Taking the law into our own hands and claiming self-defense when someone is shot is the subject of the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery cases.

During two closely watched murder trials in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men bought guns in the name of protecting the public and then told juries they killed unarmed people in self-defense.

Another case involved Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, who was shot after being pursued by three white men suspected of breaking into a house in the neighborhood. In both cases, the defendants started shooting as the victims were trying to steal their guns.

In other words, their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it, lest it be wrested away from them,” said Eric Ruben, an expert on the Second Amendment at the S.M.U. Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

It is evident, from these two cases, that; our concept of self-defense has deep flaws that are treasured, but not prepared to deal with an era of gun rights expansion, political extremism, and rising violence in a situation where race is heavily influencing perceptions of threat.

As a result of the fact that our citizens have guns, every line has become blurred. The combination of "stand your ground" provisions and citizen's arrest laws has granted people license not only to defend themselves but to go after others as well.[See Source]

Defense is the act of defending. But what constitutes reasonableness? At what point must one retreat? And when is a citizen allowed to act as an aggressor on behalf of the state?

Rifts have appeared in several debates, starting with whether openly displaying firearms makes people feel safer at  the expense of everyone else, whether brandishing a gun constitutes a threat or self-defense, and whether people may benefit from self-defense claims if their actions contributed to the danger.

Migrant militia members accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer clashed with elected officials trying to make a so called  citizen’s arrest. It was argued in St. Louis whether white residents who aimed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters were assaulting them or defending their homes. They pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and harassment, then were pardoned by the governor.

Nine plaintiffs who were among those injured or traumatized by the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, are suing the rally's organizers, alleging a plan and intent to engage in violence, but the defendants claim that the violence, in which one counterprotester died, was justified by self-defense.

People have the right to self-defense when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of harm, whether or not they are right. It is possible to mistake a realistic prop gun for a real weapon, for instance.

Some statutes, however, stipulate that someone cannot claim self-defense if they were the "initial aggressor" - in other words if they provoked or were doing something wrong at the time of the use of force. If an initial aggressor withdraws or backs away from an encounter they may regain their self-defense claim. The aggressor must also pose a threat of imminent harm.

It is provocation if you assault someone without justification. If you ask for an explanation of offensive words, address a sensitive subject, engage in an inconsiderate act, or travel near someone, it does not constitute provoking an encounter.

In the Arbery case, According to defendants Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and neighbor William Bryan, they were pursuing Mr. Arbery as part of a citizen's arrest, and he was shot after trying to grab one of their guns.

What makes the perception that Ahmaud Arbery would have lived if he had complied instead of reaching for a gun, and hence it was his duty to comply. It would be good framing for Ahmaud Arbery if three guys rolled up on him with guns, he didn't know what their intentions were?

There has been a tendency in the United States to increase the right to self-defense rather than to protect those whose actions may harm others. As a result of "make my day" laws, people who harm intruders in their own homes are presumed to have acted in self-defense. Classic self-defense theory's "duty to retreat" has been undermined by laws requiring people who are in an area where they have a right to be to retreat, such as at a public protest, to retreat.

Most states require prosecutors to demonstrate that the defendant did not act in self defense, rather than requiring defendants to demonstrate that they did.

A new law in Utah, except for those accused of attacking a police officer, enables defendants to request a special hearing at which prosecutors must prove the accused was not acting in self-defense. 

Despite the expansion of the legal framework for self-defense, experts say it has left certain key concepts like the "initial aggressor" poorly defined. As part of the trial of George Zimmerman, Mr. Zimmerman was accused of killing Trayvon Martin. In 2012, while visiting relatives in a gated community. Mr. Zimmerman, who was Hispanic, was deemed the first aggressor by prosecutors. He followed Mr. Martin on foot and in his car before Mr. Martin knocked him down. Mr. Zimmerman initially identified Mr. Martin as suspicious. The jury disagreed and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.

Mr. Zimmerman was the only person armed in that case. In a situation where two strangers are armed, who is the "primary aggressor"? 

In the Kenosha trial, Mr. Rittenhouse, now 18, was armed with a semiautomatic rifle that he was not legally allowed to own. After he shot and killed a man who he believed was trying to grab his gun, as well as a man who hit him with a skateboard in an apparent attempt to stop him, a nearby paramedic named Gaige Grosskreutz raised his hands in the air.

In that moment, Mr. Grosskreutz said this week, he believed Mr. Rittenhouse racked his rifle and refused to accept his surrender.

Grosskreutz pointed his handgun toward Mr. Rittenhouse, although his concealed-carry permit had expi d. Mr. Rittenhouse fired one shot at Grosskreutz.

Both Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse said they were trying to save their own lives. According to philosopher Renee Jorgensen, who has researched self-defense and reasonable mistakes, one can look at the parking lot as a Wild West situation where neither man wrongs the other and neither is wronged by the other.

As white men, Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Grosskreutz took the law into their own hands to varying degrees that night, offering themselves as private guardians of public safety.

According to experts, self-defense, vigilantism, and policing are related practices rooted in deeply racialized American traditions in which Black people, particularly men, are seen as threats and white people are given the benefit of the doubt.

In an analysis of homicides after Trayvon Martin's death, the Urban Institute discovered that white perpetrators and black victims were 281% more likely to be ruled justified than white perpetrators and white victims.

In the Arbery case this past week, a defense lawyer objected to having high-profile Black pastors in the courtroom, arguing that their presence was “intimidating.”

The standard of reasonable fear applies to both self-defense cases and police use-of-force cases, although officers are given greater leeway than civilians. Many police killings have been viewed as being the product of implicit bias due to the reasonable fear standard.

Based on our research, scholars are considering ways to adapt self-defense laws to a nation awash in guns and counteract prevailing prejudices. GW law professor Cynthia Lee has begun work on a universal definition of what is considered an initial aggressor. Lee is known for her model statute on police use of force. A law like Wisconsin's would give prosecutors another option, allowing them to prove that the aggressor intended to provoke violence with a plan of retaliation, something that is difficult for prosecutors to do. There would also be special scrutiny when guns are involved, regardless of whether they were legal.

Displaying a firearm or pointing it at another person is a threatening act that could reasonably lead to death or serious bodily harm, in my opinion.

In closing, this writer would contend that walking around in public with a symbol of hate and white supremacy strapped to your shoulder period much less at a Black Lives Matter riot makes Rittenhouse the real initial aggressor in this case and we feel here in the House of Public Discourse that justice was not only not served in this case it was purposely circumvented by a racist judge.