KYLE NOT GUILTY
BREAKING NEWS
Just announced
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (205)
sorted by:
Important points to note here:
Firstly, this entire trial was not a trial of law. Everything Rittenhouse did was very clearly in line with the letters of the law that this should not have gone to trial to begin with.
This was a trial of values. This case has shown a fundamental shift in the values of this country as it pertains to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
For those who still believe in the constitution and have good faith in the laws and practices of its citizens, this case showed a fundamental shift in their understanding of the value of life. That laws could exist that could lead to the direct death of another is something that legitimate people of good faith now no longer understand.
We have reached a point where breathing is more important than protecting our communities, businesses, means of providing a livelihood and the physical manifestations of the spiritual forces that built those communities and businesses.
People of good faith legitimately believe that it is better to watch our communities burn than for life to be lost as a consequences of defending them, or ourselves.
On the other end of it, we have those of bad faith. People who do not believe in our laws, and do not believe in our values. This case highlighted those people of bad faith in it's entirety.
"Kyle should suffer, not because of any laws that allowed him to defend himself, but because his presence directly lead to the death of two people. Period."
Further from that, those same people have shown a bias towards wanton destruction and chaos, meant to bury, burn and destroy any vestiges of what this country represented before.
They have outed themselves as allies of demons, and enemies of anyone that would take up the role of the warrior to combat against it.
Make no mistake, this case is a litmus test on where you stand with your values, especially in relation to how this nation was founded.
And further, there is a right answer, and a wrong answer. And further from that, there is an evil answer.
Read the whole thing with context:
I was describing those of bad faith. That was not my position.
Ok, so he could have thrown in some Quotation Marks in some chosen places....
So lets suggest that, instead of simply jumping all over the pede....
I use terms that are thrown around all the time, but in general, we fundamentally no longer understand them.
There are people that are good people who believe in this country and their laws, and do not see other citizens as enemies. These are people who act in good faith.
These people are legitimately shocked that said laws, enacted as originally intended, would allow someone like Kyle to be there with a gun, which results in two people dying, and Kyle is set free.
It makes no sense to them, because they have a fundamental change in value. That value is the value of life vs. property (the pursuit of happiness, as the founders wrote it).
To them, life is always of higher value from property. They do not all of a sudden want the country to burn, and for our institutions to be destroyed (those would be bad faith actors)
Like I said from the outset - this case was a litmus test for values. Not understanding of law. Legitimate people of good faith understand that Kyle followed the law, but they believe that justice did not occur because their value statement suggests that some punishment needed to be wrought to Kyle.
Why? Because, fundamentally, he defended firstly the community and property, which is what resulted in his needing to defend himself. To those people, Kyle needed to be punished.
After all, had he not been there to defend property, two more people would have been alive. And life is of a higher value than property to said people.
I figured that the narrative structure would have made it clear enough that it was a description of "one one hand, then another".
In general, nah, I wont edit it. I would need to rewrite the whole thing because the chosen narrative structure just was wrong.
You really need to rewrite what you wrote if you were as it appears going against the Canutz! Because your writ is not so the common of us would not interpret you as against Ritten house!
I will rewrite it if people care enough for what was said. But if it is just for clarification so I can jump on the "rah rah RITTENHOUSE" bandwagon, then I would be wasting my time.
The salient point is the meaning of the trial, not just that Rittenhouse won. This was a litmus test, and a teaching/framing point for where we are at in this country.
It is deeper than self-defense. It is deeper than law, and it directly connects to our fundamental understanding of life and liberty.
Justice was served, but, if anything, this trial is deep proof that this country cannot sustain itself. It is headed towards a divorce, and even the people who believe in this country and values barely has any idea how important this case was.