Jury’s verdict a recommitment to nation’s Second Amendment
Malcolm X once remarked self-preservation is man’s most natural instinct. Kyle Rittenhouse gave the three rioters every chance to fall back that night, but they chose to keep coming towards him, so he elected to try to preserve his own life and engage in self-defense.
Besides the right to self-defense being in Rittenhouse’s favor, another argument that weighed in favor of the not guilty verdict is that Rittenhouse had an absolute duty to the community not to let anyone take possession of his gun, and he honored that duty with his actions. When confronted with aggression from the rioters, he waited to the last second, where a life-altering decision had to be made, and ultimately did what he had to do to make sure that gun didn’t get into the hands of the wrong people.
It is also important to note that one man Rittenhouse killed was a child molester, and the other man Rittenhouse killed was convicted of strangulation after holding a butcher’s knife to his brother’s throat. And I only bring this up because the sympathy I see from the left for these two men makes me believe it’s a sympathy based on political expediency versus authenticity. I certainly didn’t see the left engage in such remorse for the lost life of Ashli Babbitt.
With this verdict, we saw a jury side with freedom over governmental overreach. We saw a jury side with individual rights over mob rule. We saw a ruling based on logic, reason and evidence versus emotion and political whim. And we saw a recommitment to the 2nd amendment, self-defense, self-preservation and the respect for private property, over confiscation, insecurity, harm and pillage.
Clarence Leatherbury | Salem, Ind.