By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

I find it a bit strange some here are suggesting the result of Rittenhouse case is a somekind of sweeping precedent that there are no laws of engagement. I was discussing this case when it happened, all it took was a quick look on Wisconsins laws and knowledge of justice system to tell he most likely won't/shouldn't be found guilty. The only question was if there was evidence of provocation by Rittenhouse before the shooting.

The idea that you'd now have a right to walk around with a gun and shoot anyone who's aggressive towards you without fear of being convicted is utter nonsense. It's still a case by case thing depending circumstances as a whole. Just because Wisconsin laws were upheld doesn't change it.

And then I read how "seld defence" is no more because this scateboard guy's right of self-defence was disregarded or something bizarre. Well, say he managed to knock out Rittenhouse and subdue him. He could face assault charges of course, for hitting someone with a scateboard. And he would claim it was self-defence because he feared for safety of other people. Then the court would evaluate  whether his actions were justified and he had a reason to fear.

Now it's another discussion if US laws are too accepting of guns and using deadly force to defend yourself. I think they are and it's part of the "culture" why there's so much violence in US.