![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Self defense against self defense
When George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in 2012, there was a lot of talk about "stand your ground" immunity and the "self-defense" defense. Florida's "stand your ground" law says "a person can use deadly force anywhere as long as he is not engaged in an unlawful activity, is being attacked in a place he has a right to be, and reasonably believes that his life and safety are in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else" (quote from CNN), and if a judge rules that these conditions apply, the person who used the deadly force is immune from both civil and criminal trial in the case. As it turned out, Zimmerman didn't claim "stand your ground" immunity, but instead went to trial with a traditional "self defense" defense, claiming that Martin had attacked and beaten him first (and Martin's not around to dispute that claim). But I noted at the time that if Martin had survived, he too could have claimed both "stand your ground" and "self defense": he was not engaged in an unlawful activity, he was attacked in a place he had a right to be, and (especially as a young black man) he had every reason to believe his life was in danger from this white-guy-with-a-gun. Both sides were "justified" in using deadly force. It's almost as though somebody had written the laws intentionally to encourage as much violence and bloodshed as possible.
An opinion piece in today's NY Times points out that all three of the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot, as well as several others he didn't shoot, attacked him because of his gun, and that in his own words, he felt they were a threat because, although two of the three were unarmed, they could have taken his gun and "killed me with it and probably killed more people". He shot them to protect himself and others from the threat posed by his own gun, which wouldn't have been a threat if he hadn't brought it.
So why did he think they were an imminent threat? Because they were running at him, and in some cases hitting him. Why were they running at him and hitting him? Because he was a teenaged boy carrying a big military rifle at a riot, which made him an imminent threat to them and others. (Approximately half of you have been 17-year-old boys; would you trust younger-you with a military rifle in a riot? Would you trust your schoolmates?) Indeed, one of Rittenhouse's victims was an EMT who, after coming to the scene to provide first aid, drew his own gun to protect himself and others against an "active shooter", i.e. Rittenhouse, who by that time had already killed two people and was obviously an imminent threat to everybody around him. He presumably still thought of himself as a good guy, but to everyone else, he had become a bad guy who needed to be stopped by any means necessary.
If you're armed in a fast-food restaurant, a movie theater, a political protest, or some other public gathering, and somebody starts shooting, don't draw your own gun: in the chaos, nobody will be able to tell that you're the "good guy", and you're likely to get shot by other "good guys with guns". Indeed, the more "good guys with guns" there are, the more likely they are to shoot one another.
In a real-world gunfight, people don't come equipped with black hats and white hats, only guns. If you see a stranger (especially a teenager) carrying a gun in a tense, violent situation, that person is an imminent threat to you and everybody else, regardless of what headgear either of you thinks you're wearing. Rittenhouse shot at four people, injuring one and killing two, in self defense when they attacked him in self defense. If he was justified in defending himself against an imminent threat, so were they -- but two of them died for it before they could make their self-defense claim in court.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation in which carrying a gun would make me safer. Consider the traditional example of a burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night. If I confront an armed burglar and I'm not armed, he could shoot me, or he could tie me up, or he could run away, and two of those three options leave me and my family alive and un-injured (and the burglar not guilty of a more-serious crime). If, on the other hand, I confront an armed burglar and I am armed, the burglar has to assume I'm about to shoot him, so he has no choice but to shoot me first (followed by any witnesses, such as my spouse). He'll probably win, because he has every advantage over me: (a) he knew all along that he might get into a gunfight, whereas I've only known that for a few seconds, so I'm jittery with adrenaline; (b) I just woke up in the middle of the night; and (c) I'm more concerned than he is about hitting my pets, my family, my neighbors, or my possessions.
OK, suppose a burglar broke into my house in the middle of the night, we both had guns, and I could see him but he couldn't see me. Then I could shoot him from behind at reduced risk to myself. But I probably wouldn't, because (a) I've never killed another human and would rather not start now; (b) "white-hats" don't shoot people from behind; and (c) if I shoot him without killing him instantly, we're back to the situation in the previous paragraph, and I'm likely to be injured or killed myself.
Guns don't protect people; people protect people.
Update 19 November: Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Probably the correct verdict under Wisconsin law, which (like Florida law) makes both sides "justified" in using lethal force if they feel sufficiently threatened.
Let's review.
Under the law, you can do whatever you want if you're sufficiently scared. Again, it's as though lawmakers were trying to maximize the bloodshed on their streets. It's a minor miracle that the cycle of fear and death ended where it did, rather than going on all night.
Of the four people discussed above, all four acted in self-defense based on reasonable fear for their lives, but the two who didn't have guns are dead now, and the one who had a gun but didn't shoot could easily have been dead by now. The lesson is "if you plan to defend yourself, you'd better have a gun and be willing to use it on other people. Otherwise you'll get killed for defending yourself, and your killer will walk free." This message has been brought to you by your friends in the gun industry.
An opinion piece in today's NY Times points out that all three of the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot, as well as several others he didn't shoot, attacked him because of his gun, and that in his own words, he felt they were a threat because, although two of the three were unarmed, they could have taken his gun and "killed me with it and probably killed more people". He shot them to protect himself and others from the threat posed by his own gun, which wouldn't have been a threat if he hadn't brought it.
So why did he think they were an imminent threat? Because they were running at him, and in some cases hitting him. Why were they running at him and hitting him? Because he was a teenaged boy carrying a big military rifle at a riot, which made him an imminent threat to them and others. (Approximately half of you have been 17-year-old boys; would you trust younger-you with a military rifle in a riot? Would you trust your schoolmates?) Indeed, one of Rittenhouse's victims was an EMT who, after coming to the scene to provide first aid, drew his own gun to protect himself and others against an "active shooter", i.e. Rittenhouse, who by that time had already killed two people and was obviously an imminent threat to everybody around him. He presumably still thought of himself as a good guy, but to everyone else, he had become a bad guy who needed to be stopped by any means necessary.
If you're armed in a fast-food restaurant, a movie theater, a political protest, or some other public gathering, and somebody starts shooting, don't draw your own gun: in the chaos, nobody will be able to tell that you're the "good guy", and you're likely to get shot by other "good guys with guns". Indeed, the more "good guys with guns" there are, the more likely they are to shoot one another.
In a real-world gunfight, people don't come equipped with black hats and white hats, only guns. If you see a stranger (especially a teenager) carrying a gun in a tense, violent situation, that person is an imminent threat to you and everybody else, regardless of what headgear either of you thinks you're wearing. Rittenhouse shot at four people, injuring one and killing two, in self defense when they attacked him in self defense. If he was justified in defending himself against an imminent threat, so were they -- but two of them died for it before they could make their self-defense claim in court.
I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation in which carrying a gun would make me safer. Consider the traditional example of a burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night. If I confront an armed burglar and I'm not armed, he could shoot me, or he could tie me up, or he could run away, and two of those three options leave me and my family alive and un-injured (and the burglar not guilty of a more-serious crime). If, on the other hand, I confront an armed burglar and I am armed, the burglar has to assume I'm about to shoot him, so he has no choice but to shoot me first (followed by any witnesses, such as my spouse). He'll probably win, because he has every advantage over me: (a) he knew all along that he might get into a gunfight, whereas I've only known that for a few seconds, so I'm jittery with adrenaline; (b) I just woke up in the middle of the night; and (c) I'm more concerned than he is about hitting my pets, my family, my neighbors, or my possessions.
OK, suppose a burglar broke into my house in the middle of the night, we both had guns, and I could see him but he couldn't see me. Then I could shoot him from behind at reduced risk to myself. But I probably wouldn't, because (a) I've never killed another human and would rather not start now; (b) "white-hats" don't shoot people from behind; and (c) if I shoot him without killing him instantly, we're back to the situation in the previous paragraph, and I'm likely to be injured or killed myself.
Guns don't protect people; people protect people.
Update 19 November: Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Probably the correct verdict under Wisconsin law, which (like Florida law) makes both sides "justified" in using lethal force if they feel sufficiently threatened.
Let's review.
- Rosenbaum feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else, so he was justified in reaching for Rittenhouse's gun.
- Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Rosenbaum would take his gun and kill him with it, so he was justified in killing Rosenbaum.
- Huber feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else (after all, he had just killed Rosenbaum), so he was justified in hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard.
- Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Huber would hurt him, take his gun and kill him with it, so he was justified in killing Huber.
- Grosskreutz feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else (after all, he had just killed Rosenbaum and Huber and shot at somebody else), so he was justified in drawing his pistol, and would have been justified in killing Rittenhouse.
- Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Grosskreutz would kill him, so he was justified in shooting Grosskreutz, and would have been justified in killing him.
Under the law, you can do whatever you want if you're sufficiently scared. Again, it's as though lawmakers were trying to maximize the bloodshed on their streets. It's a minor miracle that the cycle of fear and death ended where it did, rather than going on all night.
Of the four people discussed above, all four acted in self-defense based on reasonable fear for their lives, but the two who didn't have guns are dead now, and the one who had a gun but didn't shoot could easily have been dead by now. The lesson is "if you plan to defend yourself, you'd better have a gun and be willing to use it on other people. Otherwise you'll get killed for defending yourself, and your killer will walk free." This message has been brought to you by your friends in the gun industry.
no subject
Also, that there's been a tradition of such conduct across the generations...
no subject
no subject
Frankly, I think Rittenhouse deserves a life sentence. Death would let him off the hook on this side of the grave too soon.