a) he never threatened anyone. In fact, he demonstrated better gun safety than, say, a Hollywood actor/producer 3 times his age.
b) how can you claim the crowd was unarmed? Of the 3 people that stuck around to be searched, 2 of them had weapons. A skateboard used as a bludgeon. And a Glock pistol that was drawn from concealment and pointed at his head.
No, this isn’t a matter for debate — it’s an established fact of the case, agreed to by all parties, that Gaige Grosskreutz was carrying a pistol. He also admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only shot him after he pointed the pistol at him.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but *yes*, that is responsible gun safety in a scenario where deadly force is required (which is why he was acquitted). Kyle exercised an incredible measure of discipline in his restraint—not shooting wildly into a mob that was overtaking him, only firing on those who were attacking him. Show me a police bodycam video where the officer is equally restrained.
Btw I agree that the so-called-armoror was inexperienced and immature. I can only imagine why a producer would so irresponsibly hire her? Wait..wasn’t the executive producer of that film also the main actor that pointed a gun at a crew member and pulled the trigger?
He was an active shooter, and thus a threat to anybody around, and the people tried to defend themselves from that threat. Why those people got denied the right of self-defense and treated as attackers instead? I think it is a total miscarriage of justice that an active shooter successfully claimed self-defense. Not shooting wildly into a mob is really a pretty low, a new low i'd say, bar of responsible gun safety. You seeing laudable restraint and discipline in that is one of the best illustrations of the gun problem in the society.
If you threaten a person with bodily harm, I think it is reasonable to point a gun at them to get them to stop. Would you voluntarily get bashed in the head with a skateboard if you were in that position?
cause - the guy shoots an unarmed man and just coldly walks away from it. No victim check, no attempt to render first aid, no reporting to and waiting for police and emergency services... nothing what is reasonably expected in the situation of self-defense.
effect - reasonable perception that it is a killer on the lose, a threat to defend from.
>those Rittenhouse shot not only had weapons, but showed intent to use them.
these people were defending themselves and others around from Rittenhouse after he shot an unarmed man and just walked away not checking on the victim, nor waiting for police like one would do in a bona fide self-defense, and that made him to be reasonably perceived as an active shooter that is a threat to anybody around. Thus he created that violent situation of him being a threat and necessitating a defense against him, and he shot the people who were defending themselves and others from him. One shouldn't be able to claim self-defense in such situation.
Suppose there are two people at two corners of a dark alleyway. They both hear a gunshot towards the center of the alley and draw their pistols in self-defence. They take a few steps and now see each other holding a gun. Each one raises his gun at the other, thinking that's the shooter. One fires and kills the other. AFAIK it would be justified self-defense
It's not as simple as "can't claim self-defence if you initiated violence yourself".
If you're targeted personally i suppose. When the violence isn't targeted your running away wouldn't change the situation if there are other people around who can be shot. That reminds about that veteran who attacked the shooter several years ago at the Oregon college - he could have fled i guess, yet he didn't. Did he had an obligation to flee? I don't think anybody there entertained even for a moment such nonsense idea as the shooter's self-defense against the veteran who attacked him and got wounded in that fight. In Kenosha though the shooter shot the guys who tried to stop him (and from any point of view he was the active shooter to be stopped as he didn't stay with his first victim calling/waiting for police and rendering help to the victim as one would do in a true self-defense situation, and as an active shooter he was a threat to everybody, a threat that the people have the right to defend themselves from), and it somehow got successfully sold as self-defense on his part.
I strongly disagree. He left out some very important details from the video. Whether by accident or not, doesn't really matter in this case, IMO. (I know he issued corrections/clarifications in the comments, but most people are not gonna read those)
my understanding is that you can't claim self-defense if you initiated violence yourself. Threatening unarmed people with a gun, pointing it at them is a credible threat of violence that the people have the right to defend themselves from, and that is what they tried to do in particular by chasing that gun wielding moron away. Unfortunately that aspect seems to have been totally overlooked.