If Rittenhouse had been disarmed by the victims, what would have happened to him?

Oh sure, there’s plenty of times when cops shoot the wrong person entirely. And there are many miscarriages of justice.

But, when someone successfully stops an active shooter, sometimes they don’t end up dead or charged, and in fact, are considered a hero.

Though I suppose there will be some who consider that to be an irrational act.

You may not think you have, but it’s pretty obvious in both this thread and the main thread that this is exactly what you have done.

Well, the reality is often black and white. If you shoot someone, there are going to be consequences, even for what is called a righteous shoot. That’s reality. And it’s a reality that most gun carriers know since it’s drummed into you during the training. That you don’t seem to know this is not really surprising, based on many of your answers in this and the other thread.

Your own words say this: “I think that the lesson that can be taken from this is that you don’t try to disarm a person with a gun who is pointing it at protestors. You just shoot him.”.

So, now you know where I got this from.

He was a 17 year old kid being confronted by 20 somethings. If you don’t see the distinction then that’s fine, but a jury would, especially if your guy had done what you said. Let me quote that again: "You just shoot him. "

Personal that you are basically regurgitating the prosecution narrative? I don’t see why that’s personal.

That is a valid point, but not one you or most have been making except peripherally. The laws are what they are, and the jury has to work within them, but laws can be changed. If you don’t like the laws, advocate for change. Going to be a pretty hard sell to change self defense laws, IMHO, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from trying. I have zero issue with that.

I agree with this. Plus, the next day hangover is never fun. But I don’t think I was being presumptive, though I generally am more combative and an asshole when I drink a lot, so, I will apologize for that.

He was a 17 year old kid pointing a rifle at those 20-somethings. That’s a rather important distinction in interpreting what k9bfriender said. From their POV, he was confronting them. They also had valid (if erroneous) reason to believe he had already fired a shot. But if you leave that bit out, you’re correct in that it does change the narrative.

It’s not irrational or biased to say “If you attempt to disarm someone holding a gun, you are likely to get shot – as this very incident demonstrates - and so the better course of action is shoot them instead to neutralize the threat”. It is, however, rather sad.

You go in one short paragraph from “pointing” to “holding” as what the threat is. I believe you might have wanted to use “pointing” again the second time around.

The first time was specific to Rittenhouse; the second was intended as a broader statement. But if it helps for whatever reason, imagine I said “pointed” both times.

That is, indeed the narrative the prosecution tried to paint. The counter-narrative was he was a 17-year-old kid who pointed a weapon at people who were shouting and threatening him, and who was chasing him, throwing things at him and eventually cornered him while trying to take away his gun. So, no, I’m not leaving out a bit…a bit is being left out of the discussion…and it’s a crucial bit that doesn’t seem to be addressed her much, but was addressed in depth by both the defense and prosecution who both spun contrary narratives. The jury was obviously convinced by the defense.

You can see how the spin matters here. Pointing a gun and threatening is different than pointing a gun and warning. Frankly, I don’t find pointing a gun and threatening compelling because of the subsequent actions by those involved. The jury pretty obviously didn’t either. It’s apparent in this thread that most DO find the prosecution’s narrative compelling, and thus the disconnect between the expectations of many in this thread and what happened. At least IMHO.

It is irrational as it’s an attempt to spin the narrative, the results along with an obvious misunderstanding of self-defense law. Had the person in question done what k9bfriender wanted (i.e. shot first) he would have been arrested and gone to trial. For sure. Whether he would have won or not is dependent on whether his defense lawyer could make a good self-defense claim. Had he shot after the first shot from Rittenhouse I think there would have been a good chance, again, depending on the eyewitness testimony and if they backed up the narrative that Rittenhouse was threatening with his gun with no provocation. Had he shot first, I think it would have been a much harder case to make for the defense, especially in light of previous criminal activity. Again, YMMV and obviously does, but all of your and many others’ claims hinge on how the prosecution laid out the narrative…which, in the end, wasn’t compelling to the jury.

Objection, still leading the witness. The people that attacked KR were not proven to be violent rioters. Some had records, but KR had no knowledge of that. And there was certainly some dodgy history of KR’s that was not allowed into the trial.

No doubt, KR would have gotten his ass kicked and prolly pretty hard. To say KR had a legitimate fear that the folks thinking they were stopping an active shooter would have killed him with his rifle is a little man with a gun in his hand fantasy. The fact is the 3rd guy with the handgun hesitated because he didn’t want to kill someone, and therefore got shot himself.

The Arbery murder trial defendents are trying the same tact of “after hunting Arbery in the truck and jumping out with a shotgun, I was in mortal fear that that black man would murder me with my own gun, so I shot him down in self-defense.” I hope this BS excuse doesn’t work this time.

One other takeaway is that if I ever get caught up in an active shooter case with a long gun, and it’s him or me, is to tackle the SOB. Ground and pound. Kicking in the head or trying to hit KR with a skateboard was not a good move. Instead, get really close so the long gun can’t be used effectively.