Ignorance or Diversion?
Leave it to National Public Radio NPR to conveniently come up with something like this:
Rittenhouse's defense renews focus on the case of a 17-year-old who killed her abuser
In the aftermath of Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal in Kenosha, Wis., last week, advocates are turning back to the case of Chrystul Kizer, who is also arguing it was self-defense when she killed her adult sexual abuser, set his house on fire and stole his car in 2018.
The implication being offered here by NPR is, of course, that our legal system is not fair—an emotional claim that, by design, resonates with those who are ignorant of the law and predisposed to side with Rittenhouse’s attackers.
But, is there something more sinister going on? We have been seeing an obvious attempt by the media and others to divert attention away from the recent vehicular-homicide case that occurred in Waukesha, WI. That incident occurred at the same time as an raucous left-wing reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict.
The facts of the case involving Kyle Rittenhouse differ significantly from the facts of the case involving Chrystul Kizer. it was necessary for Rittenhouse to meet the legal requirement of self-defense before he could claim that he used a firearm (deadly force) for that purpose. Five elements are required, and all five of those elements must be satisfied by the defendant when claiming self-defense. *The elements are: innocence, reasonable, imminence, proportional, and (when applicable) avoidance. If any one of those required elements are not met, the whole self-defense claim collapses, usually leaving the defendant with an admission of guilt that can be a sure ticket to prison.
So, what’s going on here? It’s anybody’s guess, but my money is on the guesses that are educated.
/fl
*Thanks go to Attorney Andrew Branca for hammering this point during his excellent coverage and commentary of the recent Rittenhouse trial.