Kyle Rittenhouse Trial.

[vcdgrips]

Gun handling re both lead attys in the case:

I would note that one of the "case agents/detectives" assigned to the case seemed to have the job of checking the rifle when the attys were "using" it in the courtroom.

I know I saw such activity when the lead defense atty was in closing.

Despite the detective saying he had checked it earlier, the defense atty asked him was he sure, to which the judge simply order the detective to "check it again."

He did so by pulling the bolt back and visually inspecting the chamber. While doing so, he showed it another male who I presumed to be the other "case agent/detective" on the case before handing it to the atty.

Given the importance of the firearm and how many times it was going to be handled, I am surprised that some type of HIVIZ chamber flag/trigger lock/cable thru the action/ejection port was not in play.

I was also surprised that it did not have the carry strap or the RDS as that is how it was equipped at the time of its use.

[whomever]

If somebody pointed a gun at you in that manner (closed chamber, finger on trigger, no zip tie/chamber flag) it would justify shooting them defensively,...

I wouldn't want to be the lawyer defending that.

The criteria is that a reasonable person would fear for their life. While it's reasonable to be pissed off at the prosecutor's boneheadedness, if you shoot him I think you are in big trouble.

For example, I've had people point guns at me in gun stores - the clerk hand clueless newbie the gun, who promptly starts pointing it at everyone in the store. Generally speaking, reasonable people play the odds that it isn't loaded, rather than opening fire on newbie, and just remonstrate with him.

For another example that has happened to me, you're at the range, clueless newbie in the next lane shoots their first target and is so happy they turn around and point the gun - that I know is loaded - at me. I don't shoot them, I point their gun in a safe direction and have a chat with them and whoever brought them.

There isn't a rule 'if he points a gun at you you can shoot him' rule that is true in all contexts.

[JohnO]

Me: Hands up, don't shoot.
Judge: Explain yourself.
Me: He pointed a gun at me.
Lawyer: It isn't loaded.
Me: That's what Alec Baldwin thought.

I would make Gunny sound like a choir boy and probably say this place isn't safe and get up and walk out.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-model/620715/

A reasonable article that acknowledges the validity of the self-defense claim but the ill advised action of Kyle going to the area and some discussion of the failure of governmental response to destruction.

French is a moderate conservative and says he is 2nd Amendment positive. Points to the problem of confusion leading to bad shooting decisions from civilians and law enforcement. Reference back to the FOF thread based on Karl Rehn's take on the training article I found.

I said this before, but I wonder if a rethink of defense of property (which the prosecution denied - based on current legal doctrine correctly) will occur for major destruction. In TX, force law:

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 ;  and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Certainly there was arson but one could argue insurance might cover some loss. But not all?

However, if it is not your property?

Or it might just all fade away until the next time. Will the outcome discourage the AR-15 walkabout? Encourage it?

[Guerrero]

Did KR get his gun via a straw purchase?

As I understand it, a friend legally purchased it, then lent it to KR for the riots.

So... "straw purchase"? I guess if you squint a little. I'm not sure there's any evidence that the friend was going to let KR have it "permanently."

[joshs]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-model/620715/

A reasonable article that acknowledges the validity of the self-defense claim but the ill advised action of Kyle going to the area and some discussion of the failure of governmental response to destruction.

French is a moderate conservative and says he is 2nd Amendment positive. Points to the problem of confusion leading to bad shooting decisions from civilians and law enforcement. Reference back to the FOF thread based on Karl Rehn's take on the training article I found.

I said this before, but I wonder if a rethink of defense of property (which the prosecution denied - based on current legal doctrine correctly) will occur for major destruction. In TX, force law:



Certainly there was arson but one could argue insurance might cover some loss. But not all?

However, if it is not your property?

Or it might just all fade away until the next time. Will the outcome discourage the AR-15 walkabout? Encourage it?

Quite a few states have a presumption of reasonableness for the use of deadly force to stop a forcible felony (including arson). Mitch Vilos covers them in his 50 state self defense laws book. I don't think that they should necessarily be relied on unless its a state where you can for sure get a special verdict because jurors might disagree with the presumption.

[Guerrero]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-model/620715/

A reasonable article that acknowledges the validity of the self-defense claim but the ill advised action of Kyle going to the area and some discussion of the failure of governmental response to destruction.

French is a moderate conservative and says he is 2nd Amendment positive. Points to the problem of confusion leading to bad shooting decisions from civilians and law enforcement. Reference back to the FOF thread based on Karl Rehn's take on the training article I found.

I said this before, but I wonder if a rethink of defense of property (which the prosecution denied - based on current legal doctrine correctly) will occur for major destruction. In TX, force law:



Certainly there was arson but one could argue insurance might cover some loss. But not all?

However, if it is not your property?

Or it might just all fade away until the next time. Will the outcome discourage the AR-15 walkabout? Encourage it?

IIRC, legally we can't use "deadly force" to protect property in Wisconsin, only life.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

To push to the ridiculous, I was once in a discussion about a guy in TX who was setting fire to people's dogs. Could you shoot him to stop him from lighting the dog up. People are more important that dogs but was it arson. Was a dog replaceable but is a specific, beloved dog replaceable? Morally, is a person who burns dogs alive worthy of life? Angels on the head of a pin!

I do think the meta problem of efficient defense of major property and abandonment of enforcement as HCM mentioned for Seattle or Portland on the long term will cause a rethink. The Korean shopowner paradigm is an example. If you occupy the property, you can argue that the 'attack' on the property threatens you. If it is not your property and you want to 'patrol' - that's an issue.

[wvincent]

So, I have a bit of a question.
The weapon charge was dismissed yesterday as it was not an SBR.
The defense agreed it was not an SBR.
Yet, they brought a charge to where only an SBR or SBS would have made the carrying of the rifle an offense.
They knew it was not a crime.
Yet, they charged him with the offense.
Is this not something worth official sanction or more by the Bar or other organization?

[wvincent]

To push to the ridiculous, I was once in a discussion about a guy in TX who was setting fire to people's dogs. Could you shoot him to stop him from lighting the dog up. People are more important that dogs but was it arson. Was a dog replaceable but is a specific, beloved dog replaceable? Morally, is a person who burns dogs alive worthy of life? Angels on the head of a pin!

I do think the meta problem of efficient defense of major property and abandonment of enforcement as HCM mentioned for Seattle or Portland on the long term will cause a rethink. The Korean shopowner paradigm is an example. If you occupy the property, you can argue that the 'attack' on the property threatens you. If it is not your property and you want to 'patrol' - that's an issue.

Was the arsonist name Mox-Mox?
I read about him, even saw him on the TV once.