[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by bucketfoot

Let me start by saying I have no issue with gun ownership. I was brought up with guns and learned about gun safety from the start. At the same time I have no issue with educational requirements being a part of ownership (nor do I believe do most gun owners).

I admittedly do not know the details of the case but the thing that troubles me about this and several other cases is if you put yourself into the position of fearing for your own life, how do you then have the right to kill someone else over that fear?

Honestly I have no idea if the correct decision was made here, but the bottom line is the judicial process was followed and like it or not people need to live with it.

Just the rambling thoughts of an old fart...

You have the right to defend yourself. You have the right not to be assaulted. You have the right to defend life and property. Rittenhouse went there - as a trained EMT with a first aid kit - to help the citizens of Kenosha (..where he was a lifeguard and where his father lived). Just because he was present in a location where unrest occurred didn't give people the right to assault him. The law doesn't require one to retreat in order to enact self-defense actions either (…although Rittenhouse ran from the mob and they chased him. Again, he had every right to defend himself).

As for the example of another gun owner shooting him….


….if there was no cause and no violation of law on behalf of Rittenhouse in that scenario, those gun owners would've been subjected to the punishment(s) allowed by law. You need to be able to justify deadly force. Even as a cop, if I shoot somebody that merely has a firearm in their possession, but who didn't commit an action that justified deadly force (..e.g…pointing the firearm at me or somebody else; pointing it at themselves is not justification), I'm going to prison.