Self-defense laws have visceral roots. We should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And self defense laws are important checks on criminal prosecution. Here's self defense in legalese:
"A defendant's use of deadly force in self-defense is justified if a reasonable ground existed under the circumstances for the defendant's belief that he or she was threatened with death or serious bodily harm, even if the defendant was actually mistaken about the extent of the danger."
The problem reflected in the recent Rittenhouse and McMichael cases is that weak gun safety laws — like Wisconsin and Georgia — allow completely untrained individuals to walk amongst you with poor assessment of reasonable ground and risk and yet they the ability to use lethal force as they see fit. In both cases, the weapon itself became a provocation. In both cases, Rosenbaum and Arbery may have an equally strong self defense argument for their action in trying to disarm McMichael and Rittenhouse.
Concealed carry and open carry gun permits continue to skyrocket, meaning that cases like this in which untrained individuals "were mistaken about the extent of the danger" will likely rise. Many of them won't be on videotape. Is it time to change the definition of self defense?
@wildgrass
So criminals can carry and legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to carry?
Obviously you have never lived in a major city. 🙄
Why don't you focus on illegal gun crime instead?
Oh that's right....your peeps are the criminals 🙄
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@contenchess saidWhen did you get out
@wildgrass
So criminals can carry and legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to carry?
Obviously you have never lived in a major city. 🙄
Why don't you focus on illegal gun crime instead?
Oh that's right....your peeps are the criminals 🙄
of jail Fat Boy?
Sex crime?
@contenchess saidYou must have posted in the wrong thread. This is about self defense, not the right to carry.
@wildgrass
So criminals can carry and legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to carry?
Obviously you have never lived in a major city. 🙄
Why don't you focus on illegal gun crime instead?
Oh that's right....your peeps are the criminals 🙄
Why does the legal definition of self defense include perceived risk?
@wildgrass saidFirst, as to RHouse, if you say 'why was he there, ' I say, 'why were the other guys there?" Rittenhouse was totally legal, and the videos tell the rest of the story. The Jury saw it all, while we were all playing frisbee,,,,we didn't see all the evidence. The jury, after seeing and hearing, found Rittenhouse totally innocent of the charges. I cannot imagining debating the findings. Case is closed.
Self-defense laws have visceral roots. We should be able to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And self defense laws are important checks on criminal prosecution. Here's self defense in legalese:
"A defendant's use of deadly force in self-defense is justified if a reasonable ground existed under the circumstances for the defendant's belief that he or she was threaten ...[text shortened]... ikely rise. Many of them won't be on videotape. Is it time to change the definition of self defense?
Now, having said that, you say in following paragraphs, 'use legal force as they see fit." Why don't you say legal force to defend themselves?. Then you say that 'the weapon" itself became a provocation. No, it did not.
All due respects to your thread, but it goes off in a tangent or two. What is your issue? It cannot be Rittenhouse, who is guilty of nothing. So, I guess you are saying, as you ask, should the law be re-visited? The very first factor would be, should a citizen be allowed to legally carry a weapon? I say absolutely, as I take my kiddies down the street to see a Disney movie. Crime is everywhere, you can spot them in the hoodies, so we have to be able to protect the kiddies.
Since we surely agree on that one first factor, how would this discussion go from here??
Good post, Wildgrass
@contenchess saidContenchessness....I suggest no eye contact. Has worked for several months for me, will prescribe that to myself once more.
Shut up bitch.
I would love to knock you the fuk out.
You're the Vietnam baby killer and probably rapist.
@wildgrass
The doubt doesn't outweigh the risk.
You can't say...."He's attacking me...oh maybe I won't die" 🙄
That's delusional and that's how people die.
Each person decides that line.
The criminals don't get a say where that line is.
@averagejoe1 saidI'm tired of leftist snitches telling on me and I get a ban but we don't rat them out for the comments they make.
Contenchessness....I suggest no eye contact. Has worked for several months for me, will prescribe that to myself once more.
They need to learn to get what they give insead of running to the mods.
@contenchess saidGreat this is much more on point with the intended debate here.
@wildgrass
The doubt doesn't outweigh the risk.
You can't say...."He's attacking me...oh maybe I won't die" 🙄
That's delusional and that's how people die.
Each person decides that line.
The criminals don't get a say where that line is.
You are painting a black and white picture between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns, but where is the line in which self defense becomes criminal? Two very contentious self defense cases went different ways in the eyes of the jury. While there were lots of differences, there were key similarities. Both of the shooters were pursuing. In both of the cases, the person who died was trying to take the gun from the shooter. As I said in the OP, I think the dead people would have made a reasonable self defense argument for themselves if they had heartbeats.
Each person decides that line? I disagree. That seems to be a legally untenable position.
@averagejoe1 saidYes I am asking if the law should be revisited. We're entering a new phase of concealed/open carry in which more untrained people have guns and if the perception of the need for shooting someone is legal then we're going to have a lot more of these ambiguous cases on our hands. The videos ratchet up the opinions on account of cable news needing to fill time, but hundreds of such trials occur under the radar of national media and without video evidence.
First, as to RHouse, if you say 'why was he there, ' I say, 'why were the other guys there?" Rittenhouse was totally legal, and the videos tell the rest of the story. The Jury saw it all, while we were all playing frisbee,,,,we didn't see all the evidence. The jury, after seeing and hearing, found Rittenhouse totally innocent of the charges. I cannot imagining debatin ...[text shortened]... ely agree on that one first factor, how would this discussion go from here??
Good post, Wildgrass
@contenchess saidI’ve lived in several major cities and in conflict areas at that.
@wildgrass
So criminals can carry and legal gun owners have to jump through hoops just to carry?
Obviously you have never lived in a major city. 🙄
Why don't you focus on illegal gun crime instead?
Oh that's right....your peeps are the criminals 🙄
I’ve travelled the D-train (I think it was the D-train: from Manhatten up to Harlem, anyways) late in the evening. I’ve stumbled through the impoverished areas of Mumbai and Cairo…
Never once have I been attacked, robbed or threatened.
Excluding Ben Gurion airport security. Well, and Mumbai airport security… but those people have no sense of humor, I tells ya!
I think your attitude is the problem, if you think you need a gun to be safe.