 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:08:43 |
On today’s episode, David and Sarah take a deep dive into the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict with Damon Preston, Kentucky's Public Advocate and a criminal defense attorney with almost 30 years of experience. They discuss self defense law, the difference between the Rittenhouse trial and the trial of Ahmaud Arbery's killer, and the ways in which the criminal justice system could be reasonably reformed. Also, David exults in Mississippi's stinging defeat at the Supreme Court as the court turned back the Magnolia State's greedy attempt to keep Tennessee from drinking water from its own wells.
Show Notes:
-French Press: “Kyle Rittenhouse, Open Carry, and the Breaking of Self-Defense Law”
-David in The Atlantic: “Kyle Rittenhouse’s Acquittal Does Not Make Him a Hero”
A guy with a gun being chased by another man who is apparently not afraid of his weapon isn't a reasonable threat, but a crowd chasing a man because they think he might be an active shooter (How is this not vigilantism?) may likely have been justified. Is this the narrative Advisory Opinions really wants to throw out there?
I have to admit this episode was a bit disappointing. This was a widely published case where all of the relevant facts were publicly known. The Trial that was televised. There was zero excuse for this level of sloppy analysis. Especially presenting the facts of the first encounter which omitted the most important fact that a gun was indeed shot while Kyle was withdrawing- just not by the victim. And Kyle literally ran away from the initial perpetrator multiple times- in multiple directions. Only for him to continue to pursue Kyle after threatening all night that if he ever got him alone he was going to kill him. Witnessed and testified to by multiple people., And that ignores the other facts not even in evidence about this "saint". That he was released just that day from a mental hospital and had a rap sheet of VIOLENT crimes long enough to wallpaper the entire DC office of the Dispatch.
This was one of the simplest, easiest self defense cases ever to make it to trial. If this did not take place during the 2020 "peaceful protests" Rittenhouse would have never been charged, let alone have this case go to trial.
For weeks David's argument was that Rittenhouse should never have been there in the first place, let alone there and armed. True, we all agree. However, neither should any of the other thousands of Rioters! Many of whom were armed- with guns as well- and looting, rioting, causing fires and destroying an entire city. Nobody has a right to "peacefully protest" by destroying private property and being a physical threat to others.
Yes, none of them should have been there. But know who should have been there but wasn't. The police. And the National Guard. This is what "defund the police" looks like. And if they were there- one thing is guaranteed- those that Kyle had to defend himself would still have been there causing the chaos they were causing. But guess who with 99.99999% likelihood wouldn't have been there. Rittenhouse.