Currently Online 
| KiigelHeart said: 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. |
I would agree that Rittenhouse case does not really change anything as far as laws are concerned but it does change temperament. Meaning, everyone will become armed because this case gives them the green light that as long as you can justify a threat lethal force is approved.
First and foremost, Rittenhouse is just one case of many of exactly that, where people have been shot because someone was aggressive towards them and used the exact same self defense logic. I do not know if this is the only real case you have ever noticed but there are dozen of them in the US all the time. People using deadly force for every incident and claim fear for my life.
The statement I am making is that if you are the killer you get to tell your story, you get to claim whatever you want, the dead hopes there is any video showing something different. Lets take the Rittenhouse drone footage as an example. What if the video was very clear that Rittenhouse was walking around pointing his gun at protestors. Wisconsin law still would allow him to claim self defense since he retreated from the scene but even in that part, any cagy person would be able to exploit that line in the law. I can retreat into a kill zone which limits my ability to retreat any further and thus have a reason to use deadly force to protect myself.
As to your last statement, that is the exact issue. This is just another case that gives the green light to deadly force to resolve just about everything. So that means in order for me to come out on top if I find myself in any type of jeopardy, I must be armed and ready to shoot first and ask questions later.
So what we are going to see is protestors being armed and anti protestors being armed and then those idiots in between who would love to strike that match and see both sides go to town. Then we have people on the GOP front in congress telling their constituents to be armed and dangerous keeping that fire nice and lit.
