This will be true of everyone on trial in a self defense killing. Let’s say that one of the alleged victims in this case got the drop on Rittenhouse and killed him first. Should they be drug through the mud because they put themselves in the middle of a violent march knowing that they would potentially have to defend themselves?
It just seems like victim blaming.
Kyle Rittenhouse is not the victim here.
In any case: doing the wrong thing is not the same thing as being guilty in a court of law. Which is something we all should keep in mind. If Rittenhouse is acquitted it does not mean “he did nothing wrong and anyone else should go ahead and do all the same things”. It means the state failed to prove the charged crime beyond reasonable doubt. We can still judge him morally. And we can still reasonably assert that it’s a far safer and more prudent course of action to NOT do all the things he did leading to the incident. I don’t have to do everything that may be lawful for me to do.
Do you feel like you were able to adjust to this radical new paradigm of thought, or are you asking me to explain what I meant?
It’s obvious to me that this killer is going to walk free. It’s sad to see someone arm himself illegally and deliberately put himself in the position where he can hide behind the fig leaf of self defense and get away with murder. The system sucks, this judge is a piece of shit, and this killer walks.
What position is that? On a public street in a U.S. city?
Should he think to himself, “I just know that these peaceful protestors will attack me and therefore I will use self defense to kill someone”? Why do we accept the soft bigotry that the BLM marchers will be using violence and that is acceptable?
The post above yours was intended to be in response to whoever claimed that mere possession of a deadly weapon was reason to dismiss any claim of self defense. I fucked up the reply function somehow.
Are you seriously disputing that, once you adjust for your sardonic way of talking about it, this is a thing that like thousands of people think about and talk about all the time, albeit idly in most cases?
I would bet a reasonable amount of money that you have heard at least one adult human being casually ideating about what they would do if they were threatened by some kind of unspecified protestor. And that what they would do is shoot them with a gun. Am I wrong about that?
No worries. The only thing I’ve ever done with respect to that function is fuck it up.
Suppose he showed up, same as everything else but the gun, and got beat to death with a skateboard instead.
Not at all. The BLM protest was a scheduled, sanctioned activity. The peripheral groups engaged in unrelated random activities were rioters. Those who were starting fires, destroying property or shooting people should have been arrested and held for trial.
I don’t think that “ peripheral groups engaged in unrelated random activities” is how “rioters” are usually defined. I think that “other members of the public” might better fit that definition.
Sure. But why is that noteworthy? I think most people would say that if they were in a position where someone else attempted to harm them, they would defend themselves. Many times they use more colorful language to describe it.
I think it is a leap to go from that to the assertion (I think) you are making is that they would then enjoy using the force to defend themselves.
OK then - what constitutes legal provocation?
Do you honestly believe Zimmerman did not prepare himself for and meticulously set up the circumstances for Martins death?
In what context are you using the term “provocation” and how is it legally relevant? I took it to mean that you believed that seeing someone openly carrying a firearm was sufficient to place you in reasonable fear of harm such that you could attack that person and attempt to disarm them or beat them or I’m not sure what.
In that rolling one’s eyes is a kind of adjustment, I guess; you’d presumably never say “premeditated” when talking about, oh, buying groceries, or running in a marathon, or donating some blood to save some lives — or in any one of a hundred other situations when you of course could use the word but (a) would draw a bunch of really weird looks from people; except, see, those are times when you (b) aren’t out to winkingly imply something with connotation.
(If anything, I figure it’s kind of like when this or that population gets described as “abnormal” or as “animals” or whatever — by a guy who then puts on an ‘innocent’ look to say “what? Don’t you know that, technically, they are?”)
If he went and counterprotested and got his ass beat, I’d be right here with you arguing his assailants should be put in jail. But that’s not what he did; he escalated matters by bringing an assault rifle to a protest.
suppose he didn’t shoot anyone so nobody felt the need to hit him with a skateboard?
But that is legal activity (apart from his age which is irrelevant for the purposes under discussion). Carrying the gun is not “escalating” matters unless again, we are to hold him responsible for the aggressive and illegal actions of others.