News

Tulsi Gabbard Believes Proper Policing Could Have Prevented Rittenhouse ‘Tragedy’

Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com
Crush Rush / Shutterstock.com

Former Hawaii Rep and remarkably moderate Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, sees a lot of problems with the Kyle Rittenhouse case and believes this situation could have been prevented, and surprise, surprise, she still blames the police for the problem. “The prosecutor in the Rittenhouse trial clearly didn’t do due diligence before making the decision to prosecute. This tragedy never would have happened if the government carried out its responsibilities to protect the safety, lives, and property of innocent people”. Her words sound as if she doesn’t quite know how to assign blame.

The prosecutor here has a duty to find the facts, and ensure the accused gets a fair trial. That’s largely what has been happening so far here. Could the police and residents have done more to prevent these shootings? Sure. They also could have done a lot less. That’s the problem with Gabbard’s comments here; they put everything into a very slippery context.

The left wants less police interference until it’s absolutely needed (and quite frankly, way too late), and the right wants them to be out in force and well trained. The problem with both of these ideas is they are extremes America doesn’t need. Gabbard’s thoughts that more police could have prevented this are laughable. They were already stretched thin, and this young man was doing what he thought was best, defending a town and small businesses from looters. Let’s not lie to one another; many small businesses cannot afford these looters. Their insurance doesn’t often cover acts of vandalism, and rarely can the police locate the perpetrators.

So, what were the people of Kenosha, WI to do? Stand by and let the town be destroyed by people from outside the community? What about those who didn’t want to see the town destroyed? The answer to all of the above is to stand up and do something. That’s what they did, and it worked.

Did it work right? Not really. It wasn’t the most ideal situation. However, it prevented more violence and more tragedy from striking the town in the grand scheme of things. Could more police have helped? Sure. Could they also have encouraged further violence from the protesters? Yep. This truly was a ‘no-win’ situation. Something where you have no clear-cut proper answer. The town and its people just had to let it play out as it did.

Rittenhouse did the same thing. He stood for what he thought was right and did not fire until left with no choice. As others closed in and sought to attack him with violence, he responded with force equal or greater to what he was being attacked with and hesitated as long as possible. Despite the left narrative to the contrary, he wasn’t walking around looking for people to shoot. He wasn’t walking around with a hit list or looking for trouble.

This young man took up arms to protect people’s property, the people of Kenosha, and himself. Gabbard herself served in the Army and should know all about sacrifice. It doesn’t usually necessitate the blessing of police, other law enforcement, or really anyone else. It requires being willing to stand up and accept the consequences of your actions. Rittenhouse has done that; even going so far as to take the stand in his own trial; something that is practically unheard of these days. Additionally, even one of the people Rittenhouse shot admitted on the stand that it was not until he drew down on Rittenhouse that he was shot. That’s pretty clear cut that he was in the right, and gave them every chance the left would have them receive.