Could a black man be free from murder charges with self defense claim?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (68 posts)
  1. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

    The answer is YES.

    It happened in Florida.

    On November 19, just hours after Rittenhouse's verdict was read, Andrew Coffee IV was found not guilty on all counts of murder, and attempted first-degree murder. The Indian River County Sheriff did register his disappointment, but like Rittenhouse, Coffee is now a free man, even though he is Black.

    Coffee found not guilty over 2017 shooting
    During an early-morning raid on Coffee's house in 2017, SWAT team members and Coffee exchanged gunfire, leading to his girlfriend Alteria Woods getting caught in the crossfire. Woods was hit by 10 bullets and died, leading to Coffee and two law enforcement officers being charged for her death. The two officers were later exonerated by a grand jury, leaving Coffee as the sole defendant in the case.

    The jury deliberated for 11 hours following the trial, where Coffee insisted, that he fired in self-defense, the same argument Rittenhouse made. "Clearly, that there was some overreaction and overreach by the sheriff's department on that raid. They should have pulled back, they didn't. And this is what happens when you go into a volatile situation without all the information," said Coffee’s attorney Adam Chrzan after the verdict."

    https://meaww.com/andrew-coffee-iv-foun … se-verdict

    Where is the main stream media on this one?  Where are all the liberal pundits?  I guess it just doesn't fit their narrative .

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Geez, Mike, there is a big difference between defending your home verses being 40 miles away from it to stir up trouble as a provocation. I accept the Rittenhouse verdict, while I still have issues regarding provocation and the like.

      Are black people denied the right to defend their own domicile, as well? I presume that the SWAT people had a warrant to raid the property? I am sure that they did. This case reminds me of the Brionna Taylor case in Kentucky.

      It fits "our narrative" just fine. The differences to any reasonably discerning person is as clear as black and white.

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        Ah, Cred, Rittenhouse was not 40 miles away from his home.  It was only 17 miles from his mother's home.  Rittenhouse had a father, grandfather, aunts, cousins and a job in Kenosha.  He had strong ties to Kenosha.  You do know he was asked by the owner of the car lot to help with protection because the police were not to be found?  He didn't go to Kenosha to "stir up" trouble.  He had worked the night before the riot at his job as a lifeguard and spent the night at a friends home.  He was in Kenosha before the riots started, so he didn't cross state lines because of the riot.

        Facts matter. 

        Both men were found innocent of killing people because of self defense.  The similarity is the self defense is a viable legal defense no matter what race is involved.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Ok, Mike, 17 miles, not 40. What sort of spin are you trying to gin up this time?

          Haw can you compare an immediate threat breaking into your house and some damnable kid deliberately putting himself in harms way, knowingly so? This, making a specious comparison of the self defense principle.

          Yes, it not about race, but circumstances and situations. Once again, it is about reasonable discernment and the ability to see the difference.

    2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      You'd like to believe that a jury and juries everywhere evaluate cases based on the facts and the judges instructions. I do not believe it happens in every case though. IMHO some individuals have more difficulty overcoming biases than others. I'm not certain that these people are always cast out of the jury pool. A discussion of Critical Race Theory fits well here as it proposes that historical  racism has shaped public policy. Now if we could just get a group of 3rd graders together

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        CRT has been soundly debunked on many levels and in many ways.

        "I do not believe it happens in every case though."

        Yes, no system is perfect.

        Have you ever traveled to other countries and learned about their judicial systems?  Ours is far more fair than anything I've seen.  In Italy, you are judged by a three judge panel.  In Egypt and most of the Arab world, Shariah law plays a part in the verdict.

        Our system is much like that in England, with some strong differences.

        So, tell me what system judicial system in the world is better than the one we have now?

  2. Paraglider profile image88
    Paragliderposted 12 months ago

    It sounds like Coffee was in his own house when the events took place. It's not like he was poncing about in public outside his own neighborhood brandishing a semi-automatic weapon, which is what Kittenmouse was doing. Entirely different circumstances, wouldn't you say?

    1. Readmikenow profile image94
      Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      You need to look at the facts of the case.

      As I told Cred, Rittenhouse had many ties to Kenosha.  It is where his father, grandfather, aunts, cousins all lived.  He had a job in Kenosha and was worked a shift the day of the riots.  He wasn't "outside" his neighborhood. He had many ties to Kenosha.

      He didn't "Brandish" a semi-automatic weapon.  He had one for self defense, and it is a good thing he did.

      1. Paraglider profile image88
        Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        He was 'attacked' because he took a gun to the party. Had he not done so, the situation would not have arisen. His poor choice led to unnecessary deaths. He was outside his neighbourhood. I have ties to Aberdeen but I don't take a gun there. Only delusional cowards act in such ways.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          There is something very awry when someone behaves illegally and we put the blame on a second party because they were simply "out of their neighborhood" even though behaving in a completely legal manner.

          1. Paraglider profile image88
            Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Sometimes 'legality' doesn't correlate with common sense. If the law says it's fine for a 17-year-old to take a semi-automatic weapon to a public gathering, then the law is patently out of kilter with common sense. My point is clear enough. Kittenmouse's poor choices resulted in fatalities. Hiding behind 'legality' is no better than hiding behind a gun. One is moral cowardice, the other, physical cowardice.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Fortunately our legal system does not rely on "common sense" as you see it.  The law does not assign blame based on exercising our rights, it does not assign blame based on whether an individual somewhere feels a person should not have been on a public street.

              And it certainly does not assign blame for defending ones self against lethal attacks.

              I would likely agree that it wasn't real bright to be there at all...but then it wasn't my neighborhood, or [/i]my[/i] workplace location that was destroyed earlier.  But that is irrelevant as he had every right to be there.

              I'd have to say it was a good thing Rittenhouse was armed; after suffering two potentially lethal attacks he needed a defense.  That's why people carry weapons; to defend themselves, and Rittenhouse not only had the right to do so he was smart to do so.

              The closest analogy I can think of to match your "point" is a young woman invited to, and attending, a drunken frat party.  She is dressed provocatively (as young women at a party will be) but makes no untoward suggestions.  She is attacked and raped; your scenario will blame her for not using common sense and staying away.  And if she kills the attacker with that derringer hidden in her dress she is guilty of murder...because "common sense" says her poor choice of attending a party resulted in a murder.

              I disagree.  Neither Rittenhouse nor the young woman is responsible for the illegal actions of another person.

              1. Paraglider profile image88
                Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I'm amazed at your 'analogy', not least at "She is dressed provocatively (as young women at a party will be)". Would you like to explain "provocatively"? Maybe you'd better not.
                I am also surprised that you insist on hiding behind the 'legality' of a few moments while refusing to look at the poor choices made by Kittenmouse in taking the law into his own hands.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I believe I said he made poor choices ("I would likely agree that it wasn't real bright to be there at all")...which has nothing to do with others deciding to attack him.  No more than it would the woman in the analogy.

                  Rittenhouse "took the law into his own hands"?  By defending himself against unprovoked attack?  You have a very strange idea of what the law says.

                  1. Paraglider profile image88
                    Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    No, by taking on himself the right to bring force of arms to direct the behaviour of others.

            2. Readmikenow profile image94
              Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Couldn't disagree with you more.

              "take a semi-automatic weapon to a public gathering"

              I would say trying to categorize a riot with looters burning businesses and destroying property as a "public gathering" is more than just a little off.

              I would say the poor choices made by those who attacked him are the ones who made the poor choices.

              The law says a person has a right to self defense.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the ultimate in common sense.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                "I would say the poor choices made by those who attacked him are the ones who made the poor choices."

                You hit the nail with this one!

              2. Paraglider profile image88
                Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                I support the rule of law, by which I mean this: It is the duty of law enforcement to do just that, and for the courts to act accordingly. However, when it is clear that the 'correct' application of law is morally abhorrent in the eyes of many, then it is incumbent on society to push for revision of the law. After all, Jesus was legally crucified. Law must evolve through due process.

                1. Readmikenow profile image94
                  Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  "'correct' application of law is morally abhorrent in the eyes of many"

                  That has nothing to do with the case involving Kyle Rittenhouse.

                  1. Paraglider profile image88
                    Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    I beg to differ.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Implicit in this statement is the idea that one may not "flounce" (meaning walk down the street) wherever they wish, and that the constitutional rights afforded all of us are null and void - one may not "brandish" (meaning carry on a shoulder strap) a weapon.

      Yes?

  3. MG Singh profile image73
    MG Singhposted 12 months ago

    I have been observing these things happening in America for quite some time. Many blacks have been let off by a miss guided sense of justice and they are roaming free even after killing and murder. I think that famous baseball player also comes in this category. Simpson?, why is this happening? this is I think a guilt complex in which the white race is enmeshed after having exploited the blacks for a long time and now the blacks are hitting back with a vengeance. The net result is America is being eaten from inside by Ants.

  4. Paraglider profile image88
    Paragliderposted 12 months ago

    No. Even before he was in any danger, he was openly carrying a semi-automatic weapon. By so doing he was trying to set himself in authority over others. It is no surprise that this caused resentment as he was clearly just a kid with inflated ideas of his importance.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      Odd - I've never been "resentful" of someone carrying a weapon.  Whether a machine gun, a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a pistol or a baseball bat I've never been resentful of them.

      Perhaps the resentment was because some looting or burning was planned and the rifle might pose a threat to those plans?

      1. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I don't know how much resentment there was since many of the protestors were also armed.  One of them pointed his weapon at Kyle Rittenhouse and got shot.

        1. Paraglider profile image88
          Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          OK, I've had enough of this discussion. You two have so hardened your hearts against 'the left' that you refuse even to consider that unnecessary deaths are in any way regrettable. You hide behind a narrow 'legality' so you don't have to consider morality, humanity or ethics. Some day you may see that there is no future in entrenched dogmatic posturing. I hope so.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            This is a growing problem for our country. Those who have turned politics into a blood sport merely for the ability to gloat that they are on the "winning" team or the team with the higher moral ground. Policy positions don't even matter anymore. People relate more to crushing the other "team" than they do to any of the policies of the team they claim  to support.

            1. Paraglider profile image88
              Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              I agree fully. When it becomes clear that someone has no interest in seeking common ground in a discussion it is pointless to continue.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Excuse my butting in Paraglider, but what common ground have you sought?

                After reading this thread I perceive you to be saying that Rittenhouse is morally responsible for those deaths because he took a gun with him. Your comments seem to paint that as an unmovable position.

                The contrary comments seem to disagree. A simple black and white choice.

                You have argued your `morally responsible' position by offering the proof that no one would have died—by Rittenhouse's hands—if he hadn't taken his gun. I think this is a very true statement. But, in this case, I don't think that action makes him morally responsible for the deaths of those that attacked him.

                Hopefully, you would agree that he was attacked?

                Where is the common ground you seek? That all must agree that that truth is the only thing that matters?

                I would offer the common ground that it was a dumb thing for him to do. And I would also speculate that he was a 17-year-old that wanted to run with the `Big Dogs', which is also dumb, (but surely your life experience has shown you that's just part of human nature, especially among our young).

                However, I would also offer the common ground that the trial evidence never indicated that Rittenhouse, (he), acted in any provocative way, beyond simply having the gun. Contrarily there was evidence he did just what he planned and said; offered first aid and property security. The trial also confirmed his presence and possession were legal and that his self-defense actions were valid.

                Can you find any common ground to pursue in those thoughts?

                GA

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  +

                2. Paraglider profile image88
                  Paragliderposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  I've already conceded a great deal of ground from my intuitive position as a European. In most countries, to step outside carrying a lethal weapon is an immediate felony. It is hard to plead self defence while engaging in criminal activity. However I acknowledge that US law is different. The common ground I was pursuing is that, legal or not, if amateurs sally forth with guns avoidable fatalities are possible, even likely. Therefore it is wholly reprehensible conduct. Your intervention concedes many of these points, more or less. The common ground might also be that this case is further evidence that gun-law reform is indicated or at least a grown up nuanced discussion about it.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Generally Europe is much more civilized when it comes to gun crimes and gun deaths.
                    Just having a gun a person has three times greater chance of killing themselves than killing someone else. Plus greater chance of killing someone they know than killing the robber.

                    Most killing in wars are gun, overall I agree with you. In Rome we must do what the Romans do. I wish all guns were removed,. Yet North America fears Tyranny more than anything and it is here and there by germ warfare of vaccines tyranny

                  2. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "if amateurs sally forth with guns avoidable fatalities are possible"

                    I believe you have no idea how many people in the United States have guns and regularly go to gun ranges.  I know many people who are just as knowledgeable on the use of a firearm as any police officer or person in the military.  We are a very well-armed population.  The only amateurs are the one who illegally own guns and don't get the proper training.

                    I know Kyle Rittenhouse talked about handling his AR-14.  He knew how to operate it as good as anyone.

                  3. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    That was a fair response. It looks like there is, at least, a common understanding, if not common ground to work from.

                    By common understanding, I mean that it is understood that American and European views on guns are culturally oceans apart, (te hee, did you get that?) And I think that difference is the reason for our lack of common ground.

                    From my American perspective, I would offer that the European thought you expressed; it's a felony to step out of your door with a gun, is as repugnant to us as doing so is to you.

                    I have had enough conversations with you folks, (Brits and Europeans), to know that this cultural difference is a point we will never agree on.

                    But I think we all still benefit from these discussions. Now, if we could just convince you that personal responsibility is a big deal we might make some headway. (:-O just a friendly poke bud)

                    GA

                  4. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    Well, Paraglider, ALL Americans do not feel the same way as some of our more conservative members seem to indicate. We are not all on the same page.There is a certain barbarism associated with a "Dodge city" mentality about firearms, their accessibility, availability and possession.

                  5. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "In most countries, to step outside carrying a lethal weapon is an immediate felony."

                    In the US more people are murdered with blunt objects (think baseball bats) than with all long guns combined and I expect europe is the same.

                    Do you forbid all "lethal weapons" then, or just the ones you don't like or that scare you?  Or just the ones government fears to have in the hands of its populace?

          2. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I think being able to defend yourself against those who intend to do you harm is quite moral, very ethical and extremely human.

            I have some personal experience in self-defense.  So, yeah, I know what it feels like to be facing a direct threat to your life.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Done some part-time security supervisor in dangerous riots and mugged in world traveled places. With a few life threatening situations.
              Lucky nobody got seriously harmed.

              From the film I saw where he shot another guy to death and injury to some others.  There were a few death threats to kill Rittenhouse during the period  by a gang. The one guy pulled out a gun to shoot Rittenhouse pointed at his head. By law one can use equal force to defend with equal force. In this case it was his life or the other guys life in self defense.


              Personally, in general guns are far too dangerous for anyone.  I got extreme Radar to stay out of this kind of situation.

              I saw a liberal comparing Greta as a 17 year old liberal left environmentist, in a speaking engagements. Comparing Rittenhouse with his AK gun 17 year old rightwing riot.
              Yet both are not old enough to vote.
              It's why I'm an anarchist.

  5. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

    This is how the left treats criminals.

    Let us not mention that the individual who currently holds the position as VP of the United States created a bail fund for rioters who were destroying cities.

    The following story is an example of how the left treats criminals.

    "Ax-Wielding Antifa Member Attacks GOP Senator's Office, Dems Give Him Money, FBI Returns Ax"

    Far-left miscreant Thomas Alexander Starks, 31, of Lisbon, North Dakota, pleaded guilty to destruction of government property last April. Starks brought an ax to Sen. John Hoeven’s office in Fargo on December 21, 2020, and smashed an intercom and glass door. The attack was captured on video.

    Federal guidelines suggested Starks should spend 10–16 months in the hoosegow, but because he is a protected member of Antifa, he was sentenced to mere probation and ordered to pay $2,784 in restitution.

    Keep in mind that there are people still in solitary confinement for taking non-violent selfies in the Capitol on January 6.

    Even better, the FBI returned the ax he used in the attack. Starks is bragging about it on Facebook, where he goes by the name “Paul Dunyan,” a reference to the axman Paul Bunyan.

    Starks openly admits to being a member of Antifa and has a history of threatening violence online. In one picture, Starks is seen wearing a Socialist Rifle t-shirt. Socialist Rifle is a left-wing fringe group that had communicated with Antifa mass shooter Connor Betts before he murdered nine people in Dayton, Ohio, back in 2019.

    Three North Dakota Democrats threw the fascist some dough. Democrat Party Executive Committee Representative Ellie Shockley donated $100, Democratic-Non-Partisan League (NPL) Chairwoman Kylie Oversen also gave $100, and Ellen Chaffee, the Democrat candidate for lt. governor in 2012, gave $500.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/k … x-n1535869

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 12 months agoin reply to this

      After threating to kill him and cut his heart out. Then this gang of kids with criminals background attacked him with a skateboard, a rock, a jump kick, and a gun pointed to his head.  This whole time Rittenhouse had a gun in his hand. This gang had to be very dumb or on meth.

      I can't imagine running out of ideas to kill someone.

      Yet protecting your own life in any situation is more honorable than a President winning a Nobel peace wail killing millions of poor People,  exspeically mostly women and children.

  6. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 12 months ago

    This made me laugh.  Just in time for the holiday season.


    https://hubstatic.com/15803401.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)