You don't want to drop it do you? Fine. What training did Rittenhouse have? And speaking of being rude, this ^^ post goes far beyond "baloney" which is really just a one word expression of disagreement. But you being an attorney and all, you probably know that and just want an argument.
You made an assertion that you have not begun to try to support. I countered it, you continue to argue--but not on merits. I am not an attorney.
You either didn't read the question I asked or you decided to respond to a strawman that you constructed. The question asked nothing about ambiguity. It didn't ask about what you would say if someone else asked you that question, it didn't ask if you would ever be in a self-defense situation, it was about how you would respond to someone else if they made a particular statement. Here it is again. Imagine if you were discussing the potential need for a firearm in some self-defense situations and the person replied: "I conduct my life in such a manner that I'm unlikely to need a gun for self-defense." How would you reply to them? In the first TX CHL shooting there was an absolutely clear aggressor and the defendant suffered permanent injuries in the attack before shooting the attacker. In spite of that, the case went to trial.
There was never any doubt who the aggressor was. The prosecution was purely political, intended to discourage self-defense with a firearm in the future. It wouldn't have mattered if the victim had shot Seau with a 4.35mm Kolibri or a 20mm Lahti anti-tank rifle. The prosecutor didn't want people defending themselves with a firearm, and he didn't care how many innocent people died as a result. Given enough stupidity and ideological malice, a prosecutor will prosecute you for curling up in a ball and taking a savage beating. I can't control what psychopathic Marxists do. I can only control what I do.
Right, but in spite of that, and in spite of the fact that TX is pretty gun friendly, he was still charged with murder and it was a close thing. Ultimately sanity prevailed, but it's entirely possible that one more thing that could have been spun as being adverse against the defendant might have tipped the scales. Well, that's a pretty serious exaggeration, but you are starting to get the picture. Simply because it's clear who the aggressor is, and simply because you think it's unambiguous doesn't mean you are home free. Very perceptive. You'll want to do whatever you can to stack the deck in your favor given that there are so many things outside your control. Ok, back to the question. Imagine discussing the potential need for a firearm in some self-defense situations with a person. What would you say if the person stated: "I conduct my life in such a manner that I'm unlikely to need a gun for self-defense."
I'd say it's still a non sequitur. The two have nothing to do with each other. At least where I live, I'm FAR more likely to be attacked without provocation than I am to be prosecuted for defending myself from that attack. And given my habits, I'm not particularly likely to become involved in a physical altercation. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to respond to one, with deadly force if necessary. I don't go to Kenosha, or San Francisco, and VERY rarely to Chiraq. That's another element in avoiding trouble. I avoid people who would harm me, as well as places where those who would harm me are treated as a privileged class of overlords.
Of course you would. They're both quite similar. If you know how to live your life in such a way as to be able to control the circumstances of self-defense situations to make ambiguous ones impossible then why not just live your life in such a way as to make any self-defense situation impossible? If you can control circumstances, why bother controlling the perception of ambiguity--just control the circumstances so you don't get attacked in the first place. The point is that no matter how one chooses to live their life, there still remains the chance that they might be attacked and have to defend themselves. No matter how one chooses to live their life there's also the chance that the circumstances of a self-defense shooting might look ambiguous in retrospect. You want to know what prompted the deadly encounter in the aforementioned TX CHL shooting? A traffic accident where the defendant said he was going to report the accident. That's it. Someone hit his car and he said he was going to report it. Then the unarmed man attacked him and kept attacking him until he had no choice but to shoot since he could not retreat or effectively defend himself by other means. Are you going to stop driving? Are you going to acquiesce to any demand put before you by an unarmed person lest they attack you and you be forced to shoot? Are you going to cease interacting with any persons unless you are sure that you could physically subdue them without resorting to deadly force? Do you know of some region where anyone with violent tendencies is stopped at the border and either not allowed in or they are given a weapon so if they do attack someone the circumstances of the self-defense case will be clear? Reality is that you will get what you get. Just like the TX CHL shooting--you don't get to choose the circumstances ahead of time.
As I still do. I prepare for things that are LIKELY threats. I prepare for a robbery or carjacking, along with the outside chance of "gun and knife jihad". I don't prepare for battalion level airborne assaults by the DPRK Light Infantry Brigades or polar bear attacks. Likewise, I avoid troublesome people and situations. I don't lie in a pool of my own sweat, worrying about some Soros zombie prosecuting me for refusing to let somebody behead me.
Yep. There are several other things needed for a successful legal defense of self defense, and all of them must be met. Good. Who does? Good idea. whenever you can. in an increasing number of jurisdictions, that is becoming a real risk.
Fortunately not here. No polar bears OR Chesa Boudin/Kim Fox clones. Some lazy buffoons, but no Andrei Vyshinski wannabes.
I said "becoming". Just wait. Cuyahoga County would certainly present a much more tempting target than the independent county of the City of St. Louis, and it has a Soros prosecutor. Few if any candidates for county prosecutor in the county can begin to justify what Soros is prepared to spend for control of those positions. He's picking them off as he sees fit.
DA closing: 1. Continues to discuss how KR is carrying an AR-15. Should a young man have an AR-15? 2. Takes the gun from the detective, shown clear, but shoulders it to show how it was pointed supposedly. Classic priming of a negative attitude. I reiterate my initial OP that weapons type will come up in court, despite the naysayers that such should not be considered. Should you carry one, use one - well, that is different issue just be aware of the processes involved rather than denying them. I note that in the past, gun world had fits that the guns were called 'assault' rifles. OMG, they aren't. So, this has been noticed and it is more common to hear military styled semi automatic weapons or assault style appearing rifle. This goes the way of chortling when someone says 'clip'. It's a non-issue. Why not call them a modern sporting rifle? I wonder, as thought exercise, if the defense called Kyle's gun a modern sporting rifle, would it be a negative and sound stupid? Just a question.
Didn't the Prosecutor say in his closing arguments that having a gun eliminates your right to self defense
I believe you are right that the type of weapon will come up in court. An AR or other sporting rifle is an evil military assault weapon. A low priced handgun is a Saturday Night Special or A throw away. A scoped hunting rifle is a sniper's weapon.
you could defend yourself with a Model 1873 revolver and then be accused of trying to pretend to be in a western movie. Heck in the Rittenhouse trial, the DA made the argument that by bringing a gun at all, you forfeit self defense entirely.
I've been saying for at least thirty years that the anti-gun cult isn't against self-defense. They're against EFFECTIVE self-defense. It's perfectly alright for you to resist aggression as long as your resistance is ineffectual and doomed to failure and you are dehumanized, maimed or murdered in the process. The idea of a woman shooting a wouldbe rapist to death rather than being beaten, raped and murdered sends them into an insane rage. They've TOLD me so on numerous occasions. See my signature.
But stupidity, neo-Marxist ideological fanaticism and infantile cruelty require the attempt to be made in some cases.
I think a person CAN organize their life in such a way as to make needing to defend oneself with a firearm less likely. However, less likely does not mean impossible, and if a Situation does occur the odds become 100%.
Personally I prefer a handgun on my person. Anything in the trunk can be stolen, plus you don't have it at hand. Theoretically I could go around in an AR on a sling (I live in Arizona), but why attract undesired attention?
