The Right to Self Defense (4 Viewers)

[matuski]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

 

[jm192]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

The extreme left would say yes.  That using self defense in defense of Rittenhouse is fascism.  The majority of the posters on this board don't fall into that category.  

I think there are a lot here who think he created a situation by bringing an AR to a powder keg and without doing so--2 people would be alive.  I think some can't separate "self defense" and "No, he has to be punished."

I don't see this as murder.  I don't think he should be charged with murder.  I do worry about the ramifications of a 17 year old boy walking across state lines with an AR to police the situation, killing 2 people in self defense, and walking away with no consequences.  

 

[Chaz McNulty]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

I know, not the same thing, slippery slope, etc.  There are just a lot of situations that you could put yourself into with nasty intentions, and then claim self-defense.

 

[jm192]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

I know, not the same thing, slippery slope, etc.  There are just a lot of situations that you could put yourself into with nasty intentions, and then claim self-defense.

I don't think which group we're discussing matters.  Whether it's BLM, MAGA, Antifa, Proud boys, etc.  I think we can all agree the standard should be the same.  

And people weren't just in his face, right?  People chased him, grabbed at his gun.  Didn't one guy even point a gun at him.  You can't compare apples to apples by making it a BLM protestor but someone "got up in their face."  

I'm not "ok" with the entire situation.  But if someone is chasing you, trying to take a gun away from you, pointing a gun at you--I...I think you can defend yourself.  

 

[jon_mx]

The extreme left would say yes.  That using self defense in defense of Rittenhouse is fascism.  The majority of the posters on this board don't fall into that category.  

I think there are a lot here who think he created a situation by bringing an AR to a powder keg and without doing so--2 people would be alive.  I think some can't separate "self defense" and "No, he has to be punished."

I don't see this as murder.  I don't think he should be charged with murder.  I do worry about the ramifications of a 17 year old boy walking across state lines with an AR to police the situation, killing 2 people in self defense, and walking away with no consequences.  

He did not cross the state line with a gun.  What should he be charged with?  He was instructed to go to a location alone which had been over run by rioters.  They spotted him coming and ambushed him, one of whom was brandishing a handgun.  He ran and they chased him and fired their weapon first.  

He should have never been asked to go down to that location without friends. But punishing someone for being ambushed and attacked is odd.  

 

[jon_mx]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

I know, not the same thing, slippery slope, etc.  There are just a lot of situations that you could put yourself into with nasty intentions, and then claim self-defense.

They did not pull their guns out when they got in their face.  When Rosenbaum was simply in their face screaming 'shoot me n-word', nobody did anything.  

Now let's put a black man in Kyle's place.  He gets separated from his group.  He gets a call from his buddy to check out a different location where fires are happening.  He wanders down there alone and gets ambushed by three people, one if them brandishing a handgun.  One of them sneaks up from behind and starts screaming and chasing after him.  The black man flees and is chased across the parking lot.  The man brandishing the handgun fires a shot.  The black man gets cornered and the man chasing him plunges towards him.  There not a person on this forum who would not support the black man if he defends himself.  That is a lynching. 

 

[quick-hands]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

Go back to Jan 2017 and after during various riots.  And ask that question.

 

[KarmaPolice]

The extreme left would say yes.  That using self defense in defense of Rittenhouse is fascism.  The majority of the posters on this board don't fall into that category.  

I think there are a lot here who think he created a situation by bringing an AR to a powder keg and without doing so--2 people would be alive.  I think some can't separate "self defense" and "No, he has to be punished."

I don't see this as murder.  I don't think he should be charged with murder.  I do worry about the ramifications of a 17 year old boy walking across state lines with an AR to police the situation, killing 2 people in self defense, and walking away with no consequences.  

Interesting that you chose to answer for a group of people, and also framed it that if anybody says no in the thread they are "extreme left".  

 

[KarmaPolice]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

No?

Do I think the person in question should make that choice?  That depends on where on the spectrum of "yours, theirs, whoever's" we are talking.  

Do I think the person in question should bare no responsibility if somebody gets hurt/shot/killed?  That would depend on the situation, but probably no again.  

Like a couple others posted in the KR thread, I come from a position of not wanting open or cc laws from the start.  Focus more on the first part of the post about the 3 days of damage and problem solve how to do address that better in the future, and focus less on if we should allow citizens to do that job.  

 

[pantherclub]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

yes

 

[Max Power]

No!  It's a very dumb take by the prosecution. 

 

[Prinefan]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

Simply, yes.  To me, the larger point is travelling to another place to "defend someone else's property" AS A TEENAGER.  There's definitely a lot of gray area here but he just never should have gone there.  He was a boy playing war with real guns and real victims. 

 

[Godsbrother]

I am only in here to see if jon_mx had formed an opinion on this case.  He was very wishy-washy in the other thread and it was hard for me to figure out his stance on the matter. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Simply, yes.  To me, the larger point is travelling to another place to "defend someone else's property" AS A TEENAGER.  There's definitely a lot of gray area here but he just never should have gone there.  He was a boy playing war with real guns and real victims. 

A person's age is completely irrelevant to whether self-defense applies.

Edit: And so is race of course.  Black people have just as much right to defend their lives and property as white people, and it's odd that that's put out there as a "gotcha" hypothetical.

 

[Stealthycat]

bringing a gun is never the problem

when someone tried to bust your skull with a skateboard ..... that becomes the problem and yes, you have a right to kill someone who's trying to kill you

 

[CletiusMaximus]

No!  It's a very dumb take by the prosecution. 

Its a stupid and ignorant question by OP. Neither the prosecution nor anyone else is saying “you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun.” Obviously anyone who provokes an attack through his actions loses the self-defense privilege in a homicide case. That’s the law everywhere and is common sense. It’s a fact question for a jury. The fact all these Maga idiots and boogaloo posers are making this case a cause celebre to flaunt their ignorance is disgusting to me. A young man is facing life imprisonment today. It’s not about them. 

 

[supermike80]

Its a stupid and ignorant question by OP. Neither the prosecution nor anyone else is saying “you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun.” Obviously anyone who provokes an attack through his actions loses the self-defense privilege in a homicide case. That’s the law everywhere and is common sense. It’s a fact question for a jury. The fact all these Maga idiots and boogaloo posers are making this case a cause celebre to flaunt their ignorance is disgusting to me. A young man is facing life imprisonment today. It’s not about them. 

Wow you called a lot of people a lot of names in this post.  Holy moly.   That generally doesn't lead to a good conversation.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Its a stupid and ignorant question by OP. Neither the prosecution nor anyone else is saying “you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun.” Obviously anyone who provokes an attack through his actions loses the self-defense privilege in a homicide case. That’s the law everywhere and is common sense. It’s a fact question for a jury. The fact all these Maga idiots and boogaloo posers are making this case a cause celebre to flaunt their ignorance is disgusting to me. A young man is facing life imprisonment today. It’s not about them. 

What actions did he take to provoke and attack?  And just to be clear, he had just as much right to be there as anyone else and had every right to be armed, correct?

 

[pantherclub]

bringing a gun is never the problem

when someone tried to bust your skull with a skateboard ..... that becomes the problem and yes, you have a right to kill someone who's trying to kill you

Do you have the right to shot someone who is vandalizing cars?

 

[pantherclub]

What actions did he take to provoke and attack?  And just to be clear, he had just as much right to be there as anyone else and had every right to be armed, correct?

Not correct, its against the law to be under 18

 

[unckeyherb]

Do you have the right to shot someone who is vandalizing cars?

of course not.  No is saying that at all.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Not correct, its against the law to be under 18

No its not.  Which is why the weapons charge was dropped.  

 

[pantherclub]

No its not.  Which is why the weapons charge was dropped.  

The weapons charged was dropped because the crazy judge wants him to walk

 

[Sparky Big Time]

Of late it is clear that ones right to self defense is increasingly dependent on ones skin color.  It is sad to see the return of racism.

 

[Max Power]

Its a stupid and ignorant question by OP. Neither the prosecution nor anyone else is saying “you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun.” 

Binger: “You lose the right to self defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”

https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1460304683940167693?s=20

 

[Max Power]

No its not.  Which is why the weapons charge was dropped.  

Pretty straight forward here. 

 

[unckeyherb]

The weapons charged was dropped because the crazy judge wants him to walk

oh.  ok.

 

[jm192]

Interesting that you chose to answer for a group of people, and also framed it that if anybody says no in the thread they are "extreme left".  

I probably wasn't very clear.

Me saying the majority of the board doesn't fall into that category was me summarizing what I've read on the board.  I'm not intending to answer for most of the board.  Just that--most of the board seems to think this was self defense.

I don't think that arguing this wasn't self defense makes you extreme left.  That one opinion does not define your place on the political spectrum.  I do think most of the people that fall on the extreme left are very much against the idea of letting him argue self defense.  I think most people that are against the self defense defense are those on the extreme left.  

 

[unckeyherb]

Binger: “You lose the right to self defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”

https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1460304683940167693?s=20

Lol, right.  He literally said the exact words.  

 

[Sparky Big Time]

The weapons charged was dropped because the crazy judge wants him to walk

I would prefer that a weapons charge be brought here, I think it would be appropriate and is really needed.  Sadly, the way the law is written the judge has no choice. 

Rather than impugn someone who does something you do not like, it is better to look more expansively at the situation.  Just because someone thinks or acts differently than you would does not make them lesser, stupid or evil.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The weapons charged was dropped because the crazy judge wants him to walk

Are you even paying attention to the trial? The judge dropped weapons charge because it applied to short barrel rifles. 

 

[Navin Johnson]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

I know, not the same thing, slippery slope, etc.  There are just a lot of situations that you could put yourself into with nasty intentions, and then claim self-defense.

If a bunch of Crenshaw boys showed up packing to an OC MAGA rally would they be given the same benefit of the doubt if they felt threatened and peeled off a few rounds?

 

[jon_mx]

The weapons charged was dropped because the crazy judge wants him to walk

...there is a clear exception in the law for 16 and 17 year olds to have long guns.  It is called the law.  

 

[unckeyherb]

If an armed BLM group was "guarding" a shop on Pennsylvania Avenue on January 6th, and a few of the more aggressive protestors/insurrectionists got in their face.  Would it be OK to pull their guns out and start shooting if they felt threatened?

I know, not the same thing, slippery slope, etc.  There are just a lot of situations that you could put yourself into with nasty intentions, and then claim self-defense.

When you say get in their face, do you mean get within 6" and scream insults at the top of their lungs?  Because that seems to happen quite a bit these days.  If thats what you mean, then the answer would of course be no.  

If you mean someone threatens to kill them, chases them, beats them with a skateboard and points a gun on them, then yes.  Don't see much of a slippery slope here.  

 

[Phil Elliott]

Charges should be brought against Binger:

 I get: "It's against the law to point a gun at anyone"

then Binger lifts the AK-15 and aims it at the jury?

 

[Nugget]

3 days of rioting, $50 million and counting damage done to property, dozens of busineses looted, the town on fire.  Law enforcement has tried rubber bullets and tear gas..

You bring a gun to protect property... yours, theirs, whoever's.  Do you lose the right to defend yourself because you brought the gun?

You do not lose your right to defend yourself. Many people don’t go to the gun first as a way to defend themselves. 

 

[Max Power]

Charges should be brought against Binger:

"It's against the law to point a gun at anyone"

then he lifts the AK-15 and aims it at the jury?

At least he displayed proper trigger discipline... oh wait.

Dude almost Baldwin'd the jury. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Binger: “You lose the right to self defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”

https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1460304683940167693?s=20

The provocation instruction was argued extensively last week and again yesterday. This excerpt from Bingers 2 hour closing doesn’t change that. They spent hours explaining the provocation incident and I’m sure the jury understands it. I think most agree the evidence on provocation is very weak in this case, but it’s not a general prohibition on bringing a gun to Kenosha which everyone acknowledges is legal conduct.

It sucks that the media has made this case about one tribe of morons against the other tribe of morons, but such is life these days. I think the defendant has had a fair trial, which is all we can ask for. The judge and lawyers have all done a good job.  I’m going to accept the jury’s verdict regardless of the outcome and I wish others would make the same pledge, but of course that’s a pipe dream. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

What actions did he take to provoke and attack?  And just to be clear, he had just as much right to be there as anyone else and had every right to be armed, correct?

If the jury sees what the prosecution sees in the drone video that Rittenhouse chases the Rosenbaum and Ziminski group and points his gun at the Ziminskis then it seems pretty clear.  Problem for the prosecutor what I have seen of the video isn't all that clear to me (but I did miss this presentation of evidence so maybe if I knew where to look it would be different). 

 

[Stealthycat]

Do you have the right to shot someone who is vandalizing cars?

what does the law say in your state ? in Arkansas I don't think that justifies shooting, I'd be surprised if it did in any state

 

[Phil Elliott]

If the jury sees what the prosecution sees in the drone video that Rittenhouse chases the Rosenbaum and Ziminski group and points his gun at the Ziminski's then it seems pretty clear.  Problem for the prosecutor what I have seen of the video isn't all that clear to me (but I did miss this presentation of evidence so maybe if I knew where to look it would be different). 

Yes, I agree what the prosecution was describing was not obvious/clear at all in the video. 

 

[Stealthycat]

what bothers me more right now, is the threats of burning/looting/destruction in cities if court cases aren't decided how the people want them decided

If Rittenhouse is found not guilty how many cities will burn? hundreds of millions in damages, dead people, chaos, looting, rioting .....  that shouldn't EVER EVER EVER be tolerated or  allowed and that it is, IMO, impacts the judge/jury 

 

[Nugget]

what bothers me more right now, is the threats of burning/looting/destruction in cities if court cases aren't decided how the people want them decided

If Rittenhouse is found not guilty how many cities will burn? hundreds of millions in damages, dead people, chaos, looting, rioting .....  that shouldn't EVER EVER EVER be tolerated or  allowed and that it is, IMO, impacts the judge/jury 

Agreed.  Same with elections.  

 

[Phil Elliott]

what bothers me more right now, is the threats of burning/looting/destruction in cities if court cases aren't decided how the people want them decided

If Rittenhouse is found not guilty how many cities will burn? hundreds of millions in damages, dead people, chaos, looting, rioting .....  that shouldn't EVER EVER EVER be tolerated or  allowed and that it is, IMO, impacts the judge/jury 

You mean like this?

George Floyd nephew threatens Rittenhouse jury

 

[Chaz McNulty]

When you say get in their face, do you mean get within 6" and scream insults at the top of their lungs?  Because that seems to happen quite a bit these days.  If thats what you mean, then the answer would of course be no.  

If you mean someone threatens to kill them, chases them, beats them with a skateboard and points a gun on them, then yes.  Don't see much of a slippery slope here.  

How about if there's pushing and maybe someone takes a swing at someone?  We see this all the time in protest-counter protest situations. 

 

[Ben & Jerry's]

The prosecution team has done a poor job trying this case. Binger is a tool.

 

[Battersbox]

If the jury sees what the prosecution sees in the drone video that Rittenhouse chases the Rosenbaum and Ziminski group and points his gun at the Ziminskis then it seems pretty clear.  Problem for the prosecutor what I have seen of the video isn't all that clear to me (but I did miss this presentation of evidence so maybe if I knew where to look it would be different). 

Did Ziminski or anyone he allegedly pointed his gun at testify? If not, why not? Has there been any theory as to why they wouldn't? Genuinely curious about that.

 

[unckeyherb]

Did Ziminski or anyone he allegedly pointed his gun at testify? If not, why not? Has there been any theory as to why they wouldn't? Genuinely curious about that.

I don't believe anyone testified to witnessing him pointing his gun.  I could be wrong about that, but as far as I know the prosecution is relying on drone footage that was zoomed in and "enhanced".  Don't think what they are suggesting happened is at all clear.  

 

[apalmer]

Liberty Valance walks into a bar and knocks a tray of food out of the hands of some lawyer working as a waiter.  When the waiter turns towards him, holding the empty tray over his head, Liberty feels threatened. Does he lose the right of self-defense or is it OK to shoot the waiter?

 

[unckeyherb]

How about if there's pushing and maybe someone takes a swing at someone?  We see this all the time in protest-counter protest situations. 

sure and its not black and white.  I'd say if someone was punching me and I felt like it was going to get ugly then yes.  You don't have a right to put your hands on me.  Now I personally would punch back, but that's why its not black and white and why we have trials for these types of things.