Can you imagine what it’s like sitting in some law school classrooms, these days? I never attended law school, but I did graduate from a police academy where we studied criminal and constitutional law. To do the job right, cops must stay up on both throughout their careers. Lawyers should, too, right?
So, with so many leftist attorneys who are politicians and members of leftist organizations like the ACLU, how much law do they have to ignore or lie (to themselves and others) about to conclude justice was not rendered in the Kyle Rittenhouse case? Here is an (admittedly tame) example from The Pulse at NCPolicyWatch.org.
The professor who wrote the article said he believed the Rittenhouse jury’s verdict “may portend a similar outcome in…” the Ahmaud Arbery case, which is baffling because the two cases, outside of arguing self-defense, have no remotely similar facts.
Back to the law school classroom. I’m not talking about how people feel about the case. I’m talking about the law. I’m talking about what actually happened in those moments of sheer terror when self-defense became necessary, and about what the law say about it. The massive conspiracy by media and Democrat radicals not only to keep the truth from the public but also to outright lie about what happened is stunning.
I’m still hearing pundits, such as at CNN and MSNBC, saying Rittenhouse bought a gun illegally, “illegally” brought it “across state lines,” went “uninvited” to protect businesses, and “murdered” people. Aside from “crossing state lines” (like a border, right?), those allegations and many more are demonstrably untrue.
So, witnessing this apparent belligerent ignorance displayed by so many attorneys, how do law students watch the video coverage of the evidence at trial, read the legal elements of self-defense, only to have their profs (and media legal pundits) tell them justice wasn’t served?
Some say Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there. Okay, maybe he shouldn’t have, but that’s an opinion. A good law prof will tell students the law says their opinion doesn’t matter. He shouldn’t have had a gun, some also say. Again, okay. But, again, that’s your opinion, not the law. According to the law, he had a right to be there and to possess a rifle—whether you like it or not.
To believe justice wasn’t served means one both accepts opinion as fact and ignores the law as written. A good law prof will not encourage students to do that. A good prof will separate students’ personal opinions and what they wish were true from fact, what is true—what does the law say? If you don’t like the law as written, convince your legislature to change it. That’s how America works—or is supposed to work.
A law student, or lawyer, may not like a lot of aspects of this case, but the only thing that mattered was what happened exclusively in each of those few moments when rioters attacked Rittenhouse, and he defended himself.
There is no doubt Kyle Rittenhouse was tried in the media with biased accounts of what happened. Even candidate Joe Biden called him a “white supremacist.” It’s stunning that even pundits who say they paid attention to the entire case from the beginning didn’t know so many facts until the end of the trial and since.
If after reading these lists you don’t wonder why mainstream “news” media even exists, you may have to reset your critical thinking button. According to radical leftist media reporting, you can be forgiven if you thought:
- The BLM/Antifa riots started because Kenosha police shot and killed Jacob Blake, an unarmed black man.
- That 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was a militia member and white supremist.
- He crossed state lines from Illinois to Wisconsin illegally with a firearm.
- In Wisconsin, he possessed an illegal “short-barreled” rifle.
- He traveled uninvited to Kenosha, where he knew no one, to protect property.
- He targeted peaceful demonstrations, intent on shooting BLM/Antifa protesters.
- He was armed with an AR-15 “assault weapon” loaded with “full metal jacketed, hollow pointed, exploding” rounds.
- He “murdered” two and wounded one black victims.
- Even those who admitted the “victims” were white have painted the felons as heroes.
- Rittenhouse illegally possessed an illegal “assault weapon” and used it illegally.
Back in the real world, among other things, below are some facts the media refused to report. Ludicrously, some media still pretend what happened didn’t happen and continue their intentional misreporting.
- Jacob Blake was armed with a knife and was not killed. Officials ordered police not to quell riots. The governor declined Trump’s offer to deploy troops.
- If there was evidence Rittenhouse was a white supremist, they would have cited it.
- Rittenhouse did not “illegally” cross state lines with a firearm.
- The rifle was legal, but the prosecution failed to measure the barrel before charging Rittenhouse with possessing an illegal weapon.
- Mother’s house in Antioch, IL. only 20 miles from father’s house in Kenosha, WI. Rittenhouse’s grandmother, other family, and friends live in Kenosha.
- When Rittenhouse arrived in Kenosha, the rioting was already in its third day.
- Rosenbaum (a white man), a five-time convicted child-rapist, pushed a flaming dumpster into “occupied police vehicles,” chased Rittenhouse, knocked the teen down twice, and kicked him in the head.
- Huber (a white man), twice convicted for DV assault, struck Rittenhouse with a skateboard twice.
- Grosskreutz (a white man), convicted of burglary and assault, testified Rittenhouse did not shoot him until he pointed his handgun at Rittenhouse’s head. Grosskreutz, as a convicted felon, is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
- Rittenhouse was legally in possession of his legal weapon in Wisconsin.
This case had nothing to do with race and became a referendum on the God-given right to self-defense. You have no right to self-defense if you don’t have the ability to possess the most practical means to defend yourself: a firearm.
So, how are law professors teaching law these days when so many lawyer politicians and supposed civil rights attorneys, like with the ACLU, are perfectly fine with ignoring laws as they are written as long as it advances a leftist political agenda?
There is just so much that needs to be ignored to teach law students the Kenosha jury did not deliver the correct verdict. There’s no doubt we are in the midst of a cultural revolution, not unlike that Mao perpetrated on the Chinese people. And what do we know for sure about tyranny and cultural revolutions? That the law becomes arbitrary.