in the USA since 1985.

                      Huh?! In what universe is that even close to true?

                      I mean, leaving everything else aside, Ted Kaczynski was active for ten years after your imaginary terminus date. Even if he were the last of the left-wing terrorists you’d still be ten years off. And of course he isn’t.

                    • > Two differences are clear: Fascists are both Nationalists and Racists, Communists are not.

                      That seems difficult to reconcile with the USSR’s historical track record in a) treatment of other ethnicites and races, especially indigenous people within its borders; and b) slurping up as many states as possible into either fellow “SSR”s (e.g. the Baltics) or satellite states (eg Chekoslavakia, you know, the famous “defenestration”?) with the obvious goal of strengthening the “Soviet” nation.

                      Consider that the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia is nearly entirely (by Ukrainians’ admission) based in the treatment of Ukraine by Stalin.

                      I know someone will burble now that that doesn’t count because they’re the same “race” just different “ethnicities”. The behaviors being perpetrated are functionally identical to the various atrocities attributable to racism, however.

                      (For another example of Communist nationalism, would anyone really believe that the average Chinese citizen, let alone government leader, would put the interests of the Chinese nation secondary to “the promulgation of Socialist ideals” or the like?

                    • “That seems difficult to reconcile with the USSR’s historical track record”

                      Even during the times of George Orwell it was clear that the USSR under Stalin was more like a fascist state than a Communist. See the link of the parent.

                      I think Stalin was mad (paranoid, psychopath, take your pick). He got in power and did what he had to do to stay there. The people who wanted Fascism, he gave Fascism. The people who wanted Communism, he gave Communism.

                    • > do the Libertarians actually do anything to help the oppressed in their struggle for equal rights? Yes, they call for militia’s to use violence against them.

                      Except Rittenhouse, if you had actually “seen the OP”, didn’t “use violence against… oppressed people”, he defended his life against three dumbfuck whiteys who, to steal Troutwaxer’s unceasing refrain, “should have STAYED THE FUCK AWAY, so nobody else gets killed!!!one!”

                      Speaking as a dumbfuck whitey myself, good riddance. Get rid of a few more flame-fanners like that and maybe we can _actually_ get down to trying to “do anything to help the oppressed in their struggle for equal rights”.

                    • >So they are still more prevalent than the number of violent Communists, which has been zero since 1985.

                      I see James Hodgkinson was unavailable for comment.

                  • “You know, trying to gaslight this way when violent Communists are literally burning down American cities is not likely to work very well.”

                    You are one of the Gullibles the GOP loves. You drank Trump’s cool aid when he told you COVID was just a flu. You drink it again when he feeds you horror stories about the Left.

                    Prove these BLM arsonists are Communists and not simply enraged poor people who enact the urban version of the peasant uprises we know from all over history.

                    Then show me the Communists who committed political murders, or even tried to do so. Compare that to the Oklahoma bombing and Cesar Sayoc who send pipe bombs to political opponents of Trump.

                    Trump and his bogeymen personally interfered with the security forces to change the facts on antifa and white supremacists. The intelligence agencies know perfectly well that it is the violent Right that a danger to the Republic, not the Left. But Trump and the Republicans turn a blind I at that side.

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-other-plague-trump-has-downplayed-white-supremacist-violence/ar-BB18UDpc

                    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/a-trump-security-chief-acknowledges-role-of-white-supremacist-extremists-in-us-urban-violence-13096794

                    • >Prove these BLM arsonists are Communists

                      “We are trained Marxists” – trained by one of the Weather Underground leaders, a violent Communist terrorist.

                      And I have news for you: Trump has not denounced BLM as a Communist organization. I’ve been listening carefully for him to do so, because I wish he would in fact do that.

                    • From your point of view this is obviously an old-school “break the US along it’s already-existing fracture lines” type of Marxism.

                      So why do we allow the fracture lines to exist? Obviously in the U.S. our racism is more valuable to us than any anti-racist, and thus anti-fracture-lines and thus anti-Marxist activity we could engage in… If you’re really anti-Marxist, why do you come down on the side of the fracture lines with this ridiculous “militia” rhetoric.

                    • So why do we allow the fracture lines to exist?

                      Because the Democrats need Black anger to get elected and are thus constantly lying to Blacks about how they are being kept down by “White oppression”.

                    • ““We are trained Marxists” – trained by one of the Weather Underground leaders, a violent Communist terrorist.”

                      That was not the cliam, the claim was that the arson, looting, and violence was perpetrated by Communists.

                      Was Patrisse Cullors involved in the arson and looting? Did she organize them? Did she call for people to be violent?

                      I cannot find any information about her being involved in any way with the violence. But you might have better information.

                      Or is the fact that she is a cofounder of BLM enough reason to claim those who did the crimes were “Trained Marxists”?

                      ” I’ve been listening carefully for him to do so, because I wish he would in fact do that.”

                      He did call Antifa a terrorist organization, with no evidence they actually committed terrorist attacks.

                      But your claim of BLM being Communist is rather hollow. The Civil Rights Movement was not a Baptist movement just because MLK was a “Trained Baptist”.

                      For the BLM to be a Communist organization, its “members” (does it have members) and supporters must support Communism as an ideology or political system. I have yet to see any indication of that.

                      Racism affects black people irrespective of their ideologies.

                      And even if BLM would be a Communist organization, last I saw, the US constitution still allows freedom of political views and expression. The only legal reason to attack BLM is when it organizes violence.

                    • >Was Patrisse Cullors involved in the arson and looting? Did she organize them? Did she call for people to be violent?

                      The answer to the second two questions are certainly “yes” and “yes”. Whether she was directly hands on is unknown.

                      Note that she said “we”, clearly referring to the entire BLM leadership. But this was not news. It was already known, to those of us paying attention, that BLM was incubated by BAMN (By Any Means Necessary), which was in turn an offshoot of the Socialist Worker’s Party.

                      >Or is the fact that she is a cofounder of BLM enough reason to claim those who did the crimes were “Trained Marxists”?

                      BLM has Communist leadership, uses Communist propaganda techniques, employs classic Communist insurrectionary tactics, and uses the Communist salute. Whether every single one of its footsoldiers is up on their Marxist theory is not an interesting question; I’m sure not all of Ernst Rohm’s bully-boys were ideological Nazis either. Every totalitarian movement recruits thugs who are in it for the destruction and looting.

                      They should all be shot, every single fucking one of them. Or go on one-way helicopter rides. I wouldn’t have said that a year ago, but they are now violent criminal insurrectionists and deserve to be treated accordingly.

                  • @esr
                    “The answer to the second two questions are certainly “yes” and “yes”. Whether she was directly hands on is unknown.”

                    Eh, could you be more specific? I can find some BLM local chapter organizers who call for looting (e.g., Chicago and New York), and who are duly investigated by the police about it. But not for “Patrisse Cullors” or any support for this nation wide.

                    However, my search did turn up a Republican Representative that called for looting BLM homes.

                    https://www.dailydot.com/debug/james-spillane-burning-black-lives-matter-homes/

                    If sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, we should now call the GOP a violent organization?

                    @esr
                    “BLM has Communist leadership, uses Communist propaganda techniques, and employs classic Communist insurrectionary tactics. ”

                    I can find no evidence that Alicia Garzia or Opal Tometi, the other two co-founders are “Trained Marxists”, or even Communists. But I assume that you consider all Unionisers to be Communists.

                    And “Communist Propaganda techniques and insurrection tactics” are well known and widely practices by anyone, from left to right. People learn, you know.

                    • >I can find no evidence that Alicia Garzia or Opal Tometi, the other two co-founders are “Trained Marxists”, or even Communists.

                      You’re ignoring Patrisse Cullors’s own statement to that effect. Generally when I hear people tell me they are Communists or Nazis I find it is wise to believe them. We also know BLM’s organizational DNA is Trotskyite.

                      >If sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, we should now call the GOP a violent organization?

                      Spillane’s remark is what is commonly called “sarcasm”. I don’t think Cullors was being sarcastic.

      • We do not know when Kyle spoke to the Marine Corp recruiter. He may have been 16 at that time, and thus ineligible.
        But more likely he was ineligible because he did not have a high school graduation certificate. There are reports that he had dropped out of school, although his status is unclear.

        • The word was not “ineligible,” it was “disqualified.” Not having a high-school diploma means the recruiter says, “We don’t accept anyone without a high-school diploma, so come see me when you graduate.”

          I suspect the conversation with the recruiter will become evidence in the trial, so in a year or two we’ll know for sure.

      • By your logic, declaring one’s city a Sanctuary City is an act of insurrection, since the city is refusing to enforce federal law. Trump would therefore be justified in calling up the National Guard and taking those cities by force, no?

        No. Sanctuary cities are not preventing the federal authorities from enforcing federal law. They are simply standing on their constitutional right to refuse to assist the feds in that endeavor. Congress has no authority to make them. That’s the anti-commandeering principle. That judge who actively helped a fugitive evade arrest crossed that line and is being prosecuted.

      • >By your logic, declaring one’s city a Sanctuary City is an act of insurrection, since the city is refusing to enforce federal law. Trump would therefore be justified in calling up the National Guard and taking those cities by force, no?

        No. States (and cities) are under no obligation to help enforce federal law (but also can’t interfere with enforcement).

        However, the feds do have an obligations to protect their citizens’ basic civil rights (14A: “…life, liberty, or property…”). The feds are allowed to use their own people to protect those rights (and have done so in the past), despite the general rule that policing is a state government power.

    • >I don’t think the idea that he’s part of the militia is going to go anywhere.

      Where did you think I needed it to go? Rittenhouse is almost certainly going to skate on self-defense grounds; even the New York Times is admitting that. What I was refuting was the canard that Rittenhouse was too young to have any business being where he was.

      A Random Xoogler has already written most of the reply to you that I would have so I won’t except to emphasize that a Presidential callup is not required for the militia to act in the event of a breakdown in civil order.

      Much of the point of the “unorganized militia” is that the people in arms have the right and duty to respond to local threats of which the President may be completely unaware until long after the fact. Remember that the U.S.’s militia system evolved from the ancestral British one in response to Indian raiding and brigandage.

      >I sometimes think you had a close encounter with Cthulhu!

      That’s actually pretty close to what happened to me, psychologically, after I read William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and multiple sources on the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the Great Terror.

      I have looked full in the face of totalitarian evil. It frightened me to my core, and I see its tentacles everywhere, including the three worthless turds Rittenhouse shot.

      • > That’s actually pretty close to what happened to me, psychologically, after I read William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and multiple sources on the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the Great Terror.

        I went through this the day I learned about the concept of democide and the 20th century numbers related to it. Everything else I learned after that day merely increased my assessment of the threat’s imminence.

      • What I was refuting was the canard that Rittenhouse was too young to have any business being where he was.

        Everyone who came in from out of town should have stayed away, as the local officials requested. As I wrote above: I’ll give you some logic for those people who think they’re a member of the militia and imagine that “helping the police” is a good idea: Recognize that Kenosha has a local, homegrown protest and the police don’t want a bunch of amateurs coming in from out-of-state and trying to “help,” because now the police have to deal with two misbehaving groups who are inclined to fight each other! Then do the sane, logical thing and STAY THE FUCK AWAY, so nobody else gets killed!

        A Random Xoogler has already written most of the reply to you that I would have so I won’t except to emphasize that a Presidential callup is not required for the militia to act in the event of a breakdown in civil order.

        Here’s the hard, cold reality of that. Self-organize a militia-style response and get it right, you’re a hero. Make things worse and you’re a schmuck. Also, keep in mind that the militia law is federal, which means that if local law-enforcement thinks you’re a schmuck you get tried in state court, then make your appeals in state court, then get to go into the Federal system and argue that you were a legally-constituted militia. Get it wrong and you’re out a bare-minimum of a hundred-thousand dollars and you still wind up in jail.

        I don’t object to the idea of self-organizing a militia to deal with some threat. I hate the idea that people get caught up in these very ideological positions, don’t understand the legal system or the difference between federal and state court, and try to organize something like, “let’s be a militia and help the Kenosha cops because they’re overwhelmed” without a clear understanding about what happens if they’re judged to be schmucks.

        If Rittenhouse couldn’t appropriately assess this risk he shouldn’t have been there.

        That’s actually pretty close to what happened to me, psychologically, after I read William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” and multiple sources on the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the Great Terror.

        I’m going to have to think about that for a little while – my current response isn’t helpful.

        • Everyone who came in from out of town should have stayed away,

          Does that also apply to the antifa rioters and arsonists or only to the people protecting local businesses from said rioters and arsonists. Also, by the way Kyle lives 20 minutes away and was protecting a friend’s business.

          as the local officials requested.

          Well said officials hadn’t done anything about the previous three nights of riots and arson.

          As I wrote above: I’ll give you some logic for those people who think they’re a member of the militia and imagine that “helping the police” is a good idea: Recognize that Kenosha has a local, homegrown protest

          Except most of the protestors were also from out of town.

          and the police don’t want a bunch of amateurs coming in from out-of-state and trying to “help,”

          The behavior of the rank and file officers suggests otherwise.

          Then do the sane, logical thing and STAY THE FUCK AWAY, so nobody else gets killed!

          But having antifa including out-of-town antifa engage in riots and arson is perfectly safe.

          Now I realize truth isn’t you leftists’ strong point, but that paragraph had one of the highest density of lies and BS I’ve ever seen.

          • Recognize that Kenosha has a local, homegrown protest

            Except most of the protestors were also from out of town.

            I don’t see how that makes any difference. Supposing the “protesters” had all been local, how would that have made it any better? How would it have reduced the victims’ need for protection, which the police were not giving?

        • Everyone who came in from out of town should have stayed away, as the local officials requested.

          Why should they? They didn’t come to “help the police”, they came to do the job the police either couldn’t or refused to do, of protecting the victims.

          This is the first I’m hearing that Rittenhouse knew the car dealer he was protecting. But it doesn’t matter whether he knew him or not, whether he was a friend or a stranger. He was an innocent person in need of help, and Rittenhouse is a responsible young man with strong sense of civic duty, so he came to the man’s rescue. What the police thought of it was completely irrelevant to him and it should be completely irrelevant to us.

          By definition protecting the victims of violence cannot possibly make a situation worse. It can either make it better or make no difference.

          • I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t you go to Kenosha and discuss your ideas with the families of the dead and injured people there? I’m sure they’ll set you straight very quickly on any number of your delusional beliefs!

            • Which families would those be? Those of the three violent criminals who attempted to murder Rittenhouse? Why would I want to discuss anything with them? Shooting those three didn’t make things worse, it made things better. Tell me how Rittenhouse and his friends protecting those people’s victims could possibly have made anything worse.

            • > Why don’t you go to Kenosha

              Unless you’re also planning to go to Kenosha to talk to the people who had property destroyed or sustained injuries from the rioters, this is yet another example of Leftist hypocrisy, Rules imposed on others that the Rulemaker would never deign to accept for himself.

                • Uh yeah, I did, meaning “come see what it’s really like instead of just issuing diktats from whatever preserve you live in”.

                  Since I actually do live here myself, I fail to see what you are finding in common between the two requests. You’re sitting on your high horse demanding Milhouse go somewhere you have no intention of going.

    • > Third, even if the idea that Kyle is a member of the militia is correct, it’s not a “get out of jail free card.” You can’t say “I’m a member of the militia and I was self-dispatching when I killed that guy.”

      > In the U.S. people may choose whatever politics they prefer, and are not executed for this.

      > Fifth, in the absence of a (judged as) legitimate insurrection, people are entitled to a trial before they are executed.

      Its clear you have to lie Trout. I don’t expect this to be a cause for introspection, given your past posting.

      All available evidence shows people chasing and attacking Kyle, in situations where Kyle is actively retreating, before Kyle shoots anyone. Any mention of the militia has been in context of why he might or might not be breaking the law by being present in Kenosha with a rifle.

      Kyle didn’t execute anyone for their politics, or for having judged anyone as an insurrectionist, or because he ‘felt like it’ and wants to use federal militia law as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

      • Or he could have stayed home. The effect of “we’re a militia” is two deaths and an injury wouldn’t have happened if the idiots had stayed home. Maybe “execution” isn’t the best word, but English doesn’t have a “dead because an idiot, who opposed the politics of the people he shot and had been egged on by a president who likes raising a mob, couldn’t be arsed to think through the implications of running around a riot with a gun.”

        Maybe we could create such a word. I propose that anyone killed by an idiot who shouldn’t have been there in the first place should now be referred to as “rittenhoused.” We could say “The poor guy went to a protest which turned violent when the right-wing militia showed up and got rittenhoused.”

        • “Or he could have stayed home. The effect of “we’re a militia” is two deaths and an injury wouldn’t have happened if the idiots had stayed home.”

          So… why are they the effect of “we’re a militia”? Why isn’t it an effect of “let’s chase this armed guy who’s trying to avoid shooting us”? Or an effect of “let’s go to Kenosha and mess up people/places”?
          (note: I’m not sure if any of the other men involved in the Rittenhouse incident were local or not)

          Rittenhouse made a decision to inject himself into a violent situation, yes. But so did the people he shot. At minimum, there would appear to be equal culpability on both sides. And given the evidence to date of who was being aggressive vs who was being defensive, it would seem (barring conflicting evidence) that the “bell curve of culpability” was skewed *away* from Rittenhouse, rather than towards.

          • Because the guys Rittenhouse shot were common criminals – looters or idiots with some kind of “property damage” ideology – whatever they were, they were ordinary scofflaws, which unfortunately is not uncommon.

            What concerns me in my replies is always Eric’s top post. Let the idea that some kid with a gun can self-dispatch as a member of the militia become common and accepted and now you’ve got mob rule. You can kiss the idea of a fair trial or of being arrested and still having rights completely out the window – if you’re suspected of something the mob will do as it will, without even the barest nodd towards justice. (Not that our system is great at “justice,” – don’t get me started – but at least we try.)

            • Justice went out the window when the authorities said that mobs could loot and burn if they used the barest fig leaf or “racial justice” as an excuse. And fellow travelers like yourself sprung up to support the idea.

        • > Or he could have stayed home.

          Sure, he could have ignored the call from a friend begging him to come help defend said friend’s property in the midst of a rapidly escalating riot that had already resulted in $50 milliion in damages. Maybe you don’t consider yourself to have an obligation to a friend in such a circumstance; that’s fine, it’s your choice. Maybe you don’t consider anyone else to have a right to try to help a friend in such a circumstance; that’s tough shit, because they’re not asking you.

          > two deaths and an injury wouldn’t have happened if the idiots had stayed home

          And who knows how much more property damage and violence would have been perpetrated not against police but private citizens, if nobody made any attempt to resist?

          > Maybe we could create such a word.

          Ooh, have we descended into the “utterly tasteless” portion of tonight’s program?

          To Rosenbaum: to join in an angry mob attempting to kill an individual who had the temerity to attempt to defend “private” property, instead of dropping his trousers, bending over, and taking the “FUCK CAPITALISM!!! WOO!!!” stick all the way up his ass.

          • Whether the car dealer was a friend or a stranger makes no difference. The point is that Rittenhouse and his friends were there in a purely defensive capacity, and thus could not possibly have caused any violence.

            • “Rittenhouse… could not possibly have caused any violence?” Next you’re going to tell me he didn’t shoot anyone!

              I respect your right to take a pro-Rittenhouse position, however awful I might find it, but you don’t get to use an alternate set of very delusional facts. Defensively or otherwise, There Was Violence and Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two of them. Don’t pretend there wasn’t violence, or that Rittenhouse being there made things any better.

              And don’t give me any shit about the word “caused” being the crucial word here. It’s not like anyone (such as the local leaders of law-enforcement) didn’t see that one coming, or that anyone with a brain couldn’t see that a bunch of armed yahoos showing up at a politically, racially fraught protest/riot was a very high-risk proposition!

              • If showing up armed at a riot was a high risk proposition, then the rioters should have stayed home, and Rittenhouse could have cleaned graffiti in peace, and felt foolish about having to carry an unneeded firearm all night.

                You keep acting like the riot was an inevitable force of nature and the rioters had no moral agency. Thus, the only person who had an onus to change their behavior was Rittenhouse. But you’re absolutely wrong, and it was the rioters that caused the violence and should have not done so. Either by not going to Kenosha or not rioting or at the very least, not assaulting the armed man.

                • I’m assuming that everyone knows (including me) that rioters shouldn’t riot. What happens after the riots start is the question we’re debating here.

                  And you might consider an important question as we debate all this: If an official person, such as a police officer, kills or injures a member of my community, am I obligated to avoid protesting due to the possibility that someone might use that protest as a cover for their violent tendencies? That person might be a so-called ally with a philosophy of property destruction, an agent provocateur working for the other side, a looter or criminal who’s simply being opportunistic about the possibilities that a protest is happening, a cointelpro-type operative, or even someone who might get mad and start breaking things because the police handle the protest inappropriately…

                  Regardless, do I have an obligation to avoid organizing a protest on this kind of basis? Or do I just start my perfectly legal, First Amendment protected protest and let the police handle the fallout if someone else breaks the law?

                  What’s being at least implied throughout the course of this discussion is that Black people shouldn’t protest because a riot might break out – and once the riot does break out we’re just going to declare that everyone involved is a commie and shoot them! So what’s everyone’s position here?

                  • Nobody has ever suggested that people have no right to protest peacefully, even if the cause in whose name they’re doing so is a lie. And nobody is shooting anyone who is protesting peacefully. There has been absolutely no violence, by police or by anti-communist private people, against peaceful protesters. There has been no threat of such violence.

                    Rittenhouse and his fellows were there for one purpose only: To protect the victims of commie rioters. Anyone who was not a commie rioter was in absolutely no danger from them. And even commie rioters who were in the act of attacking Rittenhouse were in no danger from him unless they left him with no choice but to shoot them.

                    • “There has been absolutely no violence, by police or by anti-communist private people, against peaceful protesters. There has been no threat of such violence.”

                      That’s nonsense. If you’re interested in the details, you might read Part IV of Wikipedia’s article on the George Floyd protests – I’m not a huge fan of Wikipedia, but it’s a good source of links and provides much fodder for further research:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests

                      Also note that more than 90 percent of all the protests have been nonviolent. Note that the CNN link I’ve provided below has a link to the full report. The notes on counter-protests turning violent and aggressive police responses are very interesting if you want to further educate yourself:

                      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html

                    • Also note that more than 90 percent of all the protests have been nonviolent. Note that the CNN link I’ve provided below has a link to the full report. The notes on counter-protests turning violent and aggressive police responses are very interesting if you want to further educate yourself:

                      This reads like the usual type of statistical flim-flam I’ve come to associate with these kinds of activist social “scientific” report. Here are some of the tricks I’ve noticed:

                      1) Using all statistics based on number of protests without reference to size.

                      2) No mention of what methodology was used to determine what counts as a protest or what counts as distinct protests, versus one big protests. This gives a great deal of leeway to fudge the numbers.

                      3) Frequent use of passive voice to confuse causal readers about who was responsible for violence.

                      4) My favorite example of blatenlty deceptive framing compare the following quotes:

                      The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity.

                      and

                      A Violent Government Response

                      (..)

                      Despite the fact that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement have been overwhelmingly peaceful, more than 9% — or nearly one in 10 — have been met with government intervention, compared to 3% of all other demonstrations.

                      So according to there methodology ~10% of protests have been violent and ~10% of protests have been met with government intervention. (Gee, almost as if violence gets met with a government response.) The former is deemed “overwhelmingly peaceful”, the latter a “violent response”.

                    • Nobody has ever suggested that people have no right to protest peacefully

                      I can do that for you. Protesting is irresponsible and you shouldn’t be able to do it. Also, however many locks the porn is behind, newspapers should be behind two more and require at least 15 years more seniority.

                  • I’m assuming that everyone knows (including me) that rioters shouldn’t riot. What happens after the riots start is the question we’re debating here.

                    Unfortunately not.

                    Regardless, do I have an obligation to avoid organizing a protest on this kind of basis? Or do I just start my perfectly legal, First Amendment protected protest and let the police handle the fallout if someone else breaks the law?

                    Why is it that leftists always claim it is impossible to organize a protest without it turning into a riot, while conservatives never seem to have any trouble doing so? Also, why is this something like the fifth time I have to ask you that question?

                    • Why is it that leftists always claim it is impossible to organize a protest without it turning into a riot…

                      This is a perfect example why I despise you. At no point did I say “…it is impossible to organize a protest without it turning into a riot…” – and you know that and you have put words in my mouth. (You might Google “What is the failure mode of clever?” since you’re currently engaging in a public display of that particular failure mode.)

                      In fact, over 90 percent of the protests following George Floyd’s death have been peaceful, and the BLM counter-protestors have been violent far more often than BLM. (The CNN link contains a link to the full report.)

                      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/04/us/blm-protests-peaceful-report-trnd/index.html

                      If you want to be respected, try posting real data rather than twisting my words around.

                    • This is a perfect example why I despise you. At no point did I say “…it is impossible to organize a protest without it turning into a riot…”

                      True you did not say those exact words “it is impossible to organize a protest without it turning into a riot”, but you did spend a paragraph engaging in self-pity about how hard it is to do.

                    • I explain what’s wrong with the study you linked to here. Bascially, it’s almost a textbook exercise in statistical flim-flam.

                      If you want to be respected, try posting real data

                      Care to explain why you tried to pass of such a BS study as “real data”?

                  • Anyone trying to stop violent rioters from further assaulting people or destroying property is a good guy (in the gender neutral sense). Anyone effectively blaming good people from defending themselves against bad people intent on harming them for merely being in the way of harming people and destroying things, is well, Wormtongue. Therefore, Wormtongue is now thy name.

                    • I’d been trying to decide on the best appellation for Trout, and you, sir, have found it. Adopted. Thank you.

                    • Sorry, I already called Wormtongue for Eugine – do have to look over my shoulder and copy me all day long? Jeez!

                      You can call me Sauron if you’d like. Or Lord Vader, or maybe Kang or Koloth if you’d like. I’d be fine with Morgoth as well, or maybe Ming the Merciless – that’s got a nice ring to it. Or if you’d prefer we could go with Baron Harkonnen or Agent Smith, or even Chuck Denomolos, but I’ve already reserved Wormtongue for Eugine – who still hasn’t told us whether he’s the same Eugine Nier who was kicked off of Less Wrong for up/downvote abuse!

                    • I didn’t see that, Troutwaxer. Sorry. I honestly didn’t see it.
                      That’s one problem with this site — it’s damnably hard to keep track of what’s been read and what’s new.

                      That said, are you sure your invocation of it wasn’t a case of psychological projection?

                    • No prob.

                      If I were to liken myself to a character in Lord of the Rings, it would probably be – not for his heroic qualities, but for his don’t-give-two-fucks willingness to tell someone they’re full of shit – Gandalf. He wasn’t exactly the most diplomatic person in the world, and I’m not either.

                      I really don’t get how I can repeat the same message over and over again, telling the same people they got it wrong, for the same reasons – mob rule, inflammatory language, practical-effect in a real court, blah-blah and have them insist that I’m continually changing my story and engaging in gaslighting. It’s not like my message to the world is any different than it was when I first told Eric I thought he was being pretty clueless on the whole militia thing!

                      Or is it some kind of I’m-rubber-you’re-glue thing from second grade going on? I don’t get it!

                      -Laughs!-

                    • @Troutwaxer (why do you wax your trout, anyway?)

                      I agree with you the militia argument is a bit out there (I have doubts it has much validity unless there’s a chain of command and it’s called out by the governor or POTUS unless it’s local citizens protecting their own neighborhood in case of natural catastrophe or civil unrest), but what Rittenhouse and his buddies did seems only to have been protecting a specific private business against depredations by the lawless. How Kyle got separated from them isn’t clear to me, but from the point video coverage starts (and the NYT timeline covers), Kyle was pretty clearly trying to avoid confrontation. It’s quite clear he didn’t fire the first shot, and I doubt any impartial jury would find that when he shot at Rosenbaum the pedophile who was chasing him (and catching up with him), that his life was in danger and the man directly behind him who’d been screaming threats and obscenities not long before wasn’t a direct threat to his life (I’m assuming you’ve actually followed links provided by others previously and seen that for yourself). Rittenhouse clearly wasn’t spoiling for a fight, unlike many others. Mostly, if not entirely, on the rioters’ side (self-defense against convicted felons, including one with a pistol in hand who admitted in the hospital that his only regret was that he hadn’t been able to empty his pistol into Rittenhouse first).

                    • It’s nice to see at least some agreement. I’ve been through some self-defense training and one of the things I really internalized was the “don’t get in situations where you might have to fight” rule.

                      Also, if you treat Kenosha and the Portland counter-protests as experiments, they aren’t very successful, with 4 deaths and a very serious injury between them, including one guy who was on the Republican side.

              • Rittenhouse didn’t commit any violence, he responded appropriately to violence. Are you seriously claiming that his presence caused those three animals, and all their packmates who are still unharmed due to his extreme discipline, to attack him?!

                If he hadn’t been there, would there have been less violence?! No, there would have been more, because the people he was protecting would have been attacked.

              • And don’t give me any shit about the word “caused” being the crucial word here. It’s not like anyone (such as the local leaders of law-enforcement) didn’t see that one coming, or that anyone with a brain couldn’t see that a bunch of armed yahoos showing up at a politically, racially fraught protest/riot was a very high-risk proposition!

                The “protestors” burning down the town for two days prior couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with it.

                Seriously if you’re going to keep lying could you at least vary the lies you tell.

                  • We’re discussing your weird claim that Rittenhouse somehow caused the violence two days before he came to defend the victims of that violence!

                    • Where did I make that claim? I’ve said, more-or-less endless that Rittenhouse should have stayed home, but I don’t recall ever making the claim that he traveled two days backwards in time and somehow touched off a riot!

                  • Yes and the fact that the “protestors” had been rioting and burning down the town for two days prior is the reason why he showed up and thus very relevant to his case. This should be obvious, but you appear to be an idiot.

    • >https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/The-Kenosha-Shootings-Kyle-Rittenhouse-A-Tactical-and-Legal-Analysis-UPDATED-1st-Shooter-ID-d-/5-2362796/

      Endorsed, The ARFCOM guy did a spectacularly good job of tactical analysis based on the videos.

  6. “Rottenhouse is almost certainly going to skate”

    The misspelling and verb choice are oddly incongruent with the overall tone of your reaction to the event.

    Young Mr Rittenhouse is almost certainly going to suffer much the same way George Zimmermann has suffered, even when the certainly-deserved acquittal by jury trial restores his theoretical freedom.

    • Rittenhouse might successfully claim self-defense on the murder and attempted murder charges, but I’d predict that he’ll be found guilty of those charges which include the word “reckless.”.

    • I suspect the game plan is for L. Wood to sue the pants off the press after acquittal for the “white supremacist” bullshit they were printing. That’s his business model after all.

      • And he’ll be fully justified. I only wish the Kenosha DA were not immune from suit for malicious prosecution.

        • Alas, my calls to strip prosecutors and judges of their self-granted immunity are falling on deaf ears.

          • I heard you. I think it’s a good idea. Maybe not remove it entirely, because bullshit suits against the cops or a DA could certainly become a thing, but it should be much easier to sue over an injustice.

            • Maybe not remove it entirely, because bullshit suits against the cops or a DA could certainly become a thing

              Sort of like all the bullshit complaints you’ve been making against cops in this discussion.

              • What have I said about cops in this discussion? Are you sure you aren’t confusing me with some other poster?

          • To be tried by whom? Other judges?

            One solution to this problem has been to make DA’s and judges elected positions answerable to voters. Which probably worked at some point, unfortunately no one pays attention to down-ticket races these days.

            • County prosecutors (state’s attorney or district attorney) are elected in every state I know about. One of the roots of the current problem is that George Soros has spent ten of millions of dollars to get leftist prosecutors elected wherever possible. For instance Kimesha Foxx in Cook County Illinois (i.e. Chicago). Under Foxx, violent felony charges are routinely dropped or reduced to misdemeanors at a much higher rate than under any previous prosecutor. Foxx has also announced a policy of not prosecuting retail theft under $800 value, and her office wouldn’t press charges against arrested looters and rioters.

              Similar policies have been established by Soros-funded prosecutors in Saint Louis, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

              As to judges: here in Illinois, judges are elected. In Cook County, the only contested judicial elections are Democrat primaries. Judges are subject to retention votes every few years, but no judge has lost a retention vote in at least a decade, and only a tiny number ever have.

  7. He violated a WI law related to the age requirement for carrying a rifle….which is a BS law, of course.

    These absurd charges are likely going to result in him facing trial. That’s where jury nullification should take over.

    Kyle should walk scot free if there is any true justice left in America.

    • > He violated a WI law related to the age requirement for carrying a rifle….which is a BS law, of course.

      Again, analysis kdk posted above, and which is nearly identical to analysis at the http://www.ar15.com link Reziac posted above, strongly suggests he wasn’t even doing that much. (Actual violators of the relevant clauses would have to be not just under 18, but under 16.)

  8. He should, but the DA is doing everything to make sure he doesn’t – bail is set at $2 million.

    Eric, are you going to vote Trump in this election?

    • >Eric, are you going to vote Trump in this election?

      I’m not sure yet. Normally I vote Libertarian, but with an actual violent Communist insurgency going down not voting for Trump may have become a luxury I can no longer afford.

        • You mean out of touch, strategically inept, and entirely ineffective?

          Doesn’t sound like they’ve really changed much, to me.

          • Also, trying to out-Democrat the Democrats. I suppose that falls under ‘strategically inept’, but also ‘pozzed’ as well.

            • I like this guy. Deliberately attempting to split the proggie vote to get Trump elected is a good thing. Wouldn’t vote for him as that would act against his strategy, but I like him.

      • Also bear in mind that the Democrats are attempting to nullify the electoral college with their so-called compact. A number of states have bound themselves to cast electoral votes for the purported winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the vote in their own state. Thus it becomes possible for vote fraud in a state controlled by one party to control the outcome in other states.

        So “throwaway voting” in a lopsided state is no longer cost-free.

        • The “National Popular Vote” (.com) bill, as written, does not take effect until states totaling 270 electoral votes have enacted it. That has not happened yet, though it may by election day.

          It also may be subject to challenge as being an interstate compact not approved by Congress.

          • An improbable but delightful future would have (a) the national popular vote agreement go into effect in those states, and (b) Trump win the popular vote but an unquestionable margin, giving him a huge landslide in the Electoral College.

          • On July 5, 2020, SCOTUS released a unanimous decision in the three ‘faithless elector’ cases, and held (quoting the NY Post): The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.
            In passing, this decision also held that a state requiring an elector to vote in accordance with any other formula, such as the total votes of *other* states, is unconstitutional.
            So the National Popular Vote Act is unconstitutional, unless embodied as an Amendment to the Constitution, 270 electoral votes or not.

            • I assume you’re referring to Chiafalo v. Washington, and actually many legal scholars read that decision as going the other way — that it would permit the National Popular Vote bills. Well, except that as written such state laws are also in violation of Article 1, Section 10 (3rd clause) of the Constitution, which says that an interstate agreement requires the consent of Congress. [Per linked annotations: “The word ‘agreement,’ does not necessarily import any direct and express stipulation; nor is it necessary that it should be in writing. If there is a verbal understanding, to which both parties have assented, and upon which both are acting, it is an ‘agreement.'” Since the popular vote laws in states only take effect after sufficient other states ratify such laws, they form by law an “agreement” between states forbidden by A1S10.] And this is VERY long-settled case law — the core decision being Florida v. Georgia in 1854 (Quote from the decision: “By the 10th section of the 1st Article of the Constitution, no state can enter into any agreement or compact with another state, without the consent of Congress. …. This provision is obviously intended to guard the rights and interests of the other states, and to prevent any compact or agreement between any two states, which might affect injuriously the interest of the others. And the right and the duty to protect these interests is vested in the general government.”)

              So: given the assured and swift court case which would ensure to block any changes, the National Popular Vote will definitely not take effect this year and (short of an act of Congress) not ever.

            • In passing, this decision also held that a state requiring an elector to vote in accordance with any other formula, such as the total votes of *other* states, is unconstitutional.

              Really?! Where in the decision does it say that? And on what grounds could it be unconstitutional? The constitution itself is clear that the legislature can choose any method it likes for selecting the electors. It can choose them by lottery, or it can simply pass a statute delegating their selection to the DNC. Now that the court says it can also tell them how to vote, why can’t it tell them to always vote for the Democrat, or to vote for the candidate whose name comes first in the alphabet, or whatever other crazy rule it comes up with?

      • I consider it, in cases like this, a luxury that I’m in a state where my vote doesn’t matter (NJ – solidly blue). I get to be lazy and not have to make any kind of hard decision.

        The way I see it, if Trump wins, the riots get worse, and the military will have to be called in. And the military taking actions against Americans is bad, and might be used for worse things by future regimes.

        If Harris wins, the riots probably stop, but the lessons learned are “if you don’t like things, riot until you get what you want.

        Both are terrible outcomes.

        Me, I get to vote for either Vermin Supreme if I want my vote to be “the system is a joke, fuck this shit” or Brian Carroll if my vote is “I’m taking the moral high ground and voting for something closer to the ideal”. Or just stay home, because write-in votes aren’t reported by my state, so it’s a meaningless exercise.

        • If Harris wins, the riots probably stop, but the lessons learned are “if you don’t like things, riot until you get what you want.

          The left has made crystal clear that them getting back into power means a campaign of revenge to ensure they never leave power again.

          So no, it is doubtful that the riots will stop. They will know that they are invulnerable.

          • And if that happens, it means the militia must mobilize immediately, before the police can come around and take their guns one by one under red-flag laws.

        • I don’t think the military will need to be called in to quell most of the riots. Places like Kenosha have shown that local and federal law enforcement is sufficient to restore order, if the local political structure is willing to use them.

          As for the places where the local politicians aren’t willing to put a stop to the riots, assuming there are any after the riots outlive any political usefulness, you’re now talking about a group that calls itself a government abdicating its responsibilities and terrorizing the population. If that’s not a situation where military force is acceptable then military force is never acceptable.

        • My situation (south side of Chicago) is similar, with the added concern of “do I want to risk physical violence against me or, worse yet, my wife for being ‘suspected Trump supporters’, given that our votes don’t count for anything here (solidly blue as you say) anyway?”

            • But what do the national totals count for, other than the losing party being able to shriek “but we won the popular vote!” (conveniently forgetting all the years they were perfectly content to win the electoral vote)

              It’s the electoral vote that determines who’s elected president, isn’t it?

        • Why do you think the riots stop if Harris wins? You think the Democrats can put that genie back in the bottle?

          • I don’t think either party has much influence over these kinds of protests (which then turn into riots.) I don’t think anyone but the police can make it go away. From approximately 2015 forward any police officer must assume that whatever they do will be on video, whether it be cellphone video, a security camera, or body-cams. And every police officer must assume that whatever they do will make it’s way to the public somehow. They must assume that the public will react to what they see on video, as in Kenosha, rather than all the criminal/victim issues involved with the deep history of the case.

            This is not necessarily a bad thing on the part of the public, as the negotiations on a plea deal with Breonna Taylor’s former boyfriend show:

            https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lawyer-plea-offer-implicated-breonna-taylor-drug-ring-72753654

            It’s been a long time since I read anything as ugly or cynical.

            What I can imagine Biden doing, that Trump won’t do, is that he’ll be willing to do things like send the FBI out to investigate a police-shooting which looks bad, find some way to impose Federal penalties on people who show up uninvited to “keep order” in cities which are having troubles, and make speeches which don’t pander to white fright!

            • I don’t think either party has much influence over these kinds of protests (which then turn into riots.)

              Yet somehow we only get riots only happen when Democrat officials order the police to stand down.

              What I can imagine Biden doing, that Trump won’t do, is that he’ll be willing to do things like send the FBI out to investigate a police-shooting which looks bad, find some way to impose Federal penalties on people who show up uninvited to “keep order” in cities which are having troubles, and make speeches which don’t pander to white fright!

              In other words Biden will force the police and local militia to stand down so that rioters can loot and burn without opposition. Also get more Blacks killed in disorganized violence due to Ferguson effect.

              • Umm… who’s been president during the last six months when order has broken down so badly in our cities? Was his name Biden? Was he a Democrat? Did the current president succeed in calming things down? How well have the current president’s strategies and tactics worked for calming things down? Once again, is the current president named Biden?

                And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that Democratic mayors are letting their downtowns burn to make the president look bad. Let’s be real here – if you’re a mayor of any political party in the U.S. and rioters are lighting things on fire in your city, you’re going to accept useful help if it’s offered, even if that help comes from someone of a different political party. If I was the mayor of Someplace and rioters were setting things on fire, and I thought bringing in an untrained militia from out of state would help, I’d certainly do it. But nobody is that stupid! (Which is why the Mayor of Kenosha asked the Governor to send in the National Guard, and told the militias to stay away!)

                • And please don’t insult my intelligence

                  Don’t be ridiculous, one can’t insult that which doesn’t exist.

                  by claiming that Democratic mayors are letting their downtowns burn to make the president look bad. Let’s be real here – if you’re a mayor of any political party in the U.S. and rioters are lighting things on fire in your city, you’re going to accept useful help if it’s offered, even if that help comes from someone of a different political party.

                  Empirical observation suggests otherwise.

                  • Say his name. Who’s been the president while law and order are breaking down across the country. Say his name. It’s not Biden, is it? He’s not a Democrat, is he? What’s his name? Show a little respect for decency and truth by typing his name in the reply box below, or forever earn my disrespect! Say. His. Name.

                    • Are you implying the president is responsible for every little thing that happens in America? Especially when it’s bad? Seriously, it’s like you have no idea what Federalism is. I somehow doubt, though, that you have absolutely no idea.

                      I’m starting to agree with some of the other commenters here that, like Winter, you’re being deliberately obtuse. Given your repeated insistence that you are not left-liberal, just a centrist who caucuses with them, I have to wonder if you’re actually a shill.

                    • Did you read the comment you replied to? Discussions with you tend to have the following pattern:

                      1) You state some BS.

                      2) Someone else points out why what you wrote is BS.

                      3) You ignore the reply and repeat the same BS.

                      If I didn’t know better, I might conclude Troutwaxer is a bot and an extremely primitive bot at that.

                    • @ Random Xoogler

                      Of course not. But I keep hearing about how bad Biden is going to be, and how bad the Democrats will be, and my question is “bad compared to whom?” Compared to the guy who’s the president right now while order is breaking down and millions of people are sick with COVID-19? Bad compared to him? What party currently occupies the the White House and Senate? If you’ve got any respect for the truth, answer the goddam questions. Before you or any other ignoramus calls me a liar again, answer two simple questions. Who’s the current president? Which party currently occupies the White House.

                    • Of course not. But I keep hearing about how bad Biden is going to be, and how bad the Democrats will be, and my question is “bad compared to whom?” Compared to the guy who’s the president right now while order is breaking down

                      Ah the “nice country you have there, be a shame if someone were to burn it down argument”.

                • > And please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming that Democratic mayors are letting their downtowns burn to make the president look bad.

                  When the rioting in Chicago got to its worst (targeting some of the most expensive stores on Magnificent Mile), I was actually surprised Mayor Lightfoot took as much action as she did — nightly closing of all highway entrances and exits in the downtown and surrounding areas, including I-90/94.

                  But it’s certainly true (https://herald-review.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/chicago-mayor-we-do-not-need-federal-troops-in-chicago/article_f0d825ec-cc39-586d-ab6b-40d6b95de7b6.html) that she repeatedly refused any assistance from Trump or other federal sources.

                  Once again I love how the Left makes all the definitions and calls all the shots in these “debates”. When Federal troops _are_ sent in (Portland) Trump must be a fascist dictator. When local authorities refuse “outside interference” Trump must not be doing enough.

            • I have three words for anyone silly enough to think Biden will bring about law enforcement accountability.

              “Fast And Furious”

              Joe Biden is the epitome of the modern Democrat politician. A savagely corrupt sexual predator, driven by no principles beyond avarice and cupidity, instantly ready to descend to the lowest depths of perfidy. A man with all the vices of a Kennedy with none of the virtues.

              • You mean to tell me that there actually was/is a Kennedy* who had virtues? I prefer to believe my lying eyes!
                *(The Massachusetts Kennedy’s not John Kennedy of Louisiana)

                • The Kennedys in general have social graces and some have displayed physical courage. The Bidens, on the contrary, have no redeeming qualities *at all* that I can discern. None.

                  • Jill Biden has an Ed.D. and has spent much of her life teaching, including remedial teaching and teaching the developmentally disabled. She taught at community college while serving as Second Lady.

                    Let that sink in for a second.

                    Joe Biden’s wife is more qualified in matters of education than Trump’s Secretary of Education!

                    And she has social grace out the wazoo. Melania Trump, by contrast, has removed Jacqueline Kennedy’s crabapple trees from the White House rose garden — establishing a perfect metaphor for the Trump Presidency. Historians in the future will remark that instead of “draining the swamp”, the effect of the Trump administration was to “rip up the rose garden”.

                    • Well Jeff, at least we know what Trumps doing instead of “draining the swamp.” He’s “ripping up the rose garden.”

                    • Joe Biden’s wife is more qualified in matters of education than Trump’s Secretary of Education!

                      Given the kind of BS they teach in Ed. schools, I find this rather doubtful.

                    • Is there some reason that the renovations to the Rose Garden made during the Kennedy administration are sacred and must never be changed? Kennedy renovated the garden, replacing designs made by Roosevelt and Wilson. What’s the actual rule which First Lady can change the garden design of a previous First Lady?

                    • Is there some reason that the renovations to the Rose Garden made during the Kennedy administration are sacred and must never be changed?

                      Because Orange Man Bad.

              • In any case, given his evident Senility what if anything Joe Biden thinks is irrelevant. If he wins the country will be de facto run by an informal backroom committee of his handlers. That’s not a recipe for the kind of decisive action necessary to restore law and order.

            • > he’ll be willing to do things like send the FBI out to investigate a police-shooting which looks bad,

              This would be the same FBI that whitewashed Hillary’s handling of classified information?

              This would be the same FBI that *tried to stage a coup* with a document that the DNC and Hillary campaign paid for?

              Really?

          • The riots are greatly helped by “stand down” policing and “catch and release” DAs. The police senior leadership and the district attorneys are all Party members, who will do what is required.

          • Have you heard the shrieking of the looniest of the left since Trump entered office? That’s what most of this is ultimately about. They are angry at the Orange Man. I dislike him pretty strongly myself, but he doesn’t live rent-free in my head 24/7.

            I think if Harris gets into office, they get to declare victory. Also, the political usefulness of destroying the economy will be over, so people can get back to work and/or school.

            • I dislike him pretty strongly myself

              Do you have an actual reason besides “all my leftist friends think he’s icky and I want to fit in with them”.

              I think if Harris gets into office, they get to declare victory.

              This is giving me “peace in our time” vibes. “If we give the all-consuming monster what it wants, maybe it’ll declare victory and leave us alone.”

              Seriously, we the Democrats win they’ll use their power to keep marching through the institutions without pushback. We can then look forward to such joys as a leftist SCOTUS declaring “hate speech” isn’t covered by the first amendment and UK-style thought police.

              • My political leanings don’t make me friends with many people. Maybe 0.1% of Americans have political opinions similar to mine. I don’t dislike Trump to make anyone happy.

                Too many reasons to list why I don’t like Trump. He’s a sleazy, dishonest asshole (no more than most politicians, but still bad). As Inkstain mentioned, the bump stock ban — he passed more bona fide gun control than Obama. He’s fully willing to screw those who got him in to office the second it’s expedient to do so. He has done nothing to “drain the swamp” or similar. He is willing to arbitrarily wield the power of his office without even paying lip service to constitutional limits. He’s not conservative, he’s not liberal, he has no ideology other than win and stroke his own ego at all costs.

                Foreign policy wise, I don’t find too much objectionable. Not sure about the trade war with China… macroeconomics isn’t a field I feel competent on. He has reduced our presence in the middle east, which is good.

                I also dislike his rhetoric and style; he’s a boorish lout who makes me wince when I hear him try to explain anything.

                On balance, he’s no worse than most other politicians on the national stage. But I dislike virtually all of them too.

      • Right now, there are only two major political outcomes of the 2020 election:

        1) a landslide victory for Biden

        2) more riots, violence, and civil unrest, to such a degree that, together with a protracted election-result contestation process that will make Bush v. Gore look like spit in a hurricane, the powers that be are forced to re-evaluate critical parts of the Constitution (including, but not limited to, the electoral college)

        • Or 3) a major victory for Trump that also gives Republicans control of both houses of Congress even not counting the RINOs, plus replacing many of the Antifa-supporting mayors and governors with Republicans.

          Get there and we’re in the drivers seat to purge crooked police forces and put the patriotic majority of police back to the work they ought to be doing now. That is the only way to keep the civil war (which is already going) short and not very destructive.

          • That’s the only outcome that doesn’t lead to more riots. If Biden wins the factions on the Left will learn that rioting is an effective political tactic now and will use it to advance their specific agenda.

            If Trump barely wins, especially if the Democrats keep the House, the Left will decide that they could have won if they had just rioted harder, so we’ll see more violence in the run up to the midterms and in 2024.

            Only if there’s a repudiation of Democrats so total that the surviving ones learn that tolerating civic violence is a sure way to electoral Armageddon will we stand a chance of restoring peace to our political process.

          • I must note, by the way, that E.E. Smith described an electoral situation very similar to this one at the climax of First Lensman, with Boskone controlling one of North America’s two major political parties and expecting to win through massive corruption.

        • If Biden wins, I would expect the tantrums to increase, since the blackshirts will not expect federal law enforcement to move against them. It will be like having Ted Wheeler’s incompetent ass in the White House.

          Biden JUST got around to saying “rioting is bad m’kay”, after whoever’s spoon feeding him these days noticed that he’s taking a hit in the polls over his campaign staffers paying to bail the brats out of jail.

          These riots aren’t about George Floyd anymore, if indeed they ever were. The rioters are acting out their rage at the fathers who failed them, either by their absence or their failure to teach them right from wrong.

        • It i clear that the Republicans are in a minority now in the USA. They will lose any election with “One-American-One-Vote”. So they are going for “One-White-Man-One-Vote” with massive voter suppression. Or, if that fails, for a civil war.

          It is no accident that the Conservatives here at A&D are all Anti-Democracy. They know their 19th century ideas are shared by only a minority of Americans.

          Another point is that the police in the USA have been used since its inception to suppress poor people. Whether it is unionizing, civil rights movements, or any other social movements to emancipate minority groups, the police were used to “keep them under control”. Black people have been at the receiving end of this oppression from the very start of the Republic. Even today, or black men the police is their number one threat model.

          • > Republicans are in a minority now in the USA

            Ooh, that gets them special protected status then, doesn’t it? The SJWs will be out in force to protect them from the ideological assaults of the dominant Left Supremacist State? Us Libertarians are an even _smaller_ minority_, so we’re entitled to an even _bigger_ cut of the grievance pie, n’est ce pas?

            > They will lose any election with “One-American-One-Vote”

            I know you were ignoring all the discussion of the electoral college up above, but the soundbite summary is that the electoral college process only hurts non-democrat schmucks (like me) living in democratic urban enclaves (like Chicago). Unless you’d like to claim that the hinterlands of Montana (say) are peppered with latte-sipping left liberals in amongst the cattle ranchers. Don’t count your tulips before they hatch (or whatever the hell it is tulips do).

            > Or, if that fails, for a civil war.

            Oh, you mean the one already started, where the White Lives Matter movement and Anticom, backed by the Republican, Libertarian, and Marx only knows what other disgusting dissenters, have caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damage in cities across the nation? Or did you have something else in mind?

            > It is no accident that the Conservatives here at A&D are all Anti-Democracy.

            If by that you mean against anachronistic bullshit like the electoral college, then again, way ahead of you Sparky. If by that you mean something else, then it’s also no accident that cows can be traded for magic beans, since most false claims can’t really be classified as “accidents”.

            > Another point is that the police in the USA have been used since its inception to suppress poor people.

            Oh my gawd no, is it true??? Say it isn’t so Ethel??? Oh how you wound us, because yes, it was totally the Union of Soviet Libertarian Republics that taught us how to deploy and implement a secret police force that sent who knows how many thousands of their own citizens to the gulags, and the National Libertarians that deployed their militarized police Brownshirts to exterminate entire ethnic groups within their own borders. Who else’s fault could it be therefore that the increasingly Leftist controlled cities are deploying their police forces to do increasingly shitty things other than ours?

            Let me guess, if I again ask you if you still condone shooting eight year old black girls in the head in the name of the Movement, you will consider that an “insult”, despite that having as much factual basis as your nonsense above.

            • “Let me guess, if I again ask you if you still condone shooting eight year old black girls in the head in the name of the Movement,”

              Then name those in the BLM movement who condone shooting children? I have not seen a single one, but I might have missed it. You bring up this argument so often, you must have these names.

              For the record, I abhor all killings and I am against the death penalty.

              • Who in the BLM leadership called out the “mostly peaceful protests” which seem to keep “intensifying” and the resultant collateral damage? Offered a genuine condemnation and pointed out the black lives and livelihoods lost to the riots? Empty platitudes don’t count.

                • This is not related to the shooting of children. Tell me who in the movement condones shooting children.

                  • YOU set the standard for “condoning” in the (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8708#comment-2437210) Rules for Rioters thread, where we were all declared to have “condoned” whatever violations you claimed were going on in Portland due to our insufficient enthusiasm (again by your metric) for stopping them. (The fact that the “violations” — “anonymous unidentified troops”, “undisclosed locations” — vanished in the harsh light of day was also deemed irrelevant by you, the only Authorized Deemer on A&D.)

                    By THAT standard… they all do.

                    Don’t like that? Feel free to a) alter your definition of “condone” or b) admit that you were smoke-blowing and name-calling (“out of arguments”, wasn’t that the corollary?) when you declared us all to be “condoning” this that and the other.

                  • The new crop of dead children is the direct result of the massive spike in crime that came in the footsteps of the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of the riots and looting. If the BLM leaders condone the “fiery but mostly peaceful” protests that keep “intensifying”, it is entirely right and proper to hold them accountable for the second order effects.

              • I’m supposed to _name_ them? The Atlanta fucking police haven’t even made _arrests_ in this case, they don’t even have any fucking SUSPECTS (https://www.ajc.com/news/2-months-later-police-still-searching-for-who-killed-8-year-old-secoriea-turner/ZCNPQAFQOJCY3PYCOHXJOUN2QQ/)

                and *I* am supposed to somehow go out and find them?

                I’ve been doing a lot of objecting lately to the deck-stacking leftists typically do in these conversations around here, but holy SHIT that is beyond the pale.

                • Not who performed the murders, but who condoned them? If you can’t give us a name of someone who said, “Oh yeah, the murder of ________ _______ was totally in service to the movement” then you need to withdraw from this portion of the discussion.

                  • > but who condoned them? If you can’t give us a name of someone who said, “Oh yeah

                    Sorry, but that’s not how condoning works, at least by Winter’s standard. Again, you guys can back off from that definition of “condone” established against myself and a large number of posters in the other thread, or you can keep it and have it applied in this case as well.

                    > you need to withdraw from this portion of the discussion.

                    If esr asks that, I will immediately do so.

                    • So we must conclude you cannot name anyone who said these murders were justified. Or anyone who said they should repeated, or nothing should be done to prevent a repeat.

                    • I say, “Rittenhouse should have stayed home.”

                      You say, “But you’re condoning all these Black on Black murders, just like the bad Black people did!”

                      Not one single person is condoning any goddamn murders. You are making ludicrous accusations and lying through your teeth, and you can’t prove the assertions you’ve made. You have no credibility.

                    • > You are making ludicrous accusations and lying through your teeth, and you can’t prove the assertions you’ve made.

                      You must agree then that Winter was “making ludicrous accusations, lying through his teeth, and could not prove the assertions he made” when accusing everyone here of “condoning” various alleged civil rites violations in Portland.

                      I’ve said three times now that that’s the binary you have to deal with. Either we’re applying Winter’s definition of condoning in _both_ cases or in _neither_. I don’t give a shit how little credibility you alot me, that’s still the choice you have to make.

                    • “You must agree then that Winter was “making ludicrous accusations, lying through his teeth, and could not prove the assertions he made” when accusing everyone here of “condoning” various alleged civil rites violations in Portland.”

                      Various people on this blog supported the federal troops when they fired tear gas at the major when he was talking to protesters. Which is a violation of many constitutional rights. These people also fully supported the use of violence against protesters, even when it was against a “wall of moms”.

                      No one, absolutely no one, supported the people who killed the children. No one said these killings were justified. Nothing but horror about these murders.

                      But I see here the Trump effect.

                      You lot claim all kind of outrageous things, COVID is just a flu, Antifa are terrorists, BLM wants to kill children, while you know perfectly well that none of these are true.

                      And when Trump himself tells us that he knew they were not true, you shrug and sprout the same propaganda again.

                      You really do not care what is true or not. The only thing that counts is your opinion, and your ideology.

                      In this, Trumpians are nothing different from the Stalinist of yore.

                    • You lot claim all kind of outrageous things, COVID is just a flu, Antifa are terrorists, BLM wants to kill children, while you know perfectly well that none of these are true.

                      Meh. Right-wingers and Libertarians lie all the time, but they can’t help it because their leaders lie to them all the time. They swim in lies like a fish swims in water.

                      As to their violent natures, it’s like Jay Gould said, “I can hire one half the working class to kill the other half.” Except that with modern propaganda techniques half the working class will do it for free – they’ll even pay for the bullets.

                    • > Meh. [Left]-wingers and [Communists] lie all the time, but they can’t help it because their leaders lie to them all the time. They swim in lies like a fish swims in water.

                      FTFY, Trout.

                    • > > Various people on this blog supported the federal troops

                      Utter bullshit. Multiple posters pointed out it was an easily _anticipatable_ response given the prolonged rioting and destruction taking place across the country. As I said at the time, someone pointing out that whacking a hornet’s nest with a stick is likely to get you stung is not “condoning” or “supporting” hornets.

                    • Various people on this blog supported the federal troops when they fired tear gas at the major when he was talking to protesters. Which is a violation of many constitutional rights. These people also fully supported the use of violence against protesters, even when it was against a “wall of moms”.

                      Sorry you don’t get to redefine rioters as “protestors” and then claim your rights are being violated. And no getting a “wall of moms” to act as human shields doesn’t help you. If you don’t want to get teargassed, don’t riot and don’t volunteer to serve as a human shield for rioters.

          • >It i clear that the Republicans are in a minority now in the USA.

            The thing to remember is that American political parties are coalitions of factions, and the exact makeup of each coalition changes from time to time. The stronger factions in each parties will accommodate the weaker factions only to the extent necessary to get 51% (plus margin for error) After that, the weaker factions must either out-compete the other weaker factions, accept being ignored, or switch sides.

            Worse, the coalitions have much better information nowadays, so the stronger factions’ margins for error can be quite small.

            tl;dr: we’ll be at 51%-49%, “everything turned up to 11” forever.

        • Please explain how (to chose one scenario) a landslide Trump victory will lead to “more riots, violence, and civil unrest”; extra points if your explanation somehow makes this the fault of Bad Orange Man.

      • It’s not a communist insurgency. Yes, there are commies on the left, just like there are nazis on the right. But nobody is going to let the communists take over. It’s just not going to happen!

        • But nobody is going to let the communists take over.

          Well hardly anyone on the left is willing to stand up to them, and those that do tend to get cancelled.

          • I think about 95% of the people with a high-school education will have noticed that communism has always historically been a failure. In fact, I would go a step further and say that communism is the ultimate failure mode of capitalism. Allow two things to happen; first that educational standards weaken, and second that the gap between rich and poor becomes large-enough and common-enough, then communism will start to seem like an appropriate response, mainly due to the lack of education – the sole advantage of communism is that it can be explained to a barefoot peasant in under five minutes.

            My dislike of communism is one of the reasons I prefer a well-enforced, well-regulated capitalism with high progressive tax rates.* Well-enforced, well-regulated capitalism means that everyone can see that the rules are fair and that they are enforced, and this means the system is seen as legitimate by the ordinary person.

            Progressive tax rates keep the gap between the rich and the poor from becoming too large.

            * Progressive in the mathematical sense, not the political sense.

            • Back when I was decided which state to move to when we left California, I came upon a table of the Gini indices of income inequality for the American states (and the District of Columbia). Now, as a libertarian, I have no ethical problem with income inequality, as long as it’s the product of the market and not of government redistribution or regulatory favor. But I found it striking that the states with the greatest inequality were, first, the most progressive states, such as New York, New Jersey, and California (and the District of Columbia was at the most extreme point), and second, states in the deeper South. In contrast, the states with the least inequality tended to be those with conservative governments, with Utah and Alaska being the two most equal. That rather suggests that standard progressive policies may not be effective even in their stated goal of reducing inequality; indeed, they may actually be a way of producing greater inequality than the market would support.

              If you want to base your policy preferences on empirical data, I think you need to take this pattern into account, rather than just calling for progressive policies because they sound good to you.

              • I think you’re missing something important here: Where do people with money want to live? Certainly not Alaska, and probably not Utah, and none of the flyover states… But California, New York, and DC would be very popular if you had a lot of money.

                Your “empirical data” is not driven by the local red-vs-blue politics, but by the desirability of real-estate. If you had a billion dollars in the bank would you choose to live in Alabama, or would you move to someplace with lots of culture, good restaurants and nice beaches?

                I’m sorry, but I must categorize your argument as non-applicable to the question at hand.

            • I think about 95% of the people with a high-school education will have noticed that communism has always historically been a failure.

              I wish. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s being “taught” in high school these days.

              • This is [real communism has never been tried] from the other direction. Real communism has been tried, therefore my communism isn’t real communism.

                • Well put. This is a phenomenon I’ve seen with a lot of recent movements, some of which *cough*singularitarianism*cough* don’t even consider themselves left-wing.

        • Talking about “the right” is largely meaningless in the United States. There is an identifiable left. But the “right” includes all the points of view that the left opposes: libertarians (including libertarian anarchists like ESR), Main Street Republicans, constitutionalist conservatives, king/church/land/arm conservatives, nationalists, racists, and fascists. And those groups really have essentially nothing in common with each other; in particular, saying that Nazis are on “the right” reduces to saying that (a) the left opposes Nazis and (b) the left likes to call anyone who disagrees with them “Nazi” or “racist” regardless of their actual beliefs.

          In the history of taxonomy, it used to be customary to divide animals into “vertebrates” and “invertebrates.” But there are many phyla of invertebrates, as different from each other as any of them is from chordates (the phylum that includes vertebrates). Any positive trait whatever that you could attribute to “invertebrates” would be so general that it would be true of vertebrates as well. Cuvier figured that out in zoology more than two centuries ago, but political taxonomy is not yet so scientific.

          • And there are as many categories of different concerns on the left; feminists, anti-racists, left-leaning-libertarians, pro-queer activists, people like me who’s main concerns are economic justice, environmentalists, and so on, all making common cause (or hating each other and working together because the alternatives are worse) just like on the right.

            Your argument fails because you imagine the opposition as monolithic when in fact it is not.

            • That would be more convincing if we did not have the spectacle of tight ideological conformity on American college campuses, and eagerness to suppress any viewpoint that dissents from it.

            • people like me who’s main concerns are economic justice

              So care to explain how burning down small businesses advances economic justice?

              Also, in case you haven’t noticed the Democrats have abandoned the working class, which is why they’re defecting en mass to Trump.

              • In fairness, there is the Bernie faction right now.

                That said, I predict the economic justice / labor / worker wing will switch over to the Republican side. They fit better with Trumpism than the currently-dominate Identarian/Tribalist Left.

                • Dude, there is nothing the neocoms hate more than the “workers”.

                  They were promised that as long as they got degrees they could be part of the elite and look down on the labor class while pretending to Care, as is tradition.

                  That promise didn’t come about, so they have to be in the slice of the economy they hate more than any other.

                  • This is one place where you and I agree wholeheartedly. The Democrats have definitely left the lower-middle class to fend for themselves – Obama’s very quiet stance against unions made that very clear.

                    The only reason I would support Democrats over Republicans (if I were lower-middle class) is because the Democrats are merely indifferent, as opposed the Republicans who actively attempt to mislead the lower class.

            • > left-leaning-libertarians

              I missed this the first few times around, sorry.

              What the heck is that, and what would it even mean? A leftist wants more government control at all levels of society (nation, economic, individual). A libertarian wants less government control in those areas.

              Is this cognitive dissonance, or is blood _supposed_ to be dripping out of my ears?

              • I’ve seen a few self-proclaimed “left-libertarians”.

                My working hypothesis is that they want the freedom to do whatever they want while having someone else pay for it and dealing with the consequences.

                When you think about it, this position does have a certain amount of psychological internal logic. Specifically, they expect the world to work like it did when they were kids: their parents would feed them, let them play all the time, and clean up any messes they made, and possibly even buy them any toy they wanted.

                • > My working hypothesis is that they want the freedom to do whatever they want while having someone else pay for it and dealing with the consequences.

                  Ah, so Leftist rank-and-file who aspire to the privileges of Leftist Elite (while co-opting the word “libertarian” the way they did “liberal” so many decades ago). Ugh.

                  • It’s not so much that they aspire to the privileges of Leftist Elite (I suspect most of them are children of Elites) as they don’t understand why everyone in the world can’t enjoy those privileges.

                    • Not quite. “Let them watch Netflix” implies an implicit belief that everyone has access to the same goods you do and are only complaining to be perverse.

                      What I’m talking about is more an alief that all the goods of modern prosperity are made from magic pixie dust and that the patriarchy/government/evil council of racist white men is sitting on an infinite supply. But rather than freely giving out this bounty they’re forcing everybody else to work for it because they’re evil bastards.

                    • Classic rebellion against God. “How dare you make food require work.”

                      Only they don’t believe in God, which makes their resentment free-floating. Instead of deciding nobody is to blame, they preserve the resentment by attaching it to the government or whatever. “You’re Symbolically God therefore you must be to blame.”

                      I mean, they’re not wrong about the government being saturated with evil bastards.

                • My working hypothesis is that they want the freedom to do whatever they want while having someone else pay for it and dealing with the consequences.

                  Correct. Leftism is irresponsibility. Don’t pay for what you own and someone else cleans up after your mistakes.

        • > Yes, there are commies on the left, just like there are nazis on the right

          You do realize that until 23 June 1941 Nazies and Fascists were considered “left”, right?

          The difference between them is very, very small.

          • No, they weren’t. They were considered “right”. And to a large sector of the left communists were considered “right” too. I just recently read Homage to Catalonia. It was startling to see communists and Stalin attacked from the left.

            • I think the confusion stems from the differing meanings of left- and right-wing in America vs. Europe. In America, left-wing means “economically authoritarian/collectivist and/or socially liberal,” while right-wing means “economically libertarian and/or socially conservative.” But in Europe, left-wing means “internationalist/globalist” while right-wing means “nationalist.” So by the American definition, the Nazis were left-wing, because they favored socialism and central planning; but by European standards, they were right-wing, because they were nationalists. (And yes, I’m aware that businesses in Nazi Germany were nominally private. In practice, the state decided who produced how much of what; hence, the Nazi economy was centrally planned.)

              • That was true for the U.S. too in World War II – during wartime central planning is usually a very good idea, (as long as there’s a return to proper capitalism after the war) otherwise you might end up with plenty of guns but without proper boots for your troops – pick your shortage, I suppose…

            • The question is not what “left” and “right” mean now, it’s what they meant in the 1930s. The claim is that until Hitler turned on Stalin the Nazis were considered to be on the “left”, and that just isn’t true. They were considered to be on the “right”, and the pact with Stalin just meant that leftists like Orwell considered him and his communist zombies to be on the “right” too. As I wrote, Orwell considered them to be on the “right” even before the pact, based on what he saw as their attempt to kill the Spanish revolution.

            • That date has a very, very specific reason for being chosen.

              Prior to that date Stalin was a big fan of the Nazis–at least publicly.

              Prior to that date the head of the American Communist party was attempting foment a strike on the east coast to prevent ships from being loaded with war material for England.

              IMMEDIATELY after that date the American Communist party changed their tune.

  9. Missed your posting Sensei Eric. Glad you posted this.

    The left has now said clearly and repeatedly they won’t accept any election they loose. I believe them. I’m wondering what the rest of us should be doing.

    • I’m stocking up on ammunition.

      And I, for one, will not accept any Biden victory delivered through vote-fraud-by-junk-mail.

          • You found an example of Democratic voter fraud to counter my Republican example of voter fraud. That’s cute, but I’m not impressed, because anecdotes are not data.

            What does impress me, as data, is the Heritage Foundation’s collection of voter fraud cases.

            https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

            This database, hosted by a conservative think-tank, shows 1296 cases of voter fraud covering 41 years, which gives us approximately 32 cases of voter fraud every year, or if we go by elections, 64 cases of voter fraud nationwide in every election since 1979. Given the number of votes which are cast and how hard Republicans have been trying to prove that voter fraud is a major problem, that’s a very small number – essentially 2.22 cases per state per year.

            Breaking it down by 20 national elections since 1979, the exact statistics are as follows – note that these are averages and don’t track exact numbers per state or per election cycle:

            191 cases of False Registration over 41 years, which means 9.55 cases nationally every two-year election cycle, and something like .191 cases per state per election cycle. Note than an election cycle includes two elections, the primary election and the general election

            268 cases of Inelgible Voting over 41 years, or 13.4 cases in every election, 0.268 per state per election.

            4 cases of Altering The Vote Count over 41 years, or something like 0.2 per election and 0.004 per state per election.

            73 cases of Ballot Petition Fraud cases over 41 years, or 3.65 per election, 0.073 per state per election.

            68 Buying Votes cases over 41 years, or 3.4 per election and 0.068 per state per election.

            115 cases of Duplicate Voting over 41 years, or 5.75 per election, and 0.115 per state per year.

            20 Elections Overturned in 41 years, exactly 1 per election, or 0.02 per state per election. Note that this includes every national, state, county or city election, of which there must be tens of thousands during each cycle.

            208 cases of Fraudulent Use of Absentee Ballots, or 10.04 per election, and 0.208 per state per election

            12 cases of Illegal “Assistance” At The Polls, or 0.6 per election and 0.013 per state per election

            14 cases of Impersonation Fraud, or 0.7 per election and 0.014 per state per year.

            So in 2016, 137 million votes were cast in the general election and 48 million in the primaries, of which 64 were fraudulent, giving us a total of 185 million votes, vs 64 fraudulent votes, which means that 0.0000346 percent of the votes were fraudulent, or approximately 1 fraudulent vote out of 2,890,625.

            • because anecdotes are not data

              A implied claim of “No X exists” is demolished with a single anecdote.

            • The existence of Pacific Islands that are the tops of very tall undersea volcanic mountains proves that undersea volcanoes exist, but the number of such islands does not even approximately indicate how common such volcanoes are. The ones we can see on the surface are the rare exceptions, not the rule.

              • The problem is this: voting is a very fundamental right. Before you can take away someone’s vote, you need proof according to the highest possible standard. The horrible irony of this is that Republicans are screaming about voter fraud while frantically trying to make sure Democrats don’t have the ability to vote. This is one of those things where you need to do your homework.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Voter_Registration_Crosscheck_Program

                This will give you a good start. You might also look up Georgia voter suppression or Kris Kobach.

                • Actually no, voting is not a right at all. Nowhere in the constitution is there a right to vote. All it says is that when a state does grant a right to vote it can’t restrict that right in certain ways (but it can restrict it in any other way).

                • @Troutwaxer “The problem is this: voting is a very fundamental right. Before you can take away someone’s vote, you need proof according to the highest possible standard”

                  You are conflating what is needed to prosecute a specific criminal case with what would be needed to show evidence of widespread wrongdoing. Voter fraud is notoriously difficult to prosecute and difficult to prove, and that actually _increases_ the incentive to engage in it.

                  There is no (rational) question that Al Franken used voter fraud to steal a Senate seat from Norm Coleman, but of course it could not be _proven_. But statistically, the idea that all “found” ballots after the election (which were all “found” by Democrats) would have such a different -proportion- of votes than the previous paper ballots and general election results is simply not realistic. But those ballots, some “found” in a freezer somewhere and some in the “back of a car”, could not be easily -proven- fraudulent, though -everyone knows they were-.

                  I get tired of all this gaslighting from dishonest chaps from the hard Left.

                  • The problem is that every solution Republicans come up with for addressing voter fraud works out to be voter suppression. Because of this Republicans talking about voter fraud have all the credibility of Kang talking about how the lesser races appreciate Klingon rule – in short, none.

                    See my post about Operation Interstate Crosscheck below for more, as I’m getting really tired of repeating myself.

                    • The problem is that every solution Republicans come up with for addressing voter fraud works out to be voter suppression.

                      So requiring the people showing up at a polling place to present a ID to show that they’re how they say they are and are allowed to vote in this election is voter suppression?

                      Well your ability to write the most obvious BS with a straight face is certainly impressive.

        • So basically you quote the Ministry Of Truth to prove we’ve always been at war with EastAsia.

          Outright fraud:
          https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

          https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/19/nyregion/nj-election-mail-voting-fraud.html

          Poor handling that probably lead to fraud:
          https://www.businessinsider.com/clark-county-nevada-las-vegas-mail-in-primary-ballots-undeliverable-2020-8

          Academic paper:
          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3666259

          Forty-seven percent ban
          absentee voting unless the citizen is living abroad, and 30% require a photo-ID to obtain a
          absentee ballot. Fourteen percent of the countries ban absentee mail voting even for those
          living abroad.

          France banned absentee voting in 1975 because of massive fraud in Corsica, where postal ballots were stolen or bought and voters cast multiple votes. Mail-in ballots were used to cast the votes of dead people. Examples for other countries are provided.

          • Taking them bit-by-bit, the New York Post is a well-known right-wing rag, with an article – note the date – obviously published in support of Trump’s contention that postal voting is inherently fraudulent. I noticed with interest that “The city Board of Elections declined to answer Post questions on ballot security.” This says to me that they didn’t try too hard to find anyone who actually knew the system’s strength’s and could answer their questions. Possible other sources they could have consulted include the County Board of Elections, the New York/New Jersey Secretary of State, independent experts, etc. The kindest thing I could say about this article is that they’re only telling half the story.

            As to the paper, “Why Do Most Countries Ban Mail-In Ballots?: They Have Seen Massive Vote Fraud Problems” I noticed something every interesting, which was that none of the cites in the abstract mentioned the U.S. at all, which probably means he didn’t actually examine mail-in voting in our country – not a surprise, I’m afraid.

            From the story “A Nevada county mailed out 1.3 million ballots…” I was struck by this paragraph:

            “These numbers show how vote by mail fails. New proponents of mail balloting don’t often understand how it actually works,” Public Interest Legal Foundation President J. Christian Adams said in a statement. “States like Oregon and Washington spent many years building their mail voting systems and are notably aggressive with voter list maintenance efforts. Pride in their own systems does not somehow transfer across state lines. Nevada, New York, and others are not and will not be ready for November.”

            So according to the expert it is possible to build a safe mail-in voting system. In the U.S. we started talking about mail-in voting in April. If you’re against fraud (as everyone should be) and you want people to be able to vote without risking illness (as everyone should want) and you’re the president of the United States, maybe over the course of six months you can mount a big effort to get more states to use the best practices and provide some money for them to do so.

            Instead, Trump’s people are ripping out mail-sorting machines and the president is telling everyone that mail-in voting is automatically fraudulent. Meanwhile, his allies are doing everything they can to suppress the vote:

            https://rantt.com/top-five-voter-suppression-tactics

            https://time.com/5852837/voter-suppression-obstacles-just-america/

            (There are lots of links about voter suppression on the second article.)

            I think that many right-wingers are astounded that Democrats can be “against anti-voter-fraud efforts.: The reason for this is that Democrats see “anti-voter-fraud efforts” as right-wing code for “suppress the vote.” The problem is much easier to understand if you do some research about voter suppression – some of what’s happening is really, really ugly – google the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, for example and you’ll get an eyeful! (Any programmer will instantly see the problems with Crosscheck.)

            • Voter fraud is not rare. It gave us Obamacare, for one thing. (Al Franken, the 60th vote that put it over the top, won by just over 300 votes – and over 200 felons were accused of voting fraudulently in that election. If you think there were only 200 fraudulent votes, I’ve got a Trabant luxury car to sell you.)

              There’s a name for a mail sorting machine that malfunctions: paper shredder. The Postal Service just isnt’ handling as much first-class mail as it sued to, and the sorting machines are liabilities.

              And the real risk there isn’t the lack of machines, it’s the postal workers unions that have endorsed Biden. When Trump supporters have BLM written on their mail and postal workers are repeatedly caught on surveillance cameras dumping mail, why should I believe mail ballots are secure?

              • Jay, I’m sorry, but you (and by extension, the rest of the right wing) are not even remotely convincing. The problem is this: Every Republican effort to get people who shouldn’t be voting off the rolls ends up with a ridiculous number of false positives, making it clear that voter suppression is the real objective.

                Operation CrossCheck, for example, showed double-registrations for anyone who had the same name and was born on the same day, even if their social security numbers didn’t match! At the height of CrossCheck’s use, 29 different states had subscribed, which means that the pool of people it was checking against would have numbered somewhere around 150 million. The false-positive rate was around 75 percent!

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Voter_Registration_Crosscheck_Program

                Assuming you’ve read the article, think like a programmer for a minute or two… how easy would it have been to avoid a 75 percent false-positive rate? Simply differentiating on the basis of social security numbers would have solved most of the problem. Adding one more factor, like mother’s maiden name, city of birth, driver’s license number, or any number of other publicly available statistics would have brought the error rate down to acceptable levels.

                On my part, I’m very much against anyone voting who shouldn’t do so. I’m against any kind of voter fraud, and I’d applaud a real, sincere attempt to solve the problem. But bullshit like Operation CrossCheck doesn’t pass the sniff test!

                In fact, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is: If anyone wants to start an Open-Source project with a good design and useful security for eliminating improperly registered people from the voter rolls, I’ll write the documentation!

        • Yes.

          https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/absentee-minded-6391500

          This is from the year 2000 and it had been going on for years prior and has continued to this day. Note it is rich people hiring fraud artists to abuse the trust of the poor, elderly, most-often-Black, and home bound.

          And this is while mail in and absentee voting is a minor “edge case” process. Where the safeguards, involving such theoretical skills as verifying the authenticity of signatures and trusting specific courier companies and the US Postal service, are NOT stretched to an unsustainable and un-scalable degree.

          One might have good reasons to scrap the idea of specific polling places; and replace the current process with some sort of remote voting technology. But the current mail process is highly fragile, has been proven susceptible to fraud, does not scale well, and can’t be “upgraded” in the time available with any hope of validity.

          I note as I go that the party most in favor of a new voting process was the party that created the debacle at the Iowa Caucuses.

          • I actually read the whole thing last night, and found it to be quite intelligently written. However, I think I noticed something that you did not, which is that all the practices described in the story seem to be legal under the laws of Texas. My guess, based on reading the story (I don’t have infinite time to research) is that the legal system as written exists precisely to facilitate machine voting – note particularly the “72-hour rule.”

            So it’s not fraud. According to that particular set of laws everything in the story is legal.

            It’s a despicable set of laws, and those laws should definitely be changed, but it’s not fraud as the law is written.

            And in terms of Democrat vs. Republican this is very significant: “Fraud” is a violation of law, and an accusation that someone is voting fraudulently is a pointed finger saying, “You don’t deserve to be elected because you broke the law. In fact, you should be in jail!” On the other hand, “You were able to get away with that because the law was written poorly” doesn’t have nearly the same force. It points to the law, not the person, and it doesn’t contain an accusation of criminality.

            Taking the two statements together, I think our U.S. politics is broken enough – it doesn’t need false criminal accusations to make it even broker!

      • HOW? Where are you finding ammunition? Forget ammunition. Powder? Primers? Anything?

        Everywhere I look it’s all sold out. No ammo. No components. No guns. No parts.

  10. Thank you, sir. My respect for you has risen. I am sure you are taking flak for recognizing the worthiness of this young man.

    On an unrelated note, are you aware the Google seems to have dropped your blog from its search results? I’ve tried searching for material I *know* is here using the “site” limiter with your address and gotten *nothing*.

    • >On an unrelated note, are you aware the Google seems to have dropped your blog from its search results?

      Wan’t aware. Not surprised.

    • I typed “Eric Raymond Blog” into google and it was the first hit. I also copied “In software, “Lassie error” is a diagnostic message” and it was also the first hit. I suspect you made a typo or remembered something incorrectly.

      • Using Google through TOR with the Brave browser exiting with an IP address that Google thinks is in a country that uses Cyrillic I get links to ESRs blog with:

        “ESR Blog”
        “Lassie Error”
        “Armed and Dangerous blog”

  11. I don’t think of this as accelerationism. I actually think in rural/suburban areas, dissolution of the police and return to use of a sheriff that can deputize citizens and militia would be good for liberty. I see it as a kind of reaction; returning to an older, better way. But I am an unabashed reactionary, so that’s the lens I look at things through.

    I’m actually quite surprised that most police haven’t quit. They’ve essentially been told they cannot protect their community from the worst crimes, and if they dare to, the loons in the community will burn it down. I would have quit myself in that position; my thought process would be “I can do no good here; every outcome of my actions is worse than if I did nothing, no matter the merit of the action.” But maybe that’s why I’m not in law enforcement.

    I also have mixed experience with the police. Those in my town are mostly good, except that many of them are against private gun ownership. My experiences with the NYPD are uniformly bad; they are arrogant, thuggish goons that have poor muzzle discipline that love putting people in jail because of pocketknives. The police I’ve met from freer states tend to read as decent human beings that want to protect and serve, but my sample is limited, as I’ve typically met them at various firearms training events, so they’re probably going to be the good ones.

    • I don’t think of this as accelerationism. I actually think in rural/suburban areas, dissolution of the police and return to use of a sheriff that can deputize citizens and militia would be good for liberty.

      Which is why the leftists pushing “defund the police” will never allow that to happen on their watch.

      I’m actually quite surprised that most police haven’t quit. They’ve essentially been told they cannot protect their community from the worst crimes, and if they dare to, the loons in the community will burn it down. I would have quit myself in that position; my thought process would be “I can do no good here; every outcome of my actions is worse than if I did nothing, no matter the merit of the action.” But maybe that’s why I’m not in law enforcement.

      Um:

      1) They get paid.

      2) “Eventually the local politicians will have to consent to a restoration of order at which point I can go back to doing my job”.

    • A lot of them are leaving – by early retirememt. In Chcago, “59 police officers are retiring in August, with another 51 retirements set for next month. … ‘The average is about 24 a month.””

      And a lot of them are cutting back on activity – fewer arrests, pursuits, interventions. “Stay fetal” – that’s the catchphrase – avoid anything that risks getting in the news.

      • ““Stay fetal” – that’s the catchphrase – avoid anything that risks getting in the news.”

        That’s not a bad strategy in the short term. It makes your city a lot less likely to host a protest.

        • That’s not a bad strategy in the short term. It makes your city a lot less likely to host a protest.

          Do you ever get tired of lying?

            • Well the fact that he’s wrong has been explained to him numerous times. If he was simply mistaken, he would either stop repeating it or reply to defend his position. Instead he simply ignores the replies and keeps repeating the same lies.

        • If the priority is to avoid Antifa and BLM holding riots in the city, then inaction is the best policy.

          It will certainly avoid “getting in the news”, Because crimes by black criminals are not news. Swarms of black teenagers smashing store windows and carrying off carloads of luxury goods as loot isn’t news. Black gangbangers shooting up a restaurant where a rival is eating isn’t news. A black man shooting his white neighbor’s five year old son in the head (point blank, not a stray shot) isn’t news.

          Oh, there may be a report in the newspaper – in the back pages, with minimal description. (And absolutely no mention of the perpetrator’s race: I’ve seen news outlets publish many warnings about a mugger or rapist, in which the criminal’s height, weight, age, and clothing are described – but not his skin.)

          But no screaming headlines. No “demonstrations”. No riots. Even if the victim is black.

          It’s hard on law-abiding citizens, but it is safer for police – thanks to BLM and Antifa, and the resolutely anti-police news media.

    • > I’m actually quite surprised that most police haven’t quit.

      Many of those eligible are retiring. An appreciable set are a couple years from retiring, and this is jacking up their overtime hours/pay (which play into their retirement pay).

      The rest haven’t had the time to find better jobs.

      Oh, and police ARE quitting, it’s just that the Ministry of Truth isn’t interested in that right now.

    • > my thought process would be “I can do no good here; every outcome of my actions is worse than if I did nothing, no matter the merit of the action.”

      You get paid the same either way. And you want to stay long enough to hit the steep part of your pension’s PV curve.

  12. I wanted to add a general note here. There are, in fact, best practices for police handling protests, and I wanted to throw out some URLs so people can read them. I haven’t read all of them myself – some are more than fifty-plus pages long – but I thought they might inform our debate a little, so here they are.

    I should also note that I don’t know how well the Kenosha police handled the issues per any of these documents – questions of “what happened during the protests” have been lost in the furor over Kyle Rittenhouse, but hopefully these will be informative, once Eric takes the post out of moderation:

    https://sfbos.org/police-facilitation-mass-protests

    https://www.pilotonline.com/news/vp-nw-protest-police-response-20200611-jphpxvvdkzc4ppimmj4j2mybsi-story.html

    https://www.forwardlookout.com/2020/08/recommendations-for-madison-police-department-protest-policies/33271

    https://www.policeforum.org/assets/PoliceResponseMassDemonstrations.pdf

    https://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/2020/09/police-need-to-keep-opposing-protest-groups-separated-experts-say-after-proud-boys-rally.html

    https://civicus.org/protest-resilience-toolkit/best-practice/

  13. I should note one other reason why Rittenhouse might not qualify as a member of the militia: By August 25th, per the Wikipedia article, there were at least 375 National Guard personal in the city, and another 1500 had been requested. (They arrived on the 28th.) As the “organized militia” was already dispatched to the area, this may invalidate any possibility that the “unorganized militia” had a legally-acceptable reason to self-dispatch.

    • > As the “organized militia” was already dispatched to the area, this may invalidate any possibility that the “unorganized militia” had a legally-acceptable reason to self-dispatch.

      That is a deeply silly argument. The presence of the “organised militia” has no bearing whatsoever on Rittenhouse’s duty or rights, if only because it failed to suppress the riots.

      By your argument, if an arsonist tried to burn down my house, I’d have no right to fight back if there’s a policeman in the same city. No sale

      • “By your argument, if an arsonist tried to burn down my house, I’d have no right to fight back if there’s a policeman in the same city. No sale”

        Sighs… If you shoot a person who’s lighting your house on fire you’re covered by ordinary self-defense exceptions to the laws on assault/murder/etc. Shooting someone committing arson of a building you or someone else might be inside of is ordinary self-defense/defense of others – you don’t need some kind of weird militia exemption to win that case. In fact, claiming that you’d been a “militia” while defending your house from an arsonist would come under the heading of “did something stupid in court so the case wasn’t dismissed.”

        As for the “militia” that went to Kenosha, I don’t think any sane person would say they helped. I count two extra deaths, a nasty injury, and a kid who might have grown out of his simplistic thinking if he’d had a little help, who instead is now going to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

        • I count two extra deaths, a nasty injury

          Of people who were engaged in rioting and violence and frankly deserved it.

          who instead is now going to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

          Not if the justice system works like its supposed to.

          • The justice system is working like it’s supposed to. Rittenhouse will go to jail for the murders he committed.

            • Footnote: The justice system is working like it’s supposed to in this case. As a heavily armed white kid he has been arrested and will face trial for his crimes… you know, as opposed to the unarmed black men who are simply gunned down in the street, while A&D regulars tell us how justified it was based on their prior drug convictions.

              • @Jeff
                I see a remarkable parallel with A&D opinions about shooting communists by armed vigilantes in the street and the rise of fascism in the early 1900s in Europe.
                (The Italian movie “1900” does give a nice impression of how this went)

                TL;DR: Everything is allowed to stop “Communists”, defined as everyone who fights the current oligarchy, or wants to enforce “One person, One vote”.

                It is quite a spectacle to see US “Libertarians” echo Il Duce in support of his American apprentice.

                • > “Communists”, defined as everyone who fights the current oligarchy, or wants to enforce “One person, One vote”.

                  I’m a Libertarian, very much not a Communist, and I would LOVE to see “one person, one vote” implemented. I would also love to see a bunch of upper-echelon oligarchs get a nice thick mud-covered flyover boot right up their ass.

                  You claimed yourself above that Republicans are a _minority_, so which oligarchs are you imagining need ousting here, if not the Leftist Elite stranglehold on our media, educational system, and the government of nearly every urban area in the nation?

                  > It is quite a spectacle to see US “Libertarians” echo Il Duce in support of his American apprentice.

                  Almost as nice (and equally based in actual fact) a spectacle as seeing Dutch “Armchair Political Supergeniuses” support killing eight year old black girls in support of “racial justice”.

                  • “so which oligarchs are you imagining need ousting here, if not the Leftist Elite stranglehold on our media, ”

                    Are you calling Fox News, Breitbart and America One Leftist media?

                    • Three out of… what? What’s the denominator of that fraction there?

                    • “Three out of… what? What’s the denominator of that fraction there?”

                      These three are the propaganda arm of Trump/GOP, one of them is nation wide the BIGGEST in viewers.

                      So, how is the MSM left extremist?

                      There is also never evidence given to support the claim that, e.g., the Washington Post is a Leftist Elite outpost. The only criterion seems to be that they write things you do not agree with.

                      Your problem seems not to be that the MSM are Left Elite, but that alternative opinions are expressed at all.

                    • > These three are the propaganda arm blah blah blee bloob

                      Yes yes we already know your opinion of the NUMERATOR. I asked a question about the DENOMINATOR. Is the Dutch educational system even shittier than the American, that you don’t seem to know the difference?

                      If you discount the ones with cutesie nicknames like “Faux News” and “NoSoBrightBart” then the numerator is zero anyway, so in a sense you’re right to agree that there’s not much bloody point coming up with a denominator.

                      > the claim that, e.g., the Washington Post is a Leftist Elite outpost. The only criterion seems to be that they write things you do not agree with.

                      Since I have NEVER said a single word about the Washington Post in my entire LIFE, here or anywhere else, you are deliberately lying.

                • TL;DR: Everything is allowed to stop “Communists”, defined as everyone who fights the current oligarchy, or wants to enforce “One person, One vote”.

                  Winter, you are the literal last person on Earth I would have expected to see repeating Trump’s “one person, one vote” talking point regarding mail-in ballots.

                  • “Trump’s “one person, one vote” talking point regarding mail-in ballots.”

                    Trump says one thing and ensures the opposite. Trump has zero evidence mail-in ballots lead to fraud, or that there is a sizeable amount of voting fraud at all. But Trump wants to make it impossible for all but the military.

                    But what the GOP is really good at is making voting hard for Democrats. Voter suppression is real in the USA:
                    One Person No Vote
                    https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/one-person-no-vote-9781635571387/

                    Get more from the book:
                    https://books.google.nl/books?hl=zh-TW&lr=&id=KLlHDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT10&dq=one+person+no+vote&ots=gvl5iLwI-H&sig=xNoIgDkzMd_dCaCG9MaKnmW1ehg

                    • > But what the GOP is really good at is making voting hard for Democrats.

                      The city of Chicago wants to point and laugh at you.

                    • Trump says one thing and ensures the opposite. …. But Trump wants to make [mail-in voting] impossible for all but the military.

                      First: I had made this point in the “Rules for Rioters” thread, but it bears repeating: good political slogans are both prima facie true or desirable platitudes, but which also are sufficiently vacuous to serve as a “dog-whistle” for the politician’s real agenda. So when Trump says “one person, one vote” I believe he means that — that each voter should vote once and only once — and that statement is only the better politically for having a completely different meaning in other mouths and other contexts. Trump isn’t switching meanings, the phrase “one person, one vote” itself is.

                      Second: Trump is only blowing hot air anyway. The US Constitution states that Congress has oversight (Article 1 Section 4) but the many states have primary control over the manner of conducting elections. So no matter what Trump wants, he doesn’t have the legal authority to make those changes, anyway.

              • heavily armed

                Hmmm, t-shirt, medkit, rifle.

                No reloads, no armor (hell not even a plate carrier!), no helmet, no sidearm, no night vision.

                Your idea of “heavily armed” needs an update. If anything Kyle showed that even the lightest of armament can still be effective in the right circumstances.

              • So according to you self-defense isn’t acceptable, but going for a police officers gun after you’ve just robbed a convenience store, or beating the head of a neighborhood watchman into the pavement is perfectly fine. There a word to describe people like you, that word is “evil”.

              • , as opposed to the unarmed black men who are simply gunned down in the street, while A&D regulars tell us how justified it was based on their prior drug convictions.

                Liar. The only people simply gunning unarmed men (of any color) down in the street are criminals, often black. Police are not doing that, anywhere.

                And no A&D regular, or anyone else, has ever told you that a police shooting was justified by the person’s prior convictions of any kind. The overwhelming majority of police shootings (which happen without any regard for the person’s color) are justified based on what the person was doing at the time.

                The fact that such people often have prior convictions is only mentioned in order to show what sort of people they were, which helps explain why they acted the way they did in the cases that got them shot.

            • >The justice system is working like it’s supposed to. Rittenhouse will go to jail for the murders he committed.
              >as opposed to the unarmed black men who are simply gunned down in the street

              I’m having flashbacks to the George Zimmerman – Trayvon Martin case.

              As the trial progressed, medical evidence indicated Zimmerman had suffered multiple head injuries, eyewitness evidence indicated Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating Zimmerman’s head against the ground, ballistic forensics evidence indicated Martin was shot from below and in front while leaning forwards.

              Justice system concluded that Zimmerman probably shot Martin in justified self-defense.

              Progressive presstitutes and urinalists concluded that they should report this with phrases like “the murder of an unarmed black teenager”.

              Get bent, Jeff.

              • Or maybe Zimmerman shouldn’t have been driving around in his truck playing cop. It might be “justified self-defense” but that doesn’t mean that Zimmerman is a hero. He’s an idiot who got into an unnecessary fight.

                • > Zimmerman shouldn’t have been driving around in his

                  own neighborhood, where he was a member of the neighborhood watch? And you have the authority to tell people where they should and shouldn’t drive based on… ?

                  > an idiot who got into an unnecessary fight

                  Everyone who is forced to exercise their right to self-defense is in “an unnecessary fight”. I fail to see the justification in calling them, as opposed to their attackers, “idiots”.

                  • Everyone who is forced to exercise their right to self-defense is in “an unnecessary fight”. I fail to see the justification in calling them, as opposed to their attackers, “idiots”.

                    Isn’t it funny how “wisdom” always seems to cash out as a requirement for innocents/civilized/non-aggressors to cede all of the territory to the guilty/barbarian/aggressor.

                    • It might be funny if it weren’t so disgustingly hypocritical. I have no doubt that if I were to walk up to Troutwaxer in his _own_ neighborhood and tell him that for one reason or other he “shouldn’t be driving/walking there” and would have to turn around immediately, the _least_ I could expect to receive in response would be sputtering indignation.

                      As usual the Left demands obedience from the little people for “rules” they would immediately declare absurd and improper if applied to themselves.

            • Except he didn’t commit murders. He defended himself against rioters and a pedophile attacking and quite possibly trying to kill him.

            • > Rittenhouse will go to jail for the murders he committed.

              Have you gone to the link at ar15.com that Rezlac posted above? Have you watched the videos?

              Most important, have you looked at all the people (including ones bearing makeshift weapons) in the video that Rittenhouse does NOT shoot?

              I don’t know anything about gun discipline or combat tactics than the bits I’ve read here (and occasionally at sites linked to from here). But even with that complete lack of knowledge, I am watching these videos and following the ar15.com analysis with dropped jaw, looking at a desperate kid only three years older than my own son, looking like a forty-year-old veteran with experience in combat situations involving non-uniformed combatants mixed amongst non-combatant civilians (again to my completely untrained eye; probably actual military personnel are even better trained).

              In multiple cases he rolls back to a sitting or kneeling position after fighting off one attacker, takes aim at the next nearest person, and DOES NOT PULL THE TRIGGER. That person chooses to attack, then yes, Rittenhouse defends himself again. Those who don’t attack, who withdraw or even just hold position, Rittenhouse holds as well, and gets back to the business of trying to _escape_ the mob that is bent on killing him.

              Is there a chance Rittenhouse initiated the first conflict between himself and Rosenbaum? Mathematically there must be, but since that initial conflict isn’t in any of the videos, you’re speculating just as much as anybody else if you claim that’s certain. Given Rosenbaum’s behavior in the early videos before encountering Rittenhouse, that’s not the way I’d be betting, myself. (If you’re willing to actually follow Rezlac’s link, there is a section including the phrase “The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.” about 2/3 of the way down that addresses the legal situation even if Rittenhouse did “provoke” Rosenbaum but initially fled instead of engaging.)

              • >(again to my completely untrained eye; probably actual military personnel are even better trained).

                Alas, would that it were so. But most line troops are trained for battlefield conditions in which anyone who is (a) looking threatening at a firefight and (b) not wearing your uniform is a target to be serviced. Somebody with those reflexes and that mindset would at the very least have put a finishing shot into third-guy-with-a-pistol instead of (heh) disarming him.

                No, Kyle fights like very elite military – Special Operations, or like FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team. Clearing a malf so fast you could barely make out he was doing it when he’d just fallen to the ground? Such excellent shoot/no-shoot judgment? My first reaction when I saw the video was that several different unit commanders at SOCOM probably have a bit set to try to pull this kid into service when he turns 18.

        • As for the “militia” that went to Kenosha, I don’t think any sane person would say they helped.

          They helped the car dealership and the other people and property they protected. The two dead thugs and one injured are a bonus. Those deaths and injuries are good things.

  14. Hey Eric,
    What do you think the odds are that people like Trout, Jeff, and Winter are actively engaging in some kind of stochastic Commie/useful-idiot psy-op with the shared intent of driving readers and commentators from the blog? I’m increasingly of the opinion that none of them are attempting a discussion in good faith, intentionally riling everyone up, lying about people, gaslighting about said lies, etc. Hanlon’s Razor, of course, but there’s a point where I just have to wonder. Memetic demoralization virus running its preset program? Will it wear itself out, or continue being amplified by the insurrectionists?

    It’s frustrating. Siege feeling. Very frightening. Just some idle thoughts.

    • You sound to me like a sore loser doing their best to manipulate the referee! I point out that Trump is currently president, and that he’s a Republican, and that the situation is getting worse, not better – all of these obvious truths wherein the arguments against them are outright fantasy – so I must be a communist. Don’t be an ass!

      I point out that Eric’s idea that Rittenhouse is a member of the militia fails at both legal and practical reality – so I must be a communist. Once again, please don’t be an ass!

      I point out that two deaths and an injury would have been avoided if Rittenhouse had simply stayed home – so I must be a communist. You sound like a whiny little child who didn’t get their ice cream!

      And so on. Your transparent attempt to manipulate the referee – it’s well-known that Eric isn’t exactly rational about commies – says that you don’t feel you can win with any argument a rational person would accept.

      -Shrugs- I think the argument is over.

      • Yes and we reply to you to point out why your “argument” is BS. You then proceed to ignore the replies and proceed ignore and repeat the same BS.

      • > I point out that Eric’s idea that Rittenhouse is a member of the militia fails at both legal and practical reality

        How do you imagine you’re going to do that?

        You do get that the unorganized militia is “anyone who shows up willing to help”?

        You do get that “able-bodied males between 17 and 45” describes those who are expected to show up? (I hesitate to say “required” to show up, since I haven’t seen any links pointing to specific penalties for folks in this category who fail to show up.)

        You do get that people not in this “able-bodied males between 17 and 45” category are nowhere excluded or forbidden from showing up?

        You do get (since it’s been pointed out above by multiple posters) that Rittenhouse is still an “able-bodied male between 17 and 45” regardless of what other categories he may or may not belong to (e.g. being allegedly qualified for Marine recruitment or not)?

      • > I point out that two deaths and an injury would have been avoided if Rittenhouse had simply stayed home

        And over $50 million in property damage (shit, a week ago I wouldn’t have guessed there was $50 million of stuff in Kenosha to begin with =:O) and countless injuries, plus yes, a number of deaths, would have been avoided if a bunch of _other_ fucktards had simply stayed home.

        Better yet, Jacob Blake could have simply stayed the fuck home instead of going to steal the car from a woman he’d previously sexually assaulted, and then going for a knife to attack the police officers who came in response to that woman’s call.

        Another possibility is that you could maybe get out and see some of what the hell is actually going on in the country instead of “simply staying home” all the time. I can recommend a few places here on the south side of Chicago for example if you are as bored as you seem to be.

        • Agreed. Blake should have stayed home too rather than harassing his ex. Lots of people should stay home! I think the big problem here was the “shot in the back” thing. It’s never a good look, and usually indicates that the person shot was an unarmed person who was running away.