Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimalTates
It's not about whether Rittenhouse met the reasonable definition of the term. It's whether it was reasonable to believe he was an active shooter. Having confirmed he shot one person prior, heard the crowd calling him an active shooter, and then saw him kill another, yes it's most definitely reasonable for someone to believe he was an active shooter. It's completely asinine to argue differently.
Like Rittenhouse, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone trying to harm Rittenhouse was doing so out of malice and not to prevent an active shooter situation. They would not even have a little chance when the crowd is all yelling about him being an active shooter.
|
If you think all you need to justify killing someone is a crowd yelling "active shooter", you're wrong.
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.