Associate
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2019
- Posts
- 1,003
Also pretty difficult to turn around without slowing down.
Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Exactly, so he made the choice to slow down and turn around, instead of carrying on retreating.
In my opinion, he had not expended all reasonable means of escaping and instead immediately resulted to the deadliest force someone could inflict on someone.
As said. He was looking round to see if the guy with hand gun was still coming at him.
He had to slow down at one point anyway. They would have got him then.
What would reasonable force have been?
Perhaps anything before resorting to shooting someone and then continuing to shoot them as they fall to the ground for a total of 4 times.
However, in this instance like i have said, he should have continued retreating first.
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2019
- Posts
- 1,003
So if you had a more athletically gifted lunatic chasing you down and quickly closing the distance, after previously telling you they were going to kill you, you'd just keep running until they caught you? You're nuts.
I would certainly exhaust all other means of escape before killing them , yes.
You wouldn't be there, you wouldn't carry a gun, your mindset is that of a completely risk averse person so you don't even understand the mentality of someone trying to defend businesses from riots who's then willing to use deadly force in defence of their life. There's no point telling us what you'd do because you'd be cowering at home hoping the Police did something. I don't think you believe people have the right to use deadly force to defend themself, which is fine, but it's not the law.
Those 4 shots were all in under a second. Your phrasing of the shooting is to give an optic of a much longer time frame, there's no need for it.
So what?
Correct
I'm not sure i would be "cowering". That would imply I would be under some sort of imminent threat. But yes, I would be leaving it to law enforcement to deal with.
It isn't the law to use deadly force when it is not reasonable to do so, which is what i am arguing.
Your phrasing of the shooting is to give an optic of a much longer time frame, there's no need for it.
In the heat of the moment with the threat already upon you how would you evaluate all other means , ask for a timeout then resume once you had done your risk assessment?
How do the countless scuffles/chases/fights that break out everywhere, all of the time not end in someone getting shot or killed then?
Almost every Friday and Saturday night there are countless altercations and threats thrown about all over bars/clubs in big cities etc but 99.99% wont end in someone being killed.
This is because even in the heat of the moment, people cant still act reasonably and with restraint so as not to use deadly force. Kyle is the exception here, not other people.
A scuffle is somewhat different to being chased down by a baying mob.
You've used this fight in a club false equivalency before and been called out on it, they aren't comparable.
They completely are.
People literally get killed and seriously injured having fights all of the time, fighting is incredibly dumb and if someone is attacking you then you should always consider the fact you can be knocked out or killed with a blow to the head. Do you know why they have referee's in MMA and boxing who quickly stop fights? It's because people literally die due to head injuries.