Wisconsin verdict

Regarding "Rittenhouse cleared in Wis. Shooting" (Nov. 20): When I first saw the verdict on the big TV screen at the gym, I thought I was seeing a mistake. This must be wrong, I said to myself. No, it was true.

Jurors in the case insisted they had taken apart the videos frame by frame in a vain attempt to discover who attacked whom. But the problem that the jury missed was that vigilantes like Rittenhouse and others are using self-defense and stand-your-ground laws to cover a problem that they created. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse was not there. No one would have been killed if he had not brought a gun. And no one would have been killed had Wisconsin not had an open carry law. The police said so many people had guns they couldn't tell who the criminals were.

The minute he brought that weapon into the streets of Wisconsin he gave up his right to self-defense. He was the aggressor. He became the threat.

If we tolerate this, more people will bring more guns to peaceful protests. There will inevitably be more shootings, more claims of self-defense. Peaceful protester may have to give up their First Amendment rights. Intimidation of protesters by vigilantes will worsen.

The jury missed the forest for the trees.

Robert L. Fischer, Houston

Once again, a letter writer (Tuesday, Nov. 23) evidently ignored the facts of the (Rittenhouse) case, if they actually watched the trial itself. Probably picked up little tidbits of distorted news from the readers on CNN and MSNBC who had already tried and convicted Rittenhouse and who continue to do so even though the trial is over and a verdict rendered, and who have now turned their ire on the judge and jury.

No matter that prosecution team is guilty of numerous acts of “prosecutorial malfeasance,” including withholding evidence and misrepresenting facts, even to the point the presiding judge had to openly admonish them several times. No matter that the state's witnesses refuted key state evidence against Rittenhouse.

In addition, while the letterwriter chastises Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. Greg Abbott for speaking their opinions regarding Rittenhouse's guilt or innocence before and during the trial based on evidence submitted, he conveniently fails to mention that our president also went out of bounds and linked Rittenhouse in an early campaign video, before one bit of evidence was presented, to “white supremacists.”

J. Jones, La Porte

I can only suggest that the critics of the outcome would perhaps have a better understanding of the verdict had they watched the trial, rather than relied upon the selective commentary issued by pundits and many of our so-called mainstream media. I believe that the verdict was a just one. That said, if there is guilt to be attributed, perhaps it should be directed at the state of Wisconsin for not protecting its people and property, and the media for fanning the flames of hatred just for higher ratings.

Thankfully, all Americans can go to sleep now knowing that we still have the right to defend ourselves and our families from those who would put our lives in danger. Though the main focus of the trial was the guilt or innocence of Rittenhouse, the underlying factor was whether we still retained the right to defend ourselves from those whose actions put our lives in jeopardy. Many, of course will disagree, and others would rather put their fate in the hands of criminals who don't know the meaning of the word “mercy.”

For more than a decade, I felt this once-great country was circling the drain. Then, in a small town in Wisconsin, 12 brave Americans followed the evidence while in the cross-hairs of the mob outside the court house and the fake-news media. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. Americans need to stand for law and order, period. Now that Rittenhouse has been completely vindicated, the haters look like complete fools. The next question is: Who will be the media's next victim?

Mike Ganis, Houston