Left's war on self-defense

[Autofire]

Someone like Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t even about him primarily; he’s just the vehicle for delivering the message, which has several parts:

(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even person. The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the mercy of the mob.

(2) It’s not part of the trial of Rittenhouse, but my guess is that if he had fallen into a protected minority ethnic group or persuasion, he might have been spared the wrath of the prosecutors. Then again, maybe not – ask “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman.

(3) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). That will taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case (in Rittenhouse’s case, a complete lack of evidence favoring the prosecution) won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction, because a hung jury will do. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary.

These messages are for the general public and don’t really have much to do with Rittenhouse himself.

Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty and is in fact innocent? I think they do and simply don’t care about his actual innocence because he is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough. Plus, he’s useful to them as an object against which to stir up hate and to deter self-defense, which is their larger goal. And they care about usefulness rather than the individual. (Reprinted from thenewneo.com)

 

[Fig]

The States ought to pass a law that if a governor declares a riot it becomes legal to use deadly force to protect property. That would put a stop to this shit fast. There probably wouldn’t be another one, period. All these career criminals/ Aunt Tiffa fucks are cowards and worthless outside of a mob. They only do it because they feel safety in numbers and know they won’t be prosecuted. If the cops stop protecting them they will stay away.

 

[Smitty192]

Rule of law is dead. Justice is now being applied based on political affiliations or actions associating you with a particular right of center political view. Judges and district attorney's offices are corrupt. I don't trust police anymore due to the political pressure being applied on them from corrupt politicians. You will never get a fair trial again because you now have less rights than convicted criminals.

 

[308pirate]

Someone like Kyle Rittenhouse – a young white man of conservative leanings – is not allowed to have that right. But this trial isn’t even about him primarily; he’s just the vehicle for delivering the message, which has several parts:

(1) Rioters in causes that the left deems righteous are allowed to destroy cities and ordinary citizens must lay low and take it. They may not defend property or even person. The most they can do if attacked is take a beating and hope to not be killed, throwing themselves on the mercy of the mob.

(2) It’s not part of the trial of Rittenhouse, but my guess is that if he had fallen into a protected minority ethnic group or persuasion, he might have been spared the wrath of the prosecutors. Then again, maybe not – ask “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman.

(3) The MSM and the left will mount a defamatory campaign against their designated enemies (in this case Rittenhouse, but it could be anyone who meets their criteria). That will taint jury pools so badly that a lack of evidence to bolster the prosecution’s case (in Rittenhouse’s case, a complete lack of evidence favoring the prosecution) won’t matter. This is especially true if the goal isn’t necessarily conviction, because a hung jury will do. The principle is that the process is the punishment, and the state will not relent in its pursuit of its quarry – multiple trials if necessary.

These messages are for the general public and don’t really have much to do with Rittenhouse himself.

Do the prosecutors realize Rittenhouse is not guilty and is in fact innocent? I think they do and simply don’t care about his actual innocence because he is guilty of being who he is, and that’s enough. Plus, he’s useful to them as an object against which to stir up hate and to deter self-defense, which is their larger goal. And they care about usefulness rather than the individual. (Reprinted from thenewneo.com)

How about you do what you need to do, and do it in a way that doesn't advertise who you are, where you've been, and where you went?

 

[OREGUN]

I hesitate to post this here because it’s not exactly in line with Hide-think but it’s worth consideration.

The Supreme Court Is About to Open the Door to a Lot More Kyle Rittenhouse Situations — Slate

Strip away everything else, and this trial is about guns.

apple.news

 

[MadDuner]

I hesitate to post this here because it’s not exactly in line with Hide-think but it’s worth consideration.

The Supreme Court Is About to Open the Door to a Lot More Kyle Rittenhouse Situations — Slate

Strip away everything else, and this trial is about guns.

apple.news

Everyone is allowed their opinion......
and the right to self defense.

 

[JMGlasgow]

Wish I could have that minute back after reading that pile of shit article. You post a link to Slate. Com, and think it makes a few points? That website is pure leftist bullshit.

 

[OREGUN]

There’s a lot of anti-gun bullshit there but there are also a number of really good questions that are going to have to be addressed at some point and don’t fall into a black or white dichotomy of pro-vs-anti.

 

[MadDuner]

There’s a lot of anti-gun bullshit there but there are also a number of really good questions that are going to have to be addressed at some point and don’t fall into a black or white dichotomy of pro-vs-anti.

If law enforcement is going to look the other way at crimes by leftists, anarchists and paid agitators - they are going to be forced into trying to figure out who the bad actors are when the rest of the citizens are forced into protecting their property and themselves.

 

[Fig]

There’s a lot of anti-gun bullshit there but there are also a number of really good questions that are going to have to be addressed at some point and don’t fall into a black or white dichotomy of pro-vs-anti.

It's a bunch of bullshit from the second paragraph where it conflates vastly different cases, and openly lies when it claims that the attackers were unarmed. We know in the case of Ritenhouse this is a lie as he was attacked with weapons wielding fucktards who were screaming they were going to kill him as the mob screamed to get him.

I haven't been following the other case closely, but on first blush it seems like those people have a much steeper climb to prove self defense as they were clearly the aggressors, at least initially. There is a ton of murkiness, it's true, but just not in the way leftists believe there is.

The author is a fucktard who seems to be arguing for Kim Fox's "mutual combatants". Even though this is thoroughly retarded I hope so, because this idiotic legal theory is probably fine with 99% of the people in their right minds who post here. They still don't understand that the police are there to protect criminals, and allow them their due process. The police don't protect citizens. They just clean up the mess and try to bring criminals to justice after they have committed their crimes. Only you can protect yourself and your family. Once they remove the police in their woke "wisdom" they are the ones who are going to pay the price, because if there are no police to call we are not going to roll over for them. We will protect our families and not loose a second of sleep over it. We are not untrained 17 y/os.

 

[Doc68]

The States ought to pass a law that if a governor declares a riot it becomes legal to use deadly force to protect property. That would put a stop to this shit fast. There probably wouldn’t be another one, period. All these career criminals/ Aunt Tiffa fucks are cowards and worthless outside of a mob. They only do it because they feel safety in numbers and know they won’t be prosecuted. If the cops stop protecting them they will stay away.

That's all fine and good unless you find yourself in a blue state.....then you're fucked because the governor will never declare that and call it "mostly peaceful protesting"......

Doc

 

[Rthur]

It's a bunch of bullshit from the second paragraph where it conflates vastly different cases, and openly lies when it claims that the attackers were unarmed. We know in the case of Ritenhouse this is a lie as he was attacked with weapons wielding fucktards who were screaming they were going to kill him as the mob screamed to get him.

I haven't been following the other case closely, but on first blush it seems like those people have a much steeper climb to prove self defense as they were clearly the aggressors, at least initially. There is a ton of murkiness, it's true, but just not in the way leftists believe there is.

The author is a fucktard who seems to be arguing for Kim Fox's "mutual combatants". Even though this is thoroughly retarded I hope so, because this idiotic legal theory is probably fine with 99% of the people in their right minds who post here. They still don't understand that the police are there to protect criminals, and allow them their due process. The police don't protect citizens. They just clean up the mess and try to bring criminals to justice after they have committed their crimes. Only you can protect yourself and your family. Once they remove the police in their woke "wisdom" they are the ones who are going to pay the price, because if there are no police to call we are not going to roll over for them. We will protect our families and not loose a second of sleep over it. We are not untrained 17 y/os.

He is trying to give instructions on how to pick up the clean end of a turd.

R

 

[quietmike]

Every part of leftism is based on shirking personal responsibility and/or getting free stuff.
There is nothing the left offers that doesn't fit.
Since self-defense is a personal responsibility, of course they despise it.

 

[kcbird]

Well I can guarantee you this. If the mob would have curb stomped his head flat with the asphalt, there would have been no mention of the name Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[OREGUN]

Well I can guarantee you this. If the mob would have curb stomped his head flat with the asphalt, there would have been no mention of the name Kyle Rittenhouse.

One of the things I’ve been wondering, along these lines: if grosskruetz had gotten his Glock around and shot and killed Rittenhouse, would he have a self defense argument? Would we on the hide believe in it as strongly as we do in Rittenhouse’s defense?

 

[rtB]

No, I don't believe we would.

Rittenhouse was running AWAY from everyone, and a number of people chased him down, including gross. They assaulted Kyle, not the other way around.

 

[kcbird]

If Kyle would have been faster than the guys chasing him we wouldn't be having these conversations. He wasn't chasing them shooting at them.

 

[OREGUN]

No, I don't believe we would.

Rittenhouse was running AWAY from everyone, and a number of people chased him down, including gross. They assaulted Kyle, not the other way around.

While I tend to agree, imagine a similar situation in which you believe that your group was being shot at by a bad guy…you start chasing that bad guy with the intent to close the distance to engage that bad guy with whatever force is required to stop him from shooting anyone else. You’ll have to separate this line of thinking from your beliefs regarding the specifics of the Rittenhouse case…imagine you are at the mall, enjoying a pretzel with the wife. If the shooter starts running, you become the bad guy?

So in the pics at least, Rittenhouse is seated, bringing is rifle to bear on the perp, who has a gun in his hand. If GK had gotten there first, could he have not argued that at the moment of pulling the trigger, he was under mortal threat?

Its one of the things that I think we need to address more carefully: how narrow are we willing to go on the definitions of, allowances for, and repercussions of “self-defense”. In broad terms, a police can shoot someone based on what they have done and what they are potentially doing…but a citizen, with no mandate and no sanction (other than the constitution, but that’s another topic) seems to need to demonstrate reasonable fear for his life before pulling the trigger. Do any of the actions leading up to the self defense action matter for either party?

 

[MadDuner]

One of the things I’ve been wondering, along these lines: if grosskruetz had gotten his Glock around and shot and killed Rittenhouse, would he have a self defense argument? Would we on the hide believe in it as strongly as we do in Rittenhouse’s defense?

We rally behind the good guys....
Not the criminals.

 

[308pirate]

There’s a lot of anti-gun bullshit there but there are also a number of really good questions that are going to have to be addressed at some point and don’t fall into a black or white dichotomy of pro-vs-anti.

The only thing I got from your dumb article is: don't fuck with other people or with the things that belong to other people if you want to keep breathing.

The left is pissing its collective pants because the blanket of immunity they've enjoyed while engaging in riotous and borderline terrorist behavior over the last 15 or so years is being pulled away by citizens that are sick and fucking tired of their shit.

Protest all you want, peacefully and without pissing off people who want nothing to do with you. Get in their faces, burn their shit, or strike them and you'll end up dead. That's what fuck around and find out means.

 

[308pirate]

So in the pics at least, Rittenhouse is seated, bringing is rifle to bear on the perp, who has a gun in his hand. If GK had gotten there first, could he have not argued that at the moment of pulling the trigger, he was under mortal threat?

Being engaged in riotous, unlawful behavior removes self defense as a justification for assault, battery, and homicide.

 

[308pirate]

Once they remove the police in their woke "wisdom" they are the ones who are going to pay the price, because if there are no police to call we are not going to roll over for them. We will protect our families and not loose a second of sleep over it. We are not untrained 17 y/os.

It's so much fun to tell this to someone who advocates defunding police to the point of ineffectiveness. It's even more fun when they realize that one is deadly serious.

 

[OREGUN]

I’m not trying to derail the thread, OP. I apologize. The riots, the Rittenhouse case, the adoration or vilification of the police, likewise the citizenry, who we alternately condemn for not knowing their ass from a hole in the wall and then uphold as the sole arbiters of constitutional liberty…all of these things leave me with as many questions as answers. The knee jerk reaction, especially among the keyboard warrior types is to make blanket statements that although ideologically accurate, ignore the fact that none of these things happen in a vacuum (See .308’s post above). Being a police would be terribly difficult. Being a juror at least has the advantage of having specific legal questions to answer without having to make a judgement call on broader grounds. Believing in law and order, carrying a weapon for self defense, contemplating the circumstances under which one might get involved or “intervene”; all of these things are far more complicated than we would like to believe, IMHO.

 

[MadDuner]

The only thing I got from your dumb article is: don't fuck with other people or with the things that belong to other people if you want to keep breathing.

The left is pissing its collective pants because the blanket of immunity they've enjoyed while engaging in riotous and borderline terrorist behavior over the last 15 or so years is being pulled away by citizens that are sick and fucking tired of their shit.

Protest all you want, peacefully and without pissing off people who want nothing to do with you. Get in their faces, burn their shit, or strike them and you'll end up dead. That's what fuck around and find out means.

The BS of shutting down the roads and then beating on the cars is going to be the end of quite a few of them...

 

[308pirate]

The BS of shutting down the roads and then beating on the cars is going to be the end of quite a few of them...

That's exactly what I'm talking about. I am amazed at the restraint shown by too many.

I will not be held against my will.

 

[kcbird]

I would say its almost common sense, but these people don't have it. These guys (Kyles group) are standing around with guns more or less defending/ protecting property from destruction. The other guys show up trying to damage said property, fucking with them saying shoot me.

This may not be the correct analogy but I'm not going to Fort Knox to steal the gold because mother fuckers will shoot me.

 

[MadDuner]

I’m not trying to derail the thread, OP. I apologize. The riots, the Rittenhouse case, the adoration or vilification of the police, likewise the citizenry, who we alternately condemn for not knowing their ass from a hole in the wall and then uphold as the sole arbiters of constitutional liberty…all of these things leave me with as many questions as answers. The knee jerk reaction, especially among the keyboard warrior types is to make blanket statements that although ideologically accurate, ignore the fact that none of these things happen in a vacuum (See .308’s post above). Being a police would be terribly difficult. Being a juror at least has the advantage of having specific legal questions to answer without having to make a judgement call on broader grounds. Believing in law and order, carrying a weapon for self defense, contemplating the circumstances under which one might get involved or “intervene”; all of these things are far more complicated than we would like to believe, IMHO.

Our world gets more complicated every day. That's just reality. If we want to continue to live as free citizens - we will simply have to deal with it. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way (if the country survives the current push for Marxism). People will once again want and appreciate law and order. Until that happens, it will be up to the citizens to provide law and order when the out of control local governments will not. Yes, in the media they will call it vigilantism. They will call it all kinds of things. But the reality of the matter is that the rampant criminality cannot continue unabated and still maintain any kind of normalcy.

Complicated? Yes. But who wants to live in an anarchistic world where criminals are free to victimize whoever they want to without any fear of reprisal or penalty? Not me!

 

[...]

One of the things I’ve been wondering, along these lines: if grosskruetz had gotten his Glock around and shot and killed Rittenhouse, would he have a self defense argument? Would we on the hide believe in it as strongly as we do in Rittenhouse’s defense?

considering Gross is on tape saying "lets get him, get his ass".....and wasnt in any danger until he attempted to assault kyle....no, he would not have had a SD case.

 

[TurboTrout]

So what I have found

One, looking at BLM and fascist group like antifa, the far left is a minority, they scream VERY loud and have tantrums, but when confronted or when they try to attack others, typically the left is FAR LESS effective at combat compared to the average farm kid or country boy.

This is a problem when you’re trying to be “tuff” so they need the state to not allow anyone to fight back, because they pretty much always lose.

Two, when you catch someone walking your TV out of your house, there is a overwhelming chance they lean left and are a democrat, this was from a study of CONVICTED inmates.

Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats - Washington Examiner

A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release. “Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, chances are if a American is attacked by a crazy, criminals, looter, etc, it’s probably going to end up the person being lawfully shot is more on the blue tie team than the red tie team, and since the blue tie team is even more of a statist than the reds, they ask mommy government to make others not be allowed to hurt them when they are victimizing and running amok.

 

[...]

While I tend to agree, imagine a similar situation in which you believe that your group was being shot at by a bad guy…you start chasing that bad guy with the intent to close the distance to engage that bad guy with whatever force is required to stop him from shooting anyone else. You’ll have to separate this line of thinking from your beliefs regarding the specifics of the Rittenhouse case…imagine you are at the mall, enjoying a pretzel with the wife. If the shooter starts running, you become the bad guy?

if the "bad guy" is defending himself from my groups initial aggressions...no, you do not get to "protect yourself" from the person who is actively protecting himself....

....that is not how Self defense works....

i cannot roll up with a group of buddies, have by buddies start beating the shit out of someone....and if that person pulls a gun, i get to shoot them in "self defense".....thats not how it works.

if you kill a "good person" because you have "bad information".....you do not get to claim SD....you are guilty of negligent homicide at a bare minimum.

 

[MadDuner]

So what I have found

One, looking at BLM and fascist group like antifa, the far left is a minority, they scream VERY loud and have tantrums, but when confronted or when they try to attack others, typically the left is FAR LESS effective at combat compared to the average farm kid or country boy.

This is a problem when you’re trying to be “tuff” so they need the state to not allow anyone to fight back, because they pretty much always lose.

Two, when you catch someone walking your TV out of your house, there is a overwhelming chance they lean left and are a democrat, this was from a study of CONVICTED inmates.

Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats - Washington Examiner

A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release. “Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

So, chances are if a American is attacked by a crazy, criminals, looter, etc, it’s probably going to end up the person being lawfully shot is more on the blue tie team than the red tie team, and since the blue tie team is even more of a statist than the reds, they ask mommy government to make others not be allowed to hurt them when they are victimizing and running amok.

So when the red are forced to become ungovernable .... the blue tie criminals had better stay out of range.

 

[Kein Mitleid]

It’s my understanding that chasing someone nullifies self defense, hence we have either the ability to stand your ground or a duty to retreat but no duty to advance.

 

[308pirate]

I’m not trying to derail the thread, OP. I apologize. The riots, the Rittenhouse case, the adoration or vilification of the police, likewise the citizenry, who we alternately condemn for not knowing their ass from a hole in the wall and then uphold as the sole arbiters of constitutional liberty…all of these things leave me with as many questions as answers. The knee jerk reaction, especially among the keyboard warrior types is to make blanket statements that although ideologically accurate, ignore the fact that none of these things happen in a vacuum (See .308’s post above). Being a police would be terribly difficult. Being a juror at least has the advantage of having specific legal questions to answer without having to make a judgement call on broader grounds. Believing in law and order, carrying a weapon for self defense, contemplating the circumstances under which one might get involved or “intervene”; all of these things are far more complicated than we would like to believe, IMHO.

A) The state can't have a monopoly of force. That is a certain pathway to tyranny. It must NEVER be allowed to happen.
B) If the state doesn't want the citizenry to police the town, then the state god damned well better do it. That IS a big part of what we pay for.

 

[Docsherm]

There’s a lot of anti-gun bullshit there but there are also a number of really good questions that are going to have to be addressed at some point and don’t fall into a black or white dichotomy of pro-vs-anti.

Such as?

 

[Docsherm]

One of the things I’ve been wondering, along these lines: if grosskruetz had gotten his Glock around and shot and killed Rittenhouse, would he have a self defense argument? Would we on the hide believe in it as strongly as we do in Rittenhouse’s defense?

No, because he was actively committing several felonies.

 

[Fig]

His being a felon and in possession of a deadly weapon he’s prohibited from having means he cannot defend himself with said illegal weapon, just like if Rittenhouse had been prohibited from carrying the rifle he couldn’t have argued self defense he did. You cannot commit crimes and then say you were defending yourself.

 

[...]

His being a felon and in possession of a deadly weapon he’s prohibited from having means he cannot defend himself with said illegal weapon, just like if Rittenhouse had been prohibited from carrying the rifle he couldn’t have argued self defense he did. You cannot commit crimes and then say you were defending yourself.

not entirely true...

you can be a felon in possession of an illegal weapon AND still have grounds for SD.

the gun charge and the shooting are 2 separate issues.

you cannot claim SD if the crime you are committing is related to the reason for you shooting someone. (example, i cannot break into someone's home, and when they attack me, claim SD and shoot them)

but if someone is a convicted Felon, and they happen to illegally own a gun.....and someone breaks into their home and tries to kill them.....they are fully justified in using that gun to protect themselves.....they may be charged with illegal possession, but they should be cleared in the shooting.

kyles case never hung on the fact that he may or may not have illegally possessed the rifle....that was just a tack on charge.

 

[OREGUN]

Such as?

For example: “We have moved from castle doctrine protections that allow you to defend yourself in your home to laws that allow you to shoot in self-defense anywhere you feel unsafe. Once we are there—or, rather, here—your gun both protects and endangers you, because you need lethal force to protect against those who would use your own lethal force against you. The “good guy with a gun” can reasonably assume everyone else is bad, or at least could be trying to kill them. The analytical circle is complete, and that circle is closing in on us all.”

And: “This week, jurors in Wisconsin will be tasked with applying Wisconsin’s self-defense law to Rittenhouse. That law allows the use of deadly force if a defendant “reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” As Barbara McQuade has argued, partly because of a quirk of Wisconsin law, “in this case, Rittenhouse can argue that even if he provoked others to attack him by openly carrying his semi-automatic rifle at a mob scene, he was still able to use deadly force under Wisconsin law because he reasonably believed he had no other alternatives at those moments to avoid death or great bodily harm.” That means the jury is tasked with trying to imagine what they would do at a mobbed public protest in which so many people were brandishing weapons that the cops, trying to maintain order, stopped taking weapons to mean anything.”

And: “once everyone in public spaces is armed and operating under a sprawling regime of “stand your ground” and citizen’s arrest statutes plus a mushrooming mistrust of law enforcement, how will courts ever sort out who instigated and who responded? As Ferzan put it in her law review article: “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?” If you can arm yourself because you have declared yourself a substitute for law enforcement and then you claim people were grabbing for your weapon so you killed them with it, are you always justified?”

So, the questions might include: How narrowly are we willing to define and adjudicated Self Defense? Is there or should there be a way to define, objectively, reasonableness as it relates to the justification of lethal defense? What is reasonable to one may not be reasonable o the next. Does/do the action/s that lead up to the self defense matter? How far in the past do we look, if they do? Some here are arguing that being in a riotous mob negates a right to defend oneself…that Gross would have no SD argument if he had shot Rittenhouse. Was he not afraid for his life as Rittenhouse turned the gun on him? How far back would Gross’s actions needed to have been accounted for and found righteous for him to be justified in shooting Rittenhouse? What role do the cops play in a situation like that of the Rittenhouse case? Can a person assume the role of state sanctioned violent-actor if the cops can’t or won’t uphold their duty to protect and defend? Can a 17 year old, or anyone for that matter, imbue himself with the right to use lethal force in defense of another’s property.

I don’t have the answers. I wish it was as simple as “the good guys can always shoot the bad guys” and I wish it was always obvious who was who. It’s not. So answers like “fuck around and find out” and “we rally around the good guys” are basically useless except in the online virtue-signal-fest.

 

[Downzero]

His being a felon and in possession of a deadly weapon he’s prohibited from having means he cannot defend himself with said illegal weapon, just like if Rittenhouse had been prohibited from carrying the rifle he couldn’t have argued self defense he did. You cannot commit crimes and then say you were defending yourself.

I don't know what the law is in Wisconsin, but that is certainly not the law anywhere. Self defense negates all criminal liability, if it applies. If a shooter was shooting into a crowd of people and there was a gun on the ground, the hypothetical felon in that group would be just as privileged in picking up the gun to use it in self defense as the non-felon, as long as he didn't possess it any longer than necessary to engage in reasonable self defense.

 

[Downzero]

For example: “We have moved from castle doctrine protections that allow you to defend yourself in your home to laws that allow you to shoot in self-defense anywhere you feel unsafe. Once we are there—or, rather, here—your gun both protects and endangers you, because you need lethal force to protect against those who would use your own lethal force against you. The “good guy with a gun” can reasonably assume everyone else is bad, or at least could be trying to kill them. The analytical circle is complete, and that circle is closing in on us all.”

And: “This week, jurors in Wisconsin will be tasked with applying Wisconsin’s self-defense law to Rittenhouse. That law allows the use of deadly force if a defendant “reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” As Barbara McQuade has argued, partly because of a quirk of Wisconsin law, “in this case, Rittenhouse can argue that even if he provoked others to attack him by openly carrying his semi-automatic rifle at a mob scene, he was still able to use deadly force under Wisconsin law because he reasonably believed he had no other alternatives at those moments to avoid death or great bodily harm.” That means the jury is tasked with trying to imagine what they would do at a mobbed public protest in which so many people were brandishing weapons that the cops, trying to maintain order, stopped taking weapons to mean anything.”

And: “once everyone in public spaces is armed and operating under a sprawling regime of “stand your ground” and citizen’s arrest statutes plus a mushrooming mistrust of law enforcement, how will courts ever sort out who instigated and who responded? As Ferzan put it in her law review article: “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?” If you can arm yourself because you have declared yourself a substitute for law enforcement and then you claim people were grabbing for your weapon so you killed them with it, are you always justified?”

So, the questions might include: How narrowly are we willing to define and adjudicated Self Defense? Is there or should there be a way to define, objectively, reasonableness as it relates to the justification of lethal defense? What is reasonable to one may not be reasonable o the next. Does/do the action/s that lead up to the self defense matter? How far in the past do we look, if they do? Some here are arguing that being in a riotous mob negates a right to defend oneself…that Gross would have no SD argument if he had shot Rittenhouse. Was he not afraid for his life as Rittenhouse turned the gun on him? How far back would Gross’s actions needed to have been accounted for and found righteous for him to be justified in shooting Rittenhouse? What role do the cops play in a situation like that of the Rittenhouse case? Can a person assume the role of state sanctioned violent-actor if the cops can’t or won’t uphold their duty to protect and defend? Can a 17 year old, or anyone for that matter, imbue himself with the right to use lethal force in defense of another’s property.

I don’t have the answers. I wish it was as simple as “the good guys can always shoot the bad guys” and I wish it was always obvious who was who. It’s not. So answers like “fuck around and find out” and “we rally around the good guys” are basically useless except in the online virtue-signal-fest.

There's a lot of good phrases in this post. It's actually a lot simpler than it seems. How do courts sort these issues out? With juries. If the jury doesn't believe your fear is reasonable, you get convicted of murder and go to prison. That might happen to Kyle Rittenhouse today. Everyone is piling on the state for having chosen to prosecute the case but ultimately, if it comes down to self defense, only a jury can decide that. There's no serious doubt that Rittenhouse intentionally did an act that caused the death of two human beings. Whether he was legally privileged in doing so is a factual question that only a jury can determine.

If we, as a community, want a world where the threshold for reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, we can decide that. If we want that bar to be very high, we, as a community, resolve those cases against the shooter and for the State.

It is the jury that is the bar to government overreaching (or underreaching for that matter, if the State is willing to charge the close cases). A jury is the conscience of the community. And its decisions are virtually unreviewable.

 

[...]

There's a lot of good phrases in this post. It's actually a lot simpler than it seems. How do courts sort these issues out? With juries. If the jury doesn't believe your fear is reasonable, you get convicted of murder and go to prison. That might happen to Kyle Rittenhouse today. Everyone is piling on the state for having chosen to prosecute the case but ultimately, if it comes down to self defense, only a jury can decide that. There's no serious doubt that Rittenhouse intentionally did an act that caused the death of two human beings. Whether he was legally privileged in doing so is a factual question that only a jury can determine.

If we, as a community, want a world where the threshold for reasonable belief that deadly force is needed to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, we can decide that. If we want that bar to be very high, we, as a community, resolve those cases against the shooter and for the State.

It is the jury that is the bar to government overreaching (or underreaching for that matter, if the State is willing to charge the close cases). A jury is the conscience of the community. And its decisions are virtually unreviewable.

the state also has an obligation to not maliciously charge people, and to operate fairly and impartially.....and to do that, they must evaluate the evidence, so as to not drag an innocent person through the mud and cause them undue distress.

and when literally ALL the evidence points to this being a clean shoot....to the point that even the prosecutions witnesses were making the defense case.....you have a case that should have never gone to trial.

this is nothing more than state sponsored harassment using the "justice" system as a guise.


if Kyle was an ANTIFA democrat, being attacked by a hoard of Trump supporters....this case would have never seen the light of day, and Kyle would be on the cover of RollingStone.

 

[Downzero]

the state also has an obligation to not maliciously charge people, and to operate fairly and impartially.....and to do that, they must evaluate the evidence, so as to not drag an innocent person through the mud and cause them undue distress.

and when literally ALL the evidence points to this being a clean shoot....to the point that even the prosecutions witnesses were making the defense case.....you have a case that should have never gone to trial.

this is nothing more than state sponsored harassment using the "justice" system as a guise.


if Kyle was an ANTIFA democrat, being attacked by a hoard of Trump supporters....this case would have never seen the light of day, and Kyle would be on the cover of RollingStone.

The check on that is THE JURY.

There is no "evidence" until there is a TRIAL.

It is the role of the jury to determine the facts in any case.

The check is not some bureaucrat in a suit! It is the jury.

 

[rtB]

Dude, the first check is whether the DA decides there is sufficient evidence to prosecute in the first place, and if so, on what charges.

So absofuckinglutely it is some bureaucrat in a suit with a potentially huge political bent to the decision.

 

[...]

The check on that is THE JURY.

There is no "evidence" until there is a TRIAL.

It is the role of the jury to determine the facts in any case.

The check is not some bureaucrat in a suit! It is the jury.

 

[Downzero]

Dude, the first check is whether the DA decides there is sufficient evidence to prosecute in the first place, and if so, on what charges.

So absofuckinglutely it is some bureaucrat in a suit with a potentially huge political bent to the decision.

Wrong! That is the role of the grand jury, which was so important, it was put in the constitution in 1791. The Supreme Court has not, however, ever required states to follow it. But the feds have to, and 100% of their felonies go to the grand jury unless the defendant waives that. Historically, it was citizens, NOT some government bureaucrat, who decided who would stand trial.

Some but not all states later decided to allow prosecutors to charge felonies without a grand jury (I'm not sure what your state has for a system).

The system was never envisioned to empower government bureaucrats to make this decision. The "appeal of felony" dates back something like 900 years--where citizens get together to decide who should be held accountable for any felony crime. That morphed into the grand jury system, which the United States inherited from England along with the rest of our legal system. And it was so important to our framers that it is enshrined in the bill of rights.

 

[acudaowner]

I don't see it as the lefts war on self defense cause I am sure they want the ability to protect them selves from you , but an attack on your ability to defend yourselves from a pro socialist attacker ( peaceful protester that's terribly up set at something raciest I am positive you said in your sub consious whether you knew you said it or not . ) How dare you presume innocence lol .

 

[TurboTrout]

So when the red are forced to become ungovernable .... the blue tie criminals had better stay out of range.

True

However remember the far right and far left are basically the same guy just with a different sales pitch

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Wrong! That is the role of the grand jury, which was so important, it was put in the constitution in 1791. The Supreme Court has not, however, ever required states to follow it. But the feds have to, and 100% of their felonies go to the grand jury unless the defendant waives that. Historically, it was citizens, NOT some government bureaucrat, who decided who would stand trial.

Some but not all states later decided to allow prosecutors to charge felonies without a grand jury (I'm not sure what your state has for a system).

The system was never envisioned to empower government bureaucrats to make this decision. The "appeal of felony" dates back something like 900 years--where citizens get together to decide who should be held accountable for any felony crime. That morphed into the grand jury system, which the United States inherited from England along with the rest of our legal system. And it was so important to our framers that it is enshrined in the bill of rights.

Sounds good in principle.... now if only it could be administered equally, throughout the land.

Oh wait....

 

[UKDslayer]

I've been listening to some of the SCOTUS hearing going on now, since its seems to autoplay after the daily Kyle show is over...it is very clear the Left doesn't care about self-defense. Arguments are ridiculous.

 

[Downzero]

Sounds good in principle.... now if only it could be administered equally, throughout the land.

Oh wait....

That's what the 14th Amendment was all about. Too bad the Supreme Court refused to enforce it in the 1880s and here we are trying to fix that, almost 150 years later.

The founders really were geniuses when it came to codifying procedural rights.