...But it happened and he killed someone and he ran because he had 0 authority on his side. He ran from the angry mob who saw him kill someone. And that angry group chasing him was 100% justified in chasing him. Because if ya shoot someone and you aren't wearing a uniform, odds are you're a murderer so best to stop you from killing again.
(Yes, Kyle may not be a murderer. But thats besides the point. Bad guys with guns, man.)
Yeah, based on the currently available facts this seems incredibly wrong to me.
The mob was not at all "100%" justified in chasing him.
First, let's start with the assumption that the lawyer in the video is correct and we're all in agreement with this quote (at about 7:01 in the video) -
"I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that if someone is chasing you and throwing objects at you, and then when you're cornered by them tries to take your gun away from you, at best you're at great risk of bodily injury and at worst, risk of death." And then he goes on to explain that the dynamics of self-defense and who the "aggressor" is in a situation can change moment to moment. Rosenbaum was clearly the aggressor at the moment that he was shot by Kyle.
Just before this quote in the video, the lawyer goes over the court documents that explain that this is exactly what happened. In that moment, doesn't matter why Kyle went to Kenosha. Doesn't matter what transpired before Rosenbaum chased him. In that moment, it was self-defense against what Kyle could rationally perceive as great bodily harm or death against him.
Okay, so, starting with THAT, let's posit three possibilities regarding the person in the mob who shouted "get that MFer" and the others who began chasing Kyle and subsequently attacked him, including one with a handgun:
1. They did NOT see enough of the full altercation between Kyle and Rosenbaum to know whether it appeared to be self-defense to a reasonable onlooker. How can you possibly justify chasing him if you don't know whether the gun shot was self-defense or not?
2. They DID see the full altercation, but were not reasonable enough to see that it looked like self-defense (because of tensions, adrenaline, preconceived notions, or they were just plain irrational, doesn't matter).
3. They DID see the full altercation, recognized it looked like self-defense, but they themselves were violent and murderous criminals who wanted to attack Kyle anyway.
Which of these three possibilities justified them in violently attacking him?
Is it #1? Are you suggesting that any time someone is shot we should ALWAYS assume it's NOT self-defense? Numbers from the CDC itself (Centers for Disease Control), in a study commissioned by President Obama in 2013, it states "almost all national survey estimates indicate that
defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses [of self-defense with a gun] ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year." [emphasis added].
Source:
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrentThe crowd is not at all justified if they merely ASSUME Kyle is the aggressor because he's the one who shot the gun. Possibility #1 can be discarded as providing justification.
And #2 and #3 self-evidently don't provide justification.
I would say, however, that if it's #2, I would ALSO think they should not be found guilty of very much. A lot of things can happen in the heat of the moment. For example, if these guys who attacked Kyle in the street were to kill Kyle, I can see them getting avoiding a strict homicide charge because of their frame of mind and other mitigating elements.
EDIT:
If it's #1 or #3, I believe they should be punished to the fullest extent of battery and possibly attempted murder - though some were already killed, so...