Originally Posted by Pete F.
Was Kyle hunting people?
A piece by Kurt Eichenwald
"Recently, I gave a deep dive why - based on the law & evidence presented at trial - the Rittenhouse verdict was correct, even though he's a miserable punk & the GOP celebration is obscene. Today, a new point: the case shows why open carry laws are a threat to this country as I wrote in the last thread, all that mattered in reaching the verdict was Rittenhouse's state of mind: did he believe he was in imminent threat of bodily harm. That's the law. The evidence supported his belief of that was reasonable. However, it *also* supported that his victims - Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz - could believe *Rittenhouse* posed an imminent threat of bodily harm *to them.* Eliminate Rosenbaum, because his case is more complex. No doubt, Huber & Grosskreutz were reasonable in seeing Rittenhouse as an active shooter because, in fact, that is what he was. Rittenhouse's belief that he was in imminent threat did not change the fact that Huber and Grosskreutz looked at a guy firing a gun at people and concluded that he was randomly killing people. Huber hitting him with the skateboard is not only reasonable, it is exceptionally brave. Grosskreutz, the survivor, testified he thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter and pointed a gun he was carrying at him, but was shot before he could shoot.
So *no one* thought they were committing a crime. They *all*were acting in self-defense. Yet it was Rittenhouse who lit the match by bringing an assault rifle with a bunch of thugs to a protest, and being allowed to stay there as an adjunct to law enforcement. But Rittenhouse had not committed a crime in doing so: Open carry with any type of legal gun is legal there. So, an assault rifle, marching down the street? The law says nothing.
There are only 2 reasons to open carry an assault rifle: to intimidate members of the public and to hunt people. In fact, even open-carrying a handgun is asinine the idea started with "it's good to be armed to defend yourself against a shooter." But of course, if you're eating at Luby's, and an active shooter comes in & sees you with a gun, you're the first one he'll shoot. It's those with *concealed* guns that offer protection *because* it was open carry, was the beginning, middle, end of this entire tragedy. And the GOPrs who are celebrating this are declaring that brave people who confront who they believe is an active shooter are scum if they have the "wrong" politics.
Those people should not have been there at all. But suppose their motives were pure, and they all had guns legally, and they were all there with concealed carry. What did they lose? The ability to act like tough guys. The ability to intimidate. And the likelihood that the gun would create a scenario where everyone can be shot, and no one committed a crime.
Many people object to concealed carry. If a state has carry laws, I prefer concealed. Open carry is an invitation to reckless faux tough-guys who think intimidating the unarmed makes them masculine, the Rittenhouse shooting is a tragedy in a lot of different ways. But don't miss where the focus should be: On the laws that allowed this to happen. And never forgive GOPrs who spit on those who tried to stop who they believed was an active shooter, simply because these GOPrs don't like the politics of the victims. Laughing about the death of those who believed they were risking their lives for others is sociopathic."
|