Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I don't think one side acting in self-defense or defense of others excludes the other party of acting in self-defense. I can see why Rittenhouse's self-defense argument worked from a legal stand point, but I also think removing an assault weapon from a kid at a riot was a reasonable action. These don't have to be mutually excusive concepts.
The real issue is the gun culture that exists in the first place.
|
Gun culture - agree but that is a total separate giant battle.
But based on the law Rittenhouse had the legal right to carry that firearm. There were dozens of others armed - on both sides - with a whole host of guns. Just seeing a gun doesn't mean you have to stop the person (maybe in Canada, but this is the states) - and simply having an AR-15 isn't "provocative" in the sense of the law, he would need to be doing something that incites "an immediate and forceful response" - (ie drawing it on someone else unprovoked). Carrying it alone isn't provocative in a legal sense. You have no right to "remove an assault weapon" from someone. (Not even going to touch the 'assault' weapon term, again, a whole other argument we don't need to delve into)