Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

[myDeaconmyhand]

Anyone following the Rittenhouse trial?

Prosecution is going to rest today, and it's looking increasingly likely like his self defense claim is going to stick.

Has it ever been explained how a minor was able to cross state lines with a rifle, then open carry that rifle for which he was too young to even have a permit? What’s the point of gun laws at all if you are free to the same self defense claims whether or not you legally possess the firearm?

 

[PhDeac]

It's increasingly clear that people aren't allowed to defend themselves against someone with a gun because a gunman can always shoot first and claim self-defense.

[h=1]A secret tape made after Columbine shows the NRA's evolution on school shootings[/h]https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1049054141/a-secret-tape-made-after-columbine-shows-the-nras-evolution-on-school-shootings

A lot of interesting information here. This was a well-thought-out strategy that defied some of the more sympathetic leanings of some of the leaders who wanted to cancel the convention, start a fund for the victims, and not be part of the discourse.

The NRA ultimately decided to hold its convention in Denver after the shootings, albeit vastly scaled down in size. It was met by thousands of protesters.
And inside, then-NRA President Charlton Heston delivered the defiant message that its leaders had planned out in their private calls — a message very similar to the group's position on mass shootings today: The national media is not to be trusted, and any conversation about guns and the NRA after mass shootings is an untoward politicization of the issue.
"Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food," Heston said at the time to applause. "The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom on fresh graves."

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I just don’t understand how someone can legitimately claim self defense in the process of blatantly illegal vigilanteism

 

[ImTheCaptain]

the best defense is offense? or, perhaps more elegantly put:

 

[PhDeac]

Perhaps we can use the CL68 argument from the sports board, that Rittenhouse shot slow enough that it was self-defense.

I just don’t understand how someone can legitimately claim self defense in the process of blatantly illegal vigilanteism

Because he's white.

Sure the basic idea that someone shot 3 people in self-defense makes no sense because after the first shot was fired, those 3 people were defending themselves against an active shooter.

But he's a white guy supported by the conservative media ecosystem that include the judge and probably some of the jury.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Has it ever been explained how a minor was able to cross state lines with a rifle, then open carry that rifle for which he was too young to even have a permit? What’s the point of gun laws at all if you are free to the same self defense claims whether or not you legally possess the firearm?

Sadly, that part isn't on trial and likely never will be.

This whole thing is about vigilantism gone wrong. Passes with guns thinking they can actually do something with them escalate a situation to the point where they can then claim self defense. It's a sick twisted world we live in.

The judge seems to have been pretty antagonistic towards the prosecution in this trial too.

 

[PhDeac]

We live in a world where you can't stop a potential shooter because that shooter can just shoot you and claim self-defense. Dylann Roof's lawyers have to be kicking themselves for not harnessing right-wing anger and claiming self-defense.

 

[Rafi]

It's increasingly clear that people aren't allowed to defend themselves against someone with a gun because a gunman can always shoot first and claim self-defense.

[h=1]A secret tape made after Columbine shows the NRA's evolution on school shootings[/h]https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/1049054141/a-secret-tape-made-after-columbine-shows-the-nras-evolution-on-school-shootings

A lot of interesting information here. This was a well-thought-out strategy that defied some of the more sympathetic leanings of some of the leaders who wanted to cancel the convention, start a fund for the victims, and not be part of the discourse.

The NRA showed total disdain for their members and lawmakers.

They doubled down after columbine and switched their position from supporting background checks and eliminating guns in schools to the opposite, because gun sales were dropping. So many school shootings and deaths are the result of the NRAs tactics. What a horrible organization.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Rittenhouse is testifying in his own defense.

Chode.

 

[Deacfreak07]

Rittenhouse is testifying in his own defense.

Chode.

It’ll probably result in more revenue from gofundme

 

[Liquid Karma]

I'm not sure the crocodile tears are playing as well as he hoped.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Sadly, that part isn't on trial and likely never will be.

This whole thing is about vigilantism gone wrong. Passes with guns thinking they can actually do something with them escalate a situation to the point where they can then claim self defense. It's a sick twisted world we live in.

The judge seems to have been pretty antagonistic towards the prosecution in this trial too.

Yes, thats incredibly frustrating. I won’t pretend to have some nuanced take on how the trial is going, I’ve just heard that the defense is winning, which isn’t surprising. I think public opinion on the event is mostly a partisan judgement on the kid being there with a gun in the first place - those of us who condemn him for going assume that whatever happened was probably his fault, where the people who supported him going to Kenosha automatically assume he was just defending himself. Remove that political subjectivity and it’s a complete mystery to me.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Yes, thats incredibly frustrating. I won’t pretend to have some nuanced take on how the trial is going, I’ve just heard that the defense is winning, which isn’t surprising. I think public opinion on the event is mostly a partisan judgement on the kid being there with a gun in the first place - those of us who condemn him for going assume that whatever happened was probably his fault, where the people who supported him going to Kenosha automatically assume he was just defending himself. Remove that political subjectivity and it’s a complete mystery to me.

At this point it's pretty much a done deal. When the prosecution brought in the one gunshot victim who survived and he had to admit he leveled a gun at Rittenhouse (after claiming he was unarmed in his civil suit against the city), it pretty much guarantees a few jurors will view it all as self defense now. Just a disaster of a witness.

No clue why Rittenhouse bothered to take the stand after that.

 

[birdman]

At this point it's pretty much a done deal. When the prosecution brought in the one gunshot victim who survived and he had to admit he leveled a gun at Rittenhouse (after claiming he was unarmed in his civil suit against the city), it pretty much guarantees a few jurors will view it all as self defense now. Just a disaster of a witness.

No clue why Rittenhouse bothered to take the stand after that.

$$$$$$$$$$

 

[PhDeac]

So he shot the one dude who had a gun in self-defense. What about the other three he shot and killed?

 

[Liquid Karma]

So he shot the one dude who had a gun in self-defense. What about the other three he shot and killed?

It's all about creating reasonable doubt. Absent evidence to the contrary (like video of him shooting anyone else where they weren't coming after him), he's going to walk because this one dude did exactly what gun nuts say he should do...a good guy with a gun going after a bad guy with a gun.

 

[Kory]

 

[Les Grossman]

It's all about creating reasonable doubt. Absent evidence to the contrary (like video of him shooting anyone else where they weren't coming after him), he's going to walk because this one dude did exactly what gun nuts say he should do...a good guy with a gun going after a bad guy with a gun.

This case was a loser from the start. Riots are going on. Multiple people with firearms, including at least one of the victims, and self-defense becomes very easy to argue and cast that seed of doubt. Add on to that the Prosecution “star witness” testifying yesterday that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse and this case is done. Why the defense allowed him to testify after that is beyond me, but it is the client’s call. Might have handed the prosecution a gift, but I have read that the prosecution messed that up by possibly commenting on his right to remain silent. So, even if the jury comes back guilty, I can see the judge declaring a mistrial.

 

[Liquid Karma]

Didn't the DA rush to charge as well?

 

[PhDeac]

This case was a loser from the start. Riots are going on. Multiple people with firearms, including at least one of the victims, and self-defense becomes very easy to argue and cast that seed of doubt. Add on to that the Prosecution “star witness” testifying yesterday that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse and this case is done. Why the defense allowed him to testify after that is beyond me, but it is the client’s call. Might have handed the prosecution a gift, but I have read that the prosecution messed that up by possibly commenting on his right to remain silent. So, even if the jury comes back guilty, I can see the judge declaring a mistrial.

But what about the other 3 people he shot and killed? Can a gunman "defend" himself against one person and then have free reign to kill others?