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

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.

It isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be and never was. Naturally many defentants will claim self-defence and naturally many of them are still found guilty of murder. Pre-trial investigation and courtroom are there even though you can't hear both sides of the story. And both could be lying anyway. People trying to cover up their crimes in various ways isn't anything new you know.

Not sure even in Wisconsin simply retreating would be enough to claim self-defence if you are the one provocing the situation to begin with. Had Rittenhouse been pointing his gun or threatening to kill someone I'd say he'd been convicted. Don't know what difference this makes now as there was no evidence of him doing it. That maniac was assaulting him while Rittenhouse was retreating. 

Machiavellian said:

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.

No it doesn't give green light to resolve everything with deadly force. And if you find yourself in jeopardy, use extreme means only if you feel your life is immediate danger and there's no other options to exhaust. You don't have to live your life thinking you could've done something differently or risk a life in prison. In US I bet there's thousands of conflicts and fights resolved every day without deadly force.

So if a kid charges you with a fork, don't shoot him :P even if already existing law was upheld in Rittenhouse case.

As for your last statement, way ahead of you. I called this would happen when rioting started and people turned on police not wanting them to do their job. It's not like this was the first time there's armed people shooting at protests either. 

Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 25 November 2021