FLORIDA FIREARMS – Law, Use & Ownership

The Kyle Rittenhouse Case, and CNBC reporting bias.

By Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. – October 27, 2021

         CNBC has a news show, “The News with Shepard Smith”. They advertise it as “fact based”, “the truth”, and non-opinionated. But, in “truth” – it is anything but. They try to disguise it, but it definitely leans to the left in almost every story they put on. Example: Tonight, October 27, 2021, they had a supposed “legal expert” commenting on the Kyle Rittenhouse case. You may remember, Rittenhouse is the seventeen year old kid who went out with an AR-15 during the 2020 riots in Kenosa, Wisconsin, to try to help protect property from looters and arsonists. It was a war zone! Probably not a real smart idea on his part, and more to the point, three of the rioters chased and repeatedly attacked him until he finally shot the three (killing two) of them while trying to defend himself. He was later charged with murder for that act. Why he was prosecuted, beyond political reasons, to me, there is no valid explanation. No matter what the eventual verdict – the prosecution is a travesty. It should not have occurred.

       Be that as it may, today the judge in the Rittenhouse case made two important rulings. First, he ruled that the prosecution could not refer to the three individuals who Rittenhouse shot as “victims”. Why? Because Rittenhouse is arguing at trial that he is the “victim”, and that the two individuals he shot are “attackers”, and the real guilty parties. To allow the prosecution to refer to these individuals who attacked him as “victims” tends to prejudge the case against him, flies in the face of the “presumption of innocence”, and violates Due Process of law (ie: “fundamental fairness”). Secondly, the judge ruled that the attorneys for Rittenhouse could refer to the individuals he shot as “rioters, looters, and arsonists” as long as there was reason to believe they were so engaged.

      This is where the CNBC supposed “legal expert” went far left! He stated this second part of the judge’s decision was unfair, and was not a legitimate part of the defense. But, allowing such an individual to state on a show that alleges it is about the “truth”, and is unbiased – is a terrible travesty of the truth. such an obviously wrong legal opinion without, at least, presenting the other side – the actual REAL legal side – is pure leftist, anti-gun, b.s.! Let me explain:

       One of the basics of the use of deadly force is that it is normally considered justified in stopping or preventing felonious acts – especially the more serious ones such as riot, arson, and depending on the situation – looting. (which normally involves a burglary – a very serious felony in most states). When you are a defender in a situation where you know the person attacking you is involved in various forcible felonies – two defenses arise. First, the ability to use deadly force to stop or prevent the forcible felony. And secondly, the right to use deadly force to stop or prevent serious injury or death to yourself or another. Of course, the reasonableness of believing another person can and will cause you death or great bodily injury becomes even more reasonable if they are already engaged in serious felonious acts. And for those who don’t know – the legal use of deadly force normally depends on the reasonableness of a defenders belief that their life, or the life of another, is in immediate danger, or there is an immediate danger of serious bodily injury if deadly force is not used.

       So, an important part of the defense in this case will be Kyle’s belief that the individuals attacking him were also engaged in rioting. That belief is critical! Likewise, when individuals are engaged in felonious acts and they attack someone trying to stop them or prevent them from doing damage, or carrying out their crimes – they are “acting in furtherance” of the original felonies. Another defense to the charges in this case. So, calling his attackers for who they are – rioters, looters, arsonists – is not an arguable decision – it is a part of the well settled law of most states for almost two hundred years! Admit it CNBC! You’re just another part of the anti-gun hating left. You just do it more subtly than most. At least – that’s my opinion.