He had no other choice.
If they had not chased him, he wouldnt have shot.
Condicio sine qua non.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges
- Thread starter It Aint Necessarily So
- Start date
He had no other choice.
If they had not chased him, he wouldnt have shot.
Condicio sine qua non.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
If he hadn't been there he wouldn't have been chased. He CHOSE to go looking for trouble while armed.
This points to irresponsibility (IMO), but not illegality.
The big issue I see...
How to legally prevent recurrence?
He had the right to be there.
The American Constitution says there is freedom of movement.
The psychological element. The difference between gross negligence (culpa) and willful misconduct (dolus).
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
And his free will left him just when he could get away with killing two people.
To think how capricious such a fundamental thing like free will really is - seemingly, it comes and goes, as convenience demands.
Last edited:
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Was it a peaceful protest though?
And besides, many people had weapons that night... including one of the individuals shot by Rittenhouse.
Neither video footage nor witness testimony could convince a jury that Rittenhouse deserved the hostility that caused him to defend himself.
What do you know that they don't?
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Did he go looking for trouble though?
He was putting out fires... was that troublesome enough to permit Joseph Rosenbaum to kill Rittenhouse, as he both threatened and attempted to do?
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
As far as I can tell, yes. Did you hear of warfare?
Do you believe having a weapon out in public is sufficient moral justification to be shot dead?
If not, then that comment is irrelevant.
From what I know the case was never about "deserving hostility". In order to justify self defense, the defending side only needed to establish that Rittenhouse was justifiably afraid for his life; with that, killing two people became legally justified.
Last edited:
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
Maybe things are different where you live, but when I was serving as a volunteer firefighter, nobody told me to bring a rifle to a fire. Although, to be fair, maybe they just teach people wrongly around my part of the world.