Pierce Bainbridge Statement on Kyle Rittenhouse 8-28-20

Uncategorized 1 Minute

Source: Scribd.

I expect we’ll hear that young Rittenhouse is a racist, at least structurally so since a) he is white, b) he was armed, and c) he was guarding a capitalist petro-chemical facility. Or, if none of that, then the Kenosha protests that night were “largely peaceful” until white supremacists from out of town infiltrated them, inciting arson, looting and teeth-gnashing among the godly idealists.

But I see Rittenhouse as emblematic. In terms of the Fourth Turning hypothesis he represents that part of his generation that will preserve society through the crisis. He belongs to the “hero generation” which at last will confront the consequences wrought by the artist, prophet and nomad generations that preceded it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss%E2%80%93Howe_generational_theory

He saw a job that needed to be done, and went to do it. Surely that much is clear, whatever we make of it.

Published by John Todd Roberts

Published

53 thoughts on “Pierce Bainbridge Statement on Kyle Rittenhouse 8-28-20”

  1. “He saw a job that needed to be done”…

    1) Not HIS job.

    2) He was acting illegally.

    3) He was not protecting property in his own city, or state even. Walking among the protesters with a long gun is not protecting; it is antagonizing.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Why would exercising his right to bear arms be antagonizing? How about the right to voice his opinion? Would that be antagonizing too?

      It is his absolute right to arm himself for protection against attack when he is doing an otherwise legal action, and protecting private property at the request of the owner is entirely proper.

      Not his job? True, it was the job if the police, but they weren’t doing it.

      If you see a child being swept away in a flood, it is not YOUR JOB to save him, so presumably you would watch him drown?

      Like

      Reply

      1. 17 year olds cannot possess arms without adult supervision in Wisconsin.

        But don’t fret, he killed and wounded protesters, so he is now a friggin’ hero on FOX.

        Not to long ago you complained that Obama had a smirk on his face that pissed you off.

        Well, what do you think of the strutting teen brandishing a rifle with a smirk on his face saying “I think I killed someone.”

        Pretty cool, huh?

        You betcha.

        Trump’s America looks a bit chaotic to me.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

          2. The picture of the teen smirking AFTER having shot someone.

            I place the blame for those deaths on the dead. They chose to attack a young man holding a rifle with a brick in a bag and a skateboard and a mob.

            Secondarily, on the mayor and the police who abandoned business owners and left them with no option other than to call on citizens for defense.

            Don’t forget, the teen was rendering first aid to injured protestors when he was attacked.

            Like

      2. In the same way the St. Louis couple pointed their LOADED weapons at people protesting walking PAST their house. The BS cries of threats to them are just that, BS. Their appearance at the RNC was sickeningly racist and unAmerican.

        Like

        Reply

          2. Considering that they had just torn down an iron gate to gain access to the neighborhood, they were not ‘pedestrians’ or ‘protestors’ they were rioters.

            Like

          3. One gate? Seriously?

            You are so anti-First Amendment for those who do not agree with your view that you would deny protesters access to the home of the Mayor. They had a stated goal and took the actions necessary to achieve it. They did NOT threaten anyone.

            Like

          6. Breaking a gate intended to limit entry to private property(which includes all the streets in the community, none are public property) is not protected by the 1st Amendment, it is breaking and entering.

            Like

          8. While I agree that is is bad form for a mayor to live in a gated community, it’s not like he could be forced to move by his neighbors in time for the rioters to get there.

            But that does not change the fact that the rioters invaded private property.

            Like

      3. Brandishing and use, not to mention that it is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to have a firearm.

        The request did NOT come from any property owner, but a right wing armed “militia” that put out a call to arms.

        And you are right. If the police had done their jobs he would have been arrested before returning to Illinois, where he lives, and there would be no need for an extradition hearing.

        And if he were at work that day at a pool, why would he take an assault style weapon with him?Sharks in the pool? Especially when it is illegal for him to have it in Wisconsin?

        Law were broken by this young person, just as others have vandalized personal property. You are screaming about charges being filed against them. And none of them took a life. Yet this kid gets cheered as a hero? WTF?

        Like

        Reply

          1. Short barreled rifles are not considered “concealed” weapons. He didn’t have that weapon concealed.

            Example:

            “He drove without a license (misdemeanor) but killed people when he drove into a crowd.”

            Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “He was acting illegally.”

    How so? What law did he break? Is there a law against certified lifeguards giving first aid to rioters?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “ Wisconsin law stipulates that “any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records.”

      https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. RE: “Wisconsin law stipulates that ‘any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.'”

      Your fact-checker, Politifact, is playing fast and loose with rhetoric.

      At issue is whether the rifle Rittenhouse was carrying meets the legal definition of a “dangerous weapon.” In Wisconsin, rifles and shotguns used for hunting (like an AR-15) are not normally so defined. Rittenhouse’s lawyer thinks he will beat the charge on that basis.

      Like

      Reply

      2. RE: “If an AR-15 is used for hunting, there ain’t a lot of meat left.”

        And yet, AR-15s are commonly used for hunting.

        Like

        Reply

      3. He killed two people with that weapon. What other definition is there for dangerous?

        If his lawyer is really good, then I suppose the underaged killer will escape punishment.

        Most armed Whites at BLM protests have been self styled right wing militias. I suspect the murder victims and the injured man were trying to de escalate what they perceived as a threat. A hyped up teenager with a rifle may or may not be the best arbiter of good judgement in a tense situation.

        So the underaged teen who shot 3 people, killed 2, is now a poster child for the right.

        As an aside, I wonder if a black teenager advanced towards to police vehicles waving his arms wildly with a rifle hanging off his body after numerous shot were heard would have been bypassed.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. …” I wonder if a black teenager advanced towards to police vehicles waving his arms wildly with a rifle hanging off his body after numerous shot were heard would have been bypassed.”

          They’d be planning his funeral. For whatever was left of his body.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      4. “Dangerous weapon” means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.”

        https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/i/22/10

        The killer was not carrying a rope or a taser so that leaves just the gun and we now know it was capable of producing death or great bodily harm.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. By that definition, all firearms are dangerous weapons, but that is not the legal definition.

          Legally, brass knuckles, and switchblade knives are dangerous weapons, as are short barreled rifles, but not pistols or standard rifles.

          Like

          Reply

          1. …” all firearms are dangerous weapons,”…

            No truer statement has ever been made. By legal definitions they may not be. But firearms are made to do one thing and one thing only: TAKE LIFE. If that ain’t dangerous, I’m not sure what is. Also, you can do a lot more physical damage from a further distance than with brass knuckles or a switchblade knife.

            Like

    1. My sentiments too. The White supremacists have been itching for a race war for decades. Now that they have a cohort, clueless or not, in the Oval Office, it is time to “Bugaloo”.

      I wonder who is paying those folks to show up and start trouble.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. Helter skelter. Pay them? Hell, like Manson, they’re itching for it. Crazy as a bedbug, but just 50,years ahead of his time, or maybe that’s just what the CIA wanted us to believe, or maybe not the CIA, just “Q”. Elect a 🤡 and the circus will follow.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

  4. Kyle Rittenhouse broke at least two laws and one commandment.  It is illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to open carry in Wisconsin.  He was also out past curfew.  He also killed two people.

    His first victim was Joseph Rosenbaum.  Rosenbaum was unarmed.  He wasn’t burning anything.  He wasn’t looting anything.  The most he was doing was shouting.  Kyle shot him five times, once in the groin, once in the back, once in left hand, once to his left thigh, and once to his forehead.  

    Video shows Kyle looking down at his victim as the crowd gathers around Rosenbaum, trying to stop the bleeding.  Kyle did not whip out his first aid kit and try to help.  He picked up his phone and is recorded saying, “I just shot someone” as he is running away.

    The next video is of Kyle running down the street with several unarmed people chasing someone they just saw kill a man… like you say good vigilantes should do.  Kyle tripped over is own feet and three men tried to disarm him.  Unfortunately, Kyle maintained possession of the gun and opened fire randomly on the crowd, killing one man and wounding another.

    Kyle lived to tell the tale because (a) the “violent protestors” were unarmed and (b) he wasn’t black so the police didn’t kill him.  In fact, he walked right past the police, still carrying his gun, with dozens of people on the street shouting “he just killed somebody!”  

    He strolled right past all the armored police cars and back into his mama’s arms, where the police finally found him the next day.  He’s not in jail.  He probably won’t face any serious penalties.  He’s being called a hero by people who have been terrified out of their minds by a President who tells them black people are coming to kill them.

    Kyle Rittenhouse is a gullible young man who believed the lies being told by the most divisive, destructive man ever to sit in the White House.  

    He went out looking for trouble and he found it.  Regardless of what happens in the courts, he has the blood of two unarmed men on his immortal soul.  And he will live with that for the rest of his life.  

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

  5. There are no videos showing the whole incident in context, though authorities may be able to assemble a timeline by piecing the various videos together.

    Rosenbaum was not “unarmed” as he swung a bag with a brick in it at Rittenhouse. I would have shot him too.

    I have never advocated unarmed vigilantes chase anyone. Guarding private property is a whole different thing, and very appropriate.

    When pursued, Kyle did not fire randomly into the crowd. He shot two more people, killing one who had struck him with a skateboard and kicked him. and wounded another who had fired a handgun and was trying to gain control of Kyle’s rifle.

    All three people shot had first attacked Kyle, who had tried to retreat before firing. They were not “protestors” they were assailants who attacked Kyle without provocation.

    Standing guard over private property at the request of the owner is not a provocation. It is what citizens have to do when the police are pulled back by the city.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Do you have sources for the brick in a bag assertion?

      Did the property owner specifically hire guards, or was it just a social media call to arms by right wing gangs?

      Even if Rittenhouse was somehow justified in killing his first victim, the people chasing him only knew that he had just fired his gun, hit a person and was fleeing the scene. Brave men they were who tried to subdue and disarm the man.

      Armed Whites showing up at protests would certainly be eyed as a threat by me or anyone who attended protests. The boasting and posturing on social media by those folks does not invoke confidence in their intentions.

      I imagine that soon the Black militias will arrive to confront the White supremacist gangs and we will have a wonderful “bugaloo” and shoots outs that should make for exciting news.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I’ll try to find the original article that claimed the heavy object in the bag was a brick, but for now, look at this video

        Rosenbaum pursuing Rittenhouse

        You can see that Rittenhouse was fleeing, with Rosenbaum in pursuit and that Rosenbaum throws the bag with the heavy object at Rittenhouse. The bag falls away and its contents pass over Rittenhouse’s right shoulder, but you can’t see that the object is a brick. You can see that it was heavy by the way the bag is thrown. Whether it was a brick or a can or a rock, a heavy object thrown using a plastic bag as a sling is a deadly weapon.

        If Black militias want to get involved to protect property, good for them, but if they join in to support rioters, arsonists and looters then you just might get that race war you liberals (and no conservatives) are always talking about.

        Like

        Reply

          1. I don’t know that to be true.

            From what I’ve seen, they resent the rich, and big corporations, just as much as Paul. They certainly aren’t fans of the free market.

            Racism is an ism of its own. I doubt either end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on them.

            But looking at our own group, it is only the liberals here that raise the subject. We few conservatives are the ones ready to let race go, but now we are told that striving for a colorblind society is racist.

            Like

          2. “…but now we are told that striving for a colorblind society is racist.”

            By whom?

            Limbaugh bringing “Joe and the Hoe” to the attention of his millions of conservative listeners is not exactly “letting race go”. It is making a huge deal about Harris’ dark skin.

            Or more recently, Trump’s nonsensical reference to plane loads of black dressed “thugs” that flew from someplace on some airline. No racist speech there.

            I think conservatives just don’t admit the problem and that it, like the coronavirus, will just magically disappear. (In warm weather?)

            IMHO

            Liked by 1 person

          4. That is one person’s opinion. I don’t agree with all of his premises.

            However, if he is Black, then we are getting a perspective from his experiences.

            Cultures evolve over centuries. And for us as a nation, that culture included codified racism. And our minorities developed coping mechanisms for living in such a hostile, even threatening, environment. Actions and words that had to be used, avoided or worked around in order to fit into the established order.

            These are passed down from generation to generation, from parent to child, and certainly has an impact, for good or bad.

            So we are on about our 2nd, maybe early 3rd, generation since the laws, not the norms, were changed. Blacks who came of age in the sixties didn’t wake up in 1965 with a clean slate. No, they passed on what they learned to their children and grandchildren.

            And it is the grandchildren who are protesting today.

            And it is not just about Michael Brown or Floyd, but about the myriad of outrageous cases like the shopper in Walmart shot by SWAT team members before he could even acknowledge their presence or identify himself. Or the 6 year old with a toy gun. Or the man getting his concealed permit as ordered. Or the man shot, but not killed, while getting his license as ordered. Or the man handcuffed in the back of a paddy wagon and deliberately tortured to death by a “rough ride”. Or LAPD under Gates who acted like the Brazilian death squads in favellas.

            Well, the grandchildren are saying that this has to stop.

            And then we get “Joe and the Hoe”. and wonder why race is still an issue.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. If you think his opinion is garbage that is your opinion. Like I said, I don’t agree with everything he says, but it is worth a read to learn where people are coming from.

            Let me ask something if I may.

            Did you agree that removing the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina statehouse a few years ago was a good thing? Remembering that the statehouse belong to all citizens and is paid for by taxpayers.

            That was probably the beginning of the effort to rename and remove Confederate memorials and statues.

            Second, do you agree that the Jefferson Memorial should be dismantled?

            I agree with the first, but not the second.

            The point is that there is a huge gray area in between and that will be part of the racial agenda for a while yet.

            And opinions will flow forth at a good clip.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “I agree with the first, but not the second.”

            I am in agreement with you on this. However, adding context to certain memorials is not a bad idea. A further HONEST explanation of the history of whoever is memorialized is not a bad thing.

            Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment