Just be honest, what would you do in that situation surrounded by those guys with what was being done to him?
At what point would it be certain to know that said person was going to kill him or not?
How can I know that? With my current mindset, I would just take a beating/surrender 100% before shooting anyone. At 17yo, who knows. But doesn't matter what I would have done. Proportionality in self defence, it's quite important, because otherwise, at which point self defence ends?
When you start getting shot by the angry armed mob. Not when just chased.
so when you're already dead.The evidence doesn’t suggest that though. Nothing about his behaviour that night pointed to him looking for someone to kill. The problems started when he was attacked.
If this is a mugging or bar fight then yes, I'd probably just run or punch a few. But A skateboard to my head? feck that.
This problem began when a 17 year old drove to a town he didn't live in with an assault rifle to reenact call of duty instead of letting the police do their job.
I think in most countries this simply wouldnt be ok
Are you ignoring or just wilfully ignorant of the general violence and destruction during that summer?
And for that he is guilty and will likely (hopefully) get some punishment for it. But he has a solid case for self defence for the events that occurred afterwards.
Not at all but that doesn't mean teens with assault rifles get to play real life call of duty.
Again — while I'll try to ignore the first point (going there with the rifle), he still had an option of dropping the rifle completely if he was going to surrender. That's a huge bet, of course, but I'd still be willing to bet that people would unlikely go to shoot an unarmed man or to kick him in the head with a skateboard (which is, I guess, the only understandable bit of violence that I've seen in the episode — when you see a clearly antagonising character with a rifle that has just shot somebody, after all of the stories about mass shootings in US and in the world (Breivik mostly), you'd want to neutralise him as quick as possible).
It should tell you that 'letting the police do their job' is a nonsensical argument in this context. He had no less right to be there than the people setting buildings and cars on fire.
Only an American or someone who has watched too many John Wick movies could say that nonsense and mean it. Allowing teenage vigilantes to roam the streets with assault rifles is simply insane.
totally agree he’s an idiot. But looking at it purely from a legal perspective I’m struggling to see how a jury could convict him for homicide.
Yeh - this situation is a very American issue. Their idiotic gun laws are partly responsible.
Spot on, that country is utterly fecked, and I can't see any way back for it. Too much "my rights, me me me" bullshit above everything else.
It's quite clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. A lot of good arguments have been made against Rittenhouse in this thread, but your posts are by far the worst. Completely biased, bombastic, and ignorant of the context.
No. You just don't agree.
Not sure if either of you live in America but the reality is a little different than the hysteria online. I'm all for way more gun control and regulation as we sure as hell need it but you should know
You literally added the last part about finger over trigger.
If this is the ready position you haven't been to the range have you
uh-huh
Curious that the “not an assault rifle” AR-15 was specifically named as a banned weapon in the assault weapons ban back in the 90’s.
Call it whatever the feck semantic technical thing you want - that rifle is ready to be used and he’s extremely threatening.
Makes absolutely no difference what kind of gun it is, the fact vast numbers of people think its necessary to have a lethal weapon amd that is treated as normal is fecking stupid.
that’s not what the evidence presented has shown. Even people testifying for the prosecution agreed he was not threatening anyone.
Is this argument purely based on the fact that the AR-15 doesn't come with a fully automatic setting? If so, that is incredibly weak. Aren't they similar to the military version in pretty much all other aspects than that? Range, precision, caliber, rounds in magazine, attachment options, etc. is the same right?
comment 1 was from an earlier incident. The judge won’t allow that into the court as he doesn’t see the similarities with the things he’s being tried for that took place in a matter of seconds.
Isn't threatening subjective? I find a fat 17 Yr old walking around with a rifle threatening as feck. 17 year olds are fecking idiots.
Yeah fair enough, and I know my perspective is all wrong as a European libtard, but I just can't wrap my head around self defense laws that you lot have. This scenario resulting in him being not guilty to at least manslaughter or 2nd degree murder is insane to me.
Where his finger is placed is where it’s trained to be when you’re not ready to fire. Same thing with a handgun and keeping your finger outside the trigger guard and along the slide until ready to fire. “Ready position” would also be the rifle trained up on target of something.
He said finger over the trigger. When he posted that picture which literally shows his finger over the trigger you've then pivoted to 'that's not the ready position'. Why are people like this? Just say oh ok fair enough you're right. It's not hard.
