Where is the basic sense of honesty?

The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case allegedly said that you lose the right to self defense when you carry a gun, which is a transparently stupid thing to say. If you’re not sure about that, please find a local cop or armed security guard and tell him that. Or go to any of the states that permit concealed and/or open carry.

I don’t know for sure if the prosecutor actually said that. It’s very possible his words are being twisted to make them look ridiculous.

In either event, somebody is misrepresenting the situation to get the reaction they want. It might be the prosecutor, it might be the news, or it might be both.

This has become acceptable. We take it for granted that people — lawyers, politicians, pundits, reporters — will lie and distort to promote their position.

I believe this comes down to what people used to call the fear of God. Or at least the fear of sin, and its corrupting influence.

“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

We don’t believe in souls, or at least we don’t believe they can be forfeited. We believe in easy forgiveness. We don’t fear the idea that by intentionally sinning we might set ourselves on a path that leads to destruction. The end justifies any means.

This is not the mark of a healthy culture.

17 thoughts on “Where is the basic sense of honesty?”

  1. QUOTE: In either event, somebody is misrepresenting the situation to get the reaction they want. It might be the prosecutor, it might be the news, or it might be both. This has become acceptable. We take it for granted that people — lawyers, politicians, pundits, reporters — will lie and distort to promote their position.

    Totally agree. Likewise, a claim was made the president nor his administration wasn’t there to receive fallen military members from Afghanistan…despite verifiable video evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure what’s more disturbing, that this dynamic exists or people truly believe and spread these lies and distortions.

    That said, people tend to rehearse the problem and stop there. I’m wondering what is the solution to such a social sickness. I’d suggest it’s a moral problem and it will require a moral solution.

    1. I’ve often thought the only thing that’s going to save America is a religious revival. But given the types of popular religion out there today ….

      1. I’d say the issue and solution is bigger than America. Its root is in human nature and what it takes to change that nature.

    1. It seems analogous to the drug problem. People say, “if there wasn’t a market for illegal drugs, we wouldn’t have a problem.” Yeah. But people are addicted. And I think people are addicted to agenda-driven media. It taps into some deep need.

  3. Innocent on all counts. Some media are still spouting the same lies.

    IDK how anybody can be surprised about the Wisconsin verdict. The guy he wounded pointed a gun at him. The two others were felons threatening bodily harm…one of the felons was a 10x child molester threatening a juvenile. He’s no hero, but the verdict was right. Guilty of stupidity and especially the adults in his family that let him out.

    1. I have only recently taken a little interest in this case, and it seems this is another situation where the media decided on a “narrative” that had nothing to do with the facts.

      1. Just yesterday, the Detroit Free Press printed that the police “shot and killed” William Blake, the guy who the protests were about. William Blake is still alive.

    2. I understand how the jury got to their verdict and don’t dispute the outcome. Yet, it’s highly unfortunate that two people are dead as a result of this incident.

      That said, given the context it seems more than one narrative is plausible. In all the confusion, I could easily see why some might assume Rittenhouse was an armed threat and attempting to disarm him. “If” that was the perspective of the armed deceased, it makes sense that he might have pointed a gun at Rittenhouse and why others were chasing him. At the same time, it’s feasible that Rittenhouse thought his life was in danger. Since neither could read each other minds and this required “in-the-moment” judgment in a highly stressful situation, I could see both sides making faulty assumptions that led to fatal consequences.

      As well, I don’t give too much credence to the criminal backgrounds of the deceased. It wasn’t like they knew Rittenhouse was going to be there nor pre-planned an attack on him. People with clean criminal records may have responded in the same way “if” they felt Rittenhouse was an armed threat.

      I had questions about some of the decisions of the judge. Albeit “legal”, they didn’t always give the sense of objectivity. The jury instructions were a nightmare! As well, the prosecution seemed to present their case in a ham-handed manner, at times.

      My main concern is that extremes on both sides will prompt residual issues. On one side, Rittenhouse will be declared a hero and encourage others to follow his example. If Matt Gaetz has his way, he’ll be a congressional intern. On the other side, rioting and property damage by those who are uninformed about the dynamics of the case. As well, the Wisconsin law that was in question seems to lend itself to potential vigilantism. It should be assessed to see if it really gets to the intended outcome. Of course, I have very little hope that will happen!

      1. It certainly was a regrettable situation all around.

        I don’t think Rittenhouse should have been walking around with an AR-15, but we need to pin most of the the blame on local government and law enforcement, who allowed the situation to get to the point that citizens felt the need to take the law into their own hands.

        1. Indeed…there’s lots of blame to go around. As you, I’d assign blame to local government/law enforcement. As well, Rittenhouse’s parents, social media and others that gave him the impression that taking this course of action was acceptable.

          1. Anybody blaming the guys who attacked Rittenhouse? Are you gonna blame the guy who tackled him, or swung a skateboard at his head, or pointed a gun at him, or chased him aggressively through an auto dealership?

            Seems to me if you assault a guy with an AR-15, you are begging to win a Darwin award.

            1. Rittenhouse told us his motivation for shooting…fear for his life. The deceased unfortunately cannot tell us their motivations…Rittenhouse’s actions took that option away. Given that, in this context, it’s plausible to assume they (and the third shooting victim) were trying to do whatever it took to disarm a perceived treat. Unfortunately, these days it’s become commonplace for civilians that show up with assault weapons to have an intent to shoot to kill. “If” that was the case, like Rittenhouse, they too feared for their lives. So, it’s a bit harder for me to blame them for trying to protect themselves and others. In hindsight, it would have been better if they hadn’t attacked Rittenhouse. Yet, in those in-the-moment, high intensity circumstances, their actions seem reasonable.

              That said, I place the greater onus on Rittenhouse. His reckless behavior set into motion a chain of events that led to him getting assaulted, the death of two people and the severe injury of another.

Comments are closed.