This week we’re doing a special early episode of the podcast. The Dispatch’s David French joins the show to discuss his reaction to the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.
David has been at the center of controversy for the past several years for his staunch criticism of former President Donald Trump. Now, he’s generated more criticism for his opinion on the Rittenhouse case.
We discuss the details of the case and why David believes the not guilty verdict was the correct one. He argues Rittenhouse did not commit murder as a matter of law. However, he argues Rittenhouse was no hero either.
We also debate where the line is for appropriate use of force during a riot. When is it appropriate to use a gun to defend property? Is it ever?
Plus, David believes the open carry of rifles is inherently a problem and could be legally restricted. We debate the merits of open carry and of banning it.
You can listen to the full podcast on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here.
You can also watch the episode on our YouTube channel.
2 Responses
I realize I’m somewhat of an outlier in this view, but I wholeheartedly disagree that deadly force should not be allowed to defend property. David French makes the case that life is more valuable than property. Obviously, I agree with that basic premise. However, we disagree on what constitutes my life. For example, I earned what I have, and I spent a significant portion of my life to earn that which use to purchase the things I have. This is even more the case for someone who owns a business which is under threat by those who would take it away by destruction or theft. If I am visibly armed (given that in my jurisdiction concealing a long gun is illegal) to defend my property against a mob, my hope is that it would serve as a deterrent to illegal behavior. The rioters or other criminals are willing to take or destroy the portion of my life spent earning that property.
Yes, my openly carrying a rifle or shotgun is indeed intimidating. But who would be intimidated? That’s an important question that must be answered, the question of intent. If I am at my home or business, I’m not attempting to intimidate the general public, only those who would commit a crime against me or my business. If someone is dedicated to committing that crime, especially given that I have provided a very visible warning that doing so comes with potential immediate consequences, they have assessed that my property is more valuable to them than their own life is.
I agree with their assessment.
Unfortunately, my state does not agree with my view. Perhaps I should consider moving to a different state, but that’s for a different day.
We absolutely do agree that it is the rioters who are the primary bad actors who have forced the hard choices on the law-abiding citizens. David French is far more trusting in the ability of law enforcement to stop bad actors than I am. Given that two US Supreme Court cases have ruled that it is not the duty of the police to protect the individual citizen from attack, I think my view is more realistic in the general case and even more so in the case of riots and the local breakdown of the rule of law.
I think I agree much of what you’re saying here. It’s a hard issue when you’re looking at a chaotic situation like a riot. David’s point about property being lesser than life is salient. But, I do wonder what people are supposed to do if law enforcement isn’t preventing the destruction of their businesses.