So you lead off by saying that they’re not cops and they’re not soldiers — which I already knew, and which seems irrelevant — and, with that odd aside of yours out of the way, you then add that the idea is “to reverse engineer” the scenario in the Rittenhouse decision. And, as far as I can tell, that scenario involved people obligingly attacking the guy who then shot them in self-defense.
So: how can someone “reverse engineer” me into attacking him, since he’s limited to being him and I’m the law-abiding citizen who’s, uh, me? I know you immediately add that it’s the part that you’re “vague” on, but: isn’t that the only part that would make this possible?
As I understand the concept posited on MSNBC, it is to reverse engineer the jury instructions. Then set up a scenario using actors that exactly follows that path. So that the vigilantes can then open fire on the protestors and claim self defense.
I am not selling the program, just reporting that it was presented as a strategy being employed by vigilantes.
But it sure seems as though the only way for those, ah, reverse-engineered jury instructions to have relevance is for a significantly similar set of events to occur first: that, if a guy can get me to act like one of Rittenhouse’s attackers by attacking him, then said guy could react the way Rittenhouse did — which, in turn, could lead to jury instructions ‘reverse engineered’ to be like those given in this case, so as to produce another such verdict.
But all of that stuff after “get me to act like one of Rittenhouse’s attackers” only works if he can, like I just said, get me to act like one of Rittenhouse’s attackers. If he can’t get me to follow in the attacker’s footsteps, then I don’t see how we’d ever get to the part where a jury gets instructed to judge his reaction to being attacked as having been like Rittenhouse’s reaction to being attacked.
(Obviously he wouldn’t have to match every detail of the Rittenhouse case for ‘reverse-engineered’ instructions to be useful; he wouldn’t need to be the same height, his name wouldn’t need to be “Rittenhouse”, and so on. But, near as I can tell, he would need me to attack him.)
Bu the felons were not the ones with the guns, I believe is his point.
The more general people-with-guns point to one worrisome aspect, which is the expectation of there being at some point the need for their use.
Purely speculating here, but I suppose they are trying to see if the instructions contain any guidance on the limits of how provocative they can be (which I don’t think was contained in them anyway). One can imagine the thought among those groups is “OK, this means on the next unrest, we can show up in numbers and full tactitard display, conspicuously showing we’re ready for battle, and we march forward asserting control of the street”, and trying to figure out from the instructions at what point someone on the other side who stands their ground and assertively pushes back, can be considered to be “attacking you.”
The strategy, IIRC, is to decoy the unarmed protestors into attacking a decoy who is shooting (by Rittenhouse criteria) in self defense. Then the other vigilantes can shoot the unarmed protestors in support of the decoys’ self defense.
If you have the mind set of a right wing nut case, the logic isn’t even a reach. If you are a normal human being, it’s batshit crazy. Your reaction indicates normalcy.
Or even armed. Which would be illustrative on how really ready for battle they are…
And let’s remember part of the issue is that apparently at some point there were sounds of shots fired and the various parties presumed there was an active shooter scenario. The whole aspect of when does “[I believe I heard] shots fired” and “look, [an object that I think is a] gun!” mean that it’s time for the “good guy [or at leat non-felon] with a gun” to act.
That’s a good point. If you orchestrated a volley of gunfire, you might get a reaction that you could attack. Like I said, some of these guys may not be dumb and it is performance art.
Well, yes, but “pushes back” — again, it looks like the key element is getting glossed over, there. It seems like that’d mean the guy looking to claim self-defense pushed me first — and Rittenhouse, AFAICT, didn’t do that, or anything like that; he defended himself against a would-be attacker that he hadn’t, y’know, pushed.
I haven’t heard anyone on either side of this say yeah, Rittenhouse committed assault and battery first, and earned himself jail time for that; and then, when someone pushed back, Rittenhouse shot him. That seems like it would’ve been an incredibly different story.
On Jan 6 there were a couple of teams that were well organized and under experienced leadership. Merge them with folks who are better at performance art and some brainy strategists and we have a problem.
They are trying to find the edges of the envelope as to how to deal with someone who refuses to just run and abjectly surrender the street to the Loud Bois when confronted. Mr. Loud Boi with his AR at tactical ready marches up to Mr. SJW, Mr. SJW refuses to move or to stop yelling, Loud Boi gets literally in SJW’s space and face, then any twitch is “I reasonably felt he was reaching to take my gun”.
The solution cannot be to just cower at home and surrender the town to the first faction that displays itself armed.
Except his idolizers believe there’s only one faction that has the (natural? divine?) right and entitlement to assert armed dominance.
As I mentioned earlier, ISTM that years of the authorities tacitly or explicitly allowing a certain level of violence to “spend itself” as long as it did not harm the people and property they are really interested in protecting, leads to things like this. It should NOT be necessary for random civilians to self-deputize to enforce “order” (or “justice”).
The first line of defense is for cities to take control of their situation. Permit the protestors, eliminate open carry for 24 hours in advance and after protest, aggressively suppress destructive activity, ignore the small stuff, don’t invite or allow civilian help, don’t coddle guys who shoot people.
The thing is, they weren’t protestors, they were anarchists. Starting fires and attacking people are what they do. Calling them protestors is at best a rewrite of reality and at worst glorifies their actions.