Wiggy Gets His NeverTrump Snit On

James Wigderson, a devoted follower of Sykes (who has walked off the cliff), has moved into name-calling snittery over Kyle Rittenhouse.  He sets it up with just a soupcon of erudition to put the deplorables in their place, thinking that they cannot translate "vincula" into "chains".  Wiggy's been to Rome, you know.

That 17-year-old kid is not a hero. He was a vigilante.

How about the more accurate term "guardian", James?

We dealt at some length with the Rittenhouse question a few days back.  James Wigderson may or may not have read the essay--he has a real job with a local utility, after all--but perhaps he should be acquainted with the broader outlines before he snits himself to death.  (There is quite a bit of moral theology involved; it is apparent that Wigderson is not familiar with that perspective on the issue).

James carries on about "crossing state lines" and "not trained."  All of that is totally irrelevant to the real question:  did Rittenhouse act for the Common Good--particularly the protection of property rights--or not?

Clearly, the answer is yes.  

Regardless, Wiggy snittifies more:

He had no law enforcement training. He had no military training. He was just a minor with a rifle.

So what?  In the case at hand, Rittenhouse exercised remarkable trigger discipline and--as Wiggy should have noticed, he did exactly what all the books tell you:  if possible, run away from armed conflict.  He used the weapon only when it was the last resort, in self-defense, as Wiggy concedes.  So what are the  "age" and "training" objections?  As a reminder, a large number of Revolutionary War soldiers were also very young and not trained.  Same with the Civil War.  So what? 

Wiggy's been to Rome, you know.  So with that as foundation, Wiggy pronounces Moral Judgment.

...Rittenhouse anticipated violence, he precipitated violence and he committed violence. Self-defense or not, that shooting would not have occurred if he had stayed home. His poor decision led to two deaths and the wounding of a third person. He may be acquitted, but the blood spilled is still his fault....

Rittenhouse correctly anticipated violence, but he did not "precipitate" it.  He extinguished two fires set by insurrectionists (a term which is apparently foreign to Wigderson, but it's right there in the Gospel of  Luke 23:19 & 25.  The point is that insurrectionists are a danger to society.  They are inimical to the common good which Rittenhouse was there to protect.

Did you know that Wiggy's been to Rome?  He's very sophisticated, you know.  Just ask him.  Or you can read this:

The praise he is receiving from some quarters of the political right is wholly undeserved and actually quite disturbing. I suspect it’s partly coming from people with guns with fantasies of their own about playing cowboy and stopping the bad guys.

Can you spell "condescending"?

James, please review the Preamble:

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,...

Common good, James.  Remember that other phrase having to do with the right to the pursuit of happiness?  To the Founders, "happiness" included the acquisition of property and in Natural Law we also find a right to property.  Hmmmm.

So Rittenhouse was defending the property rights of his neighbors.  Does distance mean they are NOT "neighbors"?  OK, then--although the 'distance' argument is fatuous given the gravity of the event--let's put it this way:  should anyone from Wausau defend the property of Wigderson in Waukesha if it is under serious attack from insurrectionists, rioters, and looters?  Does "common good" include everyone, or just certain "ones"?  

Governor Evers' abdication of duty is mentioned only in passing.  The absence of law enforcement while several blocks of private property were being destroyed is mentioned in passing.  At least it was mentioned.  Hoorah.

In civilized society, the citizens delegate law enforcement to the police, but that does not mean that the citizens no longer have the right and sometimes the duty to enforce order.  A citizen should not ignore the rights of his neighbors, whether to life or property--thus "guardian."  If Wiggy wishes to argue that there is no right to property, or that no one except the property-owner has the right/duty to defend it, or that once delegated, the onus of assisting the community in maintaining order no longer subsists in citizenship, then let him argue that, instead of picking on a kid. 

Not content to rip Rittenhouse for his actions, Wiggy moves on to pick on a woman:  Wendy Rittenhouse, Kyle's mother.

...Instead of a standing ovation, such as Wendy Rittenhouse received at the Republican Women of Waukesha County event, she should be condemned as a terrible mother. Her decisions led directly to those two deaths and the wounding of the third person. Don’t praise her. Ask her to consider how she caused two other mothers to bury their children after that night....

No, James.  Wendy's decisions did NOT "lead directly to those two deaths and the wounding...."  The decisions made by the insurrectionists led directly to their deaths.  (You are normally a bit better at making distinctions.  Are you still all cranked up about Malkin appearing without your personal blessing?)  Her action was accidental and incidental, using moral terminology.  Wendy decided to assist a guardian/citizen/neighbor in his duty.  Separately, his self-defense led to two deaths and a maiming.  There is no culpa here, James.  You've been to Rome, so you know the Latin, right? 

Wiggy then blasts the cops with the same careless analysis that he applied to Wendy.

...For that matter, did Kenosha law enforcement tell anyone in the self-described “militia” to go home? No, the officers gave the vigilantes water and thanked them for being there. The result was all too predictable.  ...

Oh, really?  In Minneapolis, as in Los Angeles a few decades ago, the mere presence of armed civilians prevented rioters and insurrectionists from destroying protected properties.  There are lots of other instances we could find where merely brandishing a weapon dissuaded criminals from executing their plans.  So, Wiggy, are you telling us that the KPD's gratitude and tacit approval was given with the fore-knowledge that there would be death and maiming?  Really?

Perhaps your TDS, usually well-disguised, has led to serious flaws in your logic.  Maybe another trip to Rome will be worth your time, especially if you study the history of the first two Crusades.  Then study up Catholic moral theology which allows lethal force in defense of property (with all the usual conditions.)  Another entry on the topic of the morality of defense of property is here.

You've been to Rome.  You should know all about that stuff. 

UPDATE 10/1:  Chrissy Wallace is Wigderson.  I prefer Pavlitch.