.
[video]
.
So, Stephen Colbert wants to change an age old fundamental common law right to
self-defense?
I think Stephen Spencer would emphatically disagree with nitwit Colbert. See:
Black Man Acquitted of Killing White Man After Incident of “Ugly Racism”
Why would Colbert want to deny Stephen Spencer the right to self-defense and protect white racists?
JWK
It is absolutely shameful that those in our mainstream media and Hollywood crowd, having achieved fame, fortune and great success under a free market, free enterprise system, now work to destroy that system and impose a notoriously evil, Cuban style government, on America’s future generation.
There is nothing wrong with our laws, self-defense is the same pretty much in every state of the union. The problem with the Rittenhouse case, in my opinion, is that the judge didn't want Kyle punished AT ALL for his "mistakes", similar to when judges don't want an affluent defendant to be found guilty or be punished for their violations of the law. Let me explain what I mean.
Cobert stated "IF Rittenhouser didn't violate the law, then the laws need to be changed". Kyle originally was charged not just with the murder and assault of the 3 people he shot, he was also charged with a misdemeanor gun violation, essentially an minor unlawfully in possession of a firearm.
The judge had an agenda because right before deliberation began, he removed the misdemeanor gun violation. Not just specifically in relation to Kyle and this case, I can understand a juror struggling with the prospect of saddling an 18 year old with a life sentence in prison but that's the punishment for having killed 2 people which he is guilty of, there is no denying that. There is also no denying that at age 17 he was not old enough to be in possession of the firearm he was carrying and used to kill his two victims and injure the third.
Even if the jury could not bring themselves to sentence Kyle to the rest of his life in prison, they could have found him guilty of violating the misdemeanor gun possession law. A misdemeanor gun possession violation on one's records does not ruin your life, you can often get the record expunged or maybe since he was a minor when the violation occurred he may even have been able to get his "juvenile" record sealed. But by the judge taking that option off of the table, then the only option left was so severe and extreme that none of the jurors apparently wanted to apply it.
So we're left looking at a situation in which those cheering the verdict are claiming
Kyle did nothing wrong, that he was simply exercising his right to self defense (don't pay attention to that misdemeanor gun violation over in the corner) and that's he's now a hero. The fact that the people he killed were protestors with criminal histories is just icing on the cake compared to Kyle spotless history at age 17.
He did do something wrong though but it's being swept under the rug in order to maintain the narrative that he was lawfully engaged in self-defense when he killed the people he did.
That is why you heard the prosecution state repeatedly that you cannot be the aggressor in a situation that leads to you having to use lethal force to defend your life. That's the letter of the law.
If Kyle was invited or joined up with a group protecting protecting and was their with that weapon at the owner's permission he's still in violation of the gun law because his protecting private private doesn't meet any of the exceptions for a minor being in possession of a firearm under adult supervision. HOWEVER, once he stepped off of the property of the adult who gave him the weapon/supervising him, he's now in public with a firearm he cannot lawfully be in possession of.
I read that he was thought to be an active shooter BECAUSE he had shot someone and that's why he was being chased. Whose fault is it that people mistook him as a threat, a situation HE created. I don't remember reading that he ever rendered aid to either of the people he shot or even summoned aid for them and reported the shooting to the police. He was just a kid with a gun running around creating havoc all over the place, killing people, not doing any of the things you're supposed to when having to use your weapon "in self-defense" yet the judge manipulated the jury so that they only had one option instead of all of them.
There is nothing wrong with our laws, as always, the variable and the thing that fucks everything up are people, peopole who play games with the lives of others, people who have to rely on others to tell them what something says, what something means, and without the fortitude to stand up and say "this isn't right" when it isn't.
