Cheap Seats 2021

(Ritten)House Call - 11/24

 

By Rich Trzupek
  By the time the play reached its last act, jurors were asked to believe one of two stories: That Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha looking for trouble, or that Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha hoping to help.
  Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, aka perhaps the most incompetent prosecutor in American history, hoped to sell the first tale. He painted the picture of an angry young man in a testosterone fueled rage grabbing an AR-15, locked and loaded and ready to take out some protestors.
  Or, as Rittenhouse’s legal team successfully argued, you have a young man who wants to help some friends, is a little concerned about his own safety – not unreasonably so given all the rioting and violence that had infected the nation that summer of “peaceful protests” – and so he grabs a weapon with which to defend himself, just in case. In this scenario Rittenhouse was following the time-honored adage: You never need a gun until you need one.
  There are two pictures that tell the story of this trial, one of Binger and one of Rittenhouse. Both gentlemen are handling an AR-15 in their respective photos. They speak volumes about the mindset of the accused and his chief accuser.
  The Rittenhouse photo shows him on the night of the Kenosha incident. He’s alert, but there’s nothing in his demeanor that indicates he’s angry. More importantly he’s handling the rifle in the way he and millions of other responsible firearm owners are taught. He’s got the AR-15 in a low carry position, its muzzle pointed toward the ground. His trigger finger is on the stock, where it should be.
  Even someone with minimal firearms instruction like yours truly has two lessons drilled into them on day one: 1) Never point your weapon at a target unless you intend to fire and 2) never put your finger on the trigger untill you are ready to fire. Had Alec Baldwin followed either of these two basic rules, cinematographer Halyna Hutchins would still be breathing.
  Note that nowhere in the preceding paragraph does the word “loaded” appear. You never point your weapon at a target unless you intend to fire it, and never put your finger on the trigger untill you are ready to fire. These rules apply whether there is a round in the chamber or whether you’re absolutely, positively sure there is not.
  There are no do-overs with firearms and responsible firearms owners have that simple fact drilled into their heads. The Rittenhouse picture shows a responsible firearms owner in a defensive posture, not someone looking for targets of opportunity.
  Contrast that with the picture of rocket scientist Binger shouldering the rifle. He’s pointing it at the jurors. AT THE JURORS! And, just to complete the picture, his trigger finger is not resting safely on the stock, it’s actually on the trigger. It’s like the man was posing for a firearm’s safety poster showing how not to handle a weapon.
  So, if Rittenhouse’s picture tells us that the young man is responsible and trained, what does the Binger picture tell us?
  It obviously tells us the man has had zero firearms training. His view of weaponry is of the cartoonish or Hollywood variety. Binger is not handling a tool intended to provide self-defense, he’s brandishing a deadly weapon meant to wreak havoc and exact vengeance.
  Certainly Binger is not alone in that buffoonish view of firearms. Such warped perspectives are a cancer in a country where the chief prosecutor in Cook County, Illinois blithely ignores deadly violence among gang members on the grounds that they involve “mutual combatants,” while attempting to increasingly hamstring police any time one happens to make the slightest mistake.
  Fortunately, we still have the jury system and the left hasn’t figured out a way to screw that up – yet. Twelve men and women good and true listened to the facts, heard the testimony and upheld the law. Perhaps there’s hope for us yet.
  Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com

  The Examiner recognizes that the Rittenhouse case has stirred a lot of emotion across the political spectrum. While we tend to agree with Mr. Trzupek’s analysis, we also believe in respectful discussion of important issues. The right to bear arms and the right of self-defense that are at the core of the Rittenhouse case are, in our view, very important issues; that’s why it’s our Second Amendment right after our First Amendment right of free speech.
  So, we offer those of you who might disagree with Mr. Trzupek’s and The Examiner’s opinions in this case the following opportunity: Please send us an on-line letter to the editor expressing your opinion to news@examinerpublications.com. You are limited to no more than 400 words per submission and so long as your submission: 1) Does not directly threaten or encourage violence directed at any individual or group, 2) does not "dox" any individual or group of individuals, or 3) does not attempt to divert attention away from the subject under discussion by introducing distractions, The Examiner will almost certainly publish your commentary and reply to it. You must give us your real name, town and phone number for verification purposes.
  Why "almost certainly?" Because Facebook and because Twitter both cling to their internal censorship policies as part of their rights as free enterprise platforms. OK. We are not going to surrender our right to censor what is published via our platform. Instead, we’re going to apply a much more liberal standard than does big tech. You won’t get censored for being “mean.” You won’t get censored by so-called “fact-checkers.” You'll only be censored on this platform if you choose to violate the limitations described above. Want to be mean, insulting, demeaning, etc.? Go for it. No problem. Pretty sure we can beat you into powder if that’s the game you choose to play.