txbo
Never worked for a Vandy grad
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 16,407
- Likes
- 42,053
Sheesh idk. The case can be made that they were trying protect others by removing an imminent threat from the street.
I do a lot of traveling. Everywhere I go I have a minimum of one gun on my person and bigger guns in my truck. I have yet to “have” to pull it but I have felt “threatened”. You’re right. Feeling threatened is one thing but until there’s an actual threat, the guns stay where they are. In Rittenhouses case, I’m confident that he showed more patience than I would have.No. But it doesn’t give you the right to use it every time you feel threatened.
One of the three shot pulled a gun. Another beat him with a skateboard and the other tried to take his gun from him. I think it’s pretty evident what their intentions were.I agree that he acted like a scared little boy. Idk if the two people that were murdered would have really tried to kill him however.
No. But it doesn’t give you the right to use it every time you feel threatened.
oh u dun it now... gunna trigger all dem VN marxists lolKR tried to flee, only to be pursued. In that instance, he had every right to defend himself. He was then attacked by a man swinging a skateboard. Again, every right to defend himself. And finally there was the guy with the gun charging at him. He had the right to defend himself. And a jury agreed that he had that right.
Self-defense is a right. KR made a reasonable attempt to escape the threat before he ever opened fire.
I agree that he acted like a scared little boy. Idk if the two people that were murdered would have really tried to kill him however.
Do you realize you can prove self defense if your attacker is simply bigger than you? He doesn’t have to have a weapon. He’s just gotta physically overmatch you and you are legally permitted to equal the odds. For example, if Mike Tyson attacked me without a weapon, I can pull a gun before he ever touched me as long as I can prove the fear of great bodily harm or imminent death.You should never be granted a gun license if your threshold is as sensitive as you describe.
so you would charge the accused for jaywalking while avoiding being kicked in the head, struck in the head with a lethal weapon, and being drawn on by a semiautomatic weapon? All while slandering the accused?Again, I believe if he would have been tried under lesser charges for both murders, he would have been convicted.
Removing the imminent threat from the street? Dude! You can’t be this stupid. It was a ****ing riot! The threat was everywhere! Innocent people were being beaten. City was being destroyed. Businesses were being looted and you think the “threat” was Rittenhouse in that setting? The threat was BLM!Sheesh idk. The case can be made that they were trying protect others by removing an imminent threat from the street.
But he didn’t have to flee to prove self defense. The fact that he did only shows he didn’t “want” to hurt anyone. He could’ve stood his ground and still has the same outcome in courtKR tried to flee, only to be pursued. In that instance, he had every right to defend himself. He was then attacked by a man swinging a skateboard. Again, every right to defend himself. And finally there was the guy with the gun charging at him. He had the right to defend himself. And a jury agreed that he had that right.
Self-defense is a right. KR made a reasonable attempt to escape the threat before he ever opened fire.
Ok.... now we’re getting somewhere. You’re uneducated on BLM and that’s ok. Equality is what BLM “started” as and even most of the right respected that. But since, it’s turned into what you seen this past 18 months. It’s become an anti American, domestic terrorist organization. Look at the Rittenhouse case alone and what was happening in that city, THAT’S BLM “now “.I am not apart of any BLM organization, so yes, that is exactly what it means to me.