What does it matter? Assume it was one of your children killed. Would you still be as blase?
-
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!
Rittenhouse, the proof is in the pudding....
- Thread starter SA Huguenot
- Start date
What does it matter? Assume it was one of your children killed. Would you still be as blase?
I must underline that the people who died chased him (three or four against one), they are much older than him and one of them was armed too.
Perhaps you're confusing looking at the total picture,
& not just deaths, as not caring about them.
We can care about all those things.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I think it has to be done sometimes.
That's why there is such a thing as justified homicide.
Reread this thread, there are several people who do not care that these people died.
Perhaps because i was mot brought up with have gun will kill and who cares, its the American way. But i l see the loss of life as a sad indictment of that American way
What would have happened, if Kyle hadnt shot?
The penal law studies the proportion between offense and defense.
So the court will decide if it were justified
If he hadn't shot anyone, they wouldn't have chased him.
I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect to just slip away after shooting someone, even in self defense. It's even less reasonable to think it's justified to shoot your way out.
I wasn't even speaking to the law on that point. I was getting at popular opinion. In the Kenosha story, Grosskreutz - the volunteer paramedic who Rittenhouse shot - is much closer to the model of a responsible "good guy with a gun" that the NRA tries to sell than Rittenhouse - a kid who willfully increased the potential for violence by coming armed to a protest - is.
Rittenhouse was a reckless fool. Because of his foolishness, two people are dead. Now... foolishness is not a crime in and of itself, so I'm not sure how the trial will resolve itself, but what Rittenhouse that night is certainly not praiseworthy.
Apparently he shot at the first man, Rosenbaum because he was pursued.
The footage clearly shows that he was alone.
And it was a one-against-all pursue.
When there is disproportion between the two parties, the weakest party can act in self-defense.
It is state of necessity and force majeure.
The fact is that the footage clearly shows that KR went to the police to ask for help.
It is the attitude of a person who will cooperate with justice. Who sides with the law.
It is not compatible with the profile of a person who wants to do something illegal (unlike other people who probably were there to do something illegal).
Carrying a weapon illegally is siding with the law... Interesting
Who are they?
I'm not sure what ANTIFA is, googled it but as this is the first time I've heard of it I can't really comment but I'm sure there's criminals in both organisations as there is in just about any organisation.
I cannot comment on his politics because I don't know them, I can only comment on the video I saw yesterday. He was a 17 year old parading about the streets of a night with a gun when there was an unruly mob rioting. They're all breaking the law in a display of mass stupidity.
Hysterical claims of left wing plots is ridiculous.
I am a jurist.
I apply penal law and penal procedure.
Every time I am a jurist, I need to be impartial and apolitical
In fact, I have shown it. I said that the in the Floyd case, Chauvin is clearly guilty of manslaughter.
It hurts when I see that there are politicized trials in the US.
The Constitution of my country says that the judiciary is independent, impartial and apolitical.
Does that picture include... if no one had a gun no one would have been shot?
I am a jurist.
I apply penal law and penal procedure.
Every time I am a jurist, I need to be impartial and apolitical
In fact, I have shown it. I said that the in the Floyd case, Chauvin is clearly guilty of manslaughter.
It hurts when I see that there are politicized trials in the US.
The Constitution of my country says that the judiciary is independent, impartial and apolitical.
I am not a jurist but a human being so i think taking lives with an illegally held gun is a problem that requires the laws full, unbiased concern no matter what the provocation
So you think killing in self-defense is never justified? You would just let someone kill you?
Let the court decide why don't ya
I don't own a gun, legal or illegal and you wouldn't see me killing people anyway. I am perfectly capable of looking after myself and am capable of putting an attacker in hospital if need be so what's the point of taking life?