Came across a great analogy for the racial wealth gap today, particularly relevant to a gaming forum, lol:

The vid it came from is also a great breakdown of systemic racism in the country.

Let me pose you this hypothetical:

You are in a public space. You hear a gunshot and see someone with a gun running away from someone who had just been shot in the head. You think that this is an active shooting scenario, and the context clues lead you to assume that their is reasonable danger to yourself and others in the vicinity. As such, you attempt to neutralize the threat of this individual.

Do they then have the right to murder you?

If so, I believe that the self-defense laws are fundamentally broken. A key to self-defense law is not only that you must reasonably believe that an individual will do you harm, but that this harm is "unlawful". This is why provocation clauses exist. In circumstances like this, it is logical to assume that the harm that is being done to a shooter fleeing the scene of a crime through a crowd is in itself an act of self-defense. I saw nothing in the video after that initial shooting which leads me to believe that any of the victims did anything that fell outside of the bounds of self-defense. Similarly, I believe that a reasonable individual would see fleeing from the scene of a shooting with a gun as being a situation in which individuals would feel the need to lawfully intervene. As such, I do not consider it reasonable to murder someone who was reasonably acting out their legal right to self-defense. 

That is also ignoring the fact that an individual may only use lethal force in situations where there is a reasonably belief of again, not simply harm, but death or great bodily harm. I do not believe that this belief is reasonable in this situation. It is simply not a reasonable belief that someone running at, or attempting to disarm a shooter will kill you or do great bodily harm without additional input which then grants them the legal right to utilize a higher level of force in self-defense.

I believed that the extent of Rittenhouse's stupidity was so great that while he may have been acting out of the fear he sincerely held, he was not acting as a reasonable individual in this instance and as such, he loses his right to self-defense in all shootings following the initial shooting. 

Just watched a portion (7:06 to 13:30). I'm not terribly impressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBu0BRTx2x8

Cherry-picking are words that come to mind...

I think I'd rather watch lawyers actually go through footage and the like when evaluating these things, not comedians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ6b-7_9K4w

"If you go into a situation with the intent to kill someone"

>How are we establishing intent here?

But it's a bit problematic to judge Rittenhouse's actions based on how this other guy may have seen the situation. Had this other guy injured or killed Rittenhouse because he thought he's protecting himself and others, then this would be something to consider. Rittenhouse's right to use deadly force to protect himself comes from his perception of the situation.

There's more to the circumstances here than just a hit with a skateboard. 

And you don't really run into such issue. Active mass murdered is the aggressor and committing a felony, so he/she can't claim self-defence, obviously. Let me ask you this, if Rittenhouse illegally carrying a gun means he can't use it to defend himself, does that mean that someone without a licence to carry should go to jail if he finds a weapon on the scene and shoots an active mass murderer?

Also I've seen you and others claim Rittenhouse was there with intent to kill. Can you actually back this up with something, because the prosecutor certainly needs to. If he indeed had that intent, then I see him going to jail for life.

To expand upon this, according to the attorney general, North Carolina actually has an app to track your ballot once it is submitted. Which seems about as good of a method as we can get for ensuring your vote is counted I think. If anyone else doesn't think that's good enough, then their solution is to not vote by mail.

Someone share this with protesters

Two Blue Lives Matter supporters traveling from Missouri to Kenosha, Wisconsin were arrested with an arsenal of weapons including an AR-15, a shotgun, two handguns and more under suspicion that they planned to use them on protestors. The two men had prior convictions that prevented them from possessing such weapons. The FBI made the arrest after receiving a tip about the men and their intentions.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/blue-lives-matter-supporters-arrested-031650651.html

To me this is similar to the Rittenhouse case. Out of state agitators bringing their guns to enforce vigilante justice. I wonder if they would claim self defense as well if they discharged their weapons in front of angry protestors. Thankfully this was thwarted before anyone got seriously hurt.

This is a sad time for US. So much polarization and hostility, add the wide availability of guns and this is a recipe for disaster.

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. 

While they're at it, compare Covid to killings by protesters, considering how much of a bigger deal is being made about destroyed property than hundreds of thousands of deaths.