The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict has deadly implications for states such as Wisconsin that allow the open carrying of firearms.

One might be excused for thinking that the right to carry a gun does not give someone more discretion to kill others. After all, the Second Amendment’s language only confers a right to carry. A gun can easily be lethal. But this easy lethality should neither expand the gun owner’s privilege to use deadly force nor diminish the safety of others at the other end of the barrel.

Unfortunately, with Rittenhouse acquittal, the open-carry community now has an additional license to kill.

A person is privileged to use deadly force if he reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. “Reasonable belief” is a community standard: We determine how much restraint is necessary before one is privileged to kill another, and in doing so, we place a value on the lives of others.

Laura Williamson: Don’t like the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict? What about a Black man defending himself from a racist outside a bar?

The Rittenhouse outcome in Kenosha suggests that the value we give a victim’s life can depend on whether or not the defendant was armed.

Defense lawyers were permitted to give significance to Rittenhouse’s rifle in arguing that deadly force was reasonable. They argued that Rittenhouse could consider the possibility of another person taking his gun and using it against him. An encounter between an armed person and an unarmed person suddenly became an encounter between two armed persons.

In the incident between Rittenhouse and Joseph Rosenbaum, the plastic bag in Rosenbaum’s hand effectively became an AR-15. Under this view of self-defense, Rittenhouse’s choice to put a gun in his hand puts a gun in our hand, too.

This view of self-defense means that by carrying a gun, Rittenhouse was authorized to use deadly force that if unarmed, he was not privileged to use. Rittenhouse’s use-of-force expert explained this twisted reality. Asked if deadly force against Rosenbaum would be reasonable had Rittenhouse been unarmed, the expert opined, “No.”

Kyle Rittenhouse verdict sends a chilling message to Wisconsin and the rest of the country

• Wisconsin State Journal editorial board

Thus, the defense’s own expert confirmed that it was only reasonable for Rittenhouse to kill Rosenbaum because Rittenhouse carried a firearm. Put another way, the defense lawyers asked the jury to assume an unarmed person was armed

Obviously, being chased by a person wielding a plastic bag does not privilege you to kill that person. What was not obvious, at least until the Rittenhouse acquittal, is that if you carry a gun, you actually can kill a person running at you with a plastic bag. Rittenhouse was correct when he told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that his case was a win for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment now apparently privileges the use of deadly force for an armed person that an unarmed person cannot use in the exact same circumstances.

A civilian with a gun can no longer truthfully claim it’s for self-defense. Under the law, his decision to carry a gun increases your vulnerability as it reduces the value of your life. A person with a gun can reasonably assume that aggressive movements toward them signal your intent to use their gun against them. The likelihood of violence is increased.

In a protest, confrontations between unarmed protesters and armed civilians are common. If an unarmed protester fails to submit to an armed civilian’s order to halt, can he shoot? It seems so.

What changes to Wisconsin law might help restore sanity? The state could add a provision to its self-defense statute so that carrying a firearm could not justify a defendant’s reasonable belief of imminent harm. In the courtroom, a defendant who could not argue his fear of harm was informed by the possibility that the victim might use the defendant’s gun against him. The jury could consider the relevance of the defendant’s gun if, during the encounter, the victim gained control of the defendant’s firearm.

Under this approach, any increased danger caused by the carrying of a gun would be borne by the person who chose to carry it. So a jumpy trigger finger would not be awarded any special privilege, and the lives of those who are unarmed would not be stripped of value.

Kyle Rittenhouse responds to LeBron James tweet: ‘F*** you, LeBron’

By Dan FeldmanDec 10, 2021, 11:00 PM ESTSean Krajacic – Pool/Getty Images

Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two.

Whatever you think about what happened that night in Kenosha, Wisc., that’s a heavy thing.

A jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on homicide charges after he claimed self-defense. When testifying, Rittenhouse cried on the stand. He also repeatedly cried and threw up when at the police station shortly after the shooting, according to an Antioch, Ill., police officer.

The NBA’s biggest star used his platform to accuse Rittenhouse of acting.

Rittenhouse, via Blaze News:

“I was a Lakers fan, too, before he said that,” Rittenhouse revealed. “I was really pissed off when he said that because I liked LeBron. And then I’m like, you know what, f*** you, LeBron.”

Rittenhouse has said he supports the Black Lives Matter movement and warned against prosecutors taking advantage of people of color. If he were genuine in those statements and in his reaction on the stand, it’s understandable he’d now resent LeBron, whose advocacy for similar causes has sometimes been imprecise.

More on the Lakers

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson was spotted at lunch with Kyle Rittenhouse at Maurice’s BBQ Piggie Park in Columbia Thursday afternoon.

When Wilson was asked why he was meeting with Rittenhouse he told WIS he was just getting lunch as he drove away. Rittenhouse did not respond to shouted questions as to why he was in town, but a person with him said he was meeting with his lawyer as he walked away from cameras.

WIS has reached out to the Attorney General’s office for more details about the meeting but did not hear back at the time of publication.

When asked to comment on why his client was with Wilson, Rittenhouse’s attorney chose not to comment.

Kyle Rittenhouse leaving lunch with @AGAlanWilson at Maurice’s BBQ in Columbia. I asked Wilson why they were meeting and he said they were just getting lunch. A man with Rittenhouse said he is meeting with his attorney.