Since the country seems to be about evenly split between the people who think that Kyle Rittenhouse got away with murder and...well...smart people, I can see why banding l naming a proposal "Kyle's Law" might not be the best strategy. Still, this response is full of the asinine non-problems that I'm expecting to hear if Kyle's Law does, as it should, become seriously considered.
First of all, this isn't about legal gun ownership at all. It's about self-defense. It doesn't matter if you use a knife or your fists in self-defense. All that matters is self-defense.
This legislator made several false claims that I assume are lies.
She claims:
“Kyle’s Law” would require the jury instruction on self-defense include a special question to the jury — "if you the jury are acquitting this defendant on the grounds of self-defense, do you also find that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense by a majority of the evidence?” If the jury answers this in the positive the defendant is entitled to compensation not only from the state, but also from the prosecutor personally.
This is false. Kyle's Law wouldn't alter the burden of proof during a jury trial with a claim of self-defense. The prosecutor would not be facing personal, civil liability with every and any not guilty verdict. Kyle's Law would also not influence jury instruction.
Kyle's Law would leave make prosecutors potentially civilly liable if it can be determined that they pursued jury trials without probable cause. Namely, if it can be shown that a prosecutor knew that he or she had less reason to pursue a jury trial in a self-defense case than a police officer would have to issue an arrest, that's when the prosecutor (and the state) could be held liable.
That makes a ton of sense. Cops are supposed to have about 51% certainty that a law has been broken by a person before arresting that person. Prosecutors should be held at least to that standard before subjecting a defendant to a year-long, several million dollar process that puts the defendant's life in danger.
She goes on:
What qualifies any jury to make a judgment on the performance of the prosecutor, and whether it is a politically motivated case? How does this get decided?
This is another lie. The trial jury isn't making those decisions about the prosecutor other than whether or not he or she disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't change at all. The political motivation would be figured out in separate, civil proceedings.
And more:
This would only expand the use of the self-defense defense to include almost every case in which someone feels threatened. Self-defense claims will skyrocket as defendants see the legal loophole for getting away with criminal activity.
False. Kyle's Law wouldn't alter state law in regard to self-defense. Massachusetts, with Kyle's Law in place, would still be able to say that a defendant must not only attempt retreat but also be cornered and have exhausted all options before resorting to deadly force for self-defense. There are no loopholes created that would let a murderer claim that he or she technically followed self-defense law.
She goes on:
While every citizen has the right to self-defense, we do not have the right to put ourselves in positions of danger every chance we get and to invite others to attack us for no reason.
More bullshit. If a prosecutor has a legitimate argument that a defendant engaged in provocation the prosecutor has nothing to worry about even if the jury disagrees.
Finally:
Combined with “Stand your Ground” and “Concealed Carry” laws, “Kyle’s Law" will only add to the idea that we are less a civilized government than a self-policing, "shoot 'em up” tribal anarchy that lives day to day by the rule of survival of the fittest. We make our society far less safe this way.
Well, again, this has nothing to do with Kyle's Law. This just shows that she's a poorly educated, anti-gun nut that doesn't understand that Stand your Ground and Concealed Carry are deeply ethically sound and important.
Yeah, I'm anticipating all of these same, stupid, arguments to be made in the near future. These are lies.