Any good defense attorney will advise a client to stay off social media, and if he/she has an account, to suspend it for the duration of the litigation. Also, whatever is already posted, the internet lives forever. Employers and government officials routinely look for and at a prospective employee’s social media posts and it is a factor in selection or non selection. An example of the internet lives forever, is this past week’s post by CBS that asserted that Kyle had admitted on the stand to murdering two folk. In fact as part of his self defense strategy he admitted to killing two, a bit difference. CBS later amended the post, but it had already been read by legions and screen shots saved and reposted by others. So, be mindful of what you post, including in this very forum…and so it goes…
Three issues come to my mind:
- Was the act of carrying a long gun during a riot an inciting factor?—unlike taking up a defensive position like the Korean shop owners in the LA riots, but intermingling with the rioters in the streets?
- Did the rioters lack a modicum of common sense? —like taking a skateboard to Rittenhouse who was armed with a with an AR? Or walking up to Rittenhouse with a drawn pistol at arm’s length Really?
- If Rittenhouse armed himself not to kill, but rather to protect his own life, he obviously made the right choice.
I think your first point was spot on. It may have looked a hell of a lot better if Kyle let the rioters come to him. Not like he was looking for trouble but rather it came to him.
The rioters may have been used to nobody putting up a fight and didnt think they were in any danger. Up to that point not a single ANTIFA or BLM goon gotten hurt. The Police were pretty much a non factor in controlling the riot. They didnt want to really get involved for whatever reason. The goons had no reason to think they were in danger.
Kyle did right in arming himself. But this whole thing may have been avoided if he had stayed with buddies and not ventured alone. But the rioters had no right to attack or try to do bodily harm to him.
I try to keep it simple. Never promote violence other than in “self defense” and keep it clear that if I’m shooting it’s because I believe my life is in danger and I will only shoot till the threat is removed.
Not sure I’ve ever thought how it would look at a trial, but then again, I seldom if ever post anything really specific about myself and firearms, usually it’s like comments on a 2nd Amendment foundation post, or a post from 2nd Amendment. Possibly the fact that I’m supportive of the 2nd amendment could be taken and twisted to make me look bad, but I sure can’t think of any outright silly or stupid things I’ve posted. But, I’m sure it’s the comments you never thought would come back to haunt you that at times do.
Another thing I’ve never done is talk about any weapons that I own (well, guess I’ll have to go back and delete that post in the “What do you carry” or whatever it was, but seriously, on other forums, I just don’t talk about firearms I own, I don’t even perform searches on many things. I see some groups on Facebook, like for suppressors and other equipment, some folks get very specific. I don’t think we can ever be too careful, and I’ve honestly about had it with most social media; the only reason I even got on FB was because my school reunion was coming up, and most of my friends back in high school were on there, and that was 2010. Now, I often just log on and look, but at times, it’s really difficult not to post something from 2nd Amendment, NRA, or one of the other groups, usually just informational, but I’m sure it could be interpreted however one wanted to look at it.
This is why we need to educate people on their 2nd amendment rights and why they exist. Post with care and try to stay educational.
“Your Place for Self-Defense Education, Training and Discussions with Responsibly Armed Americans.”
Precisely why threads dealing with anything other than the intent of this community should be avoided in my opinion. I’ve muted most of the topics that are non-training related and have places multiple authors on “ignore” status.
There are plenty of forums out there if people want to go to poli-science gladiator school.
Stay safe out there.
If I ever find myself in that situation, not too worried about the social media aspect. I shut down Twitter years ago. Facebook’s lack of consistent standards, and the promotion of divisiveness to garner clicks, was shut down a couple of months ago. And, Linkedin, while it never really was much past the resume platform for me, will be shut down in about 2 weeks when I retire. Only thing they could look at would be Instagram. Good luck to them on that, only things there are pics of camping and fishing w/the grandkids. I guess a shady prosecutor could try and portray that as animal cruelty and child exploitation…
Especially if you’re using the g’kids as bait!
The only thing I learned from todays prosecutors!
Thing that I’ve learned? We share the world with people like those in this video. Terrifying.
Or this guy. 
I understand your friend.
@Robert1223 Welcome to the community, we are glad to have you. 
Thanks for the welcome aboard.
This trial has been interesting to view and read the different news accounts of the daily trial. Misinformation, trial trickery abound.
The bottom line here is that the jury’s job will determine guilt or innocence . Whatever everyone opinion is is just that. It was obvious that Rittenhouse took it upon himself to arm himself, go to a known location of civil disturbance under the guise of protecting property. He injected himself into a situation that was not his to be in. had no official duty or position to be in that area. One of the first lesson in such situation is avoidance.
Running around with a loaded firearm, dressed as he was, only created a situation of uncertainty in an situation that had a lot of uncertainty and a very high potential of direct confrontation with both those creating the civil disturbance and the legal agencies there to enforce law.
A tragic case and no one wins.
I think that is well laid out in David French’s article:
I think a whole bunch of people are missing the point here.
Was he defending himself?
If I happen to be walking the streets of a city, and I get attacked; it is my fault for walking the streets?
Or is it the fault of those who attacked me?
I have said it before and I’ll say it again; The CCW permit did not come with a Badge or Cape.
Was this boy justified in defending himself, I say yes - absolutely!
Was this boy wise in traveling to a riot zone to openly carry a firearm, I say debatable!
I would like to know more about his decision and thinking process.
I think that Kyle, despite good intentions, demonstrated poor judgement by being in Kenosha in that manner at that time. That being said, poor judgement, more often than not, isn’t a crime.
Food for thought: Would Kyle’s legal position be better if he had chosen to defend/protect a specific building or business or person/group? As opposed to roaming the area looking for situations in which he could help. My gut says yes, but my gut isn’t a legal expert by any stretch.