The War Against Self Defense: Muslim Reflections on the Rittenhouse Case
The Rittenhouse trial not only saw the full force of the corporate media mobilize to slander and demonize a teenager for engaging in clear self defense, but it also featured prosecutorial misconduct that highlights the injustice of the secular legal order.
The liberal regime has always clamoured to take away the ability of the people to defend themselves, and this trial served to highlight some of their most nefarious methods.
Kyle was part of a group that organised to protect their community after police refused to respond to the 2 days of looting and arson for political reasons,
which resulted in upwards of $50 million in damage to private property. This affected small local businesses the most, and while the political effort to eliminate small independent businesses is also to be highlighted, it is the topic for another day.
While protecting a local business from would be arsonists, Kyle was isolated by the mob and attacked by several rioters, who hit him over the head, attacked him with blunt objects, attempted to grab his gun and drew a gun to his head.
The
two assailants he killed in self defense turned out to be a pederast with five victims ages ranging from nine to eleven, and a repeat domestic abuser who told his brother that if he didn’t start cleaning a room in his house he was going to “gut him like a pig” while holding a 6-inch butcher’s knife to the brother’s stomach. The
third assailant, who pointed a gun at Kyle and got his bicep vaporised, also turned out to be an ex-felon
associated with a group called “The People’s Revolution” who was not permitted to carry that weapon.
None of these assailants were black men, as some media outlets
mistakenly reported.
The events of that day were captured on camera from many different angles, which allowed for legal commentators to analyse the action thoroughly.
It was telling even before the case that while independent legal commentators with integrity, including
Andrew Branca, the preeminent legal expert on self defense law, concluded that the acts fit perfectly within legal self defense, the commentators on mainstream media sought to forge a narrative around villainising him being on the scene in the first place.
This was also present in the court room, which featured such hits from the prosecution as “everybody takes a beating,” by which the prosecutor tried to shame Kyle for not dropping his gun and allowing the assailants to beat him to a pulp.
This was the least of the prosecution’s evils, as the trial featured them violating Kyle’s constitutional rights in several ways.
AP News reported:
It is important to highlight the brazenness of the prosecutors, even in this highly publicised case which was broadcast live. One can only imagine the injustices visited upon people in cases where there is no public scrutiny and live coverage. While this bastion of “enlightened western rule of law” claims to afford many rights and procedural protections to the accused, in reality the state tramples over all of them whenever they want.
RELATED: The Intolerance, Brutality, and Burden of Secular Law
RELATED: Vaccine Religious Exemptions: Secular Law Won’t Protect You
This is why, even though Kyle was rightfully acquitted, the right to self defense is still under siege. Kyle had the advantage of his self defense having been captured on camera, almost $3 million raised for his bail and legal defense, and appearing before a seemingly sympathetic jury. It is unlikely that the next person who shoots in self defense will be afforded the same, and having seen what we have seen in court, it is unlikely that one can prevail without these advantages. This is certainly not by accident.
The co-prosecution, both in the court by the state and in the court of public opinion by the corporate media, is indicative of the disdain by which liberal western thought has come to abhor the concept of people being able to defend themselves. Even the
president and the
vice president of the United States have expressed their displeasure at the verdict.
This kind of demonization of anyone who dares to protect themselves or their property is nothing new, as the
McCloskeys learned the hard way that you aren’t even allowed to arm yourself to deter violent rioters away from your house.
The secular state is always in search for more power, as it is the resulting tool of people who in submission to their greed and ego refuse to submit to their Maker. A monopoly of force, which would result naturally from the erosion of the right to defend oneself, one’s family and community, is for them both a goal in itself and a powerful tool: A population that cannot defend itself can be ruled through fear and abused into submission regarding anything else the state might want to impose.
The event that started all of this, the Kenosha riots, and the refusal by the state to deploy police, highlights that it is foolish to assume the state will reliably protect you, as the secular state operates on political expediency, not justice.
Our every other article on MuslimSkeptic also shows that there are many things that secular states want to impose upon you, your family, and your communities. These should serve as powerful reminders to safeguard your right to be armed and right to self defense.
The Rittenhouse trial not only saw the full force of the corporate media mobilize to slander and demonize a teenager for engaging in clear self defense, but it also featured prosecutorial misconduct that highlights the injustice of the secular legal order. The liberal regime has always clamoured...
muslimskeptic.com