Laymen and Their Brilliant Legal Opinions

Today’s disturbing evidence that Americans are subject to supernatural deception: leftists are saying the Rittenhouse verdicts set dangerous precedent.

We keep saying “verdict,” but there were a bunch of verdicts.

Leftists are claiming that as a result of the verdicts, it will now be relatively easy for conservative gunmen to go out in public carrying rifles and shoot whomever they want. Antifers are encouraging each other to buy guns and take them to riots or protests or whatever you choose to call them. The excuse is that they now face hordes of charged-up Rittenhouse clones who think they can’t be prosecuted.

Is there any point in writing about this idiocy? No one will be convinced by what I write, even though I will write truths that are self-evident. You will agree with me if you’re a reasonable person who agreed with me before reading this. Otherwise, there is very little hope the thick bone of your skull can be breached.

Here I go.

The Rittenhouse homicide verdicts did not set precedent of any kind.

In order for a case to set precedent, there has to be something novel about it. It has to change the law, usually by answering some question that hadn’t been answered in the past.

In order for precedent to be binding on a court, it has to be binding within the jurisdiction of whatever court it answers to. For example, let’s say a Florida state court in the Third Judicial District decides it’s illegal to put margarine on waffles, as it should be. Other judges in the same district, or even the same judge, can ignore the decision in other cases. A court in the Fourth Judicial District can ignore it. The Third District Court of Appeal can ignore or reverse it. A court in another state can ignore it. Federal courts can generally ignore it, although sometimes federal courts have to apply state law, and I don’t want to get into that subject, because I would have to Google. In jurisdictions where the decision is not binding, at best, it will be considered “persuasive.”

Rittenhouse was acquitted in the Kenosha County Circuit Court in Wisconsin. There are courts of appeal above the county circuit courts, and there are other circuits. There is no reason to think other Wisconsin circuits would automatically respect a Kenosha County decision, unless Wisconsin laws are peculiar. There is no reason to think the appellate courts or supreme court would feel bound. The federal courts in the area certainly would not, nor would any court outside of Wisconsin.

Actually, I believe Wisconsin courts are famous for decisions intended to curtail the use of margarine. But I digress.

In short, Kenosha County precedent isn’t precedent anywhere else.

Also dispositive: juries can’t set precedent. A precedent is a ruling of law. Juries don’t make those. They look at evidence, compare it with jury instructions, and decide whether the evidence and instructions match up. Jurors are not competent to make legal rulings. No one expects them to. The Rittenhouse verdicts were findings of fact, not law, delivered by a jury, not a judge.

Finally, the Rittenhouse case didn’t change the law surrounding self-defense. There was nothing novel or interesting about it, apart from egregious prosecutorial misconduct. It was cut-and-dried. A young man shot someone who tried to grab his rifle after chasing him down, on the same night the assailant threatened to kill the young man and cut his heart out. An armed mob tried to lynch the victim, and the victim shot some more attackers. Self-defense. Simple. What Rittenhouse did–using deadly force to defend himself, I mean–was legal in every state. It was legal in 1950. It was legal in 1900. Nothing new.

It would have been legal even if the mob had not been armed. There is no jurisdiction in which you are required to let a mob beat you instead of using deadly force.

If you’re a leftist, look at it this way. Imagine Kid Rock, George Zimmerman, Donald Trump Jr., James Woods, and 75 Proud Boys, all unarmed, chased Lil Nas X down and started beating him, and he shot some of them and ran off. Would you have a problem with his actions? Would you seriously complain that an armed gunman had shot unarmed protestors? You would think no one would be stupid enough to blame the victim.

The only interesting legal ruling in the case involved the judge’s refusal to try to enforce Wisconsin’s confusing law regarding minors and weapons. That ruling didn’t save Rittenhouse from a murder conviction, however. It was a separate issue, and the best leftists could have hoped for was a misdemeanor conviction, most likely followed by probation and, eventually, expungement.

So:

1. A Kenosha County Circuit Court ruling of law is not precedent, even in the Kenosha County Circuit Court.

2. A jury rendered the verdicts, and juries can’t set precedent.

3. No novel rulings were made with regard to the Rittenhouse homicide charges.

In other words, the Rittenhouse judge did nothing to make it easier or harder to shoot people.

Apart from the law regarding minors and weapons, which carries a misdemeanor penalty, and which will probably be revisited by the legislature in the aftermath of the judge’s refusal to enforce it, nothing will change.

The conclusions I’ve presented are not wild opinions. They represent centuries of well-settled law. They are irrefutable. They’re about as debatable as a statement that people who work in courthouse doughnut kiosks can’t rule on objections.

It’s really something, seeing leftists stand up for blatant, unquestionable prosecutorial misconduct. When did that become a leftist position? Aren’t they the people who fought for Miranda rights and free public defenders? Aren’t their chosen officials turning thieves loose right now in California and New York?

For centuries, leftists have been telling us the police and courts have to go easier on suspects and defendants and do more to protect their rights. The Bill of Rights is a leftist document. It was written by men who didn’t like all-powerful kings and their prosecutors. Now, suddenly, it’s a good thing when prosecutors run their ethics and their souls through the garbage disposal in order to convict the innocent.

I will never convince anyone, regardless of how obvious the truth is.

What I write here will never establish precedent in anyone’s mind.

Leftists have supported kangaroo courts in the USSR, China, and just about every other socialist country, so I should not be shocked.

The blindness we are seeing now is willful, and it is extreme. It should be impossible for so many Americans to believe things which are clearly, demonstrably untrue, and which have been proven untrue repeatedly all over the web and on global television. The only plausible explanation is that we are duped by evil spirits because most of us don’t know the Spirit of Holiness, who is the one in charge of opening eyes to reason.

Lately, I have been working on prophesying. You could say I’ve been practicing it. It has been getting easier and more fluent.

Sometimes I get angry when I read the news, and I feel like typing comments or fuming in private. I have to forgive people over and over and think about my own sins. I find that when I spend a long time praying in tongues and prophesying, the anger disappears, as does my interest in the news.

For years, I’ve been saying the Internet was going to be the Antichrist’s counterfeit version of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit unites God’s children and teaches them all exactly the same things. He brings peace and harmony by ending disagreement. He cleanses us of evil emotions and thoughts. He also commands us like an army. On the other hand, the Internet fills us with anger and disinformation. It gives different people different versions of facts. It spreads pornography. It encourages us to hate each other. It is being used to command mobs to do evil.

Yesterday I realized it made sense that prophesying and praying in tongues made things better. Doing these things is like surfing God’s Internet. We spend too much time on the web, absorbing filth, and not enough time being cleansed, informed, and refreshed.

I believe my experiences with tongues and prophecy confirm what God told me about the Internet and the Antichrist. There is always symmetry in the supernatural, because Satan has no original ideas. He has to copy God. He can’t create anything like the Holy Spirit, so he made a fake out of chips, screens, and wires.

If surfing Satan’s counterfeit causes problems, you would expect having the Holy Spirit flow through you to fix problems.

One thing I keep hearing goes like this: “Don’t worry about the people who will not listen. They can’t be saved, and they have no future.” Ominous. I also heard, “I am here to reap.” I hope that was God and not my imagination.

God has told us to covet prophecy, so obviously, we are expected to receive the gift. It would make no sense for him to tell us to set our hearts on something we can’t have. After all, he says, “Delight thyself also in the Lord, and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.”

I hope we don’t have to wait much longer. The thought of me sitting here typing blog entries in 2055, in a world where it is nearly impossible to tell men from women, is a little too much.