To the Editor:
Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted of five criminal charges. It was a legal decision by the jury.
But is it a sound moral decision? I submit it was a morally flawed decision. It made the law look like an ass!
It is the product of a morally corrupt law that allows a 17-year-old to travel across state lines with an assault rifle with a 30-round magazine, which was illegally obtained through a straw man and eventually killing two and seriously injuring one under a questionable right to self-defense. The respective state legislatures that have allowed open carry have contributed significantly to this outcome. We are far from safer with these irresponsible laws.
What the open carry enthusiasts don’t understand is the appropriate civil sanctions that can be rendered. In Rittenhouse’s case facts, a civil case by each of the shot victims, against him will certainly raise the issue of what training preceded the event of that terrible day. It is the height of moral responsibility to recognize that rights have accompanying responsibilities. The person invoking the right to bear arms must recognize the duty of the reasonableness of using it. While Rittenhouse may claim self-defense, a civil jury will use a lower of standard of proof than the criminal standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. Rittenhouse is not out of the woods yet. He faces federal charges of illegally carrying an illegally obtained firearm across state lines. He will face crushing civil fines for his grievous and egregious moral failures. What college would accept his application? In the civil law arena, the law is not an ass as it penalizes those who have acted in a egregious moral way.
Village of Virginia Trace