Now, an argument can be made as to how shootings—especially those committed by law enforcement officers who are expected to exercise a higher standard of care—should be investigated. However, no matter how the shooting is investigated, it should be done through our constitutional protections and our agreed upon legal system. No one should ever be convicted through the court of public opinion or the media.
…
There are stupid cops, and there are cops who make mistakes. As representatives of an extremely powerful state, they should be held to a higher standard. Just because somebody works for the government doesn’t make them infallible, and if they screw up and kill somebody for a stupid reason, they should have the book thrown at them, but damn if it doesn’t help to know what actually happened before you form up your angry lynch mob!

Violent encounters are complex, and the only thing they have in common is that they all suck. Going into any investigation with preconceived notions is foolish. Making decisions as to right or wrong before you’ve seen any of the evidence is asinine. If you are a nationally elected official, like say for example the President of the United States, who repeatedly feels the need to chime in on local crime issues before you know any facts, you are partly to blame for the resulting unrest, and should probably go have a Beer Summit.

You can’t complain about the bias in our justice system against some groups, and how the state unfairly prosecutes some more than others, and then immediately demand doing away with the burden of proof, so the state can more freely prosecute. Blacks are prosecuted more and sentenced more harshly, so your solution is to remove more of the restraints on the state’s prosecutorial powers, and you think that’ll make things better? You want people to be prosecuted based on feelings rather than evidence, and you think that’ll help? The burden of proof exists as a protection for the people from the state. We have a system for a reason. Angry mob rule based on an emotional fact-free version of events isn’t the answer.

So my request is this, at least learn how stuff works before forming a super strong opinion on it.

What’s saddest about Kyle’s case is that it’s the prosecutors violating “our constitutional protections and our agreed upon legal system.”

I also note this peripheral observation:

In ten years of studying violent encounters and learning everything I could about every shooting I could, I never once found a newspaper article that got all the facts right. Usually they weren’t even close. In that same time period I offered free training in Use of Force to reporters or detractors, and never once had any of them take me up on it.

And that was most likely not including articles that were flat out lying

https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/10-debunked-heinous-lies-about-kyle-rittenhouse-devine/

For those of you seeking to understand the issues of the Rittenhouse case, this is of substantial value — it is written by a man with many years of experience with both weapons of all sorts used by non-military (including police) as well as teaching creds for both concealed weapons and use of force (including to police). It is not a LEGAL opinion, but it is a general summary of the issues which generally apply to the general situation, including the one which Rittenhouse found himself in:

https://monsterhunternation.com/2014/11/25/the-legalities-of-shooting-people/

To me, one of the most impressive things about Trump was his mental toughness when the media tried to take him down 24/7/365.

Robert verBruggen argued repeatedly in National Review that he ought to go to prison and complained after the verdict. Daniel J Flynn, the career conservative employed by the Young America’s Foundation, contended he was a sissy for defending himself with a pistol. Glenn Reynolds was congenially disposed to Zimmerman (the 2d Amendment is an important issue to him). AFAICR, the politicians said nothing.

IIRC, his composite SAT score was around 1300, which should be about adequate for admission to the generic private research university, or a selective private college, or the more selective half of the state research universities. The thing is, he wasn’t admitted by the University of Miami or Davidson College or the University of Florida, he was admitted to Harvard even though he’s not an athlete and he doesn’t have any diversity pokemon points. What sort of white male do the admissions examiners want? An arrogant and opinionated ass who spouts off about guns. Those types benefit from being humbled by experience, and they’ve gone and tossed lighter fluid on the fire.

Kyle done good. They will do all they can to make him pay for that. You are next.

The Right was also criticizing Obama for interjecting his personal feelz into so many situations, including the Zimmerman-Trayvon events, and may have felt it better not to behave in the manner they criticized.

Now, I think it’s time to take the gloves off.
Lauren Boebert is showing the way.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stephen-kruiser/2021/11/17/lauren-boebert-lights-up-democrats-hypocrisy-after-gosar-censure-n1534059

I’m also becoming quite fond of MTG:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/10/marjorie_taylor_greene_takes_on_the_rino_elites.html

Congresswoman [Marjorie Taylor] Greene said the left hopes that if it issues enough lies, the American people will believe them. She is confident, however, that Americans will see through the left’s lies and remarked that all it takes are “people of courage” to confront the left.