Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
If you think all you need to justify killing someone is a crowd yelling "active shooter", you're wrong.
|
Actually that's getting pretty close to justify killing someone.
If on April 1 a bunch of high school students pranked a security guard into believing a kid was a school shooter with fake blood, playing dead, and the kid came out with a realistic looking toy hand gun as the students screamed, he would be justified in shooting him - because he reasonably believed to be an active shooter thanks to the "crowd."
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
There was plenty of evidence showing that KR was simply defending himself and was not posing an immediate threat of grievous bodily harm to anyone else. Ergo the "reasonable" wording in the self defense statute would be difficult to meet and there would be no self defense privilege available to GG.
|
Again, it's not about Rittenhouse. I don't know why you can't grasp this for someone who has so clearly pretended to follow the trial and pretend to know the law. It's about what his would-be-assailant believed. Was it reasonable to believe that after hearing several shots fired, the crowd labelling him an active shooter and seeing him shoot and kill someone that he was? ####ing rights anyone would be able to claim they reasonably believed him to be.
It's the very reason that Rittenhouse got off on his attempted murder. Because he reasonably believed the person was about to shoot him, he did not need to mind-read to know the true intention of Grosskreutz. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was NOT acting in self-defense. It's not the other way around.
Quote:
|
A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
|
There's the word in bold for you.