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.
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.
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.