14 ms·

What do you expect people to do when their lives are threatened? Just lay down and die?

vkou 5y ago
If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as the saying goes, either of the people that Rittenhouse killed would have also rather faced a trial by twelve, than be carried by six.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive. This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whether according to the set of laws we actually live under, Rittenhouse is guilty of murder or not.
  - vkou 5y ago
    I think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury. Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been found at fault.
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      If you attack someone openly carrying a rifle, don’t expect a good outcome. Only an insane person would do that.
- inputvolch 5y ago
  In a country where things like open carry are legal, the "logical conclusion" of your argument makes no sense. That would mean when anyone who owns a gun sees another gun in public, they can conclude that their life is threatened and open fire with no consequences. This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".

vkou 5y ago

If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome. I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation. I also assume that, as the saying goes, either of the people that Rittenhouse killed would have also rather faced a trial by twelve, than be carried by six.

School-Cotton 5y ago
That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive. This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whether according to the set of laws we actually live under, Rittenhouse is guilty of murder or not.
- vkou 5y ago
  I think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury. Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been found at fault.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    If you attack someone openly carrying a rifle, don’t expect a good outcome. Only an insane person would do that.
inputvolch 5y ago
In a country where things like open carry are legal, the "logical conclusion" of your argument makes no sense. That would mean when anyone who owns a gun sees another gun in public, they can conclude that their life is threatened and open fire with no consequences. This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".