As most know, Kyle Rittenhouse has been found "not guilty" on all five counts brought against him. We can dispense with whether or not a 17-year old should have been in that situation. The fact is that he was and his life was threatened; at least that's what I would call it if people pointed a gun at me and were beating my head with a skateboard. What was he to do? Just suffer it in silence? He had no choice but to defend himself.
Well, Father Michael Pfleger got his panties in a wad over it. "A travesty" is what he calls Rittenhouse's acquittal. But you see, Pflegar really, really hates guns. In fact, he hates them so much that he took issue with a Chicago gun owner, stating that he (Pfleger) would "sufff" the gun owner. My post on the matter, complete with the clip where Pfleger uttered his charming screed, is here.
So on one hand a court of law recognizes that a young man defended himself from otherwise-certain murder. On the other hand, a Catholic priest threatens the life of a gun owner. Which one of these is the real travesty?
There is PLENTY of reason to think that Kyle should have been there, defending his village. Nay-sayers have a very very poor grasp of history, tradition, and honor.
ReplyDeleteHe acted. more like a man than many men do. I'm sick of people talking about his age. He was almost old enough to be in the military at boot camp. How many young men his age lied about their age to go to war in the 1930s. I'd be proud if he were a member of my family. It's too bad about the bad guys getting shot. They were the ones who should have stayed home instead of going out to loot and burn.
ReplyDelete