RITTENHOUSE

[SheepChaser 8,082]

1 minute ago, chartpolski said:

No, it has set no precedent.....he was found not guilty under the laws of the state. 

If he had walked up to the people he shot and just killed them, he would have been found guilty.

But he was being chased down the road by up to a hundred rioters, one hit him over the head with a skateboard, knocking him to the ground, another kicked him in the head, the third advanced on him, as he was on the ground, pointing a block 9mm at him, so he fired in self defence, just as the jury accepted.

Cheers.

Quite a few folk in America seem to think so. And not necessarily ones who are overly bothered by those particular three guys getting shot by that particular lad. 

[WILF 44,190]

1 minute ago, SheepChaser said:

Thanks and aye I do get what you are saying, but ultimately the defence that was used was the self defence one. It just muddies the water a lot on the situation where it is legal to ‘defend’ yourself by killing others. Mackems video for example. 

Imho mate, if the community IS the home, then the self defence claim naturally and rightly follows.

If it was his house, we wouldn’t be having this conversation and the bit I think we British find it hard to get our head around is that (I believe ) the very American thing that home and community are one and the same thing in some places in America.

I personally quiet like that way of thinking.

[SheepChaser 8,082]

7 minutes ago, WILF said:

That’s a great post.

I suppose what I think you missed in it (and as I understand the case) was he was going to town to protect a shop?/business?/The Town? 
 

So your scenario of protecting the home extends to the the business and or his community.

I don’t think we get that concept at all in Britain, I think that’s a very American thing to circle the wagons round your community.

He wasn’t going into a town knowing it’s gets a bit naughty on a Saturday night armed and ready for what May come, he was going to his community to defend it from a pre meditated exceptional and known threat event.

I think that is a massive difference to carrying a weapon as protection and using it in a rough area.

In this instance “the community” is his “Home” 

Here’s another question - if we follow your earlier point, who are you allowed to protect your community from and at what level ? 

[WILF 44,190]

3 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

Quite a few folk in America seem to think so. And not necessarily ones who are overly bothered by those particular three guys getting shot by that particular lad. 

America has become more European over the last 20 years in its politics and so it follows in its thinking imho 

The American Blair, Mr Obama pushed a massively European mindset imho.

[chartpolski 20,375]

Rittenhouse was asked, quite clearly, three times, "did you intend using leathal force when you fired ?"

Three times he replied " yes i did, I was in fear of my life".

This was accepted as "self defence".

Cheers.

Edited November 23, 2021 by chartpolski

[SheepChaser 8,082]

Just now, WILF said:

Imho mate, if the community IS the home, then the self defence claim naturally and rightly follows.

If it was his house, we wouldn’t be having this conversation and the bit I think we British find it hard to get our head around is that (I believe ) the very American thing that home and community are one and the same thing in some places in America.

I personally quiet like that way of thinking.

I’ve spent a fair bit of time in the states and I do sort of get the mind set and as great as it is, it’s also questionable at times. There is sometimes an over riding sense of paranoia. Like as far as - one gun company manufactured a gun with a biometric safety feature so only you can fire your gun (to stop your kids shooting each other and bad guys using your gun on you). They were absolutely hounded and their market share dropped like a stone.

The thing is they didn’t use that defence of community thing as a legal defence and for quite a good reason (to a lot of folk there). Because it’s a bit too expansive. They went down the route of self defence - ie he specifically perceived a threat to himself. As Charts says it is legal and it is ok. However it’s never really been used in a situation quite like this, and you got to wonder if at the next similar event everyone comes carrying, what happens ? There is obviously a perceived level of threat on all sides.  

[WILF 44,190]

2 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

Here’s another question - if we follow your earlier point, who are you allowed to protect your community from and at what level ? 

I don’t think there is a definitive answer to that but if there was one then I’d say a mob with a proven track record of violence, robbery and destruction would definitely be reasonable to most logical minds.

[SheepChaser 8,082]

1 minute ago, chartpolski said:

Rittenhouse was asked, quite clearly, three times, "did you intend using leather force when you fired ?"

Three times he replied " yes i did, I was in fear of my life".

This was accepted as "self defence".

Cheers.

I am in no way whatsoever debating that. 

[SheepChaser 8,082]

Just now, WILF said:

I don’t think there is a definitive answer to that but if there was one then I’d say a mob with a proven track record of violence, robbery and destruction would definitely be reasonable to most logical minds.

Accepted. But unfortunalty it doesn’t quite work like that. 

[WILF 44,190]

1 minute ago, SheepChaser said:

Accepted. But unfortunalty it doesn’t quite work like that. 

How so mate ?

[WILF 44,190]

11 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

I’ve spent a fair bit of time in the states and I do sort of get the mind set and as great as it is, it’s also questionable at times. There is sometimes an over riding sense of paranoia. Like as far as - one gun company manufactured a gun with a biometric safety feature so only you can fire your gun (to stop your kids shooting each other and bad guys using your gun on you). They were absolutely hounded and their market share dropped like a stone.

The thing is they didn’t use that defence of community thing as a legal defence and for quite a good reason (to a lot of folk there). Because it’s a bit too expansive. They went down the route of self defence - ie he specifically perceived a threat to himself. As Charts says it is legal and it is ok. However it’s never really been used in a situation quite like this, and you got to wonder if at the next similar event everyone comes carrying, what happens ? There is obviously a perceived level of threat on all sides.  

Well I think it’s a two stage thing isn’t it mate ?

Does he have a right to be there and act as a deterrent to protect his community ?…..Yes he does

In that capacity does he have a right to self defence if he feels his life is in danger ?…..Yes he does 

I really don’t see any grey areas in that.

Edited November 23, 2021 by WILF

[VOON 1,313]

47 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

The issue isn’t about who shoots who in as much as the general legal precedent set by making it ok to go out to someone where where you make the judgement call to go and get involved, take your weapon and if attacked or threatened with or without a gun, kill someone. The only reason I mentioned him being a minor - is forgetting this particular case, someone who is young, a teen etc, often perceives situations and threats differently from someone with more experience. 
 

Let’s use a different example, a kid gets in conflict  in school, he is going down the park and might see the bullies, so takes his semi auto. He does see them, they start picking on him or picking a fight, chase him across the park and hit  him with a skate board. He shoots one of them dead.

Does he walk? Is it murder ? 

Walks

[chartpolski 20,375]

The American constitution was based on English common and civil law, and the second amendment was based on the English bill of rights which said englishmen had the right to bear arms and form militias. This was in response to Charles the second forming a royal standing army, that the politicians feared would interfere in the independence of parliament.

The American second amendment was made to resist Federal government from using a standing army to interfere with the states independence and to protect state and personal property, this is why federal troops can't , or shouldn't,operate on American soil, but National Guard can.

So, a citizen can own arms and protect the states, and personal, property.

Our bill of rights has been emasculated over the centuries, but the Americans hold their constitution very dearly, and think the repeal of the second amendment would be the thin end of the wedge on the road to anarchy, or worse, in there minds, communism !

Cheers.

Edited November 23, 2021 by chartpolski

[WILF 44,190]

I watched a thing once and in it was a Sheriff from Texas and they were talking about the death penalty in this instance, he said one of the most Texas but logical things I have heard.

He said, as humans we live within a code of morals and values….they are our ticket into the club of society and it keeps that society a nice place to be.

If however you forfeit your ticket by stepping outside the rules and boundaries of what we regard as normal human society then they reserve the right to do away with you…….you literally have no place in that club, why should they put up with you ?

I think that’s as complicated as it needs to be, we are very cerebral about everything us Europeans….it’s why we are probably the most humane race of people on earth but we do like to complicate things.

That “we shoot you” mentality is the very best and very worst of America imho 

[green lurchers 16,368]

50 minutes ago, SheepChaser said:

Ok. Don’t tell me, a good guy shot some scum? So that’s ok. I do get that. 

I’m perfectly happy with that , don’t even know the background of the attackers but ones horizontal he took the temperature challenge the others were lucky this time but really should be rested 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by green lurchers