I’d be curious to know if @octopus agrees with this. And whether he thinks that it is a good thing that our legal system works this way.
What, like obeying the law?
No, shooting people in self-defense can be plenty permissible.
Rittenhouse didn’t shoot merely because he heard a gunshot. There were several factors that justifiably made him fear for his life.
Rittenhouse travelled to Wisconsin where he would be provided a weapon because he really didn’t want to spill some blood. Uh-huh.
“Armed” is not the threshold. It’s if there is a reasonable belief an aggressor was directing unlawful force or violence against the defendant and the force used to counter the violent act was immediately necessary.
Besides at least two of the victims in this case had a weapon. One had a handgun and one was trying to hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard. Yes that can be considered a weapon.
You know, I’d say Rosenbaum had plenty of reason to fear for his life, considering how he was shot dead by Rittenhouse. But I guess that’s just my liberal bias speaking.
That’s like half a step away from saying, hey, dressed like that, she was asking for it, and why was she in that part of town at that time of night. The relevant questions are whether someone has a right to be there, and a right to use lethal force in self-defense; and, as far as I can tell, the answers are — “yes” and “yes”.
Rittenhouse went there with a deadly weapon. He didn’t go there wearing revealing clothing. That you would compare the two is, frankly, disgusting.
That’s fucked up.
If he went where he had a right to go, and then defended himself, then I don’t see the problem.
In an open carry state “went there with a deadly weapon” isn’t going to mean much. You can legally go just about anywhere with a deadly weapon.
That is, indeed, the problem with open carry states, like Wisconsin and Afghanistan.
Tell that to the “Skateboarding is not allowed” signs.
The point is, he really REALLY didn’t want to shoot anybody. Surely.
IMO this statement seems to contradict the experience of many, many Americans over the past few recent decades alone.
It’s not against the rules to leave out the most important part of my post. It’s just dishonest.
If I saw someone shoot an unarmed person, and was in a position to try and intervene before we got yet another mass shooting on our hands, I’d like to think I’d have the courage to try, even if the only weapon I had access to was a skateboard. Isn’t that what the “good guy with a gun” people keep telling us needs to happen?
I think we could all agree that Rittenhouse woke up that morning and said to himself: “Good Lord, I hope there’s no blood spillin’ (spit) in my life today, that would be the worst. Even if I have to travel to do it!”
You are ignoring quite a few relevant details.
The issue in front of the jury will be what Rittenhouse reasonably believed at the time he shot. It’s possible that Rittenhouse can be found not guilty even if the victims were operating with the best of intentions.
Yes I’m glad I don’t live in an open carry state.