From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse: A Decade of Woke Misrule

Source: American Thinker.

The writer recounts key details of the Trayvon Martin case and connects the false narrative of George Zimmerman’s guilt to the false narrative of Kyle Rittenhouse’s guilt. I doubt the insight will have much effect.

A strange type of thinking has become commonplace today. It is the habit of reasoning from penumbras. Thus, for example, if Zimmerman and Rittenhouse can be portrayed as being defective in some general way, then the particular actions for which they faced judgement must have been defective, too. Short form: I don’t like the guy; therefore he must be guilty.

26 thoughts on “From George Zimmerman to Kyle Rittenhouse: A Decade of Woke Misrule

  1. Uh, you have that backwards.

    The short form is “I don’t like the guy; therefore killing him is justified.”

    The long form is the extreme lengths that “conservative” media go to demonize the victims of police and vigilante violence with a variety of real and imaginary transgressions in their past which have NOTHING to do with the circumstances of their deaths.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “The long form is the extreme lengths that “conservative” media go to demonize the victims of police and vigilante violence with a variety of real and imaginary transgressions in their past which have NOTHING to do with the circumstances of their deaths.”

      Nice penumbra. Not real, but then penumbra’s don’t need to be real.


      1. “Nice penumbra?”
        WTF are you talking about?

        The word “penumbra” has two actual meanings. One in astronomy and one in Constitutional law. Neither makes any sense in this context.

        My statement about the lengths you people go to demonize the victims of police and vigilante violence is true and EASILY proven.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “WTF are you talking about?”

          As stated: “A strange type of thinking has become commonplace today. It is the habit of reasoning from penumbras.”


          1. As stated: “A strange type of thinking has become commonplace today. It is the habit of reasoning from penumbras.”

            That makes zero sense. What do you think a “penumbra” is? Maybe you are thinking of some other word?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Which dictionary is that? And what is the definition they offer?

            My dictionary (Merriam Webster) says : “the partially shaded outer region of the shadow cast by an opaque object.”

            Your non answer means that you are just throwing out words that tickle you for some reason without reference to ANY meaning.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “Which dictionary is that?”

            Mine is the OED, from which your dictionary is derived. I use the term in its proper sense, both in astronomy and law.


          4. “I use the term in its proper sense, both in astronomy and law.”

            That is far from obvious and whatever you are trying to say is totally hidden.

            You are using a noun as an adjective when you refer to “penumbra reasoning.” What does that mean?
            What are the characteristics of “penumbra reasoning.” You give me credit for a “nice penumbra” but elaborate by saying that penumbras don’t need to be real? Uh, penumbras ARE real.

            If you are trying to create a new metaphor, maybe you better explain it. Or we can just accept that all it means when you use it is that you do not like a fact such as the fact that “conservative” media goes to great length to demonize the individual victims of police and vigilante violence.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I suggest our Democrat friends take this opportunity to cling to their last shred of rationality.

    In both the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases, self-defense clearly applied. Back during the Zimmerman case. Len even confirmed that with a friend who is a retired judge.

    In the Rittenhouse case, even with all the false narrative over a year, a jury found self-defense applied on every count.

    Yet the left just cannot accept that simple truth.

    That is not just political bias, it is insanity.

    Social justice, whatever that is supposed to be, does not change reality. If you are so committed to your social justice narrative that in your mind it trumps truth, get help.


    1. “In both the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse cases, self-defense clearly applied.”

      No, it did not. It was very much at issue.

      The standard under the law of most states is that “self defense” does not apply to the aggressor – the person that instigated events. If you punch someone and he comes at you in response, you cannot assert “self defense” in most states. Both of these were cases where the killer precipitated the events that lead to tragedy by acting as vigilantes and threatening people with guns. The “not guilty” verdicts arose from the absurd gun lover laws in Florida and Wisconsin which create nearly impossible burdens for the prosecutors.

      Your impugning the rationality and sanity of people who see the world differently than you is laughable. Juries make mistakes and seeing that they have done so is not a sign of irrationality. Being blind to it might be. I will bet a dollar against a donut that you believe that OJ murdered his wife and her friend.

      Finally, if you are going to impugn the sanity of others and urge that they seek help because they do not agree with you, I could respond by going into your very long record of hypocrisy, double standards, baseless slanders, stream of “alternative facts,” and your obviously emotional and irrational love of your arsenal and fear of the government. None of which is particularly rational. But, I won’t.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Simply untrue.

        First, neither Zimmerman nor Rittenhouse met any legal standard of being an aggressor. Your hoplophobia does not an aggressor create.

        Just as importantly, even if they were aggressors, they do not lose their right to self-defense. They incur an obligation to disengage and retreat as far as possible before using lethal self-defense, Both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse retreated as far as possible before firing.

        So, yes, by fact and law, self-defense does apply in both cases.

        Note Len’s comments


        1. “hoplophobia?”

          You love that word don’t you? So cute!

          I assure you, I am not afraid of guns. In fact, I have two.

          What does induce fear in a rational person is seeing someone carrying a gun where they do not belong. Try walking calmly into a Walmart with one of your AR15s properly carried in the low ready position and see what happens.

          That normal reaction would be intensified in the case of a street confrontation. The display of such weaponry was akin to announcing that you are an active shooter about to run amok. That is how people took it and that is how they reacted.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. It would be rude to carry an AR in WalMart at normal times. If, on the other hand, mobs were burning cars in the parking lot and throwing bricks at random people, it would be entirely appropriate.


          2. Rude, eh?

            People would just say, “Oh my, how rude!” Would that be before or after they called the cops to deal with you? Or maybe before they pulled out their little friend to shoot you because their lifelong wish to be a hero instead of a zero was finally at hand? The fact that you cannot simply accept is that the displaying a gun is a very good reason to be fearful of the jackass doing so. No hoplophobia required.

            And that goes double when there is a civil disturbance. With that riot going on, how are law enforcement supposed to know that you are a good guy with a gun? Because you are white, I suppose. A black man would be gunned down immediately. And who would you be there to kill for stealing rotisserie chicken? Deadly force to protect property is illegal. As to that hypothetical brick thrower, the law requires you to get out of the way and not advance shooting your weapon.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I don’t see many long rifles in stores but I do see, and getting more frequent, folks open carrying handguns. Personally I prefer concealed and that’s why I have concealed carry. Open carry does not induce fear in me and I consider myself a rational person. Maybe your fear is derived from somewhere else. Since you own 2 guns you should understand a gun is not going to somehow discharge rounds without human assistance. I’m curious when was the last time you actually fired the guns you claim you have…..never mind……I’m quite sure you will tailor the answer to fit your narrative.


          4. Calvin, I will ignore your insult about my honesty and simply answer your question. I have two long guns which I have not fired in years. However, I keep fresh ammunition handy and one of them loaded but not chambered – a lever action 30-30 – in a hidden but handy location for the extremely unlikely event of a home invasion. I believe in my right to be armed and to defend my life and that of my spouse with deadly force if ever required to do so.

            It is not the guns that people carry that induce fear. It is – as you point out – the person who might use the gun – a person who chooses to go armed to the Walmart or restaurant. There is something very wrong with a very high percentage of such people, IMHO.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. How about the Abrey case? Self defense applies to the shooter because he pulled a shotgun out to threaten someone who just happened to be jogging through the neighborhood and when confronted tried to protect himself from some self-appointed LE “agent”?


      1. Nope. the verdict was correct.

        They did not meet the standards for citizen’s arrest posted earlier. Having instigated the confrontation, they had a duty to disengage and retreat before using deadly force. They did not.

        The jury was correct, they are guilty.


        1. It is worth noting that the prosecution of the vigilantes who ran down and murdered Arbery almost did not happen. No arrests were made for more than two months even though the killers were known to the police, prosecutors and community. It is likely that the case would NEVER have been prosecuted had the killers themselves not publicized the video of their “exploit.” Seems they thought their actions would be approved by the people of their community. They may have been right about that.

          So, even though justice was finally served, it was slow in coming and might not have happened at all. Had three black men run down and murdered a white jogger, justice would have been far swifter and not depending on the stupidity of the killers. Without any doubt and that is why BLM is a righteous movement.


          1. “If you got a pony for Christmas, you’d complain about the teeth”

            So, in this analogy, the justice system actually providing justice for a black victim is kind of like a special gift from the white folks? Don’t expect another pony any time soon, eh?

            I stand by my point in spite of your silly rebuke. The fact that this egregious, racially motivated crime was not vigorously prosecuted from day one and only got the attention it deserved because of the stupidity of the criminals is evidence – compelling evidence – that the justice system does not work like it should for non-white people. The Black Lives Matter movement has a righteous cause whether you and the other European Civilization Chauvinists have the basic humanity to acknowledge it or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. BLM has a pretense, not a cause.

            Certainly there has been a failure of justice for Blacks for a long time, but BLM is a fundraising operation with Marxist ideology and the usual corrupt, rich leadership.


          3. “BLM has a pretense, not a cause.”

            Black Lives Matter is a MOVEMENT of tens of millions of people and groups in this country and around the world. With so many people and groups to choose from it is easy for racists to find someone who is “corrupt” or “Marxist” to whine about in order to resist addressing the issues they raise. That you – with the help of the lying liars of “conservative” media – MAYBE can find this or that person who dishonestly exploits the cause does not change the fact that it is a righteous cause. Duh!

            This is an old story. All of the civil rights groups and leaders from the 1960’s onward were portrayed in the same dishonest way – all of them were corrupt, Marxists, libidinous or worse. That you STILL join in such nonsense, does you no credit.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. So asshole thugs and social justice rioters attack people with intent to kill or maim, torch cities, destroy private property, loot private business, attack police among other crimes and the lefties don’t think they should suffer the consequences? You people are demented losers….


    1. Your statement that “lefties don’t think they should suffer the consequences” is nonsense.

      Everybody should pay the price for committing crimes. In the case of BLM protests there have been people piggy-backing on to loot and burn. Some of them are just “asshole thugs”, some are opportunist thieves and some are false flag right wing militia types. ALL of them should pay the price for the crimes they commit. That is NOT the issue.

      The issue is, who is going to make them pay. It should NOT vigilantes. It should be the police, prosecutors and courts in the jurisdiction where they commit the crimes.

      Why not vigilantes? Try thinking about it.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s