Self-Defense or Unjustified Killing?

Some years ago, I was brought in to investigate after a man was shot and killed at a car wash in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The shooter worked as an engineer at Sandia National Labs, the man shot was a biker.

The attorney was looking at the possibility of filing a civil lawsuit, and whether we could get the prosecutor, who declined to prosecute, to rethink his decision not to prosecute.

The shooter, a "second amendment" advocate, who had received training to claim being in fear for his safety if ever involved in a shooting told the police during questioning that he feared for his safety. Law enforcement responded to that statement by releasing the shooter.

Video of the shooting was somewhat inconclusive but still raised concerns about whether the shooting was justified. However, multiple eyewitnesses indicated that the man, who was killed, had been backing away from the shooter BEFORE any shots were fired. And this his hands were empty, and facing palms out towards the shooter, when he was shot.

A classical defensive position. (I refer to this stance as the safe stance since it's a de-escalation position).

Law enforcement seemed sympathetic to the shooter during their questioning of him, and the prosecutor declined to press charges or reconsider his decision.

POLITICIANS CHEER THESE KILLINGS TO SCORE CHEAP POLITICAL POINTS

Politicians, whether it was Donald Trump supporting Kyle Rittenhouse, or Ron DeSantis fundraising for Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old man who choked and killed a homeless man on a subway in NYC, have climbed over themselves to see who can be first to publicly support these men who have killed others

As if the killers are good guys, and the men killed, bad.

While the homeless man was agitated, and upset, according to eyewitnesses, he never posed a physical threat to the man who took his life. Or to any anyone else on the subway for that matter.

Kyle Rittenhouse was eventually prosecuted, though by all accounts the prosecutor put his least best and brightest onto the case (yes some prosecutors will make a dog and pony show instead of really going for a conviction), while the judge may no effort to conceal his disdain for those Rittenhouse shot. 

Wisconsin law prohibited assessing Rittenhouse's own conduct. But clearly, Rittenhouse put himself into harms way by arming himself with a semi-automatic, pointing it at unarmed people, and pulling the trigger.

Rittenhouse, despite being acquitted at trial,  is now facing a civil suit from the families of two of the men that he shot. He's running to as many conservative media outlets as will have him as a victim, who if held liable for the shootings, claims all of society will breakdown.

Since killing those men, he has been anything but shy about getting as much media coverage for himself as possible. (Fundraising for himself).

DeSantis has helped to raise over a million dollars for Daniel Penny, the man charged with choking Jordan Neely to death. Penny is white, and a former marine, Neely a homeless, Black man who spiraled following his mother's killing.

DeSantis is pushing Penny as some kind of hero doing something about crime. Yet, none of the witnesses reported Neely engaged in any kind of crime. Let alone a violent crime that would allow for killing him under the law.

DeSantis knows this. He's a lawyer.

For DeSantis, just like Trump. It's not what happened that matters. Only how the voting base perceives what happened. 

Hint: Not like what actually happened.

Ironically, when a former military officer heroically stopped an active shooter at an LGBT nightclub, saving countless lives, these same two politicians said nothing.

After all, the hero of the day, was not part of their voting base.