11-03-2021, 07:14 PM
(11-03-2021, 07:04 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Not Dill, but I'll take a shot in the dark here.
As I'm told, words without means are not sufficient to start any sort of physical altercation. HOWEVER, one would think (and this is conjecture, not what I believe happened or anything; simply playing Devil's advocate) that words with means would be sufficient. I.e: an openly armed individual threatening my life would definitely warrant a response from me. May not hold up in a court of law without sufficient evidence (such as here, though they may have said evidence and it hasn't been made public), but I feel like it'd be justified.
I wish this was Reddit so I could give you an award. You are absolutely correct, if Rittenhouse threatened Rosenbaum with harm while open carrying that could absolutely cause Rosenbaum to fear for his life and justify a physical response. However, that all flies out the window when the person then runs away from you as fast as you can and you pursue them. You're no longer defending yourself when you pursue a fleeing person, you've now become the aggressor, you're initiating whatever follows. Even the poorly understood stand your ground laws do not allow for you to pursue a fleeing person and then physically attack them because you initially felt threatened by them. Remember, no duty to retreat is vastly different than you can pursue a fleeing person and still claim to be the one threatened.
BTW, law enforcement is an exception to this, they have a legal duty to arrest anyone committing a misdemeanor, and certainly a felony, in their presence. So their pursuing a fleeing person under those circumstances is absolutely legal, and required.
