Likewise, there is no standard whereby 'bringing a gun to a fistfight' is even wrong. It's tactically wise, and perfectly legal given that no one is obligated to submit to being made a party to a fistfight without his permission. Kyle didn't go there to fistfight. He went to put out fires and render medical aid.
Furthermore, it wasn't 'a fistfight.' Testimony established that Kyle was fired upon, and one of the witnesses admitted pointing a gun at Kyle's head. One of the prosecution's witnesses!
Don't even get me started on the prosecutor pointing a rifle at the jury without even checking it to be sure it was unloaded. He should have been arrested on the spot. That's how people get shot -- ask Alec Baldwin.
This has been a travesty. How is it acceptable for a prosecutor to lie to the jury about the legal standards, or the facts in evidence? These aren't matters of interpretation. They're black letter law, or matters proven by undisputed eyewitness testimony.
6 comments:
Legal Insurrection was disappointed in the defense's summation.
I thought it started very strong, then wandered.
Everyone on both sides seemed to have a hard time with the concept that you carry a gun in case you need it, without having the intent to use it--not because you won't if you don't have to, but because you don't think it's certain you'll have to. Once or twice someone likened it to using a seatbelt, which wasn't a bad analogy. You might not drive to the store at all if you magically knew ahead of time that you were going to get into a wreck. In real life, you wear the belt just in case, without believing "the case" will arise. So you can carry a weapon to defend property, but you're still not supposed to shoot to kill unless your life as well as your property is at risk. That may not be a good rule for the home, where I'd say you should be able to use deadly force to repel entry without waiting for proof of imminent danger of death to the occupants, but it's a workable rule for defending property on the street. We're not talking about pickpockets here, though, we're talking about people for whom the line between a little creative property destruction and deadly mayhem is blurry. If they put a taxpayer in fear for life, it's on them. The taxpayer just has to show his perception of danger was reasonable, and if you've been threatening him and generally acting like a crazy person, you make his case for him--even if your feelings are very hurt in a cause beloved of the media and your jerk of a local prosecutor.
A fellow at the auto parts store today asked me about the Kabar knife I carry on my belt. How old was it? It looked old. It does look old; I've carried it for thirty years, including twice to Iraq. I carry it just about everywhere, I said, because you never know when you might need it.
"Sure," he said. "You might need to open a can. Or cut a rope. Why, a knife like that could come in useful all kinds of ways."
I don't carry a rifle about me habitually, but then again, neither did Kyle. He just carried one when there were riots in his city -- as is appropriate and sensible, given riots already occurring. As a fellow pointed out today, the videos show Antifa appearing with rifles two days before the Kyle incident. He didn't start it; he was just a citizen responding to it, and to the collapse of police protection associated with the mayor's orders to stand down and let it happen.
Now the mayor and governor have 500 National Guardsmen on stand-by, and I'll make a confident prediction they won't be needed if Rittenhouse is found guilty.
AMericans accept it, that is why Grim.
Slavesof Satan Obey.
Who here refuses to Obey Fauci?
Name the Name.
@ T99 - I agree about the seatbelt analogy. Of course you wouldn't go at all if you knew you were going to get into an accident (or knew the bridge was out, or zombies were at the supermarket, or whatever). But you wear the belt because there is some chance it will be needed, it's a minor intervention, and the consequences could be catastrophic.
People have gone their whole lives not wearing safety goggles with power tools and received no harm. Yet a few people have taken serious harm without them. So really, what's the big deal, once you have bought them and have gotten into the habit?
Post a Comment