Lessons from Rittenhouse
After a detailed review of the Kyle Rittenhouse case, from the precursory event of the police shooting of Jacob Blake to the verdict of not guilty, there are several lessons to be learned relative to the Concealed Carry curriculum as taught by Advanced Defensive Strategies.
The first point that we stress is to make every effort to avoid getting into situations in which you may have to use deadly force. This statement is not meant to be a criticism of Kyle Rittenhouse and his decision to go to Kenosha, armed, during a time of civil unrest. We do not know the details of his relationship with the car dealership that he went to protect, and his presence in Kenosha at this time was a unique situation. Nonetheless, had he not been there, he would not have been subjected to the legal hell that followed.
The second point is the relationship with the law enforcement community following the use of deadly force. Law enforcement can be divided into two components; the police and the district attorney. In general, the police are not the problem. Following an event, they have two basic responsibilities, first, to stabilize a situation, and second, to gather evidence of what actually happened. The gathering of evidence is often enhanced by video surveillance. The police do not make the decision as to whether or not to prosecute you; that is the role of the district attorney, although in some locals the police may exert considerable influence.
The third point is video surveillance. Unless an event takes place in the woods, almost every public location in the United States today is under some form of video surveillance. In addition to fixed cameras there are millions of cell phones that can act as cameras, police dash cams, and police body cams. Any improper action that you take is likely to be recorded, to be used as evidence against you, and any statements that you make following an event will be compared to the video record.
The fourth point is the moral status of law enforcement. Overwhelmingly, police officers are dedicated public servants that do their jobs with little regard to politics or personal ideologies. District attorneys, however, span the entire political and moral spectra. Many are dedicated public servants like the police, that will follow the law and prosecute only those that have committed actual crimes. At the other extreme, and increasing number of district attorneys are left wing anti gun radicals that will not only pursue obviously innocent persons, but will manipulate evidence, lie in court, and use any tactic to advance their views. In the Rittenhouse case, the large volume of video evidence was a two edged sword. Despite the fact that it clearly showed that Rittenhouse acted in self defense, the prosecutor tried to manipulate it to show the opposite. Fortunately, the jury was intelligent and honest enough to see through the prosecutor's malevolent efforts. Not all juries, however, are created equal, especially in high population areas.
The fifth point is the legal expense. We have no knowledge of what the very capable legal team that defended Rittenhouse charged. However, most criminal defense attorneys will require a retainer of at least $20,000.00, and after the hourly charges, payment to expert witnesses, etc., the total bill can easily reach $300,000.00 or more. That level of expense is sufficient to ruin most individuals.
Therefore, to return to the opening point, and in consideration of all of the risks, exercise extreme caution when deciding whether or not to place yourself into a dangerous situation.