Rittenhouse didnt fire first

[Crazyhole]

Joshua Ziminski: Charged For Firing Gun Just Before Rittenhouse Shooting

Joshua Ziminski (alex Blaine), 35, was charged on Oct 9 with disorderly conduct by use of a dangerous weapon for firing a gun into the air as Rittenhouse

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

 

[sk8knight]

That's going to weigh very strongly on the side of reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death. Of course, having a mob chasing you in that environment given what we'd seen in Minnesota and elsewhere should've been enough on it's own. It also speaks to proportionality because it elevates the mob to the actual use of a firearm.

Add to his attempt to actually flee that alleviates any legal duty to flee thus speaking to avoidance, and you clearly have 4 of the 5 facets of a self defense justification right there.

 

[Crazyhole]

That's going to weigh very strongly on the side of reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death. Of course, having a mob chasing you in that environment given what we'd seen in Minnesota and elsewhere should've been enough on it's own. It also speaks to proportionality because it elevates the mob to the actual use of a firearm.

Add to his attempt to actually flee that alleviates any legal duty to flee thus speaking to avoidance, and you clearly have 4 of the 5 facets of a self defense justification right there.

I won't be surprised if the charges are dropped

 

[DaShuckster]

That's going to weigh very strongly on the side of reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily harm or death.

LMAO

He. Fired. Into. The. Air.

The only thing that prevented Aaron Burr from being hanged for the murder of Alexander Hamilton when Hamilton fired his gun into the air before Burr shot him in the stomach was that he was the Vice President of the United States at the time.

 

[UCFKnightfan08]

LMAO

He. Fired. Into. The. Air.

The only thing that prevented Aaron Burr from being hanged for the murder of Alexander Hamilton when Hamilton fired his gun into the air before Burr shot him in the stomach was that he was the Vice President of the United States at the time.

Guys it's cool.... Rittenhouse was being chased by a bunch of lunatics intent on kicking his ass or worse but the gunfire he heard wasn't directed at him, it was shot up in the air to eventually hit anyone! Rittenhouse is clearly going to rot in hell here*

 

[fried-chicken]

You can't claim self defense while in the commission of a felony.

 

[DaShuckster]

You can't claim self defense while in the commission of a felony.

B-B-But....

 

[Crazyhole]

You can't claim self defense while in the commission of a felony.

This is rich. Please, go on.

 

[Boosted87]

I won't be surprised if the charges are dropped

I'm no legal expert here, and I don't doubt that this helps his defense. But if a dude is charged for discharging a firearm (and not hitting someone), I don't see how you drop charges against the guy who did discharge a firearm, killing someone.

Rittenhouse will benefit from lawyers spending months forming an argument as to his state of mind and the events that lead up to the shooting. A jury will get to take as much time as they need to weigh the facts and the law and make a decision. The two people who died had none of that due process.

So that's my lens. Was Rittenhouse's situation so dire and free of alternatives, that we're willing to grant him momentary authority to strip the victims of their constitutional right to life and due process?

I'm also concerned of a South Park world of "Ahh - they're coming right for us!" being justification for pulling the trigger.

Do we really want ANTIFA and Militia types showing up at protests armed and shooting each other, constantly applying a loose definition of self-defense as justification? Imagine a legit shootout between 20 or 30 armed individuals. I mean, does a single gunshot fired in the air justify everyone else to open fire on anyone who looks threatening?

 

[fried-chicken]

This is rich. Please, go on.

Minor crossing a state line with a firearm with no permit.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm no legal expert here, and I don't doubt that this helps his defense. But if a dude is charged for discharging a firearm (and not hitting someone), I don't see how you drop charges against the guy who did discharge a firearm, killing someone.

Rittenhouse will benefit from lawyers spending months forming an argument as to his state of mind and the events that lead up to the shooting. A jury will get to take as much time as they need to weigh the facts and the law and make a decision. The two people who died had none of that due process.

So that's my lens. Was Rittenhouse's situation so dire and free of alternatives, that we're willing to grant him momentary authority to strip the victims of their constitutional right to life and due process?

I'm also concerned of a South Park world of "Ahh - they're coming right for us!" being justification for pulling the trigger.

Do we really want ANTIFA and Militia types showing up at protests armed and shooting each other, constantly applying a loose definition of self-defense as justification? Imagine a legit shootout between 20 or 30 armed individuals. I mean, does a single gunshot fired in the air justify everyone else to open fire on anyone who looks threatening?

I suppose the obvious answer to your first point is that the man who discharged his gun into the air was clearly not under threat, while Rittenhouse was and there is video evidence of him trying to retreat from the threat. This case always hinged on the first shooting, now we have proof of being chased by an aggressor AND that someone behind him fired a gun. No reasonable juror or judge would not come to the conclusion that he felt his life was at risk and defended himself.

 

[Crazyhole]

Minor crossing a state line with a firearm.

Already disproven. Keep up.

 

[fried-chicken]

Already disproven. Keep up.

How so

 

[fried-chicken]

From politifact

The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old.

 

[fried-chicken]

You can't insert yourself into a situation you know to be dangerous, use an illegal weapon to kill someone, and claim self defense because someone (not the people you killed) in the area shot a gun into the air.

 

[Boosted87]

I suppose the obvious answer to your first point is that the man who discharged his gun into the air was clearly not under threat, while Rittenhouse was and there is video evidence of him trying to retreat from the threat. This case always hinged on the first shooting, now we have proof of being chased by an aggressor AND that someone behind him fired a gun. No reasonable juror or judge would not come to the conclusion that he felt his life was at risk and defended himself.

Fair. And I do not know if my opinion here meshes with the legal technicalities of self defense or not.

My issue is that I see a rabbit hole of logic when it comes to affirmative self-defenses like this. For example, to what extent is the crowd around Rittenhouse justified in their efforts to disarm him? If you hear a gunshot, turn and see a guy with a rifle walking through the crowd, when is it reasonable to conclude that force is justifiable to disarm this individual? Was charging at him a crime? Or a reasonable effort to disarm someone they saw as a threat to their life?

Imagine this goes one step further. After Rittenhouse fires, had someone nearby pulled a gun and shot Rittenhouse - would that have been justified as well?

Bottom line - guns at civil unrest = bad. I have a little sympathy for any negative legal consequences that come about for someone who shows up armed at something like this. Guarding your own storefront is one thing. Parading down the street with a rifle seriously risks creating situations where no one wins.

 

[DaShuckster]

Bottom line - guns at civil unrest = bad. I have a little sympathy for any negative legal consequences that come about for someone who shows up armed at something like this. Guarding your own storefront is one thing. Parading down the street with a rifle seriously risks creating situations where no one wins.

THIS! ^^^^^^^^ 👍

 

[Crazyhole]

Fair. And I do not know if my opinion here meshes with the legal technicalities of self defense or not.

My issue is that I see a rabbit hole of logic when it comes to affirmative self-defenses like this. For example, to what extent is the crowd around Rittenhouse justified in their efforts to disarm him? If you hear a gunshot, turn and see a guy with a rifle walking through the crowd, when is it reasonable to conclude that force is justifiable to disarm this individual? Was charging at him a crime? Or a reasonable effort to disarm someone they saw as a threat to their life?

Imagine this goes one step further. After Rittenhouse fires, had someone nearby pulled a gun and shot Rittenhouse - would that have been justified as well?

Bottom line - guns at civil unrest = bad. I have a little sympathy for any negative legal consequences that come about for someone who shows up armed at something like this. Guarding your own storefront is one thing. Parading down the street with a rifle seriously risks creating situations where no one wins.

All fair points. I guess the real question is whether putting yourself in a bad situation supercedes your right to defend yourself. The answer to that, regardless of what position you take, can have severe consequences either way. Does possessing a weapon in and of itself determine that you shouldn't be there? How far does that go? Would it have been ok for him to be there without a gun? Obviously all of those questions have subjective answers but do any of them bear any weight on what actually happened?

 

[sk8knight]

Fair. And I do not know if my opinion here meshes with the legal technicalities of self defense or not.

My issue is that I see a rabbit hole of logic when it comes to affirmative self-defenses like this. For example, to what extent is the crowd around Rittenhouse justified in their efforts to disarm him? If you hear a gunshot, turn and see a guy with a rifle walking through the crowd, when is it reasonable to conclude that force is justifiable to disarm this individual? Was charging at him a crime? Or a reasonable effort to disarm someone they saw as a threat to their life?

Imagine this goes one step further. After Rittenhouse fires, had someone nearby pulled a gun and shot Rittenhouse - would that have been justified as well?

Bottom line - guns at civil unrest = bad. I have a little sympathy for any negative legal consequences that come about for someone who shows up armed at something like this. Guarding your own storefront is one thing. Parading down the street with a rifle seriously risks creating situations where no one wins.

There's no rabbit hole of logic in the case law and precedents. If someone is legally carrying a firearm, then the crowd has no right to disarm him and the attempt to disarm him constitutes an attempt by them to apply deadly force. The other 4 facets need to apply as well. If he is acting threatening to them, or had at any time in the past to them, then they may be justified taking his firearm. But, just because you hear a gunshot and then later see someone with a rifle slung over his back does not give you the right to use force on that person. It's situational though, if he was pointing his gun at people and doing anything other than retreating and saying don't come any closer or I'll defend myself, then you might be within the law relieving him of his weapon. The thing is, normally in that situation, either you or someone else needs to be in imminent threat of bodily harm or death, so you need to be able to articulate who was in that state. You cannot use force just because you don't like guns and someone else has one (and of course if it's a little kid or someone who obviously shouldn't be possessing, then you're probably ok there as well).

Rittenhouse would be different as he would've heard the gunshot as he was already being chased and was attempting to flee. Pretty much any reasonable person would connect those 2 in the crucible of being chased. More than that, the fact that he had a rifle helps him because the mob would be able to see his rifle and still they came after him. That would play a factor in anyone's state of mind.

As to the next step, if after Rittenhouse fired someone from the mob that had been chasing and threatening him had then shot him, likely they would've been taken into custody and later charged with murder. Because the first of the 5 facets of self defense is innocence and you cannot claim innocence if you are part of a mob chasing someone down threateningly.

Rittenhouse, who was directed by police to go back where he came from when the first mob recognized him as someone who prevented them from destroying a car dealership attacked him, can likely claim innocence because there's no evidence that he was actually threatening anyone at any time prior to that. At least that I have seen. the fact that Rittenhouse even stopped to try to provide care for the first wounded attacker and that later he tried to turn himself into police will help Rittenhouse. The second mob pressed an attack while he was trying to provide care to the first victim when he fleed, again not posing a definable threat to any of them. They struck him multiple times and still he didn't fire.

IMO, the prosecutor is going to have a hard time disproving any of the facets of self defense (innocence, imminence, avoidability, reasonableness, and proportionality)

 

[sk8knight]

All fair points. I guess the real question is whether putting yourself in a bad situation supercedes your right to defend yourself. The answer to that, regardless of what position you take, can have severe consequences either way. Does possessing a weapon in and of itself determine that you shouldn't be there? How far does that go? Would it have been ok for him to be there without a gun? Obviously all of those questions have subjective answers but do any of them bear any weight on what actually happened?

You have to be innocent first to claim self defense. You cannot go into a drug dealer's house and start screaming racist obscenities and then claim self defense. Wisconsin has a "provoker" clause that removes your ability to claim innocence. But you have to be provoking them to attack or engaging in an unlawful act that would provoke an attack, such as raping someone, for that to apply. Rittenhouse was doing neither and, even though he may have been in violation of the possession code (He most likely wasn't but it's a convoluted trail of multiple statutes), he was not a provoker and thus maintained his innocence.

 

[sk8knight]

Fair. And I do not know if my opinion here meshes with the legal technicalities of self defense or not.

My issue is that I see a rabbit hole of logic when it comes to affirmative self-defenses like this. For example, to what extent is the crowd around Rittenhouse justified in their efforts to disarm him? If you hear a gunshot, turn and see a guy with a rifle walking through the crowd, when is it reasonable to conclude that force is justifiable to disarm this individual? Was charging at him a crime? Or a reasonable effort to disarm someone they saw as a threat to their life?

Imagine this goes one step further. After Rittenhouse fires, had someone nearby pulled a gun and shot Rittenhouse - would that have been justified as well?

Bottom line - guns at civil unrest = bad. I have a little sympathy for any negative legal consequences that come about for someone who shows up armed at something like this. Guarding your own storefront is one thing. Parading down the street with a rifle seriously risks creating situations where no one wins.

I just wanted to add this comment in a different place than above. I agree that there is a serious risk to inserting yourself into a protest/riot situation regardless of whether you are capable of defending yourself or not. For society, it's not ideal in any way to have untrained groups offering armed security to private individuals. Of course, it's not ideal for people to decide to destroy private property to make a general societal point either.

For the record, it wasn't like he was parading about site-seeing. He was moving between one car lot and another. Or attempting to, in the case of when he tried to go between the two and the police turned him back.

 

[DaShuckster]

Wisconsin has a "provoker" clause that removes your ability to claim innocence. But you have to be provoking them to attack or engaging in an unlawful act that would provoke an attack, such as raping someone, for that to apply. Rittenhouse was doing neither and, even though he may have been in violation of the possession code (He most likely wasn't but it's a convoluted trail of multiple statutes), he was not a provoker and thus maintained his innocence.

People have a right to protest and a right to bear arms. But he was somehow justified in killing two people and injuring a third? Rittenhouse trips and falls on the street with a semi-automatic rifle and then, in a panic, proceeds to fire 4 shots into the night.

How is that not being 'provocative'?

 

[sk8knight]

You live in an alternate world. On planet earth, he was being chased by a crowd out of which someone actually struck him before he fell down. In your world, no one was around and he trips and falls and innocent people just walking by got shot so Rittenhouse, the evil right-winger, must be executed. Damn glad you don't run our world.

Here's some information from Rittenhouse's attorney showing his side of the story (in case your echo chamber hasn't seen it yet):

VERNON HILLS, ILLINOIS / August 28, 2020 / Pierce Bainbridge is honored to represent 17-year old Antioch, Illinois resident Kyle Rittenhouse, who has suddenly found himself at the center of a national firestorm and charged with murder after defending himself from a relentless, vicious and potentially deadly mob attack in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

On August 25th, 2020, Kenosha spiraled into chaos following the Jacob Blake shooting. The Kenosha Mayor and Wisconsin Governor failed to provide a basic degree of law and order to protect the citizens and community buildings in Kenosha. The city burned as mobs destroyed buildings and property, and looters stole whatever they wanted. Rioters defaced storefronts, the courthouse, and many other public and private locations across the city.

After Kyle finished his work that day as a community lifeguard in Kenosha, he wanted to help clean up some of the damage, so he and a friend went to the local public high school to remove graffiti by rioters. Later in the day, they received information about a call for help from a local business owner, whose downtown Kenosha auto dealership was largely destroyed by mob violence. The business owner needed help to protect what he had left of his life’s work, including two nearby mechanic’s shops. Kyle and a friend armed themselves with rifles due to the deadly violence gripping Kenosha and many other American cities, and headed to the business premises. The weapons were in Wisconsin and never crossed state lines.

Upon arrival, Kyle and others stood guard at the mechanic’s shop across from the auto dealership to prevent further damage or destruction. Later that night, substantially after the city’s 8:00 p.m. curfew expired without consequence, the police finally started to attempt to disperse a group of rioters. In doing so, they maneuvered a mass of individuals down the street towards the auto shops. Kyle and others on the premises were verbally threatened and taunted multiple times as the rioters passed by, but Kyle never reacted. His intent was not to incite violence, but simply to deter property damage and use his training to provide first aid to injured community members.

After the crowd passed the premises and Kyle believed the threat of further destruction had passed, he became increasingly concerned with the injured protestors and bystanders congregating at a nearby gas station with no immediate access to medical assistance or help from law enforcement. Kyle headed in that direction with a first aid kit. He sought out injured persons, rendered aid, and tried to guide people to others who could assist to the extent he could do so amid the chaos. By the final time Kyle returned to 2 the gas station and confirmed there were no more injured individuals who needed assistance, police had advanced their formation and blocked what would have been his path back to the mechanic’s shop. Kyle then complied with the police instructions not to go back there. Kyle returned to the gas station until he learned of a need to help protect the second mechanic’s shop further down the street where property destruction was imminent with no police were nearby.

As Kyle proceeded towards the second mechanic’s shop, he was accosted by multiple rioters who recognized that he had been attempting to protect a business the mob wanted to destroy. This outraged the rioters and created a mob now determined to hurt Kyle. They began chasing him down. Kyle attempted to get away, but he could not do so quickly enough. Upon the sound of a gunshot behind him, Kyle turned and was immediately faced with an attacker lunging towards him and reaching for his rifle. He reacted instantaneously and justifiably with his weapon to protect himself, firing and striking the attacker.

Kyle stopped to ensure care for the wounded attacker but faced a growing mob gesturing towards him. He realized he needed to flee for his safety and his survival. Another attacker struck Kyle from behind as he fled down the street. Kyle turned as the mob pressed in on him and he fell to the ground. One attacker kicked Kyle on the ground while he was on the ground. Yet another bashed him over the head with a skateboard. Several rioters tried to disarm Kyle. In fear for his life and concerned the crowd would either continue to shoot at him or even use his own weapon against him, Kyle had no choice but to fire multiple rounds towards his immediate attackers, striking two, including one armed attacker. The rest of the mob began to disperse upon hearing the additional gunshots.

Kyle got up and continued down the street in the direction of police with his hands in the air. He attempted to contact multiple police officers, but they were more concerned with the wounded attackers. The police did not take Kyle into custody at that time, but instead they indicated he should keep moving. He fully cooperated, both then and later that night when he turned himself in to the police in his hometown, Antioch, Illinois.

Kyle did nothing wrong. He exercised his God-given, Constitutional, common law and statutory law right to self-defense.

 

[Boosted87]

I just wanted to add this comment in a different place than above. I agree that there is a serious risk to inserting yourself into a protest/riot situation regardless of whether you are capable of defending yourself or not. For society, it's not ideal in any way to have untrained groups offering armed security to private individuals. Of course, it's not ideal for people to decide to destroy private property to make a general societal point either.

For the record, it wasn't like he was parading about site-seeing. He was moving between one car lot and another. Or attempting to, in the case of when he tried to go between the two and the police turned him back.

And I agree this situation is complex. But at the end of the day, this outcome is only possible because he chose to carry a firearm. Affirmative type self defenses like this imply - effectively - that any reasonable threat of bodily harm against an armed individual infers a right by the armed individual to use deadly force.

Basically, in every bar fight ever, at least one person would have been justified to just pull out a gun and shoot the other guy dead. That's a hard premise for me to accept, particularly when the vast majority of bar fights get broken up before things reach that point.

If Rittenhouse doesn't shoot back, does he get beaten to a bloody pulp? Or does the situation get diffused. If I'm on the Jury, that's what I would want to sort out to decide if his actions were reasonable.

 

[Boosted87]

There's no rabbit hole of logic in the case law and precedents. If someone is legally carrying a firearm, then the crowd has no right to disarm him and the attempt to disarm him constitutes an attempt by them to apply deadly force. The other 4 facets need to apply as well. If he is acting threatening to them, or had at any time in the past to them, then they may be justified taking his firearm. But, just because you hear a gunshot and then later see someone with a rifle slung over his back does not give you the right to use force on that person. It's situational though, if he was pointing his gun at people and doing anything other than retreating and saying don't come any closer or I'll defend myself, then you might be within the law relieving him of his weapon. The thing is, normally in that situation, either you or someone else needs to be in imminent threat of bodily harm or death, so you need to be able to articulate who was in that state. You cannot use force just because you don't like guns and someone else has one (and of course if it's a little kid or someone who obviously shouldn't be possessing, then you're probably ok there as well).

Rittenhouse would be different as he would've heard the gunshot as he was already being chased and was attempting to flee. Pretty much any reasonable person would connect those 2 in the crucible of being chased. More than that, the fact that he had a rifle helps him because the mob would be able to see his rifle and still they came after him. That would play a factor in anyone's state of mind.

As to the next step, if after Rittenhouse fired someone from the mob that had been chasing and threatening him had then shot him, likely they would've been taken into custody and later charged with murder. Because the first of the 5 facets of self defense is innocence and you cannot claim innocence if you are part of a mob chasing someone down threateningly.

Rittenhouse, who was directed by police to go back where he came from when the first mob recognized him as someone who prevented them from destroying a car dealership attacked him, can likely claim innocence because there's no evidence that he was actually threatening anyone at any time prior to that. At least that I have seen. the fact that Rittenhouse even stopped to try to provide care for the first wounded attacker and that later he tried to turn himself into police will help Rittenhouse. The second mob pressed an attack while he was trying to provide care to the first victim when he fleed, again not posing a definable threat to any of them. They struck him multiple times and still he didn't fire.

IMO, the prosecutor is going to have a hard time disproving any of the facets of self defense (innocence, imminence, avoidability, reasonableness, and proportionality)

Good analysis.

Riddle me this scenario.

You're in a mall. You hear gun shots, but you have no idea which direction. You run to see a someone sprinting in your direction with a weapon drawn. You tackle them and get shot in the process.

*If you just tackled the active shooter, you're a hero and and another victim.
*If you just tackled a civilian who drew a firearm to respond to the gun shots, then what?

Was the civilian justified in shooting you, merely because you were armed and attacked them? Or was your decision to intervene justified based on the circumstances? No one is at fault just back luck?

 

[sk8knight]

Good analysis.

Riddle me this scenario.

You're in a mall. You hear gun shots, but you have no idea which direction. You run to see a someone sprinting in your direction with a weapon drawn. You tackle them and get shot in the process.

*If you just tackled the active shooter, you're a hero and and another victim.
*If you just tackled a civilian who drew a firearm to respond to the gun shots, then what?

Was the civilian justified in shooting you, merely because you were armed and attacked them? Or was your decision to intervene justified based on the circumstances? No one is at fault just back luck?

It goes to reasonableness. In most places, Wisconsin included, they don’t require your decisions to be perfect, just for them to be reasonable for anyone in the situation. At least for criminal court. Civil court is a different animal.

And the court of public opinion cares nothing for truth.

 

[DaShuckster]

And I agree this situation is complex. But at the end of the day, this outcome is only possible because he chose to carry a firearm. Affirmative type self defenses like this imply - effectively - that any reasonable threat of bodily harm against an armed individual infers a right by the armed individual to use deadly force.

Basically, in every bar fight ever, at least one person would have been justified to just pull out a gun and shoot the other guy dead.

EXACTLY! This isn’t the Old Wild West for crying out loud! Running around with a semi-automatic rifle when you’re not a law enforcement officer is asinine and if you fire it and kill people, you should be held accountable.

 

[Boosted87]

It goes to reasonableness. In most places, Wisconsin included, they don’t require your decisions to be perfect, just for them to be reasonable for anyone in the situation. At least for criminal court. Civil court is a different animal.

And the court of public opinion cares nothing for truth.

How about this one - private security guard (news station hired to protect staff while covering demonstrations) ends up shooting someone. Victim struck shooter on the side of his head with his hand, shooter pulls gun, victim begins macing shooter - shooter kills victim. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

Whole thing captured by photo-journalist. Couple of key images but you can see them all at the link.

Applying your earlier logic, it seems this would classify as self defense. But again, the only reason anyone is dead is because a gun is present. The presence of the firearm is not making anyone safer, it's the key to the escalation.

PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting

A man was shot and killed Saturday after a conflict with a private security guard in downtown Denver. Denver Post photojournalist Helen Richardson witnessed the shooting firsthand. A total of 71 im…

www.denverpost.com

 

[sk8knight]

How about this one - private security guard (news station hired to protect staff while covering demonstrations) ends up shooting someone. Victim struck shooter on the side of his head with his hand, shooter pulls gun, victim begins macing shooter - shooter kills victim. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

Whole thing captured by photo-journalist. Couple of key images but you can see them all at the link.

Applying your earlier logic, it seems this would classify as self defense. But again, the only reason anyone is dead is because a gun is present. The presence of the firearm is not making anyone safer, it's the key to the escalation.

PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting

A man was shot and killed Saturday after a conflict with a private security guard in downtown Denver. Denver Post photojournalist Helen Richardson witnessed the shooting firsthand. A total of 71 im…

www.denverpost.com

This one is complicated and we don’t have all of the evidence the police or the court will have take into account. It is possible to be an initial aggressor, thus losing your innocence, but then to withdraw and regain that innocence.

I find self-defense law fascinating and important. I am not a lawyer. If this is more than a passing fancy and you want to learn more, I’d highly advise you to go do the trial for this site:https://lawofselfdefense.com/

He’s got blog posts with some of the best legal analysis of these cases that you’ll ever find.

 

[sk8knight]

How about this one - private security guard (news station hired to protect staff while covering demonstrations) ends up shooting someone. Victim struck shooter on the side of his head with his hand, shooter pulls gun, victim begins macing shooter - shooter kills victim. He's being charged with 2nd degree murder.

Whole thing captured by photo-journalist. Couple of key images but you can see them all at the link.

Applying your earlier logic, it seems this would classify as self defense. But again, the only reason anyone is dead is because a gun is present. The presence of the firearm is not making anyone safer, it's the key to the escalation.

PHOTOS: A frame by frame account of the Denver protest shooting

A man was shot and killed Saturday after a conflict with a private security guard in downtown Denver. Denver Post photojournalist Helen Richardson witnessed the shooting firsthand. A total of 71 im…

www.denverpost.com

Oh, and another thing, the gun is the method by which he was killed but it isn’t the reason he died. The actions and choices of both men were the reason he died. The security guard could’ve just as well choked him to death as shot him and he’d still be dead.

 

[Boosted87]

Oh, and another thing, the gun is the method by which he was killed but it isn’t the reason he died. The actions and choices of both men were the reason he died. The security guard could’ve just as well choked him to death as shot him and he’d still be dead.

I don't like that logic. It undervalues the efficiency of the tool. If no gun is present, it's highly unlikely someone dies. Pulling a trigger is a split second decision with no takebacks and presents no opportunity for others to intervene. If you start choking someone to death, you've got a minute or two to think through the consequences of your actions. You might stop after he passes out, but before he's dead. Other people might step and stop you before you go to far.

There's a reason we don't want rogue states to have nuclear weapons. Sure, it won't be "the bomb's fault" when it kills 100,000 people, but we're not going to say "It was the choices and actions of Kim Jung Un that killed 100,000 people, not the nuclear bomb he deployed. He could have easily killed deployed a death squad of stranglers to do the same thing."

 

[Boosted87]

This one is complicated and we don’t have all of the evidence the police or the court will have take into account. It is possible to be an initial aggressor, thus losing your innocence, but then to withdraw and regain that innocence.

I find self-defense law fascinating and important. I am not a lawyer. If this is more than a passing fancy and you want to learn more, I’d highly advise you to go do the trial for this site:https://lawofselfdefense.com/

He’s got blog posts with some of the best legal analysis of these cases that you’ll ever find.

I'm ignorant of the law here, so I'm really arguing on logic of where I think the law should be. It seems from your well reasoned analysis in this thread that wend up in a recursion loop where the presence of the gun itself justifies it's own use. I don't see how that can be an acceptable position for society.

Thought experiment. Two dudes with perfectly equal culpability get in an argument after bumping shoulders on the street. Both are equally aggressive and each feels the other one is becoming a threat. They simultaneously pull their firearms with the INTENT of diffusing the situation.

At that precise moment, are both of them justified in pulling the trigger? If not, why not? Each of them are clearly under an immediate threat of grave bodily harm.

Yet in this scenario, the ONLY thing that justifies the use of a firearm is the presence of a firearm. Hence the recursion.

The same logic works even if only one person has a firearm. You may pull the gun to diffuse the situation. But the other person may see the gun as an imminent threat to their life, and react by attempting to disarm the other. This is clearly an imminent threat to the guy with the gun, so he's now justified in pulling the trigger.

So is it reasonable that the presence of the gun itself justifies it's own use?

 

[DaShuckster]

So is it reasonable that the presence of the gun itself justifies it's own use?

First its, I gotta have a gun, I gotta have a gun, I gotta have a gun!!!

Next its, I HAD to use the gun, I HAD to use the gun, I HAD to use the gun!!!

 

[sk8knight]

I'm ignorant of the law here, so I'm really arguing on logic of where I think the law should be. It seems from your well reasoned analysis in this thread that wend up in a recursion loop where the presence of the gun itself justifies it's own use. I don't see how that can be an acceptable position for society.

Thought experiment. Two dudes with perfectly equal culpability get in an argument after bumping shoulders on the street. Both are equally aggressive and each feels the other one is becoming a threat. They simultaneously pull their firearms with the INTENT of diffusing the situation.

At that precise moment, are both of them justified in pulling the trigger? If not, why not? Each of them are clearly under an immediate threat of grave bodily harm.

Yet in this scenario, the ONLY thing that justifies the use of a firearm is the presence of a firearm. Hence the recursion.

The same logic works even if only one person has a firearm. You may pull the gun to diffuse the situation. But the other person may see the gun as an imminent threat to their life, and react by attempting to disarm the other. This is clearly an imminent threat to the guy with the gun, so he's now justified in pulling the trigger.

So is it reasonable that the presence of the gun itself justifies it's own use?

No. A gun, in and of itself, does not represent an imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death. It takes behaviors and actions, for the most part, to escalate it to that level. There are exceptions, of course, like bringing a gun to a school would make people reasonably perceive a threat.

You seem to be advocating for gun control based on these situations. What you’re missing is that a gun is the ultimate equalizer of force. It equalizes the force for the 80 year old lady with the 20-something that is bent on doing her harm. For every situation like you’ve provided, there are a number more where the firearm is the only true equalizer of force available to people.

 

[DaShuckster]

What you’re missing is that a gun is the ultimate equalizer of force. It equalizes the force for the 80 year old lady with the 20-something that is bent on doing her harm.

Weird thing is, I've never heard about an 80 year old lady charged with killing somebody with a firearm. It's always a bunch of young punks.

 

[sk8knight]

Weird thing is, I've never heard about an 80 year old lady charged with killing somebody with a firearm. It's always a bunch of young punks.

No, but you hear the tragic stories of 80-year olds beaten, raped, or killed by young punks. You don’t really care about them too much, though. But those poor victims didn’t need to be victims and they have a natural right on their side for protection.

 

[DaShuckster]

No, but you hear the tragic stories of 80-year olds beaten, raped, or killed by young punks. You don’t really care about them too much, though. But those poor victims didn’t need to be victims and they have a natural right on their side for protection.

The number of 'tragic stories of 80-year olds beaten, raped, and killed' pale in comparison to the number of stupid deaths caused by stupid punks carrying stupid guns.

 

[_glaciers]

I'm no legal expert here, and I don't doubt that this helps his defense. But if a dude is charged for discharging a firearm (and not hitting someone), I don't see how you drop charges against the guy who did discharge a firearm, killing someone.

because self-defense hinges on having a reason to suspect that lethal force was only way to defend oneself from deadly threat. the only way this is nullified is if said threat had passed. Chasing someone down doesn't do much to convince anyone the threat had passed.

He'll get off, as he should, and this should really serve as an awakening to the rioters.

 

[_glaciers]

The number of 'tragic stories of 80-year olds beaten, raped, and killed' pale in comparison to the number of stupid deaths caused by stupid punks carrying stupid guns.

the only way for this to be true is if you're talking about black people and gang violence, which isn't very tolerant of you.

 

[sk8knight]

The number of 'tragic stories of 80-year olds beaten, raped, and killed' pale in comparison to the number of stupid deaths caused by stupid punks carrying stupid guns.

Show me any law in this country that has ever kept stupid punks from getting anything they want?