My on this is people who go around with their long arms in “tactical carry” (weapon slung diagonally across the chest, barrel pointed down to the side, one hand over the stock or foreguard holding steady, magazine in [if so equipped]). I mean, sure, if you are out in bear/mountain lion country, have it where you can bring it to the ready fast – but at the flower shop in town?
Hey, you got the explanation of where it came from: concealed-firearms laws come down to us from various points in time when the legislators felt that, a person we can’t trust hiding a handgun, was the major threat (because, why is he hiding it…?). And in practical terms it’s more about having a specific undisputable charge to hang on you if you get into trouble and then upon being found packing, can’t produce the paperwork.
Yeah, I have encountered people who seem to not understand that.
I asked that in the trial thread – whether he was merely carryng or acting like he was at the ready.
Did I say otherwise? I’m unsure why you are asking me these questions as if I asserted something else. I was merely pointing out that in the side discussion, ‘it’ obviously had a different meaning between what I mean and the other posters were saying.
That will certainly factor into whatever decision the jury makes. I don’t know whether he did or not, or whether he did because he was provoked or because he was a kid with a gun in the midst of a riot. I don’t have any knowledge one way or the other on this.
If someone points a gun at me I’m going to do one of two things…put my hands up or run away. YMMV. As to the rhetorical question, I’d say that if indeed he pointed the gun at someone without provocation, and if the people in question were stupid enough to try and take away the gun, then they are probably in the right. Kind of cold comfort, since the first guy is dead, but I guess right is right. And the jury will almost certainly find for the prosecution if that’s the case. The fact that they are still deliberating though makes me less than sanguine as to the statement.
Well, if you’re pretty sure that the guy won’t shoot you if you put your hands up, that’s obviously the way to go.
But if it’s at close range, and you think he intends to shoot you no matter what, seems to me that rushing him and trying to take the gun away is a slightly less bad plan than “try to outrun the bullet”.
I think that people who open carry are often doing it for political reasons, or as a signal to their in-group, or merely out of defiance. They are ‘taking a stand’.
I happen to think it’s foolish and works against their purposes in that it will frighten more people into supporting gun regulation.
As for why people are carrying guns… a big part of it today is that people watched police stand down and let riots run in cities for days or weeks, saw businesses being destroyed with impugnity, and saw gangs and violence increase dramatically in their communities.
‘Defund the police’ and the practice of releasing violent offenders back into the community in a ‘revolving door’ approach to arrest and charging has scared people, and gun purchases keep smashing records because of it. Many of those new gun buyers are minorities living in bad neighborhoods who feel abandoned by the cops. Eric Adams won in New York for a reason. It’s also why Democrats are bleeding support from Blacks and Hispanics.
And this is the whole problem with the stand your ground and self defense pleas. You end up with situations where everyone was perfectly justified in escalating the violence and the deciding characteristic of who was in the right at the end depends largely on who is left to tell the tale (or often times skin color.)
If I think someone is rioting then I am perfectly justified in pointing a gun at them. If someone points a gun at me than I am perfectly justified in bashing their head in with a skateboard out of self defense. If someone is coming at me with a skate board than I am perfectly justified in shooting them in the face. If someone just shot my friend in the face then I am justified in drawing a shooting them with my glock before they turn on me. If someone is drawing a glock on me after I shot their friend then I am perfectly justified in shooting them too.
Now that they’re all dead and I could claim self defense, I’m the epitome of a good guy with a gun.
(Note: I’m not claiming the the above describes what actually happened in the Rittenhouse situation.)
I generally agree. It was foolish to take a gun into that situation. It’s like dumping hydrogen into a blast furnace. And, yeah, that’s why this seems to be such a tangled, cluster fuck of a mess, and probably why the jury is still deliberating their verdict. Because, despite both sides portraying this in black and white hat terms with their favorite as the heroes and the other side as the demons, it’s a muddled-up mess, with bad judgment and actions all around and no one is completely in the right.
There’s a little of that, but not much. If I get a gun, it’s because of my fear of Trump supporters and assholes like Rittenhouse. I’ve owned downtown businesses (In downtown Seattle even) and never even had a broken window or graffiti.
They were up another 13% in the first quarter of 2022.
Illinois was by far the state with the most new gun owners. What’s different about Illinois? For one thing, violent crime there is about 7% above the national average. Homicides jumped by 30% in one year.
Only if your goal is to be put on trial for murder yourself, and probably go to jail. If the person starts actually shooting the gun, you will probably be on more solid ground then, though even then you will still go to trial and you still could lose.
So, if someone is pointing a gun at you or others, you have to wait for them to kill someone before exercising self defense?
Though you seem to be saying that even shooting an active shooter could end up with you in jail, so I’m not entirely sure where you are coming from on this.
OTOH, apparently if you are pointing a gun at others, then if they do anything that makes you scared, even if they don’t have a gun, much less pointed at you, then shooting them is fine.
Has anyone ever tried this as a defense to shooting at police who were pointing their guns at them? We know full well police will shoot and kill unarmed people, so isn’t being held at their gunpoint sufficient cause to get real scared and shoot back at them? Or, are there ever any survivors left after a police shoot out to even try this?
As seems to always be the case here, you paint one side of the narrative as if it’s the only one. Context is everything, however…i.e. if we are talking about this particular case, it’s not nearly so black and white as you are portraying it. Which is why it took the jury 3 days to deliberate on this very question.
Of course. It’s something they drill into you when you are going for your carry conceal…you are ALWAYS going to be judged, always going to face a court, even if you are 100% in the right. So, yeah, had this gone differently and had the guy with the hand gun done what you seem to badly have wanted him to do, HE would have been the one on trial…and depending on when he took the shot, he might very well have gone to jail. Had he shot before the first guy was shot then I think it’s likely he would have gone to jail, unless his defense lawyer could make exactly the same case the defense made for Rittenhouse, namely, he was threatened and acted in self-defense. Maybe it would have worked, maybe not…you never know. The fact that the guy with the glock was a full adult while Rittenhouse was a kid, and that the guy with the glock had a criminal record while Rittenhouse didn’t probably would have been a factor, but really it would all be about the jury’s perspective and perception of the self-defense claim.
Sure, when you spin it that way it sounds cut and dried. But, and you don’t seem to realize this, you are spinning the narrative. Spin it a different way…i.e. an adult was shouting and threatening a kid, and the kid being scared pointed a gun to make the adult back down, and then said adult against any logic and reason not only throws something at the kid but rushes him and corners him after chasing him (despite again the fact the kid has a freaking rifle), and only then the kid, in desperation, shoots the adult who chased and threatened him, etc etc, blah blah blah.
See how changing the narrative changes the whole perception of the event? No, you probably don’t, and I doubt most others do either because this really isn’t about the case…it’s about the two sides and the two narratives and good guys and bad guys.
This isn’t a ‘gun law’, and it’s not really weird either. The disconnect here, IMHO, is that you are so wedded to your narrative that you can’t really see anything else. You can really see this in your posts about the guy with the handgun and your expectation that if he’s shot first this would magically have fixed everything and the shooter would skip out with no ramifications. And in how you spin a narrative then are confused as to how anyone can see it differently. And I see this same thing on the right. I had to listen to a bunch of right-winger types earlier confused as to why there was even a trial, and why the jury took so long on something that was, to them, so obvious, so cut and dried.
sigh I really am not nearly drunk enough tonight for this stuff, so just going to leave it there.
As many have been reminded, the state doesn’t have a monopoly on legal violence. Self defense is actually still real contrary to the desires of those who wish to use mob violence to enact political change.
With regards to if Rittenhouse had been disarmed, it’s irrational to assume that the violent rioters who attacked him would have shown much restraint. Especially with what is known of their criminal history.
There’s been at least one instance where the guy who shot and stopped the active shooter was then shot by the cops, who thought he was the active shooter.
I didn’t say that it was black and white, not at all, not sure why you would make such a false assertion, but anyway…
You did reduce it to black and white terms, when you said that shooting that person would end up with you likely in jail.
The “black and white” of it is that usually the person left standing is the only one that gets to tell their story.
Once again, you ascribe motivations to me that exist only in your imagination. Not sure what you get out of this, but anyway…
It’s not what I would have liked him to do, it’s that if he had taken that action, he may be the one on trial, but he wouldn’t be the one that was killed.
And I think that he would have a much better time getting off, being able to show that he had someone pointing a gun at himself and others, than someone who put himself in a position where he felt he was in danger because he had pointed his gun at others.
So, since Rittenhouse got off, you are saying that the person who shot Rittenhouse would likely get off, using the same defense.
I don’t see why. Rittenhouse was obviously old enough to march down the streets carrying a gun and pointing it at people.
The criminal record would only be a factor if it forbade him from having a gun, which I do not believe it did. It’s pretty rare in criminal cases for previous criminal history to be introduced during a trial. Sometimes it matters for sentencing, but is usually forbidden as part of trying to convince a jury.
And if I were on a jury and heard that someone was pointing a gun at a crowd, and someone in that crowd shot that person, I would have no problem finding that as a pretty sufficient grounds for self defense.
Yes, I see how if you change the narrative it changes things. I imagine that if you include unicorns and fairies in your next story, it will change things even further.
I will admit here that I used gun law to encompass not only where you can carry, but who you can shoot as well.
Man, you really need to make this personal, don’t you? Can’t you ever just debate a point without ascribing motives to the person you are debating? I really don’t get the point of the tactic, other than to annoy the hell out them. It does make me take you far less seriously since it seems you have to resort to such personalization in order to score points. Anyway…
See, I am not confused as to how people can see it differently. I understand that if you come in with different biases, and pick and choose what information you want to use, you can come to different conclusions.
I do base my conclusion that our gun and self defense laws are pretty fucked up if someone can be held completely unaccountable for killing and wounding people who were responding to a situation that he created.
Ah, maybe next time, try being more sober instead. You may find yourself being less hostile and presumptive.
on this is people who go around with their long arms in “tactical carry” (weapon slung diagonally across the chest, barrel pointed down to the side, one hand over the stock or foreguard holding steady, magazine in [if so equipped]). I mean, sure, if you are out in bear/mountain lion country, have it where you can bring it to the ready fast – but at the flower shop in town?