Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh > #2483324

Rittenhouse Verdict: Shooting White People On The Streets Now Legal In Wisconsin!

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Shootin Americans in the USA has never been more fun!

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-verdict-
reveal-true-value-life-wisconsin-ncna1284131

On Friday, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five counts, 
including reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide and recklessly 
endangering safety. Alongside Rittenhouse, however, the law of self-
defense was on trial in Wisconsin. The law provides that a person is 
allowed to use deadly force here, if such force is necessary to prevent 
the threat of deadly force from another. And yet, the question of when 
killing another is justified is subject to a community standard. As we 
condemn or heroize Rittenhouse and his victims, we also give meaning to 
the law. In doing so, we are determining the value we give to the lives of 
others.

As a social media fire understandably rages, we might also consider what 
this case says about us.

In Kenosha, Wisconsin, a white law enforcement officer who shot a Black 
man seven times in the back was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in January. 
Racial anguish quickly erupted into protests. Demonstrators and police 
clashed. Property was destroyed. White men in body armor wielding AR-15s 
arrived to take up “posts” to “shout, shove, show and shoot.” Kyle 
Rittenhouse, a white 17 year old, entered the fray, a kite in a hurricane. 
A man reportedly struggling with behavioral health issues chased 
Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse panicked. Within the next three minutes, the boy 
shot at four people, killing two and wounding one.

The incident hovered just below the most commonly used threshold of a 
“mass shooting.” The state charged Rittenhouse with multiple crimes, 
including intentional, reckless and attempted homicide. Some immediately 
lionized him. Some argued the victims deserved to die. Some argued they 
would have killed the surviving gunshot victim, who was armed but did not 
fire his weapon, counting him lucky. Some celebrated the boy’s shooting 
skills and discipline. Others wished him a life in prison. Still a kite, 
still a hurricane.
Want more articles like this? Follow THINK on Instagram to get updates on 
the week's most important cultural analysis

As a social media fire now understandably rages over allegations of 
judicial bias, litigant strategy, and the character and testimony of the 
witnesses and Rittenhouse, we might also consider what this case says 
about us. The laws at issue, their application and their interpretation 
reveal an unsettled, troubling picture of who we are.

The core of Wisconsin’s statute is consistent with other jurisdictions. 
But what does its deadly force language really mean? It means what we say 
it means. Social media noise matters; as folks condemn Rittenhouse, or 
portray him as a hero and condemn the gunshot victims, the community 
standard takes shape. And how this standard evolves (or devolves) says 
much about our values.

With open-carry becoming more prevalent, the possibility that two people, 
each reasonably fearing great bodily harm or death, will (legally) shoot 
each other increases. And now that a jury in Kenosha might find 
Rittenhouse justified, we are contending with a view of self-defense that 
transforms an active shooter into a privileged actor.

I was particularly struck by the pretrial testimony of the defense’s use-
of-force expert. When asked by the prosecutor whether Rittenhouse could 
have used deadly force against the first, unarmed victim if Rittenhouse 
was also unarmed, the expert opined, “no.” What is the basis of this 
reasoning, that an armed individual has greater discretion to use deadly 
force than an unarmed individual?
 

Not surprisingly, use-of-force experts typically testify in officer-
involved shootings, and this use-of-force theory comes from police 
training. Police are trained that there is no such thing as an unarmed 
encounter, given that an officer carries a gun. At the hearing, 
Rittenhouse’s expert stated that “the firearm is a potential weapon for 
both parties.” Under this reasoning, Rittenhouse’s decision to arm himself 
theoretically arms anyone who advances on Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse having 
a gun gave him a right to kill that, unarmed, he would not have. Will we 
accept such reasoning, extending the privileges we give police officers at 
trial to armed civilians like Rittenhouse? This trajectory takes us to a 
very dystopian destination.
 

And a final note: A self-reflective gun owner might have considered the 
emotional trauma caused by roaming around with an AR-15 in a community 
grieving a Black man being mercilessly shot by a white officer. Maturity 
and empathy aside, most of us know that having a right does not mean you 
should always exercise that right. Turning the mirror on ourselves, 
Rittenhouse walked the streets, after curfew, with an AR-15 and was not 
once briefly detained by law enforcement to inspect his ID. His lawyer 
calls him a hero, and his expert contends — perhaps not incorrectly — that 
for an armed individual in Wisconsin, aggression is indistinguishable from 
self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.

Back to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Rittenhouse Verdict: Shooting White People On The Streets Now Legal In Wisconsin! Klaus  Schadenfreude <klaus_schadenfreude@null.net> - 2022-01-16 01:49 +0000

csiph-web