"With the conclusion of this trial, we are getting calls from the press and questions from our members about where we as a club stand on this trial.
"This verdict is more a reflection on the justice system and the law, including prosecutorial incompetence, than a validation of Rittenhouse and his actions, which were deplorable.
“We wish the justice system worked as well for young men of color, who, in the exact same situation, would not have ever even gotten to trial, which is why the protest was happening in the first place.” source
Specific to motivations at follow-on demonstrations in Portland, OR:
…Many of the people who organized last summer’s demonstrations are now wondering, had Rittenhouse been Black — had he looked anything like [George] Floyd, who was murdered during an arrest over a counterfeit $20 bill — would he have been acquitted after killing multiple people with a semi-automatic rifle?
[…]
Lara Smith with the Oregon chapter of the Liberal Gun Club — a nonprofit that lobbies for the interests of gun owners — says she’s glad Rittenhouse’s case made it to a jury trial, and that people should focus on addressing the root causes that led to this violence.
“There never should have been a 17-year-old thinking it was his job to defend property,” Smith said. “I think that there’s a real concern that there’s going to be a faction of people in the country who take this as, ‘It’s OK to shoot protesters,’ and I think that’s incredibly problematic.”
Any one of us, could one day be driving about our business, and in the course of just a few minutes you will be made into another Kyle Rittenhouse. How can you not see that???
Liberal Gun Club = another example of defective thinking. You want example of a Black man in riot? David Dorn, murdered by the likes of MSM darlings. Where is justice for David Dorn.
I can’t think of any gun owner whom I have known in the past fifty years who would think “it’s OK to shoot protestors.” That kind of projection is absolute bull muffins.
I would love to know the names and trial information of the people who have supposedly not gotten a fair trial. When people through out stuff like that with no factual basis, how do you debate or talk to them about it?
The riots… oops, mostly peaceful protests, were because Jacob Blake was shot by police while they attempted to arrest him. Right or wrong, the arrest and or shooting of Blake is nowhere near similar to what happened with Rittenhouse.
Seems the “liberal gun club” is more of a progressive club.
The second paragraph shows where the author stands. The third para is most likely accurate because the evidence would not support bringing charges, much less a conviction. The author seems to believe that an arrestee of color would have been convicted…I don’t think he/she would have been indicted or charged to the point of trial. I do believe that had the police force not been stood down or the Governor had called adequate guardsmen the first night of the riots, that the third night would not have occurred, and Rittenhouse would not have been present.
On a personal note, depending on the state’s statutes, I believe it is reasonable to use deadly force against attempted murderers, aggravavated arsonists, and aggravated robbers, where the use of force is implied or threatened against a person lawfully present.
Re: George Floyd, the police were called re: the counterfeit. Floyd in poor health exacerbated by serious drugs on board, failed to comply with lawful orders. That is overlooked by those who look for a racial narrative that is manufactured…by the by, the protections of the second amendment are for everyone who is otherwise a law abiding citizen.
Clearly people hold a loose definition of protestors versus rioters, versus arsonists, versus an assaulting mob. More people are killed by personal weapons defined as hands and feet than by rifles, and the mob offers the confusion taken advantage of by “jump kick man” as an example.
Seems this “liberal club” was not really that concerned about the trial itself & verdict, but were more concerned about using it as a talking point for some perceived injustice, real or not, and using it as a “what if” exercise.
So said the jury. They received information and presentations I have not. Our system says we are to accept their judgement about guilt, pending appeal if any.
But I find “deplorable” a very tactful and charitable characterization of provocative vigilantism which I find abhorrent.
I share the idealism, but I observe very little evidence of its truth in our society past or present.
Clearly, we have not been reading the same posts of the same USCCA “Community” members — let alone the toxic world which yabbers outside our cozy little party. Of course I don’t know any of these people personally — perhaps they don’t own guns, perhaps they are Russian trolls — but they are poisoning our society and outcomes like this do give them license. In my opinion.
What is the data that leads to your conclusion? Are you a member of legal profession, or have reviewed the body of relevant criminal cases in Lexis Nexis? Otherwise, it is anecdotal.
I think that is probably correct. I think they essentially hold that the trial and verdict are over and speak for themselves. They are addressing how as a society we got there, and where we will go from there.
That is important for us, because we actually have nothing to do with the trial or the verdict. But we all have very much to do with how Mr Rittenhouse got there, and where we will all go from here — as individuals, as a nation, and as gun owners.
Maybe they could call for justice for Crystul Kizer of Kenosha. Kizer was 17, shot & killed her pedophile child sex trafficker to escape. She was wrongfully denied access to a self-defense law & her case is on appeal. It’s more productive than attacking Kyle Rittenhouse.
Actually, it is not “anecdotal” that self defense is not color blind. It is what we call a personal opinion. Which I base on many decades of lived experience and observation.
Which is pretty much empirical, or anecdotal if you prefer.
Since you are not paying me for my opinion, I am not obliged to hold any professional qualification, nor perform any particular research on your behalf, in order to reach or express that conclusion. You are free to form and defend your own opinion, using whatever methodology you choose.
CCM cited a case of a Black father with a 5 yo son defending their lives against a gang member in Chicago. This man was not arrested, or convicted of a crime, the LE deemed the case self defence, justly. Can you cite an opposite example?
Among millions of LEs in this county, there is got to be some racists. Among thousand of judges and prosecutors there is gotta be some racists (anti-White and anti-Asian as well). But I dont buy the system overall, end-to-end is racially biased. Hasnt been for decades. And you are promulgating this divisive myth based on what? You didnt mention anything specific. It is true, I dont pay you for your opinion. Even if I did, I doubt you would bring an example of justice denied in self-defence case, due to racism. But I keep my mind open.
Not my rabbit hole to go down to try to disprove a statement that was never backed up by facts. And I don’t expect you to defend it either. But, if I post a link to a ‘factual’ article, I am down with discussing the merits of it, without asking anyone to contact the person in the link I posted. Unless they want to of course, that would be why I post a link, so we are on the same page.
Trying to prove someone else’s theory, well, not my rabbit hole. I will state this fact: Jacob Blake and Rittenhouse are not the same.
