But the act of him carrying the rifle isn't enough to quash a legal self defence plea.
I'm with you. Of course it isn't right, but when looked at through the lens of Americas gun and self defense laws, I'm not sure how it's anything but self defense.
Which was a result of himself voluntarily putting himself in a situation and appearing as a threat to everyone else in the first place. He could have easily de-escalated the situation right up till the point where he was left with a gun as the only defense and shooting people dead was (seemingly) his only option. These incidents happen in the most lawless places in the world, where there is no jurisdiction on the ownership and use of firearms.
You literally described firing a fatal shot there. Which is what pretty much he was prepared to do.
Again, I'm not arguing about legality. I've called him a pussy and I stand by that, he's a disgusting little coward who deserves to rot in prison but won't and will be held up as some far right hero figure.
In a lot of countries, it is. Like I said, even in my country where the price of human life is very low, if I go out on the street right now and see someone carrying a gun openly pointed at me I'll call the cops on them.
Oh my mistake. Agreed then what your general views.
But we aren't taking about a lot of countries and I don't think we as non Americas will ever grasp that fully.
Not sure why we should, though? Those laws are the very root of situations like these arising. And yet there are plenty of people who also reside within these very laws and don't go around walking with a gun prepared to use at unarmed people, so it is a bit generous to put this down to the laws completely. This dude is a wreckless cnut who is the biggest culprit of causing this situation, more than anything/anyone else. Period.
Of course I agree with all that, my opinion is the same as yours, but it's entirely irrelevant to the case at hand.
It's not a problem of grasping it, a lot of us live in societies and laws that protect us as civilians from exactly these situations so it is pretty relevant to apply the correct standards to it, not the standards US has wrapped around their people. There are regions in my county which are completely lawless, where a 5 year old kid would be equipped with a gun and allowed to use it freely and what not. That doesn't mean I should say oh ok, the police are shit and corrupt, the people in that whole state are used to others having guns in the open and as a result unsurprisingly people die from gun violence all the time.
As do I. I think we are all In agreement tbh.
Again I agree, but the simple fact is, he's looking like he's unlikely to be punished because his use of self defense seems justified within the laws whether we agree or not.
Yeah and most people are voicing against exactly that. If this is the precedent the legal system of a so called global superpower is willing to set, then it's pretty much necessary for the people there as well as everywhere else to highlight how dangerous that is. There are going to be a lot more Kyle cnuts once this guy goes free, doing the same thing thinking they can get away with it.
It has to be both. Yeah the system is broken, but at the same time if one person willingly decided to exploit it to the point where it caused loss of life, then that person shouldn't be considered completely innocent and has to be held accountable for his actions, which in this case is him killing other people.
I don't disagree but this'll never change over there and I think some of the America posters like @Carolina Red and @WI_Red have alluded to that.
I agree with what your saying. I couldn't imagine being a juror in a case like this.
The judge can go feck himself and I'm not gonna defend the other guy carrying firearms either. Anyone who does that is willingly putting himself and others in danger and that should be unacceptable, end of.
Pretty much, that's why a lot of us including myself have replied in here when people are isolating their viewpoint from a legal standpoint and not a human standpoint. And the latter should be highlighted publicly, given the former is rather hopeless.
Did he not follow them first?
I think even @Drainy would be on that side of things tbh
Yes, I did. That skateboard was being used as a weapon of defence against a mass shooter.
Mass shooter means indiscriminately spraying bullets on a crowd. This is not the correct term.
Right, so do these people who think they're being stalked by some freak with an assault rifle have to right to self defence?
A mass killing is 3 or more killings in one go, I assumed it would be the same for mass shooting. Your definition is incredibly wrong though.
Every shooting was a result of an individual altercation. Rittenhouse perceived his life to be in danger, the state of Wisconsin finds this perception wrong. That's why he is on trial. It was not a mass shooting. Hope that reduces your confusion on the topic.
Ah, so you're under the illusion that mass shooting means random. It doesn't.
The guy with the skateboard had seen and heard other people being shot by this guy. Yes, he probably should have ran and hid but he decided to try and disarm someone he probably felt was an enormous danger to him and everyone around him.
If he was at the riots, going around and actually offering medical assistance without inconspicuously holding a rifle, would he get jumped on by the mob? From all the evidence being presented there it seems like they were triggered by his looks — however you want to look at that, be it a pure aggression from their side or them feeling threatened by a guy with a rifle following them for a while before accelerating towards them.
