Rittenhouse Trial Outcome - Protests Emerge

[clearspira]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Isn't it more a case of ''the second amendment is functionally outdated?''

Here's the sequence of events as I see it:

1) He has the legal right to own a gun.
2) He apparently has the legal right to be carrying it where he did.
3) He has the legal right to use it in what he considers to be self defence.
4) Everyone loses their shit when he ends up using the gun in what he considered to be self defence.

Yes, you could say, ''the problem is what constitutes self defence'' and that is true to a point. But it is even more true to say that the founding fathers never saw 2021 coming. As evidenced by the third amendment which I believe goes something along the lines of ''thou shalt not detain a soldier and cut him up him up into little pieces.''

[TGLS]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Isn't it more a case of ''the second amendment is functionally outdated?''

It's a mix of both and with the strong second amendment, changing the way self-defense works is probably the easier route.

Here's an article about this: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11 ... lysis.html

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Isn't it more a case of ''the second amendment is functionally outdated?''

Here's the sequence of events as I see it:

1) He has the legal right to own a gun.
2) He apparently has the legal right to be carrying it where he did.
3) He has the legal right to use it in what he considers to be self defence.
4) Everyone loses their shit when he ends up using the gun in what he considered to be self defence.

Yes, you could say, ''the problem is what constitutes self defence'' and that is true to a point. But it is even more true to say that the founding fathers never saw 2021 coming. As evidenced by the third amendment which I believe goes something along the lines of ''thou shalt not detain a soldier and cut him up him up into little pieces.''

The idea that the second amendment is outdated is a common argument of the American left.

[Frustration]

The Kyle Rittenhouse Case - 7 Things You Should Know

I like a pundit with a sense of humor!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The Kyle Rittenhouse Case - 7 Things You Should Know

I like a pundit with a sense of humor!

If Rittenhouse isn't guilty then why did he break down crying when the verdict came?

[ProfessorDetective]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Good grief, where are we? Tombstone, Arizona circa 1875?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Good grief, where are we? Tombstone, Arizona circa 1875?

You know, the democrats were the bad guys then, right?

[TGLS]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Good grief, where are we? Tombstone, Arizona circa 1875?

Ayup. From NYMag:

Put differently: Once Rittenhouse fired his first shots, he and his attackers plausibly entered a context in which neither could be held legally liable for killing the other. Whether one emerged from this confrontation legally innocent or lawfully executed hinged on little more than one’s relative capacity for rapidly deploying lethal violence.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Good grief, where are we? Tombstone, Arizona circa 1875?

Ayup. From NYMag:

Put differently: Once Rittenhouse fired his first shots, he and his attackers plausibly entered a context in which neither could be held legally liable for killing the other. Whether one emerged from this confrontation legally innocent or lawfully executed hinged on little more than one’s relative capacity for rapidly deploying lethal violence.

So in your opinion, is the plea of defense in this particular case of fatality shoddy, or were people actually trying to confront him in the escalated situation where one or more people had a firearm?

[TGLS]

Okay, Cliff's Notes? What exactly happened here?

Self-defense laws are badly designed in the US and the situation here effectively awarded whoever shot first with an affirmative defense.

Good grief, where are we? Tombstone, Arizona circa 1875?

Ayup. From NYMag:

Put differently: Once Rittenhouse fired his first shots, he and his attackers plausibly entered a context in which neither could be held legally liable for killing the other. Whether one emerged from this confrontation legally innocent or lawfully executed hinged on little more than one’s relative capacity for rapidly deploying lethal violence.

So in your opinion, is the plea of defense in this particular case of fatality shoddy, or were people actually trying to confront him in the escalated situation where one or more people had a firearm?

Well, there was someone else who was armed with a gun:

Gaige Grosskreutz, 28, approached and pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse; Rittenhouse nearly blew Grosskreutz’s right arm off.

In a counter-factual situation, where Grosskreutz blew Rittenhouse away, the prosecution would have had to prove that Grosskreutz didn't reasonably believe that shooting Rittenhouse would spare themself or others from imminent harm or that Grosskreutz had engaged in unlawful conduct that would provoke others to attack. Given that Grosskreutz was attracted by the previously fired shots and could not have known the entire situation (i.e. Rittenhouse was acting in self defense), it proves difficult to convict hypothetical Grosskreutz.