The sunshine patriots are at it again, folks. In either another unreciprocated attempt to appear even-handed, or from a deep sense of shame at their own meekness, a number of conservatives are bleating that, while they support Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal, they nonetheless take pains to emphasize that he is not a hero.
Tom Slater at Spiked writes that Rittenhouse should have stayed at home. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune also writes that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there, and that he’ll carry the “stain” of this forever. Tiana Lowe at the Washington Examiner writes that Rittenhouse’s victimization doesn’t automatically confer heroism, and that he “should never have gone to an active riot zone in defiance of a curfew.” Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (who defended Jeffrey Epstein in court and who argues the age of consent for sex should be fifteen) likewise says Rittenhouse shouldn’t have come to Kenosha.
Former police chief Dan Llorens lets readers know six times that Rittenhouse is “no hero” and speculates that, as Rittenhouse grows older, “perhaps he will begin to understand.” Because nothing wins over a skeptical audience like belittling condescension. Yet, one wonders how the Kenosha police officers -- the ones actually there during the riots -- felt about the armed citizen patrols as they handed them bottled water and told them, “We appreciate you guys, we really do.” Perhaps Llorens could lecture these officers about their need to “begin to understand.”
To the aforementioned commentators, allow me a polite suggestion. Next time your country, city, or neighbor needs some fellow citizens willing to step up, take your own advice and stay home. There is some clear misunderstanding on your part as to the meaning of heroism. If being a hero means penning opinions from the safety of our computers,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I presume that this is controversial enough!
Tom Slater at Spiked writes that Rittenhouse should have stayed at home. John Kass of the Chicago Tribune also writes that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there, and that he’ll carry the “stain” of this forever. Tiana Lowe at the Washington Examiner writes that Rittenhouse’s victimization doesn’t automatically confer heroism, and that he “should never have gone to an active riot zone in defiance of a curfew.” Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (who defended Jeffrey Epstein in court and who argues the age of consent for sex should be fifteen) likewise says Rittenhouse shouldn’t have come to Kenosha.
Former police chief Dan Llorens lets readers know six times that Rittenhouse is “no hero” and speculates that, as Rittenhouse grows older, “perhaps he will begin to understand.” Because nothing wins over a skeptical audience like belittling condescension. Yet, one wonders how the Kenosha police officers -- the ones actually there during the riots -- felt about the armed citizen patrols as they handed them bottled water and told them, “We appreciate you guys, we really do.” Perhaps Llorens could lecture these officers about their need to “begin to understand.”
To the aforementioned commentators, allow me a polite suggestion. Next time your country, city, or neighbor needs some fellow citizens willing to step up, take your own advice and stay home. There is some clear misunderstanding on your part as to the meaning of heroism. If being a hero means penning opinions from the safety of our computers,
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I presume that this is controversial enough!
