“If he didn’t break the law, we should change the law.”
— @StephenAtHome hits at Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal after killing 2 protesters and injuring 1 during Black Lives Matter demonstration. pic.twitter.com/gMPUQLmmI6
— The Recount (@therecount) November 23, 2021
The law says that a person can use force, including lethal force, to prevent imminent grave bodily harm or death.
In the Rittenhouse case, that grave bodily harm came from a guy who weighed close to twice what Kyle did, with a history of violence, trying to take his gun, another man hitting hil with a skateboard in the head, and a third pulling a pistol on him.
They will try and change the law to make sure that a man like Kyle cannot defend himself against a Leftist mob.
They want to be sure the next time Antifa rampages through a community, Antifa can beat people with impunity and those who defend themselves against the mob go to prison.
It’s not enough to prevent that.
We need to advance.
I keep saying, the mob should be treated as a collective.
Kyle should not have to prove those three individuals were a threat to him.
He should only have to prove the mob was a threat.
Yes, I absolutely and unequivocally believe that when a mob attacks a person, indiscriminately firing into the mob should be legal and is morally justified.
The defender should not have to be purposeful in selecting specific targets in the mob who pose a threat, the mob as an entity is the threat and all members of the mob are equally culpable and therefore are equally valid targets.
Consider this.
How do you pick the man with the bike lock out of the crowd as a target?
You can’t and under current law, all the people he was hiding behind are not legitimate targets.
I want to change that.
Every person in the crowd who was a shield for bike lock man should be a legal target.
It should be perfectly legal to empty the mag into that mob and shoot bike lock man and his human cover.
If you really want to stop Antifa, do that.
“I was attacked by a person in the black bloc so I shot everyone in black bloc facing me” should be a perfect defense.
And because I’m a man of principle, I’ll make it explicit, if a bunch of Klansmen showed up at a black man’s house, again, mob rules, every person in a white robe could get shot as a member of the mob.
I propose the “Kill The Whole Mob in Self Defense Act.”
Bunch of circus seals who applaud on demand.
The good news: The guy that used that bike lock was identified. He was arrested and charged for assault with a deadly weapon. (Or it’s equivalent). He went to court. He was found guilty.
The bad news: He was fined $1 and released.
If I remember correctly, he was a professor at one of the state universities.
If you are the victim, you then sue him into the poor house.
You’re right. We need to defend our right to self-defense. Re; the mob: How would you differentiate the “mob” from an innocent bystander or someone trying to help? Would someone be able to shoot someone like Kyle because he was there? Seems like you’d have to prove that they did something wrong as an individual.
An innocent bystander wouldn’t be standing there being an ass?
The mob is providing cover; they’re as guilty as the attacker.
“Don’t throw rocks at guys with guns.”
“Corrolary: Don’t stand next to guys who throw rocks at guys with guns.”
Agreed, JKb…these assholes are emboldened because there are no negative repercussions for their behavior. And as a group they are smart, so far, they have been pushing the limits of what they can get away with. If they knew they could be shot for throwing a molotov cocktail or swinging that bike lock, maybe they would reconsider.
I struggle with normal people getting involved in these riots. These turds shouldn’t be allowed to get away with their behavior, and if the government abdicates their responsibility to protect property, people should stand up. On the other hand, there can be serious consequences (as we have seen), and the deck is not stacked in our favor. I would advocate staying out of it.
I will maintain that residential areas, suburbs etc, is the line in the sand. If elected politicians and the police let antifa and the like amongst people’s homes, that’s it. Defending your family and home, on home turf, there should be no question over the use of force.
Let’s make sure Colbert’s incitement opens himself to at least civil suits.
And there was recently a mob that gathered at a black man’s house, going so far as to shoot into his house at random. He’s a police officer in, I believe, Milwaukee, and had the poor luck to be involved in multiple justified shootings. So Antifa put together a lynch mob and besieged the cop’s house.
Remember: under the Doctrine of Oppressive Whiteness, feeling threatened by someone’s skin color is sufficient justification for drastic action. Just make sure that you identify as a Person Of Color, and that the threats are White Supremacists (regardless of their genetics or moral philosophy).
Works for me.
Rittenhouse showed remarkable restraint. That said, Had he done originally what he ended up doing – blasting those threatening him, he could’ve simply walked back to safety.
The mob’s “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” about this verdict and “REEEEEEEEEEEEE” about self defense reminds me of this book written by this one Russian dude years and years ago:
“ In the Criminal Code of 1926 there was a most stupid Article 139 – “on the limits of necessary self-defense” —according to which you had the right to unsheath your knife only after the criminal’s knife was hovering over you. And you could stab him only after he had stabbed you. And otherwise you would be the one put on trial. (And there was no article in our legislation saying that the greater criminal was the one who attacked someone weaker than himself.) This fear of exceeding the measure of necessary self-defense lead to total spinelessness as a national characteristic. A hoodlum once began to beat up the Red Army man Aleksandr Zakharov outside a club. Zakharov took out a folding penknife and killed the hoodlum. And for this he got….ten years for plain murder! “And what was I supposed to do?” he asked, astonished. Prosecutor Artsishevsky replied: “You should have fled!” So tell me, who creates hoodlums?”
History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.
Idk man, pretty soon every gathering is a mob someone fires indescriminately into because they were threatened.
An excellent example is any armed 2A protest. Im sure i dont need to spell out the ways someone can easily find a “threat” in that justifies what you are saying. Hell the gov would probably be the happiest about such a change of law.
J. Kb’s point is less about feeling threatened by a mob versus neutralizing the human shield aspect of a mob. You want to let an antifa aggressor use your body as a shield against reprisal, cool beans. Your antifa body is going to absorb all the reprisal intended for the guy behind you until you either fall over & expose the aggressor behind you, or until the holes in your antifa body are large enough that your intended victim can fire through you.
It’s about loosening the mindset & legal aspects of target discrimination. Being able to hold the entire mob to account for the actions of the individual members of the mob. You’re all in black bloc? Someone in black bloc attacks someone else? Well, since you have consciously chosen to make it nearly impossible for us to perform proper target ID & fire discriminately, we now get to fire indiscriminately at everyone in black bloc because you are all in commission of the same crime as a group. Think RICO but for violent communists, & bullets instead of jurors.
I have no problem with this. For one, our side doesn’t carry out violent terrorist attacks while being guarded against reprisal by the local cops while the propagandists provide cover for us. Two, we don’t dress in black bloc, because (three) we ain’t commies.
Hmmm… rioting — at least in Ohio — is a felony. So if someone dies as a result of a riot, isn’t it proper to use the felony murder rule and charge all the rioters with murder?
@Porkypine
Scenario one, you are standing there peacefully protesting doing nothing wrong. You even have a permit and are in a gov sanction 1A zone. I commit a felony like throwing a molatov cocktail at the police standing around the protest. They can now call it a riot. I hide behind you. Too bad you are going to get shot indiscriminately now, cost of doing business I guess.
Scenario two, you are standing there peacefully protesting doing nothing wrong. You even have a permit and are in a gov sanction 1A zone. A minor scuffle with police during an arrest of a rowdy individual from parties not affiliated with your group makes police say they are tired of this shit. The bullhorn declares a riot because of this scuffle and demands you disperse. No one is moving very quickly and suddenly someone from police lines shouts “GUN!” You all get to get shot indiscriminately now because you are participating in a violent armed riot because it was declared as such.
I’m sorry if you are too myopic to see how this will be used against you once you are no longer a useful tool… kind of like how antifa will be disposed of when they are no longer useful.
“ I propose the “Kill The Whole Mob in Self Defense Act.””
AMEN!!!
The Mob, is the Bigger Threat.
Colbert left the last part unspoken: “If he didn’t break the law, we should change the law … and then charge him with a crime for behavior that wasn’t a crime when he did it.”
It’s not enough that it’s a crime going forward. They’ll want to apply it retroactively (which is patently unconstitutional, but then, so are impugning his 5th Amendment rights and withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, but they did those).
Regarding firing into a mob: Indiscriminate fire is not a good idea and I don’t think this will end well.
That said, how about we change the “reckless endangerment” law so that it doesn’t apply if a rioting mob is the backstop of a defensive shooting of a particular attacker.
You’d still have to reasonably attempt to target the person attacking you, but if the mob is providing cover you can’t be charged for hitting them.
This should prevent the case Matt describes above, where “feeling threatened” justifies a mass killing. Instead, I propose two conditions you’d have to meet:
1. Someone is actually forcibly attacking; and
2. The crowd is substantially contributing to your reasonable fear.
Thus, in the case of a forcible attack amidst a violent, unruly crowd, you’d still have to reasonably attempt to target your attacker, but if you miss and the crowd acts as your backstop, you’re fine. If you face a forcible attack amidst an orderly, peaceable crowd (i.e. you’re dealing with one violent person amidst a crowd of non-violent people), you’d want to hit your attacker only. An unruly crowd, in and of itself, cannot be indiscriminately fired into.
And (naturally) you cannot fire into a peaceable crowd from which nobody is attacking you. Peaceable 2A rallies should be safe from hoplophobic anti-gun people who “defend themselves” because they “feel threatened”.
Just my $0.02, worth every penny you’re paying for it. 😉
Also Colbert: “I’m not a legal analyst, so I can’t tell you if he broke the law.”
Ummm…. I’m not a legal analyst, but I’m pretty sure I can answer that one. He was found NOT GUILTY by a jury of twelve citizens, after they reviewed all the available evidence.
Q.E.D.
Schmuck.