EchoFire wrote

> Shootin Americans in the USA has never been more fun!
>
> https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty-
verdict
> - reveal-true-value-life-wisconsin-ncna1284131
>
> On Friday, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five counts,
> including reckless homicide, attempted intentional homicide and
> recklessly endangering safety. Alongside Rittenhouse, however, the law
> of self- defense was on trial in Wisconsin. The law provides that a
> person is allowed to use deadly force here, if such force is necessary
> to prevent the threat of deadly force from another. And yet, the
> question of when killing another is justified is subject to a community
> standard. As we condemn or heroize Rittenhouse and his victims, we also
> give meaning to the law. In doing so, we are determining the value we
> give to the lives of others.
>
> As a social media fire understandably rages, we might also consider what
> this case says about us.
>
> In Kenosha, Wisconsin, a white law enforcement officer who shot a Black
> man seven times in the back was cleared of criminal wrongdoing in
> January. Racial anguish quickly erupted into protests. Demonstrators and
> police clashed. Property was destroyed. White men in body armor wielding
> AR-15s arrived to take up �posts� to �shout, shove, show and shoot.�
> Kyle Rittenhouse, a white 17 year old, entered the fray, a kite in a
> hurricane. A man reportedly struggling with behavioral health issues
> chased Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse panicked. Within the next three minutes,
> the boy shot at four people, killing two and wounding one.
>
> The incident hovered just below the most commonly used threshold of a
> �mass shooting.� The state charged Rittenhouse with multiple crimes,
> including intentional, reckless and attempted homicide. Some immediately
> lionized him. Some argued the victims deserved to die. Some argued they
> would have killed the surviving gunshot victim, who was armed but did
> not fire his weapon, counting him lucky. Some celebrated the boy�s
> shooting skills and discipline. Others wished him a life in prison.
> Still a kite, still a hurricane.
> Want more articles like this? Follow THINK on Instagram to get updates
> on the week's most important cultural analysis
>
> As a social media fire now understandably rages over allegations of
> judicial bias, litigant strategy, and the character and testimony of the
> witnesses and Rittenhouse, we might also consider what this case says
> about us. The laws at issue, their application and their interpretation
> reveal an unsettled, troubling picture of who we are.
>
> The core of Wisconsin�s statute is consistent with other jurisdictions.
> But what does its deadly force language really mean? It means what we
> say it means. Social media noise matters; as folks condemn Rittenhouse,
> or portray him as a hero and condemn the gunshot victims, the community
> standard takes shape. And how this standard evolves (or devolves) says
> much about our values.
>
> With open-carry becoming more prevalent, the possibility that two
> people, each reasonably fearing great bodily harm or death, will
> (legally) shoot each other increases. And now that a jury in Kenosha
> might find Rittenhouse justified, we are contending with a view of
> self-defense that transforms an active shooter into a privileged actor.
>
> I was particularly struck by the pretrial testimony of the defense�s
> use- of-force expert. When asked by the prosecutor whether Rittenhouse
> could have used deadly force against the first, unarmed victim if
> Rittenhouse was also unarmed, the expert opined, �no.� What is the basis
> of this reasoning, that an armed individual has greater discretion to
> use deadly force than an unarmed individual?
>
>
> Not surprisingly, use-of-force experts typically testify in officer-
> involved shootings, and this use-of-force theory comes from police
> training. Police are trained that there is no such thing as an unarmed
> encounter, given that an officer carries a gun. At the hearing,
> Rittenhouse�s expert stated that �the firearm is a potential weapon for
> both parties.� Under this reasoning, Rittenhouse�s decision to arm
> himself theoretically arms anyone who advances on Rittenhouse.
> Rittenhouse having a gun gave him a right to kill that, unarmed, he
> would not have. Will we accept such reasoning, extending the privileges
> we give police officers at trial to armed civilians like Rittenhouse?
> This trajectory takes us to a very dystopian destination.
>
>
> And a final note: A self-reflective gun owner might have considered the
> emotional trauma caused by roaming around with an AR-15 in a community
> grieving a Black man being mercilessly shot by a white officer. Maturity
> and empathy aside, most of us know that having a right does not mean you
> should always exercise that right. Turning the mirror on ourselves,
> Rittenhouse walked the streets, after curfew, with an AR-15 and was not
> once briefly detained by law enforcement to inspect his ID. His lawyer
> calls him a hero, and his expert contends � perhaps not incorrectly �
> that for an armed individual in Wisconsin, aggression is
> indistinguishable from self-defense. We have normalized the absurd.
>

WORD!