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.
Location: When you take flak it means you are on target
7,646 posts, read 9,944,809 times
Reputation: 16466
Advertisements
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.
I've lived in small towns, the suburbs, and in major cities. I have been alone in dangerous parts of the country. I've never once been in a situation where I felt I needed a gun to stay safe. I'm not concerned. Guns don't actually make people safer, it just makes people FEEL safer.
As you said, a lot of shots do miss. This speaks to the need for more gun control, and finally taking steps to get our gun violence in check.
There’s a vid where he expresses a desire to find a reason to shoot someone.
It does seem like a common conservative mentality. They love the idea of being given a reason to use their guns.
I've had a situation when I might have needed to use my gun. It would not have saved my life but at least I would have taken some of my attackers with me. And trust me, I would not have missed a single shot! But then I was prepared for how the attack would pan out. And they would have killed me!
I can assure you, I was not out looking for an opportunity to use my gun. I was just trying to get to work. I did not know what was ahead until it was too late. Obviously I was not attacked or I would not be here to tell the tale. That was just one occasion.
But tell me, are you a conservative? I ask because how else would you know a conservative thinks or feels?
Don't worry, your guns are safe the answer in the good old USA will always be more guns. There will be others mimicking his actions playing junior vigilante and gun sales will rise.
I've lived in small towns, the suburbs, and in major cities. I have been alone in dangerous parts of the country. I've never once been in a situation where I felt I needed a gun to stay safe. I'm not concerned. Guns don't actually make people safer, it just makes people FEEL safer.
As you said, a lot of shots do miss. This speaks to the need for more gun control, and finally taking steps to get our gun violence in check.
I've lived in small towns, the suburbs, and in major cities. I have been alone in dangerous parts of the country. I've never once been in a situation where I felt I needed a gun to stay safe. I'm not concerned. Guns don't actually make people safer, it just makes people FEEL safer.
Guns do make people safer. It's called being able to defend oneself. Make something else up. Men defend themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lekrii
As you said, a lot of shots do miss. This speaks to the need for more gun control, and finally taking steps to get our gun violence in check.
Nothing to do with gun violence and everything to do with being raised properly.
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 do know the people Kyle killed were white, eh?
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.
