3 ms·

I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in

by jjeaff 5y ago

I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in danger. To me, the part that made this case a tossup, was whether or not you believe it is reasonable to go out into public at night, while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so. But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.

rpmisms 5y ago
> completely ridiculous and unreasonable Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
Akronymus 5y ago
..., while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
Meekro 5y ago
The Rittenhouse shootings were in Wisconsin, not Michigan. The jury instructions[1] have no law like what you're describing. The self-defense standard explained by the judge is simply that the defendant must believe that the level of force used was necessary to terminate an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and the defendant's belief must be reasonable. However, "a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use.. self-defense against that attack." The judge ruled that it was legal for him to be carrying a gun that night, so while carrying a gun might provoke others, it's not unlawful conduct that provokes others. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhouse-trial-jury-instructions.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhous...