In Zimmerman's case, I read Lisa Bloom's book, and subsequently read some of the reporting & court records she relied on. For example: Post-trial interviews with some jurors suggested that only a couple of them were really "pro-Zimmerman" and many of them thought he was guilty to some degree, but the prosecutors just didn't give them anything to work with. Bloom argued that among other sins, the prosecution failed to provide a coherent narrative to counter Zimmerman's. They deferred to the questionable expertise of a defense expert witness rather than challenging it. Etc. It really, REALLY bummed me out that she went on to defend Harvey Weinstein, because her book on the case changed the way I looked at it. I still wish she had left out the final chapter on gun control--not because I disagreed, but because I think it makes her argument easier for partisans to dismiss--but reading it, and doing some follow-up reading just to see if I agreed with her interpretation of the evidence, convinced me that not only was Zimmerman a scumbag who bore moral guilt for Martin's death, he was also LEGALLY responsible. I had previously believed that while horrific and unjust, Zimmerman's killing of Martin was legal under Florida law and the circumstance. Bloom convinced me that, to the contrary, the prosecution blew a winnable case, and that Zimmerman got away with murder. In Rittenhouse's case, I haven't read any sustained post-trial analysis yet but it sure looks like the jury made the right call (keeping in mind their job is to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt according to the law, not to mete out justice). Rittenhouse had videos, photos, and eyewitness testimony which helped his case. Zimmerman's defense was a lot weaker than that, and better prosecutors could have torn it apart.
Meant to tell you, that your earlier point about actions leading to the moment of action is what gun laws have been campaigning for. They want to narrow self defense to in that moment not how we got there plus their no provocation clause is flimsy as 1 ply. It has to be like a call out. So if in the seconds before KR or GZ feared for their life then it is all good. Generally speaking what I don't get is how you bring the gun then almost have it taken from you so you have to shoot your way out. You wouldn't had to fire and almost lose your gun if you never brought it.
Well this is the chaos that the whole mass shooting/pro-gun lobby has created. It's legal to open carry, not my problem if that triggers someone or they see it as escalating a situation or provocation. Then a shot is fired, people see someone with a gun and not knowing what is going on in the moment decide to try and disarm them because, you know MASS SHOOTINGS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME in this country. And then the person with the gun, fearing for their life, decides to start shooting in self defense. WRT Rittenhouse, does anyone know if the prosecution ever asked him if he had given any thought to under what circumstances he was prepared to fire his weapon to "protect property" since that is ostensibly the whole reason he was there in the first place?
Unlikely. It was the judge that decided the weapons charge should be disqualified, I am not sure if the defense even brought it up.
I read it twice (it's a quick read) given that I was really interested in the case, so take that for what it's worth. Her advocacy for Weinstein REALLY soured me on her. And as I said, I think the chapter on gun control was a tactical error. But the core insight of the book was worth the trouble--Zimmerman got off, ultimately, because his assertion that his fear of Martin was "reasonable" and therefore however inadvisable his behavior was that night, his claim to self-defense was justified. But Bloom argued that the "reasonableness" of his fear was completely grounded in a racist fear of young Black men--and that the prosecution implicitly accepted the validity of that premise, and therefore failed to properly attack his defense. They didn't intentionally botch the case, they failed to make a good one because they simply didn't believe they had one BECAUSE Trayvon Martin was a young Black man, and they unconsciously accepted the premise that it is 'reasonable' to be afraid of young Black men. EDIT: That much, I suppose, you can figure out without reading her book. The parts of it I found most helpful was the "counter-factual" aspect of it; where she constructed an alternate prosecution case--based on the same evidence and the same witnesses as well as the same jurors--which would have been much more effective, and (she argues, convincingly IMHO) would have put George Zimmerman in prison.
If I see a gun at a protest, I would feel uncomfortable, but it would never prompt me to start a physical altercation just because of its presence. To actively pick a fight with somebody with a gun is just plain stupid. Knowing that open carry is protected by law in this country, you don't have the right to physically escalate a situation just because you see someone with a gun around their neck. Let alone do that after you verbally threaten to kill someone. That's irrelevant. It might have been relevant if there wasn't so much video evidence nor witness accounts and the case had to rely on conflicting witness/defense stories. He may have said that he was at the protest to protect businesses, but he didn't shoot anybody in retaliation to someone vandalizing a business establishment.
Not everybody is you. Many people may feel that they have to, well, defend themselves from some somebody brandishing a loaded AR-15 and marching in a threatening and aggressive manner. "Open carry" is NOT protected by law in this country. It is on a state by state basis. Yes, it is "protected by law" in Wisconsin. Why not? Is that not simply "self-defense"? If you feel threatened for your life by the person with the gun, don't you have the right to self-defense? You have been advocating self-defense for last several pages here. Why the sudden change? It is not irrelevant. In fact, it is completely relevant. It goes to state of mind. Seeing the videos of the defendant and his posture and demeanor, it could be interpreted that he was threatening and intimidating those around him. Why do those individuals NOT have the right to defend themselves, when their lives were clearly in danger (especially, since he, well, killed two people and severely injured a third)?
Sorry, but one's feelings and personal definition of imminent threat/danger is not justification to proactively attack someone. That is not defending yourself. That is not defending anyone. You may say then Rittenhouse's mortal fear when attacked was unjustified ... but that's why a jury makes the decision if the fear was at least reasonable or not. No sane jury would find it reasonable for somebody to claim they were defending themselves when they proactively physically assault someone with a gun around their neck just because they feared that person was going to do something and looked intimidating. And not sure why you add marching in a threatening and aggressive manner here. You're right. My mistake. Since open carry is legal in some states, no, it's not your right to physically attack someone just because you see one doing so. If you think that attacking and maybe killing someone because you felt mortal fear simply because somebody is walking around with a gun around their neck without them directly threatening / attacking you or people around you, go right ahead. My wild guess is that a jury might not view it the same way. In my view what happened and what you're describing are obvious different situations. Again, it seems that you guys are viewing this whole thing from a moral point of view, which I can agree with. But morality are not what is being judged in court. He saw people burning or trying to to burn things down. He did not shoot them when they were burning things down did he ? The video evidence and witness accounts were enough for the jury to make a decision without taking premeditation to do something different (shoot someone for destroying private property) than what he was being accused of doing. It's quite interesting that you stated that Rosenbaum's intentions did not matter when he made verbal mortal threats before trying to start a physical altercation. In the case of self defense that is 100% relevant. Do you have those videos that I can view ?
As a teacher, it has been drilled into my head that if I am in close enough proximity of a gun that is not holstered, I do what I can to take that person down. If I am not in proximity, I do what I can to distract that person by throwing anything I can at that person to turn them away or allow others to take the gunman down. If neither option is available, I run. And I'm speaking form the perspective of somebody who is very, very strongly anti-violent. btw, I am not "picking a fight." They brought the weapon, I'm standing my ground. But if you think it is picking a fight, then you approve of bullying.
I would disagree. It depends on the situation and imminent threat that person is showing. Some basic common sense needs to be applied because you may be making an invalid assumption. Nothing is gonna be black or white in a country where many states allow open carry. Someone walking inside a school carrying a gun as you described, definitely looks like imminent threat. But we have seen multiple cases of armed people during these protests in 2020 with nothing happening. I mean, if you were in these protests I doubt that you would have done what Rosenbaum did. Perhaps what victim #2 and #3 did if you were in the vicinity. If you're not close you should call the police or in this case, they were right there. Again, I am arguing what the law allows people to do in the state. They have the right to carry a gun in that situation. You don't have the right to attack someone just for carrying a gun. So when people here mention if the prosecution had done this or that, or if the judge had allowed this or that then the outcome would have been different ... that is just seems factually wrong. And this could have been seen from a mile away if the media bothered to look at the law and evidence that was freely available instead of gaslighting the situation and making people think the outcome was going to be different.
Of course, EVERYTHING depends on the circumstances. That was the entire point of this case and the entire point of any sort of self-defense law, privilege or affirmative defense. If the "circumstances" did not matter, he would have been found guilty on two counts of first degree intentional homicide. The facts are clear, he intentionally shot three people, killing two of them. Unless, he did not "intend to kill" them...by shooting them with an AR-15, including shooting the first person 4 times. I will return you to the actual statute at play: 940.01 First-degree intentional homicide. (1) Offenses. (a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony. It is subsection 2 that describes the mitigating circumstance. The question was whether the totality of the circumstances (a kid with a predisposition to violence, crossing state lines, brandishing an illegal weapon in a known volatile situation and then shooting three people when confronted) should be examined or just three individual "situations" where 1) somebody ran after him & threw something at him, 2) hit him with a skateboard, and 3) pointed a pistol (a "good guy with a gun" trying to stop a "bad guy with a gun"???) at the defendant. But why? You just said this morning that "open carry is protected by law in this nation" (and is recognized in the majority of states). Why is having a gun in a school any different to you that marching in the streets during a "riot"? How, exactly, is having walking inside a school carrying a gun as you described, definitely looks like imminent threat"? @soccernutter merely said the gun was not holstered. Why is that a threat and what the defendant in Kenosha was doing NOT an "imminent threat"? Please explain this apparent inconsistency in your argument. Why do you keep asking what "you would do" in any particular situation? Why does that matter? Nobody is saying that you "have the right to attack someone just for carrying a gun." What I am saying is that you have stated there is a right to self-defense. If someone feels threatened by a person brandishing a lethal weapon, shouldn't that person have the right to self-defense. You really are putting the "rights" of people who brandish weapons over the rights of people who may have a legitimate fear for their lives from those individuals. I find this curious.
Not guilty of "malice murder" per the NYT, guilty on everything else. Including false imprisonment, which means at least one of the defendents isn't getting away with any of his vigilante shit.
It didn't happen at the OK Corral and the Earp brothers' "defense" was that the gang was carrying weapons in defiance of local laws.
Travis McMichael was found guilty of all nine counts, including malice murder and four counts of felony murder. Gregory McMichael was only found not guilty of malice murder. William Bryan, was found guilty of three counts felony murder, one count aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony.
The problem is you are at cross purposes As you know, cases are mixed questions of fact and law. The Judge settles the law, and instructs the jury. The jury determines the facts, finding the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. But many people don't really get the distinction You and I expected acquittal, but we find the legal direction perverse on policy grounds. I tend to agree with Charlie Sykes ( ) - the jury decision is understandable but the outcome absurd
A gun is a device intended to injure or kill. There is no other intended use. Known that, to me if somebody is not at a gun rights rally or a gun range, to me that is an threat. I cannot read minds, so I do know to what said person sees as "imminent." What I know is that a device intended to injure or kill is present and upholstered (and I'm being general with that term - Rittenhouse, to me, had an upholstered gun. Yes, nothing is "black or white" only a White person showed up at a Black Live Matter protest with an upholstered gun. My assumption is on the side of life, all life, and that somebody with a gun is threatening life. In the case of Rittenhouse, showing up at a Black Lives Matter protest with a gun looking like he was ready for action (he was not carrying it slug over his shoulder) is a threat to everybody's life. He needs to take that responsibility, which he did not. Further, the assumption is that the one carrying the weapon of injury or death is in the right. The mentality we have is that of aggression and acceptance of violence and death. Why is that the case? Why should I defer to that acceptance? Why should I not act on the side of non-violence, as much as it can be lessoned? I don't think you are thinking this through. The Black Live Matter protests are, at the root, against police killings of Blacks. The specific protest we are talking about was a protest of police shooing a Black man. in the context, why would the police be trusted? Beyond that , in the chaos of the protest, this White guy with what I would interpret a high powered rifle (whether it is or is not does not matter. It is what I interpret) appears and looks to be an immanent threat (again, he is carrying the rifle in what looks to be a position of intent, not slung over his shoulder). This is a tense situation stemming from police violence which has been riled up by the President no less, so why should I defer to the person with an object that is made to injure or kill? Your argument reads as if you are in favor of the current law and that is should be allowed. By doing so, you are also arguing in favor of the gun holder, and the gun holder's lack of responsibility. Further, you are saying that if I (or anybody) interprets the gun holder as an imminent threat, we are wrong to do so. This last point is legally questionable, and morally wrong. Huh? Most of what read and heard made it sound like both the prosecutor was poor and that the law was on the side of the defendant.