Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The outcome of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial may well affect the future of self defense in our country by creating case law against the right of self defense. Especially in mob situations or events of unrest.
First, the charges are murder, reckless endangerment (missing several shots) and illegal possession of a gun by a minor. Not trespassing or curfew or the right of freedom of movement. But, the prosecution (the "persecution" is not trying Rittenhouse on whether or not he was justified in using deadly force against his attackers - but rather is trying him on his right to even BE there.
OK, I'll conceed that NONE of the rioters, looters, self appointed guards or any of the actors had any business being there that night. But they ALL had the CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGAL RIGHT to be there. Including Rittenhouse.
If Kyle is convicted on this basis, then anyone who is forced to defend themselves is at risk of being charged, "because they shouldn't have been there." That can be construed to mean nearly anything. Walking in a high crime area at night and you get mugged. "Shouldn't have been there." Attacked by a mob because you wanted to exercise your right to participate in a protest, "shouldn't have been there."
Defending your own business from rioters - "You have no business being there. You should stay home and let police and insurance handle it." Next it will be, "Well you should have evacuated your home before the riot reached you." Remember the McCloskey's? Persecuted for defending their home from a mob, AND convicted. (Though of lesser charges.)
They are trying him on his personal views, on playing video games as a child, on social media comments. If that is allowed to stand we are ALL at risk. If we are not allowed to express our opinions and exercise our 1st Amendment rights for fear of reprisal if we are forced to defend ourselves, then freedom is over. He needs to be tried on whether or not he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm. Nothing else.
This trial is about whether Kyle was justified in using deadly force against a man who threatened him with death, who threw things at him and chased him through a parking lot, then grabbed his gun. I don't think there has ever been a case brought against a police officer who shot someone for trying to take away their gun. It is settled law, if someone grabs an officers gun he may potentially use it against them and lethal force has been an acceptable response for police. This prosecutor is saying that civilians do not have the right to defend their firearm from theft by someone assaulting them. If that is allowed to stand then it will set case law that could impact other self defense cases. It is a double standard.
The prosecutor is also prosecuting Kyle for missing a couple of shots, ostensibly putting bystanders at risk. In many if not most police defense shootings many rounds are fired, and roughly 80%, EIGHTY PERCENT, MISS! Remember the San Bernardino terrorist couple? Police fired hundreds of shots, I think over 300, during a running gun battle, and the couple was hit 14 times or something. Kyle misses 2-4 shots under extreme assault conditions by a mob and he's persecuted over it? Have you ever heard of a cop being tried for missing and putting others at risk? I haven't.
The other two incidents/charges (skateboard dude and Glock dude) are so cut and dried that if he is not acquitted justice in American is dead. Charges on these two counts are nothing but political persecution. In any other context these would have been tossed by a Grand Jury.
This is my analysis. Do you agree or disagree? Explain.
Peeps can keep on murdering others based on said peeps bringing a gun and becoming afraid. They can serve time.
The issue with people like Rittenhouse is they fail to understand that great responsibility comes with gun ownership. If you pull the trigger you had better be ready for the consequences that come with it. I live in Texas and governor just approved open carry for anyone over the age of 18. I can get on board with this if the gun carry is required to take basic gun safety and have a basic knowledge on what you legally can and cannot due with a weapon. Sadly many of these youngsters are going to find themselves in the same place as Rittenhouse because they have no idea what they legally can and cannot due. Great responsibility comes with gun ownership and this concept seems to be lost for many.
If the Democratic leadership had not been such a complete disaster, none of this would have happened.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,951,921 times
Reputation: 16466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grainraiser
The issue with people like Rittenhouse is they fail to understand that great responsibility comes with gun ownership. If you pull the trigger you had better be ready for the consequences that come with it. I live in Texas and governor just approved open carry for anyone over the age of 18. I can get on board with this if the gun carry is required to take basic gun safety and have a basic knowledge on what you legally can and cannot due with a weapon. Sadly many of these youngsters are going to find themselves in the same place as Rittenhouse because they have no idea what they legally can and cannot due. Great responsibility comes with gun ownership and this concept seems to be lost for many.
Thank you for posting this. I left something very important out of my original post.
Yes, the lack of training is an issue that needs further discussion. I am a Training Counselor (an instructor trainer) and hold or held (retired now) a bunch of security and LE instruction credentials and licenses. The vast majority of people with guns are woefully untrained. Forget understanding responsibility, 90% can't safely hold a gun. Not one in a thousand has a clue what the laws of self defense are.
I taught self defense law for about 6-7 years, and I can't even remember everything. Now that I'm not teaching all the time I need to review every so often to refresh things like the 5 elements of self defense. Innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance and reasonableness. I know this stuff backward in the dark - but if I don't review and think about it once in awhile even I forget. And if you DO forget, you may be getting a long term address change.
And HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE RITTENHOUSE CASE!
Kyle, was NOT "innocent." That is what the prosecutor is focusing on. The decision the jury will have to make is whether his lack of "innocence" (i.e. being where he had no business, with a gun he had no business having) is sufficient to blame him for causing the shootings, and convict him based on that. As Wisconsin does not have a statute allowing a person to start a fight, and then recover "innocence" by quitting and renouncing his intent. (Running off, shouting I'm sorry I give up.) In that case if the other party continues an attack, then the person recovers their right of innocence.
It is very confusing. Will the jury be smart enough to comprehend it? Or will it even matter? Plus, once you start down this rabbit hole, it gets way worse. Should Kyle go to jail for life for being there and shooting people? Or should the others have not chased him, hit him, etc.? Who's really at fault, and when, and if everyone's at fault does it matter anymore? Arrrgghhh!
And of course we are back to the fact that had Kyle NOT been there, WITH a gun, none of the events would have occurred in the first place and we would not be having this discussion.
Proportionality, IMHO was reasonable in the last two attacks. I'm not totally sure with the unarmed guy. I wasn't there, but I bet the jury looks at, could Kyle have pushed the guy away, or hit him with the gun. The prosecutor brought up why didn't he have mace. Was there time for a rational decision, etc.?
This is probably the count that sends him to prison if the innocence issue doesn't.
Thank you for posting this. I left something very important out of my original post.
Yes, the lack of training is an issue that needs further discussion. I am an NRA Training Counselor (an instructor trainer) and hold or held (retired now) a bunch of security and LE instruction credentials and licenses. The vast majority of people with guns are woefully untrained. Forget understanding responsibility, 90% can't safely hold a gun. Not one in a thousand has a clue what the laws of self defense are.
I taught self defense law for about 6-7 years, and I can't even remember everything. Now that I'm not teaching all the time I need to review every so often to refresh things like the 5 elements of self defense. Innocence, imminence, proportionality, avoidance and reasonableness. I know this stuff backward in the dark - but if I don't review and think about it once in awhile even I forget. And if you DO forget, you may be getting a long term address change.
And HERE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE RITTENHOUSE CASE!
Kyle, was NOT "innocent." That is what the prosecutor is focusing on. The decision the jury will have to make is whether his lack of "innocence" (i.e. being where he had no business, with a gun he had no business having) is sufficient to blame him for causing the shootings, and convict him based on that. As Wisconsin does not have a statute allowing a person to start a fight, and then recover "innocence" by quitting and renouncing his intent. (Running off, shouting I'm sorry I give up.) In that case if the other party continues an attack, then the person recovers their right of innocence.
It is very confusing. Will the jury be smart enough to comprehend it? Or will it even matter? Plus, once you start down this rabbit hole, it gets way worse. Should Kyle go to jail for life for being there and shooting people? Or should the others have not chased him, hit him, etc.? Who's really at fault, and when, and if everyone's at fault does it matter anymore? Arrrgghhh!
And of course we are back to the fact that had Kyle NOT been there, WITH a gun, none of the events would have occurred in the first place and we would not be having this discussion.
Proportionality, IMHO was reasonable in the last two attacks. I'm not totally sure with the unarmed guy. I wasn't there, but I bet the jury looks at, could Kyle have pushed the guy away, or hit him with the gun. The prosecutor brought up why didn't he have mace. Was there time for a rational decision, etc.?
This is probably the count that sends him to prison if the innocence issue doesn't.
My head hurts...
If Kyle had been there without a gun would he be dead right now?
We had a case in my town many years ago. A small-time drug dealer was home the early morning hours. His home was raided by police. They kicked in his door and he grabbed his pistol, a shootout ensued. Small-time dealer was shot but survived, the plain clothes cop he exchanged fire with died. He didn't know it was a cop, they didn't ID themselves as such and the dead cop was undercover and had long hair and stubble to boot.
If this isn't a clear case of self defense, I don't know what is, but the dealer who was raided was convicted of murder and given a long sentence for killing a cop.
I never know what to think or expect in self defense shootings, honest to god. The laws seem to be pliable depending on who and what. Of course, in the above case there was no video evidence as there is in the Kyle case but why would anyone even need that in the above case? The fact that it was a drug-house raid and a drug dealer killed a cop took priority over the other factors.
We had a case in my town many years ago. A small-time drug dealer was home the early morning hours. His home was raided by police. They kicked in his door and he grabbed his pistol, a shootout ensued. Small-time dealer was shot but survived, the plain clothes cop he exchanged fire with died. He didn't know it was a cop, they didn't ID themselves as such and the dead cop was undercover and had long hair and stubble to boot.
If this isn't a clear case of self defense, I don't know what is, but the dealer who was raided was convicted of murder and given a long sentence for killing a cop.
I never know what to think or expect in self defense shootings, honest to god. The laws seem to be pliable depending on who and what. Of course, in the above case there was no video evidence as there is in the Kyle case but why would anyone even need that in the above case? The fact that it was a drug-house raid and a drug dealer killed a cop took priority over the other factors.
Reminds me of one in KC Ks. Police kicked in a door at 2 am, then kicked in the br door, never announced. The Homeowner grabbed his gun and they killed him. Cops were at the wrong house. They were never even disciplined even tho they had no search warrant.
Reminds me of one in KC Ks. Police kicked in a door at 2 am, then kicked in the br door, never announced. The Homeowner grabbed his gun and they killed him. Cops were at the wrong house. They were never even disciplined even tho they had no search warrant.
I think the distinction in the Kyle case is the amount of video, so much of it is in great detail. There are no fuzzy lines to play with or room for investigators to fudge reports or play with statements from witnesses. With zero room for manipulating or selectively interpreting the facts, it's a tough case to easily dispose of.
Don’t worry OP, the following definitions will probably still prevail in the USA:
White person shooting at black mob = self defense
Black person shooting at white mob = murder
You have that backwards but you knew that already
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
is not trying Rittenhouse on whether or not he was justified in using deadly force against his attackers - but rather is trying him on his right to even BE there.
