The Photo That Perfectly Explains the Folly of Key Prosecution Argument Against Rittenhouse – Opinion

The prosecution in the Kyle Rittenhouse case has made some pretty wild and demonstrably false statements in their closing arguments, including the preposterous suggestion that once you’re carrying a gun you no longer have a right to claim self-defense.

One prosecution argument that has generated a lot of discussions revolves around the assertion by one of DA’s that if you’re not facing a threat from a person armed with a gun that you’re not in the type of danger that would require you to fire your gun at them in self-defense. Indeed, that was precisely the argument made yesterday by prosecutor James Kraus, that a skateboard – used against Rittenhouse by Anthony Huber, who Rittenhouse killed – should not be considered a deadly weapon.

Kraus mocked this idea in his remarks. He suggested that parents might be shocked to learn that the defense’s favorite gift for kids is a deadly weapon.

🚨🚨In closing arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse case, James Kraus the Prosecutor argues that skateboard cannot be used to kill anyone. He jokes about how parents can give their kids AR-15s for Christmas. pic.twitter.com/NFjG1h8zJO

— crabcrawler (@crabcrawler1) November 16, 2021

Carried to its logical conclusion, it would almost seem that Kraus was effectively arguing that Gaige Grosskreutz, who blew up the prosecution’s case last week when he admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only fired his weapon at him after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, would have deserved to die because he was armed with a Glock. But they’ve previously argued in so many words that he was justified in pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse because there were reports purportedly swirling during the chaos that an active shooter was at large. So it’s like the prosecution is trying to have it both ways here.

But beyond that particular inconsistency, a larger issue looms with the argument that a person who is unarmed doesn’t present a strong enough threat to be able to justify using deadly force in the form of a loaded gun in self-defense. It’s an argument that has been insinuated repeatedly in “straight news” pieces where reporters are always quick to note that someone who was a shooting victim, especially in the case of an officer-involved shooting, was “unarmed.” The insinuation is clear. In the media’s mind, “unarmed” = “not a threat.”

It is a very dangerous argument and it begs for logic. There are many examples in history of victims who were confronted by someone they didn’t know and forced to act.

Women have shot at (sometimes unarmed!) attackers who attempted to sexually assault their women. Some men have had to face violent attackers, who entered their homes and shot them. In those situations, it doesn’t matter if the assailant was unarmed. His/her suspicions were what mattered. They could threaten someone physically, with punches, bricks, or other objects, but it is still considered a threat. A person can shoot in self defense.

Unarmed mobs can also do great harm to a community and its inhabitants after being whipped into a mad frenzy. This is a classic example from our history. We saw numerous examples during last year’s violent Antifa/BLM-led riots, but perhaps the most iconic image of all in modern American history is this one of Los Angeles truck driver Reginald Denny, who was pulled out of his transfer truck during the 1992 L.A. riots and nearly beaten to death by four rioters who were upset with the acquittal verdict in the LAPD/Rodney King case:

Kyle Rittenhouse was forced to carry a firearm. Is there any harm that a mob of violent unarmed individuals can do to you? pic.twitter.com/EcY5Pr79Dr

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) November 16, 2021

Let’s take a look back at what happened:

Antoine Miller climbed to the top and opened the truck’s door. A man unidentified was able to take Denny out of the vehicle and then throw him onto the ground. Henry Watson stood on Denny’s neck to hold him down as a group of men surrounded him and Anthony Brown kicked him in the abdomen. As Watson walked away, two other unidentified men joined in the attack: one hurled a five-pound oxygenator stolen from Larry Tarvin’s truck at Denny’s head, and the other kicked him and hit him with a claw hammer. News footage showed Damian Williams throwing a cinder block at Denny’s head, then doing a football-style victory dance in the road and flashing gang signs at the Los Angeles News Service helicopter of Bob Tur (now Zoey Tur) and Marika Gerrard. After the beating ended, some men threw beer bottles at the unconscious body and a man searched Denny’s back pockets, taking his wallet. Tur and Gerrard both reported that the police were not present.

Is it possible that Denny could have justified shooting the men unarmed who attacked him? These men presented a severe threat to Denny, even though no one was armed.

Yes, that would be justifiable. Rittenhouse used his gun in Kenosha to defend himself last August.

Because even prosecutors understand that people have the right to defend themselves against unarmed persons with deadly force, they must make their legal arguments more specific in courtrooms. This is doubly true for media who, depending on their reporting on the case, can set the scene for an issue in public opinion and a court of law.

Indicating that a person who was shot and injured or killed was “unarmed” tells us nothing as to if that person may have presented an actual threat. Instead of reporting so and so was “unarmed,” what we need to know are the events that led to the shooting, so we can form our own opinions as to whether or not we feel the end result was justified.

That shouldn’t be too much to ask, but apparently, it is.

Related:Jeffrey Toobin wonders what a trial would look like if Kyle Rittenhouse were black and I had thoughts