Regarding “Subdivision’s social posts reflected fear before Arbery shot” (Nov. 20): The Ahmaud Arbery case involves armed men who threatened a person, but when he responded in fear and tried to wrest the weapon away, he was shot and killed. The defendants then claimed self defense, including testimony by shooter Travis McMichael.
But in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, he went to a protest rally, supposedly offering to protect property owners. He was armed with an assault rifle and no doubt appeared threatening. When people tried to disarm him, those people were shot. Two were killed.
So what do these cases have in common? Their defense strategy. Somehow it has been determined by defense lawyers that if an armed person, acting in a threatening manner, later kills the threatened person in an ensuing altercation, the gunman must have acted in self-defense. This defense strategy didn’t work in the Arbery case, but if it yields future verdicts in favor of the killers, I foresee many more justified homicides in our future.
Klaus Illian • Manchester