3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoIf you attack someone openly carrying a rifle, don’t expect a good outcome. Only an insane person would do that.