Rittenhouse Trial: Calling Res Ipsa

[Kukulkan]

I could be wrong but I don't think people are advocating for armed citizens to regularly patrol streets and such. This was an incredibly unique situation. The closest thing I can think of that is remotely similar was the Roof Koreans during the LA Riots. I don't think that defending ones property is 'nuts'. Should Kyle have been there? No. Should the rioters have been there? No. I think we all agree it was dumb as F for anyone to be there that night. Despite that, I can understand the need for business owners to align themselves with right-leaning militias considering according to their own testimony, police weren't doing anything about the rioters burning down their livelihoods.

I agree that it is pretty unique. But, what many people don't understand is that people outside a business cannot use deadly force against a person to protect an unoccupied business. The Rooftop Koreans didn't kill anyone. They shot in the air or at the ground when protecting property. If Rittenhouse had shot someone because he saw them breaking windows in a building, he'd be serving a sentence right now.

Yes, a person cannot shoot someone who is attempting to loot or burn down a building that is unoccupied. This I agree with. As mentioned to Gadianton, I think their intent was more of a 'show of force' to deter those who would burn and loot.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Chap]

Discussions about such vague and ill-defined concepts as 'vigilantism' and 'delivering justice' are likely to lead nowhere but a waste of time and temper.

What matters is the law as it was applied in this situation.

Was it correctly applied? If not, why not?

If it was correctly applied, and the result is felt to have been undesirable by some posters, how do they suggest that the law should be amended?

[Dr. Shades]

I’m not convinced that running at someone requires the runner to be fired on, given that jumpkick man doesn’t appear to have accosted Rittenhouse prior to that, . . .

But he accosted Rittenhouse during that. During is all it took for him to become an assailant.

. . . and given that directly responding defensively was not the only option.

What option would you have taken in that second?

If I say that I was in fear for my life, even if I was not, regardless of the ‘threat’ - how does anyone prove otherwise?

By the LACK OF people trying to grab your gun from you, kicking you in the face, bashing your head with a skateboard, and trying to shoot you.

Does this become a license to kill without consequence?

Being put on trial for intentional homicide sounds like a consequence to me.

What some guy said doesn't prove Huber was trying kill or seriously hurt Rittenhouse.

No, the fact that Huber smashed Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard proves that Huber was trying to kill or seriously hurt Rittenhouse.

Huber didn't do anything against the law, he had the right to disarm the 17 year old boy.

No he didn't.

[Analytics]

When two tough guys with guns bump into each other and want to show each other how funky and strong their fight is, somebody is likely to get shot. The loser of the fight is dead, and the winner of the fight walks away, claiming self-defense.

The problem with America’s concept of self-defense is that it gets really blurry who is on the offense and who is on the defense. It doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right. Even if I’m peacefully enjoying the privacy of my home, cops could bust in with guns blazing. If I didn’t know who they were and tried to defend myself from these intruders, the intruders would shoot me in my own home. And they would claim it was self-defense. And they would get away with it. So when can you safely kill in self-defense?

Stand-your-ground laws (more accurately referred to as shoot-first laws), give legal cover to people who want to be tough and macho. No one wants to be defeated. I get that. But we don’t need laws that encourage people to play with their lives.

If somebody has the opportunity to avoid a dangerous situation and doesn’t take it, he should lose his right to kill somebody in self-defense. We should have a duty to retreat. Just beat it.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree that it is pretty unique. But, what many people don't understand is that people outside a business cannot use deadly force against a person to protect an unoccupied business. The Rooftop Koreans didn't kill anyone. They shot in the air or at the ground when protecting property. If Rittenhouse had shot someone because he saw them breaking windows in a building, he'd be serving a sentence right now.

Yes, a person cannot shoot someone who is attempting to loot or burn down a building that is unoccupied. This I agree with. As mentioned to Gadianton, I think their intent was more of a 'show of force' to deter those who would burn and loot.

I think it's likely that "show of force" is what they were thinking. But being armed with deadly force they cannot use to protect buildings is part of what makes the whole situation weird.

[Res Ipsa]

When two tough guys with guns bump into each other and want to show each other how funky and strong their fight is, somebody is likely to get shot. The loser of the fight is dead, and the winner of the fight walks away, claiming self-defense.

The problem with America’s concept of self-defense is that it gets really blurry who is on the offense and who is on the defense. It doesn’t matter who’s wrong or right. Even if I’m peacefully enjoying the privacy of my home, cops could bust in with guns blazing. If I didn’t know who they were and tried to defend myself from these intruders, the intruders would shoot me in my own home. And they would claim it was self-defense. And they would get away with it. So when can you safely kill in self-defense?

Stand-your-ground laws (more accurately referred to as shoot-first laws), give legal cover to people who want to be tough and macho. No one wants to be defeated. I get that. But we don’t need laws that encourage people to play with their lives.

If somebody has the opportunity to avoid a dangerous situation and doesn’t take it, he should lose his right to kill somebody in self-defense. We should have a duty to retreat. Just beat it.

You can never shoot someone safely in self defense. As soon as you become a threat to use imminent deadly force, you become a legal target.

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Let me remind you that the populist framing isn't one sided based on political leaning. It's based on the framing of the corrupt elite oppressing the pure common people.

The rioters among the protestors and the vigilantes larping as LE were both bringing similar views about the state of the world into conflict that only differs based on which side represents the corrupt elite.

Both are attacks on civil society.

I think this is the bottom line as the country moves forward.

- Doc

[Binger]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯