EPTAre you suggesting that the mere threat by someone is grounds for a person to remove themselves from a situation/area? As in if someone were to threaten anyone in any situation the person threatened should remove themselves from the situation/area with no questions just leave then and there? And that if they don't and said person attempts to assault them later on they (the person threatened) can not use self defense as an excuse because of course they were threatened earlier?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3373
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Are you suggesting that the mere threat by someone is grounds for a person to remove themselves from a situation/area? As in if someone were to threaten anyone in any situation the person threatened should remove themselves from the situation/area with no questions just leave then and there? And that if they don't and said person attempts to assault them later on they (the person threatened) can not use self defense as an excuse because of course they were threatened earlier? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
I'm honestly surprised at the intellectual curiosity that has suddenly emerged from certain posters when it's pointed out that if you go out looking for trouble, don't be surprised when you find it? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
On November 15 2021 00:02 Taelshin wrote: The thing is I don't think shooting someone reaching for your gun, in a situation where you shouldn't be waving a gun about, should fall under self defence.@farva the initial gunshot may not have been brought up as much as you like, but there is no hiding the fact that he was fleeing and being chased by a person who (with eye witness account(s)) literally managed to touch the barrel of his rifle before he shot. One could argue that whether he heard the gun shots or not is irrelevant if he was being chased down by a person whom previously in the night said (paraphasing) " I will kill you if I catch you alone " among other terrible things. If you don't have a gun out, he can't grab for it and its just as easily to construct it the other way around where someone else is trying to reach for your weapon to prevent you from shooting them as a means of self defence from your deadly weapon. That's the duality of allowing citizens to openly carrying weapons. Citizen A walking around with a deadly weapon to defend themselves makes citizen B fear for his life because someone is walking around with a deadly weapon so now B has to defend himself from A's deadly weapon, but then A gets to shoot B to defend himself from someone defending himself? The entire conflict only exists because your allowed to bring deadly weapons into situations where they shouldn't exist. (And again, Yes American law may label this as self defence, but it shouldn't) | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On November 15 2021 01:41 Taelshin wrote: @farva I think your a lawyer so It's unlikely I can out argue you but: Are you suggesting that the mere threat by someone is grounds for a person to remove themselves from a situation/area? As in if someone were to threaten anyone in any situation the person threatened should remove themselves from the situation/area with no questions just leave then and there? And that if they don't and said person attempts to assault them later on they (the person threatened) can not use self defense as an excuse because of course they were threatened earlier? Nah, I don't think per se rules work very well in these scenarios, which is why most of this falls within the purview of a jury as a question of fact regarding the reasonableness of the claim of self-defense. It is conceivable that someone could be threatened, the situation could reset, and then that person could later be threatened again such that use of self-defense was justified. That hypothetical sequence of events doesn't match up with the self-defense claim here though because there doesn't appear to have been any real reset, the street protest environment appears to have been obviously dangerous from an early point on, and that became even more so after Rittenhouse allegedly perceived specific threats such as one of the victims making a verbal threat towards him. So the question is ultimately at what point in time did Rittenhouse confront the fork in the road at which the threats inspired in him fear sufficient to justify use of deadly force? If that fork in the road did not occur in the heat of moment following the gunshot he heard as shown on video, and instead occurred at an earlier point, how could it have been reasonable for him to remain there despite feeling so afraid that he felt he would need to kill people in self-defense? | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Regardless I am on the side that a person was running him down then reaching for his gun (literally touching the barrel) and then shooting said person is justifiable self defense. Who knows what the jury will decide. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
On November 15 2021 02:54 Taelshin wrote: Was the person in your scenario the aggressor or the defender? it really matters Jim. Do you really see kyle as the "defender" in this case? He stated he wanted to kill the people and got someone to get him a gun to do it. I don't care what situation someone creates for themselves to get away with it what happened was someone went somewhere with intent to kill with a weapon illegally obtained to kill and then killed. How that person is the "Defender" in any situation just blows my mind. If someone slams on their brakes in front of a semi the person braking isn't the victim. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1947 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11621 Posts
On November 15 2021 03:29 Taelshin wrote: @broetchen hopefully not many people have "crushed their heads against a heavy object until they didn't move anymore". Having to kill someone in self defense is not some badge of honor, It doesn't make you cool, Its not l33t, It's a terrible thing for anyone to have to do. I have no idea what self defense laws are like in Germany but I assume that your allowed to defend your self against an aggressor up to and including killing them in the name of self defense. Our laws are a lot more strict with this. You are required to take the action with minimum force here. Including trying to run away as the very first option. And most people are not legally allowed to carry a firearm on the streets (the only exceptions here are usually security personnel of some sort), so if you shoot someone in "self defense", since you were not supposed to have the gun there anyways, that already means that you have overstepped and are acting outside of the realm of self defense. Lethal force as self defense is something that is very rare over here, and that you would need to do a lot of work to prove it was really the only option for you, and and that the response was proportional to the threat. I doubt that people without a gun would ever cross the threshhold where shooting them in "self defense" would be acceptable. Also, our courts are generally a lot less hung up on technicalities. If someone said they wanted to shoot people, then took their gun to people, and shot people, no German court would see that as self defense. Rittenhouse would never be innocent here. But he also wouldn't have a gun. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1947 Posts
Laws aside, what would you say has got to happen, that you would consider shooting someone in self defense. What is like the lowest aggression that you would feel warrants that you have to shoot to kill/shoot and accept the risk of your aggressor dying? | ||
KwarK
United States43203 Posts
| ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
@broetchen Thanks for weighing in, our laws are similar in Canada and I understand more where your coming from now. To answer Broetchen's question... It's a very hard thing to say, I'd like to believe that if I had to stop someone with deadly force from using deadly force on me that wouldn't be an issue but as I said previously its not something anyone should be aiming for. Lowest aggression could mean many different things that I just can possibly quantify in one post with out rambling on but I think it's one of those situations where you make a decision at the time based off many factors and hope you made the right one I guess? I'm not really sure. Can I pose the same question back to you what is your low bar for using deadly force to repel an aggressor? I'm actually heading out for the day but it was a good chat! ill check in later | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11621 Posts
On November 15 2021 03:57 Taelshin wrote: @simberto @broetchen Thanks for weighing in, our laws are similar in Canada and I understand more where your coming from now. To answer Broetchen's question... It's a very hard thing to say, I'd like to believe that if I had to stop someone with deadly force from using deadly force on me that wouldn't be an issue but as I said previously its not something anyone should be aiming for. Lowest aggression could mean many different things that I just can possibly quantify in one post with out rambling on but I think it's one of those situations where you make a decision at the time based off many factors and hope you made the right one I guess? I'm not really sure. Can I pose the same question back to you what is your low bar for using deadly force to repel an aggressor? I'm actually heading out for the day but it was a good chat! ill check in later Lowest bar: Impossible to retreat (cornered or something) Very clear intention to do me grievous bodily harm Absolutely no other way out, including stuff like giving them my wallet or whatever. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1947 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
On November 15 2021 03:18 Taelshin wrote: @Sermokala: Yes I do and have stated as much. Your semi example is so bad I don't even know how to respond to it. Try watching the trial, its there on youtube from many sources including PBS it might give you a better grasp on what is actually going on here. I do have a grasp on it and have been watching the trial. Just saying something is bad doesn't mean anything. You can't just hand wave and insist that anyone disagreeing with you is just not knowledgeable on the subject like you. Kyle tried to get in a situation to murder people and get away with it. If you brake in front of a semi you can make it look like the semi rammed into you getting you a fat settlement and a new car. Without a dash cam the laws are extremely in your favor. I don't know how you get in the frame of mind that he is defending anything. He went somewhere with specific intent that he himself confesses explicitly, acts in the way that he intends to act, and is now exploiting a highly biased judge to get away with it. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 15 2021 00:59 Broetchenholer wrote: Yes, how is this reason to shoot someone? Surely even a state in the US has some rule that limits self defense to a scenario where it is appropriate to the level of threat? Like, treating the attacks on him as threats on his life, where deadly force is the only way out is really weird, considering that the second fight he had resulted directly from him shooting someone. If i manage to be perceived as a threat to the safety of a group of 20 to thirty individuals due to killing one of them, which enables me to be allowed to kill them when they try to neutralize that threat, then this becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. I killed someone for fearing for my life, so now i am afraid i will get killed for killing someone, so i am now allowed to kill more people. This is mind boggling for me. The level of threat he faced, in order, is 1. A guy who had previously threatened to kill him because he was putting out a dumpster fire attacked and tried to wrestle his gun from him. 2. A guy tried to flying dropkick him while he was running away from a pursuing crowd (man still not identified). 3. A guy hit him over the head with a skateboard and tried to disarm him. 4. A guy pointed a handgun at him while yelling something that is unintelligible. On November 15 2021 02:13 Gorsameth wrote: The thing is I don't think shooting someone reaching for your gun, in a situation where you shouldn't be waving a gun about, should fall under self defence. If you don't have a gun out, he can't grab for it and its just as easily to construct it the other way around where someone else is trying to reach for your weapon to prevent you from shooting them as a means of self defence from your deadly weapon. That's the duality of allowing citizens to openly carrying weapons. Citizen A walking around with a deadly weapon to defend themselves makes citizen B fear for his life because someone is walking around with a deadly weapon so now B has to defend himself from A's deadly weapon, but then A gets to shoot B to defend himself from someone defending himself? The entire conflict only exists because your allowed to bring deadly weapons into situations where they shouldn't exist. (And again, Yes American law may label this as self defence, but it shouldn't) Never was there gun waving, there was existing with a gun. In your scenario Citizen B is a suicidal paranoid. We cannot base societal rules along the lines of mollifying their most paranoid delusions. On November 15 2021 03:46 KwarK wrote: My recollection is that the first confrontation was initiated by Kyle, who is by his own admission a wannabe mass shooter, pointing his gun at people. The crowd confronting him was acting in self defence at that point, though they should have just retreated and none of them should have been there in the first place. Plenty of blame all around but Kyle definitely deserves a lot of it. The crowd confronting him was never acting in self defense. None of the people shot are known to have even been witnesses to the first shooting. Kyle had never pointed a gun at any of them and was running from the scene to the police. At least one (the guy who's arm got shot) had spoken to Kyle and had been explicitly told that Rittenhouse was traveling towards the police barricade to turn himself in WRT the initial shoot. | ||
| ||
