Kyle Rittenhouse -- innocent by self-defense?

[_Res Ipsa]

If you don't know that the law is and why it is that way, how can you hope to make intelligent changes to it? Changes to the law driven by emotion tend to have bad, unintended consequences because they aren't thought through clearly.

An emotional reaction is entirely appropriate right now. I'm not sitting here making legislative suggestions. I'm reacting to what I consider the blindness and seeming indifference to what this conversation is in the first place.

Using the term "child" to describe Rittenhouse is an emotive argument that obscures the actual situation we are dealing with. One of the dilemmas we face is that at age 18, a "child" magically transforms into an "adult" and is entitled to a whole bundle of rights and privileges. Would Rittenhouse's judgment be any better if he'd been 18? I doubt it.

Dude, I have a soon to be 20 year old daughter. As far as I'm concerned, she's still a child. It's extremely difficult for me to look at anyone under the age of 25 as anything but a child.

Yes, 18 is too young to have a gun. So is 88, unless you're a trained, lawful and safety conscious gun owner.

I understand your point, so let's run with it. If Rittenhouse is a child, then would you agree that he should be tried as a juvenile, not as an adult? In fact, we should try everyone under 25 as juveniles rather than adults, right? And we certainly shouldn't be permitting them to vote -- children don't have the mental capacity or judgment to be choosing our leaders. In fact, parents should have the same legal responsibilities to 24 year old offspring as they have to 6 year old offspring, right?

If you just want to vent, that's great. Venting is good. But if you are lumping me in with the blind and indifferent, you're way off the mark. Not being a deity, I can't bring either victim back to life. I can't fix the third's victim's arm. I can form an opinion about whether we further “F” up the rest of a 17 year old's life and try to figure out how to adjust the rules to reduce the chances of this happening again. I could fill this forum with descriptions of how shocking, horrible, unbelievable, moronic, disgusting, etc. this situation is. And at the end of the day, I haven't done crap. All I do is rest up my hands for the next wringing session.

But I do think you've touched on two changes that might improve this situation: raise the age for possessing firearms (possibly with exceptions for target shooting or hunting under adult supervision) and require licensing, training, and perhaps even periodic retraining. In my opinion, a big part of the problem with today's gun culture is that it doesn't take guns seriously enough. I've owned, handled and fired guns. And every time I've handled one, I've been acutely aware that I'm operating a device that is designed to efficiently kill. I've never pointed a gun at anyone -- not as a threat, not as a joke, not in self defense -- because I'm acutely aware that the result could easily be something I can't ever fix and would “F” up the lives of lots of people, including me. That didn't come naturally -- it was taught to me. And I don't see that respect in the gun culture that I see.

[_Temp. Admin.]

Rittenhouse wasn't in a firing position or a combat stance. He was running away from his pursuers.

That is after he already shot somebody though, right?

No, I'm talking about before the first shot was fired.

You are a cop, right? Do you ever do traffic stops?

Yes and no (in that order). My jurisdiction is a bit different from a standard officer's.

In comparison, Zimmerman was a vigilante who decided that the smaller and unarmed Trayvon Martin was a thug, and decided to chase him down with his gun.

No. Zimmerman was carrying concealed and was following from a distance.

When Zimmerman eventually got the confrontation he was after, he felt threatened by the unarmed black kid, and according to the jury, this gave him the legal right to kill him.

He didn't "feel threatened." His head was getting beaten into the pavement.

The fact that walking around with guns is permitted so that you can legally kill armed or unarmed people who make you feel threatened illustrates Some Schmo's point[.]

In your opinion, is there a difference between "feeling threatened" and "self-defense against death or serious bodily injury?" If so, what is it?

An emotional reaction is entirely appropriate right now. I'm not sitting here making legislative suggestions. I'm reacting to what I consider the blindness and seeming indifference to what this conversation is in the first place.

So since you're just being emotional, we can discount what you're saying.

But there can't be anything approaching justice here. Ritte[n]house's foolishness made a bad situation much worse and ended with two people dead and another disabled.

Perhaps, but the mob didn't have to try to kill him. If they "felt threatened," they could've left the area and/or called the police. Or, you know, just ignored him.

My point is simply that the blame must be put on America's gun culture--guns almost always do more harm than good, . . .

Rittenhouse is alive today thanks to a gun, so by definition good was done.

In general I'm all for showing 17-year olds mercy. But 17-year olds with guns? No--make an example out of them.

That crosses the boundary into "selective enforcement," which itself is illegal.

[_Res Ipsa]

I'm not claiming that Rittenhouse is a hero. I think he's a 17 year old who didn't think through what it would mean to take a life. He put himself in a situation in which he was way, way over his head. I think he got separated from his comrades in arms and panicked. In both instances, it looked like he was running away from people who were chasing him before he shot his pursuers.

I have my own theory about justice: No strict law can be justly applied in every factual circumstance. Discretion will be abused in some cases to reach an unjust result. The closest we can come to justice requires some combination of law and discretion, and we must be ever vigilant in searching for the ways in which the system will inevitably produce unjust outcomes.

Well, the good news for Ritterhouse is that misguided people who think he is a hero have donated millions to his legal defense fund, so he'll have the best defense money can buy. He'll probably walk and end up rich because of this.

But there can't be anything approaching justice here. Ritterhouse's foolishness made a bad situation much worse and ended with two people dead and another disabled. My point is simply that the blame must be put on America's gun culture--guns almost always do more harm than good, and it just shouldn't be legal for vigilantes or traitors (who ironically see themselves as patriots) to walk around with assault riffles. It shouldn't be legal, much less celebrated.

In general I'm all for showing 17-year olds mercy. But 17-year olds with guns? No--make an example out of them.

We've been making examples out of lawbreakers for most of my life. How has that worked out? If you think our gun laws are screwed up, take a close look at how our criminal justice system actually works. Given your recognition of the influence of gun culture, why does a 17-year old forfeit mercy when he picks up a gun? What do you think will be the result of throwing Rittenhouse in the slammer for 20 or 30 years? What do we get out of it?

[_Some Schmo]

So since you're just being emotional, we can discount what you're saying.

Of course you can.

Just like we can ignore everything you're saying for being so blind, you'd buy into this sh-it in the first place.

[_Some Schmo]

What do you think will be the result of throwing Rittenhouse in the slammer for 20 or 30 years? What do we get out of it?

I don't know about Analytics, but to his point, not making a hero out of Rittenhouse seems like a good start. Dissuading other dumb teenagers from doing the same thing would be a bonus.

[_Analytics]

What do you think will be the result of throwing Rittenhouse in the slammer for 20 or 30 years? What do we get out of it?

I don't know about Analytics, but to his point, not making a hero out of Rittenhouse seems like a good start. Dissuading other dumb teenagers from doing the same thing would be a bonus.

Bingo.

[_Res Ipsa]

What do you think will be the result of throwing Rittenhouse in the slammer for 20 or 30 years? What do we get out of it?

I don't know about Analytics, but to his point, not making a hero out of Rittenhouse seems like a good start. Dissuading other dumb teenagers from doing the same thing would be a bonus.

I can get behind that. Taking a life should be done with regret, not with pride.

[_Analytics]

In comparison, Zimmerman was a vigilante who decided that the smaller and unarmed Trayvon Martin was a thug, and decided to chase him down with his gun.

No. Zimmerman was carrying concealed and was following from a distance.

And Martin was trying to run away from him. Given that Zimmerman had a gun and Martin didn't, what was a safe distance for Zimmerman was NOT a safe distance for Martin. Given that imbalance of power, what should Martin have done in self-defense against death or serious bodily injury?

When Zimmerman eventually got the confrontation he was after, he felt threatened by the unarmed black kid, and according to the jury, this gave him the legal right to kill him.

He didn't "feel threatened." His head was getting beaten into the pavement.

"Beaten into the pavement?" Zimmerman didn't get a concussion. He didn't need stitches. He wasn't going to die. Look at it from Martin's point of view. Martin probably had a reasonable cause for believing Zimmerman was an unhinged vigilante. If we assume that's the case, did Martin have the right to try to stop him by "beating his head into the pavement?" Given that he wasn't armed, what other choice did he have to defend himself against this threat?

In your opinion, is there a difference between "feeling threatened" and "self-defense against death or serious bodily injury?" If so, what is it?

The difference is the phrase "feeling threatened" recognizes that we are dealing with the subjective emotions of the killer, while the phrase "self-defense against death or serious bodily injury" falsely conveys dispassionate objectivity to the killer's point of view.

Perhaps, but the mob didn't have to try to kill him. If they "felt threatened," they could've left the area and/or called the police. Or, you know, just ignored him.

How do you know they were trying to kill him? It seems to me they were simply trying to disarm somebody who looked and was acting like a mass shooter.

Rittenhouse is alive today thanks to a gun, so by definition good was done.

You really think if he didn't have a gun, he would have been beaten to death with a skateboard? For the sake of argument, let's assume the unarmed protestors were going to kill him with their bare hands. Even then, you can't say the gun did "good" when at best it alleviated the problem that the gun itself caused--they wouldn't have targeted him if he wasn't there with an assault riffle!

People who think that having a gun for self-defense (and/or vigilantism) is a right and perhaps even a moral obligation remind me of the guitar of Tom Morello (the extreme liberal and Harvard-educated guitarist for Rage Against the Machine). Sprawled on the front of his guitar in bold red letters are the words:

ARM THE HOMELESS

[_Temp. Admin.]

So since you're just being emotional, we can discount what you're saying.

Of course you can.

Just like we can ignore everything you're saying for being so blind, you'd buy into this sh-it in the first place.

Please explain how defending onesself against death or serious bodily injury counts as, as you so gracefully say, s***.

What do you think will be the result of throwing Rittenhouse in the slammer for 20 or 30 years? What do we get out of it?

I don't know about Analytics, but to his point, not making a hero out of Rittenhouse seems like a good start. Dissuading other dumb teenagers from doing the same thing would be a bonus.

He's not a hero. But we can be relieved that he's neither dead nor in a coma.

No. Zimmerman was carrying concealed and was following from a distance.

And Martin was trying to run away from him. Given that Zimmerman had a gun and Martin didn't, what was a safe distance for Zimmerman was NOT a safe distance for Martin. Given that imbalance of power, what should Martin have done in self-defense against death or serious bodily injury?

Martin didn't know that Zimmerman was carrying concealed, and Zimmerman had not taken any action that would lead a reasonable person to believe that Martin was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, so self-defense wasn't warranted--especially the self-defense of beating a person's head into the pavement.

"Beaten into the pavement?" Zimmerman didn't get a concussion. He didn't need stitches. He wasn't going to die. Look at it from Martin's point of view. Martin probably had a reasonable cause for believing Zimmerman was an unhinged vigilante.

Following from a distance and NOT brandishing any sort of weapon?

If we assume that's the case, did Martin have the right to try to stop him by "beating his head into the pavement?" Given that he wasn't armed, what other choice did he have to defend himself against this threat?

He could've simply continued proceeding to his destination.

In your opinion, is there a difference between "feeling threatened" and "self-defense against death or serious bodily injury?" If so, what is it?

The difference is the phrase "feeling threatened" recognizes that we are dealing with the subjective emotions of the killer, while the phrase "self-defense against death or serious bodily injury" falsely conveys dispassionate objectivity to the killer's point of view.

Okay, thank you. So does this mean that, in your opinion, Martin thought he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury because what appeared to be an unarmed man was following him at a distance?

Perhaps, but the mob didn't have to try to kill him. If they "felt threatened," they could've left the area and/or called the police. Or, you know, just ignored him.

How do you know they were trying to kill him?

The way they singled him out from his "herd" and then chased him down, throwing things at him, trying to get his weapon away from him, beating him over the head with a skateboard, kicking him in the head, and drawing down on him with a handgun. Add to the fact that some jackwagon behind him fired a shot into the air, making Rittenhouse assume he was being shot at.

It seems to me they were simply trying to disarm somebody who looked and was acting like a mass shooter.

One could conceivably make a case that he "looked like" a mass shooter, just like anyone holding a rifle looks like a mass shooter. But he certainly wasn't acting like one as he ran away and, you know, didn't shoot (yet).

You really think if he didn't have a gun, he would have been beaten to death with a skateboard?

Maybe not, but a citizen possessing a gun doesn't give a lynch mob a free pass to kill that citizen just because they feel like it.

For the sake of argument, let's assume the unarmed protestors were going to kill him with their bare hands. Even then, you can't say the gun did "good" when at best it alleviated the problem that the gun itself caused--they wouldn't have targeted him if he wasn't there with an assault riffle!

They were under no obligation to target him in the first place.

[_Res Ipsa]

The trouble I have with the Trayvon Martin case is that we only have Zimmerman's account of how it went down. He was free to craft any narrative that was consistent with the forensic evidence.