sundin13 said:
To clarify, Rittenhouse's right to use deadly force to protect himself comes from a reasonable person's perception of the situation. No matter how sincerely Rittenhouse believed that he was in danger, it doesn't really matter. The question is "would a reasonable person see it that way". As previously stated, I believe that a reasonable person would see an individual fleeing from shooting someone in the head would be considered a risk and disarming that individual would not be considered unlawful. As such, Rittenhouse would not have the legal right to use self-defense in that situation (unless the situation took a turn which it did not take). I believe it is incredibly important to protect the right of people to act in self-defense and in defense of others, so we cannot allow individuals to infringe on that right such as Rittenhouse, who assaulted and killed people who were reasonably exercising that right. He should have understood that fleeing the scene of a homicide through a crowd with a gun was in and of itself an act of provocation and by failing to understand that, he put himself and everybody around him in danger. As previously stated, the extent of his stupidity was so great that he surrendered his right to self-defense. |
Yes, important correction, thanks.
It absolutely does matter how Rittenhouse had a reason to believe he was in danger. And I'm almost certain jury will see this as a reasonable person's perception. He was the one who was attacked and then chased by a mob that eventually kicked him in the head, hit his head with a skateboard, tried to take his weapon and one of them was armed. Anyone in that situation would think they're at a risk of being badly beaten or maybe even killed..
It's quite obvious you don't look at the situation objectively. A reasonable person who witnesses a homicide would call the police and try to warn others. Rittenhouse running away while telling them he's going to cops doesn't look like an imminent threat to people around him. He's not shooting around like a mass murdered would be doing, not even pointing the gun at anyone. A reasonable person wouldn't escalate the situation further by jumping on a man with assault rifle, by doing that they're literally putting themselves and others in greater danger. Only an idiot would do it unless absolutely necessary.
If Rittenhouse did remain at the scene who knows how ugly it would've got.
Lastly, I'd appreciate if you can provide an example of someone surrendering their right to self-defence in similar manner as you describe. Because I find it hard to believe that's how it works.
Imagine being attacked and you lawfuly (jury is still out in this case) defend yourself and flee, then you should be expected to submit to possibly being killed or injured, because the people chasing you might be trying to lawfully attack you.. does this sound right to you?
