3 ms·
The relevant legal standard is not “felt threatened”, but that a person must have a reasonable grounds (by objective standards of a reasonable person, not by su
by xyzzyz 5y ago
The relevant legal standard is not “felt threatened”, but that a person must have a reasonable grounds (by objective standards of a reasonable person, not by subjective standards of threat, which might be completely unreasonable) to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
Since Rittenhouse was quite apparently running away, and Grossenkreutz was pursuing him, in no way can a reasonable conclude that Rittenhouse was an imminent threat to Grossenkreutz — if he didn’t pursue him, he’d be completely safe.
- vkou 5y ago> to believe, and in fact believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Which any reasonable person in that situation would have believed, with the information available to them at the time. Had Rittenhouse dropped his gun, he would not have been an imminent threat to the crowd. But he did not. For all anybody on the scene knew, he would start shooting again, as soon as he had a chance to. Disarming him was one way to remove that imminent threat of death and great bodily harm, which Huber tried to do. Killing him would have been another, which Grosskreutz considered, but did not try to do.
- xyzzyz 5y agoThat’s a cool story, but it’s not how law works, so I do not recommend testing this theory.
- vkou 5y agoWhich legal theory? The 'wait around to get shot, because it takes three days of deliberation for 12 people to determine whether or not the person running around shooting people in a riot can be defined as an active shooter' theory? Not waiting around for that determination seems to have worked out pretty well for Rittenhouse. He's both not dead, and a free man.