The prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case did some beautiful wilderness And are clearly false in their statements Closing Statement, Including the absurd Suggest Once you bring a gun, you no longer have the right to self-defense.
A prosecution argument that has sparked a lot of discussion revolves around one of the DA’s assertions that if you are not threatened by a gunman, then you are not in danger of firing your gun for self-defense.Indeed, this is the argument Made yesterday Prosecutor James Kraus pointed out that the skateboard used by Anthony Huber, who was killed by Rittenhouse, against Rittenhouse should not be considered a lethal weapon.
In his comments, Klaus actually mocked the idea, implying that parents would be surprised to find that one of their favorite gifts to their children is based on the defense’s lethal weapon:
🚨🚨Prosecutor James Klaus argued in the closing statement of the Kyle Rittenhouse case that skateboarding cannot be used as a lethal weapon and joked that parents should give their children AR-15 as a Christmas gift pic.twitter.com/NFjG1h8zJO
— Crab Crawler (@crabcrawler1) November 16, 2021
Coming to its logical conclusion, Klaus almost seems to be effectively arguing about Gage Grosscrutz, who bombed the prosecutor’s case last week when He admits Oath Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse. He should die because he was holding a Glock pistol. But they had argued so many times before that it made sense for him to point Glock to Rittenhouse, because it was reported that amidst the chaos, an active shooter was at large. So it’s like the prosecutor is trying to do a two-pronged approach here.
But in addition to this particular inconsistency, a bigger problem arises in a bigger problem, namely that an unarmed person will not pose a sufficiently powerful threat to be able to justify the use of deadly force in the form of a loaded gun in self-defense. Is reasonable. This is an argument that is repeatedly implied in “direct news” articles. In these articles, reporters always notice that someone is a shooting victim, especially in a shooting case involving a police officer, who is “unarmed.” The implication is clear. According to the media, “unarmed” = “not a threat”.
This is such a dangerous argument, it goes against logic. Our history is full of situations of victims, where unarmed people suppress them or persecute them in a way they consider threatening, while victims think they have no choice but to shoot them to take them. Walk away from them.
Women on the receiving end of those who tried to sexually assault them shot their (sometimes unarmed) attackers. The men had confronted the violent attackers who broke into their homes and shot them. In these situations, it doesn’t matter whether the attacker is defenseless or not. What matters is his/her suspicious intentions. If they threaten that person physically, whether it is with a fist, a brick, or any object, it is still a threat, and a person has the right to shoot in self-defense.
Our history is also full of iconic examples of unarmed mobs causing great harm to cities and people after being provoked. In the violent riots led by Antifa/BLM last year, we have seen many examples, but perhaps the most iconic image in modern American history is the Los Angeles truck driver Reginald Denny, who was transferred from his transfer in Los Angeles in 1992 The truck was pulled out to riot and was nearly beaten to death by four mobs who were upset by the Los Angeles Police Department/Rodney King acquittal:
Why does Kyle Rittenhouse need to use a gun? What harm can a group of unarmed thugs really cause? pic.twitter.com/EcY5Pr79Dr
-Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 16, 2021
Let’s have one Look back what happened:
Antoine Miller climbed up to open the truck door, giving an unidentified person a chance to pull Danny out and throw it on the ground. Henry Watson stood on Danny’s neck and held him down, a group of people surrounded him, and Anthony Brown kicked him in the abdomen. When Watson walked away, two other unidentified individuals joined the attack: one threw a 5-pound oxygenator stolen from Larry Tavern’s truck onto Danny’s head, and the other kicked it. He also hit him with a claw hammer. News footage shows Damian Williams throwing a cinder block at Danny’s head, then performing a football-style victory dance on the road, and playing with Bob Tell (now Zoe Tell) Gang logo flashed on Malika Gerrard’s Los Angeles News Service helicopter. After the beating, some men threw beer bottles at the unconscious body, and a man searched Danny’s back pocket and took his wallet. Tours and Gerrard reported that there were no police officers in the area.
Does Danny have any reason to shoot at the unarmed man who attacked him? Obviously, they posed a serious threat to Danny, even though none of them had a gun.
The answer is yes, it makes sense, just like Rittenhouse used his gun to defend himself in Kenosha last August.
The legal arguments put forward in court on these issues must be more accurate, because even prosecutors know that a person has the right to use lethal force to defend himself when necessary, even against unarmed people. This is twofold for the media. They can lay the foundation for the case in one way or another based on public opinion and actual court reports, depending on how loose or accurate their reports are.
Showing that the person who was shot, injured or killed was “unarmed” does not tell us whether the person might pose an actual threat. What we need to know is the incident that led to the shooting, rather than reporting that someone was “unarmed,” so that we can form our own opinions on whether we think the end result is reasonable.
This shouldn’t be asked too much, but obviously, it is.
