What? Considering Kyle's victory, self defense seems plenty alive. Help me understand your post.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about why this was such a high profile cultural flashpoint. This was a perfect storm of gun rights meets political intimidation.

That's it.

To many Americans, Kyle's act of bringing an assault rifle to that kind of situation instantly painted him as a force of intimidation meant to silence speech. Consequently, when he got himself into a situation that was way over his head, he was able to use the fact that he had an assault rifle as a part of his defense that he was afraid for his life. To many, this was basically a situation of having your cake and eating it too.

Should the first individual who went after Kyle have had more restraint? Probably. But they weren't the one holding a weapon manufactured to kill people. Kyle was. In fact, many people had guns that night. But the only person who killed anyone was Kyle. A kid who had too little respect for life and way too large of an ego.

Now people are worried of copy-cat vigilantes. I'm not implying that Kyle's intention was to kill in Kenosha. I think that was a legitimately unfortunate chain of events. But other people will see this and come to extreme conclusions about what is or is not acceptable. And just because the law deemed what Kyle did to be acceptable, it will be of little comfort to future victims of stand your ground type claims of authority over who lives and dies.

No one would have died that night had Kyle not had a gun. People need to stop bringing guns to public spaces. We are too paranoid and trigger happy to be trusted with that kind of power, and there never seems to be a good guy with a gun when you need them. Likely because the legitimately good people are rarely the type who could stomach pulling the trigger.

This. ^^^

That is all.

The right to self defense does not exist if someone can legally kill you for exercising it by simply claiming self-defense themselves. 

Good thing Kyle didn't simply just have a claim then. He had FOOTAGE capturing the predicament he found himself in at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&ab_channel=ColionNoir

Man shoots someone and starts running through a crowded area with a gun. 

Man shoots someone who was chasing him and starts running through a crowded area with a gun.

Others begin to chase him out of a reasonable fear that he is a danger to others in the area.

Shooter falls to the ground and begins pointing his firearm at numerous individuals but then only opened fire on someone who kicked him, someone who hit him with a skateboard, and someone approaching with a gun.

Who has a right to self defense here? The man who just shot someone and is currently pointing his gun at people or the unarmed individuals who have a gun pointed at them?

You can argue that legally, Rittenhouse had a right to self-defense, but I believe that in order to grant Rittenhouse the right to self-defense here, you are removing the protections of the other individuals. As such, I believe that the right to self defense does not exist if someone can legally kill you for exercising it.

You have a gun for protection and someone you are running from is chasing you. If they reach you, they can disarm you and turn the gun on you and while running, you feel you are reaching a potential dead end.

What do you do?

To make your example more in-line with events in Kenosha, I helped you above.

I'm no lawyer but I understand that in order to claim self-defense, you have a duty to retreat. You have to make an effort to get away from the danger you claim to be defending yourself from.

Guess who was retreating and who was not?

Kyle was retreating from the people he shot. The people he shot were NOT retreating from Kyle, they were running towards him. Their pursuit of Kyle removes their self-defense protection.

That would be the smoking gun here and I hope you can see why a duty to retreat is necessary in cases like this. Kyle did the right thing by always running from those chasing him and only opening fire when he reasonably believed he was cornered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rkOwl7ARYY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

First of all, he acquired that gun illegally and didn't even get slapped with so much as a gun charge even though it was used to kill two people? Seriously?! That judge...I dunno. I don't know about him.

Look, I've got nothing against guns or self-defense. I'm armed myself. I frankly need a hunting rifle to fucking eat sometimes and have a hand gun for self-defense because...I've been in some pretty fucking nightmarish situations before where having one, not to shoot but to just wave in the direction of an assailant so they'd stop and leave, might've actually been pretty helpful! I get this. I ain't one of these "yes, we're coming for your guns!" types. I ain't Beto O'Rourke.

At the same time though, you make it out to be like this was a home invasion or something. The guy actively went out of his way to look for trouble. He left town to find it! With an AR-15! I mean what percentage of people who attend demonstrations come armed with a long gun, seriously? I never have, ever! So I mean the answer to your question is that I would never have been in Rittenhouse's situation in the first place because I don't think the same way. I might have to come armed with at least a hand gun the next time I attend one now though, if only because there will probably be another Kyle Rittenhouse in attendance and I'd like to live.

I have free speech rights. When someone "on the other side" attends a demonstration with a highly visible long gun and starts aiming it at me and others around me, I consider that a form of intimidation intended to silence me and imply that I have no right to an opinion. Now maybe that's what you believe: that liberals, leftists, Black Lives Matter, whatever, people different from you have no right to voice their opinions and should be terrorized out of doing so. But it goes to show how differently we think. I would feel threatened by Rittenhouse's actions and might act rashly myself under analogous circumstances out of perfectly rational fear for my own life and for those around me. Maybe you could be a little more understanding of that and stop dancing on the victims graves here. It's kind of sick. And demented.

A) Wisconsin doesn't have any statutory duty to retreat

B) Even if it did, Duty to Retreat typically relates to the use of potentially deadly force which only Rittenhouse utilized

C) And even further, the Duty to Retreat typically only applies if one can do so safely. If a gun is pointed at you, there is no guarantee that you can retreat safely

D) This was also a "Defense of Others" situation which is covered under the right to self defense. Rittenhouse continued to pose a danger by running through a crowded area. He never ceased being dangerous in this situation.

E) Now, again, after Rittenhouse falls, he points his gun at several individuals. Those individuals would generally legally be allowed to act in self defense to protect themselves from the individual pointing a gun at them. However, as they were exercising their rights to self-defense, they were killed. As this was considered legal in the court, can we truly say that those individuals were given the right to self-defense?

"The guy actively went out of his way to look for trouble."

>How do you know this?

A) Can still be taken into consideration by a jury in cases like this, see below.

B) A kick or skateboard to the head is potentially plenty deadly. I doubt you'd sit still for that.

C) Kyle's pursuers had PLENTY of time to turn around and run the other way. They didn't.

D) Except Kyle was not pointing his firearm at anyone when he was running away. Even after getting hit in the head which results in his hat falling off, he continues running. I think the jury took this into consideration when he was cleared.

"While Wisconsin doesn’t impose a duty to retreat, juries are still allowed to consider whether a defendant had an opportunity to retreat to determine whether or not it was necessary to use deadly force in self-defense."

Wisconsin Self-Defense Laws (wicriminaldefense.com)

E) I'm going to say no when the people Kyle pointed his weapon at WERE CHASING HIM PRIOR. I gotta side with Kyle here. It makes no sense to me that Kyle is on video trying to get away from people chasing/attacking and when he raises his weapon after falling, they suddenly get to claim self-defense!? I just can't agree with that... I think the jury would agree with me...

Chasing someone who just shot someone isn't a threat of deadly force imo, but this situation does demonstrate pretty clearly why people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public.

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion in the Ahmad Arbery case?