Rittenhouse defended himself

Liberal media and Democrat leadership are promoting the idea that Rittenhouse was a vigilante, and therefore loses his right to protect his own life, and they want him guilty of murder. Call it the "he's-guilty-because-he-shouldn't-have-been-there argument."

So if Kyle meets the definition and we want to find guilt, shouldn't we be asking what creates a vigilante? It takes two ingredients. The first, an injustice or crime. The second, the feeling by citizens that the legal authorities are inadequate to protect people from the injustice or crime. From this it is logical that people will conclude they need to protect themselves and offer help to their fellow citizens. Is there any question that the agencies who are supposed to protect were failing in Kenosha and have been failing in cities all over the country for the last three years? How many burning buildings and looted stores do we need to see on our TVs to get that?

Call Kyle a vigilante if you want, but we should not pretend that something is not lacking when police are told to stand down and just watch the crime happening. Who told them that? If there is guilt, should the finger point in that direction? Yes, Kyle Rittenhouse might have been doing something that wasn't officially his job. But it was a job that needed to be done and he does not lose his right to self defend his own life because he stepped up.

DR. PAUL CLARKE, Cape Girardeau