• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

They were dead.

You’re talking in terms of the law that has been used for centuries to benefit people like you and oppress people like me. I’m giving you a critique of those laws and how they’re put into practice.

A person with a gun is an inherent threat. That’s why “he had a gun” is justification for shooting someone. Think in real terms, not legal terms. If someone has to point a gun to be threatening, does an unarmed person actually have time to defend themselves against the threat? Not really. So their right to defend themselves is theoretical but not practical.
 
scooter84 said:
If you are trying to base this on the unarmed people interacting with the Rittenhouse kid, it was not established that he threatened them so as to place them in such a position.
Click to expand...

He had already killed. That's a threat. I also disagree with your statement that just having a gun is not a threat. A boy walking around with an AR-15 is a threat - I don't know how you can be a normal human being and not feel threatened by that.

Self defense laws are what they are (and they do vary by state) -- it's carry laws that need to be changed and won't be. Because we are a country of small-dicked gun worshippers.
 
deac29 said:
Is that true if the person with the gun is shot by a law enforcement officer?
Click to expand...

Those are the exact situations I was thinking about when I said we view people with guns as an inherent thread. That’s why “he had a gun” or even “he might have a gun” is justification for a cop to shoot someone.

So then why is Rittenhouse not considered a threat in the same way?
 
scooter84 said:
I just read this again and wanted to point out that it is completely incorrect.
Click to expand...

Lulz - Have you met The Tunnels???

Facts and accuracy (from the self-proclaimed party of 'Truth and Facts') take a backseat to narrative 10 times out of 10 over here.
 
This cat appears to be taking the verdict almost as well as the "burn it down" posters on the Tunnels Left:

 
Colonel Angus said:
Lulz - Have you met The Tunnels???

Facts and accuracy (from the self-proclaimed party of 'Truth and Facts') take a backseat to narrative 10 times out of 10 over here.
Click to expand...

So dumb. Pretty easy to feel vindicated on a point of view when you never actually take a point of view other than nanny nanny boo boo.
 
PhDeac said:
They were dead.

You’re talking in terms of the law that has been used for centuries to benefit people like you and oppress people like me. I’m giving you a critique of those laws and how they’re put into practice.

A person with a gun is an inherent threat. That’s why “he had a gun” is justification for shooting someone. Think in real terms, not legal terms. If someone has to point a gun to be threatening, does an unarmed person actually have time to defend themselves against the threat? Not really. So their right to defend themselves is theoretical but not practical.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of sets of laws in the analysis here. First, the current state of the law says open carry is legal. So walking around with a gun is not, by definition, an inherent threat - so your analysis is immediately wrong. Perhaps you don't think that SHOULD be the law, but it is so that is what we are dealing with.
I don't think someone necessarily has to point the gun at you for you to perceive a threat, but there has to be something in what they say or do that leads you to believe they are a threat.

For example, to bring up another case that is currently in the news, the dad that was chasing the Arbery guy supposedly yelled something about "blowing your fucking head off" - that plus the fact they were chasing him in their truck and yelling at him, leads me to believe that he could reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger. Using that set of facts I believe Arbery could have claimed self defense if he had successfully attacked and hurt or killed them. (The citizen's arrest laws in Georgia complicate the analysis but we'll ignore that for the moment).

Similarly, in the Arbery case, I don't believe the father and son who shot him will be able to claim self defense - because they initiated the altercation with their own threats. I don't know the citizen's arrest law or how it figures in but yelling about blowing his fucking head off and chasing him in a truck and trying to cut him off while yelling at him doesn't scream "citizen authority figure trying to protect the public" to me. So, assuming Arbery did grab the gun and try to fight back he was justified in doing so because he feared for his life.

If a person with a gun is actually intent on doing you harm, you clearly are going to have a hard time defending yourself without a gun - but that shouldn't change the self defense analysis.

Correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding was that Rittenhouse was running away from people that were chasing him and yelling at him and physically attacking him - and shot them after he fell down and they were reaching for his gun. Was that the first guy or the later ones? At one point he was running away from them yelling "friendly, friendly!!" - right? Was that after he shot the first person and people thought he was a shooter? I can understand the confusion and chaos but this doesn't sound like an active shooter situation - he wasn't shooting at other people and wasn't pointing his weapon - instead he was doing his best to convince others that he wasn't an active shooter.

This is just a terrible situation but I don't know what he could have done at that point. Let's assume the people attacking him really think he is an active shooter and needs to be subdued - they are beating him and chasing him, trying to grab his gun, and even pointing their own guns at him. If he just stops at that point and tries to tell them that he is a good guy, not a bad guy, he has to reasonably believe they will take his gun and shoot him, or shoot him with their own gun. What was he to do, just let them shoot him?
 
PhDeac said:
Those are the exact situations I was thinking about when I said we view people with guns as an inherent thread. That’s why “he had a gun” or even “he might have a gun” is justification for a cop to shoot someone.

So then why is Rittenhouse not considered a threat in the same way?
Click to expand...

"He had a gun" isn't automatically justification for shooting someone, even for law enforcement. If someone is armed and has an interaction with law enforcement there are lots of ways that can go down and lots of context to be considered. If I have a concealed permit and am carrying and get stopped by the cops I am going to keep my hands visible, not make any sudden movements and tell them that I have a weapon. They most likely are not going to shoot me and would not be justified in doing so. But, if I get stopped and am refusing to cooperate, won't stop running, won't stop the car, won't get out of the car, won't listen to whatever they are telling me to do, and then reach for a gun (or an apparent gun), etc. etc. - that is a different situation. What did the cops perceive? Did they perceive a threat? What did my words and actions lead the cops to believe about my intentions?

Now I am not saying that this is always the analysis that gets applied perfectly or that cops don't screw up and mis-perceive a threat, or hell, make up a threat, I don't know - there have been some terrible situations for sure. But that is how it should work and having a gun, alone, is never justification for shooting someone.
 
Again, you're talking about laws in theory not in practice. For example, your second post specifically describes what Philando Castile did "keep my hands visible, not make any sudden movements and tell them that I have a weapon." And the cop who shot him was considered to be justified. You even admit "that is how it should work" so you know that's a problem.

And cops shoot armed people who are running away from them because they fear for their lives. If a cop had shot Kyle Rittenhouse while he was running away because he feared for his life, do you think anyone would dispute it? No.

And weren't the vast majority of people running away from Rittenhouse? Obviously they saw him as a threat.

Even your theoretical explanation comes up with every possible reason why a gunman isn't a threat but a gunman can perceive anyone else to be a threat in order to justify shooting them.
 
Last edited:
scooter84 said:
Now I am not saying that this is always the analysis that gets applied perfectly or that cops don't screw up and mis-perceive a threat, or hell, make up a threat, I don't know - there have been some terrible situations for sure.
Click to expand...

Lol I mean jeez scooter what do you think the protests have been about if not for this, and how a certain subset of folks get disproportionately “mis-perceived” or made up threats with zero consequences.
 
Yeah. Jacob Blake was considered a threat because he was walking away to get into a car that might have a gun. Yet Kyle Rittenhouse was not a threat because he was walking away with a gun?
 
If that guy who got his arm shot while pointing a gun at rittenhouse had the situations reversed and he shot rittenhouse instead, he’d likely also be cleared on self defense right? So now everyone gets to have guns feeling constantly and justifiably threatened and having shootouts where the one who lives gets to write the narrative. This is dumb as hell.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
How in the age of mass shooters can anyone not be seen as a threat who is open carrying an AR-15?
Click to expand...

Yep. It's common sense. But now, people will hesitate before attacking an obvious mass shooter because of that one time a mass shooter claimed self-defense and got away with it.
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. It's common sense. But now, people will hesitate before attacking an obvious mass shooter because of that one time a mass shooter claimed self-defense and got away with it.
Click to expand...

Nobody will ever do that for that reason. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top