Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Should there not be a provision for 'reasonable force?'
Lets assume for a moment that he was pursued and 'attacked.' One guy had a plastic bag, another guy had a skateboard.
It stands to reason that their ability to inflict lethal harm upon was limited at best. Certainly not so much as someone with a rifle.
Further, they are likely reacting in fear to someone wandering around with a gun. Now in the dark and the heat of the moment, that looks like an assault rifle. To someone not well versed in guns, it looks like something a soldier would carry.
So yeah, that gun probably scared the ever-loving #### out of them and they reacted out of fear. Fear that he instilled. On purpose.
Remove the AR15 from that night and nobody ever hears the name of Kyle Rittenhouse.
|
I think we as Canadians would be scared and find that alarming but not in the US.
As others have said here, there were many others that night who saw Rittenhouse and ignored him and there were people other than Rittenhouse also carrying rifles.
And the weapons don't matter. If I, a 100 pound girl, attacks a 200 pound guy, with my bare hands and he stabs me with a knife, that's self-defense. You can't say that I was no threat to him because I was half his size and had no weapons.