A Concrete Sidewalk and the Head of Kaylee Gain: Shades of Zimmerman and Rittenhouse

If the young teenage girl had been armed as Maurnice DeClue slammed her head into the concrete sidewalk with all her might, would she have been justified in firing her weapon into the belly of her tormentor?

I'm asking because her injuries are so awful that after Kaylee Gain was left twitching and convulsing with seizures on the sidewalk, she is still in hospital, risking permanent brain damage and even death. Could shooting "Little Miss Thugette" have prevented a dismal future for Kaylee's entire family? Update: 11 days later, the St. Louis teen is still unconscious, suffering from a fractured skull. (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah…)

You know why I am asking, dont'cha? This is exactly what Trayvon Martin was doing to George Zimmerman in February 2012 when the "white Latino" having his head smashed into the concrete pulled out his gun and fired it into the body of his tormentor.

What is it with leftists and/or blacks and/or a combination thereof — you know, the people who always go on and on and on lecturing us about tolerance and debate & discussion contrasted with hate and haters and bigots — that they are so consumed by… hatred for their (alleged) opponents (although in most cases they barely knew them personally, if at all) that the psychopaths go berserk in their willingness to engage in vicious violence that results in great bodily harm or death? 

(Similar question: what is it that our teachers (sic) have been teaching in schools and universities that their pupils and students behave this way?)

While leftists are always blabbering about fighting and defeating hate, nobody is hated as much in America or around the world (with the possible exception of the Israelis and the Jews) as America's Republicans, America's conservatives, and America's whites. 

(One benefit we can thank the left for is how well this makes a case for the Second Amendment…)

Think also of two Wisconsin events of August 2020 and November 2021 (one of them without racial overtones), Kenosha's Kyle Rittenhouse case and Waukesha's Christmas Parade massacre (we know far less about that event — the deadliest of all — because a white person was not the presumably responsible, or the presumably guilty, party and the latter turns out to be a member of a minority and therefore enjoys Hamas status).

Let's hear what Ann Coulter has to say:

there's only one ethnic group that sacralizes its criminals … The main problem facing the black community isn't that a sizable number celebrate its criminals, though that's bad. It's that there's such a sizable number of criminals to celebrate.

Related: • Comparing 3 Deadly Events — In Waukesha, Brooks killed twice as many people as Rittenhouse and the Charlottesville driver did combined
• The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables
• The Era of the Drama Queens: Every Crisis Is a Triumph

I was watching Dennis Prager's Fireside Chat in December 2021, which was also comparing the two Wisconsin events, and in response to the Left's charge that a 17-year-old should not carry a gun, Dennis made the case that in the United States, 17-year-olds are allowed… to… join the military. Now the army, navy, and air force are a source of stability in the U.S. (although the Left is hard at work trying to change that) so, at this point, it is appropriate to recall the famous quote by G K Chesterton,

The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but the because he loves what is behind him.'

In that perspective, it is altogether proper to return to the Badger State and ask the following question:

Did Kyle Rittenhouse go to Kenosha with an AR-15 because he is a white supremacist (or a Christian nationalist) who hates all Wisconsin rioters, and/or all leftists, and/or all blacks? 

Or did Kyle Rittenhouse go to Kenosha to protect the neighbors and the neighborhood where his loved ones (whatever the color of their skin) live (and work)?

The answer, of course, is that initially, Kyle Rittenhouse did not fight, he did not threaten the rioters, he did not flaunt his rifle.

We will expand on this issue, because what one of the prosecutors said in one of his final remarks regarding Rittenhouse, is essential to the case, and comparable to George Zimmerman and to Kaylee Gain…

Here are some of the arguments of the Kenosha prosecutors, revisited…

• Crossing State Lines

The image suggested is of unsavory far-right types driving hundred, if not thousands of miles — a redneck driving through the forests of Georgia (chewin' and spittin' tabaccah), a militiaman crossing the burning deserts of the West — to go to a place where they knew no one and had no place being.

In fact, the state line was, so I've heard, one mile away or so, while the place he went to was 20 minutes away, and all this in the very same urban area.

Which is far from uncommon.

Back in the 1990s, I met an Indian and his wife at a Paris event.

When he heard that I was planning a road trip from the West Coast East across the Rockies, he asked me to come visit him on his reservation in the state of Washington

When I flew into Seattle, I imagined dancing natives, falling shacks, rusting studebakers, howlin' winds, tumblin' tumbleweeds, perhaps even a wigwam and a drunken native lying in the dust.

In fact, the reservation was inside Seattle or inside a suburb of Seattle. On one side of the street, you were outside the reservation; on the other side, which looked exactly the same, you were inside the reservation.

Beyond that, it is somewhat surreal that those who want the nation's Southern border to be basically open could make such a fuss about state borders.

• Portraying Rittenhouse as a Sniper

When a prosecutor displayed the "Automatic Rifle" (sic) -15, he held the weapon up for what seemed minutes pointed at an audience, unarmed and seated in a way that they hardly able to budge — like a sniper on a battlefield, hard to spot and perhaps invisible to his enemies. 

Rightfully or otherwise, a sharpshooter calmly picks people off from a hiding place with no danger to himself — such as DC's Beltway Sniper did in 2002.

Let the rejoinder go to Ann Coulter, who explains that, besides not being on a battlefield,

Rittenhouse was not at a grade school, but in the middle of a riot that did $50 million in damage to the town of Kenosha

 … Name one "active shooter" in history who strolled about with a gun for hours, not shooting anyone -- until he was chased, cornered and assaulted. Rittenhouse had a gun not because he was violent, but because the "protesters" were, as the evidence abundantly demonstrated.

 … The same people who wanted to give Guantanamo war criminals civilian trials think an American who refused to acquiesce in his own murder didn't deserve legal representation.

Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial so that no one will dare stand in the way of the left's shock troops ever again.

And that seems to be sadly (albeit understandably) Kyle's reaction as well, as recorded by Fox News' Sam Dorman and Andrew Murray:

"[With] what I was dragged through and what I had to go through — to facing life in prison — I wouldn't say it was worth it," he said, adding, "hindsight being 20/20."

Rittenhouse has previously said going to Kenosha was "not the best idea."

But he noted, "Of course, defend yourself."

• Saying that Rittenhouse should have let himself be pummeled

And so here we come full circle back to the case of Kaylee Gain and to the left's admonishment of George Zimmerman: one of a Thomas Binger aide's final arguments was that Kyle Rittenhouse should not have made such a big deal about it, that he should just have accepted getting into a fistfight and even been willing to let his tormentors beat him up.

This is an insane argument. (Or, to quote our British readers, "not cricket".) Do you know sports? In a boxing match, in an MMA fight — not to mention simply a football match, a badminton match, or, for our British friends, a cricket match — where there is little to no animosity between players, fighters, or teams (there may even be a healthy dose of mutual respect, such as that in MMA fights where the loser, his face often bloodied and his nose sometimes broken, walks up to the winner and shakes his hand or even gives him a bear hug) — there are definite rules known to all (not to mention weight classes [so that a heavyweight doesn't engage with, say, a bantamweight] and [at least until the Woke movement reared its head] discrimination by sex) and, just to be sure, there is a nominally neutral referee present throughout the bout, ready to intervene.

How could Rittenhouse know — indeed, how on Earth could prosecutor Thomas Binger and his assistants know — that if Rittenhouse hadn't taken out his rifle or simply refused to fight back, he would only have received only bruises or scratches? Not a single soul would have slammed his head into the sidewalk or used the skateboard or his own rifle butt to crush his skull?

In this fairy tale, the prosecutors describe the leftist psychopaths exactly as how the right-leaning Rittenhouse did in fact behave.

Look at Maurnice DeClue. Look at Trayvon Martin. This is the type of person — multiplied by 30 or more — that Rittenhouse was faced with.

Only when the arsonists (several of them armed) became menacing, only when a mob started chasing him down, and only when the rioters tried to kill him (with a skateboard, which is perfectly capable of literally bashing a person's brains out, just like a concrete sidewalk is, or with a gun) — in response to his extinguishing the fire in a dumpster they were pushing towards a gas station (more of a hateful act or more of a loving act? I ask you) — did Rittenhouse shoot back. 

But not before trying a peaceful solution, i.e., running away from the confrontation, crying "Friendly" to assure them of his non-violent intentions, and attempting to seek cover from the (present but non-operating) police force.

Speaking of which: In a way, there is a kernel of truth in the charge that Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there and shouldn't have been carrying a gun? Police officers should have been there! Well, sure, we can all agree on that. All of us. And police officers ought to have been doing their jobs — with their guns. But they were not! (Thanks to Democrat politicians, leftist ideologues, and other Drama Queens.) Which is why civilians, young as well as old, took over their task…