So that means they'd be justified to shoot him in self-defense, right?
So shoot at the 2nd Amendment armed militias showing up everywhere? ok, got it. Im headed out to get a gun
You live in Chicago, right?
Better pack a lunch as I was assured by posters on the Tunnels that the guns used in the large number of shootings and murders in Chicago come from other states so you won't be able to find one in Illinois.
Sorry
You stand in the shoes of the shootee for purposes of the law. Of corse there is a reasonable man standard applied to what you are seeing as said shootee.
An interesting discussion a friend had the other day with regards to Rittenhouse: What would have happened if someone who saw Rittenhouse shoot someone, or even pointing a gun at another person, had decided to shoot him in that moment. Another person sees the same thing with the 2nd shooter, and shoots him. So on and so on. I'm certainly not one for slippery slopes, as I think they are often fantastical, but from a legal standpoint, I don't see how you could say any shooting after the initial one wasn't in self defense.
Rittenhouse is insanely lucky that these are mostly peaceful and nobody else in the crowd was armed, or he would be dead.
So the real question for the right is: do you really want Rittenhouse to be found not guilty? Do you want the people who are already protesting a lack of justice to feel, even more so, that they are not protected by the law? Thus, they need to take the law into their own hands?
You do know that one of the "peaceful" guys chasing Rittenhouse was armed with a pistol at the moment he was shot. Not defending the kid as I don't think he should have been there in the first place armed with an AR-15.
You do know that one of the "peaceful" guys chasing Rittenhouse was armed with a pistol at the moment he was shot. Not defending the kid as I don't think he should have been there in the first place armed with an AR-15.