Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-03-2021, 06:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill, I have a question for you that I didn't want lost in the sauce.  You raised the assertion that Rittenhouse was responsible for the verbal altercation with Rosenbaum that led to Rosenbaum chasing and attacking him.  Do you think that a verbal altercation is sufficient provocation to physically attack someone?  If so, could you provide us with examples of words or statements that would justify physically assaulting someone?

In principle, I don’t think verbal provocations of the smack/ad hominem type justify physical assault, but I can think of circumstances which might make such assault “understandable” to a jury—e.g., if someone tells a bereaved father “I’m glad your son was killed in A-stan. He was gay,” followed by obscene gestures in the faces of that father’s grieving wife and daughter.

But this is a moot question here, since I am not defending Rosenbaum’s “right” to chase people down and wrest guns from them.
 
My issue has always been with how the law is set up to protect armed civilians flouting guns, by reducing all relevant legal determination to the question of whether such people “feel” threatened when confronted. Here the law protects a “right” and a “freedom” to the detriment of public
 
At present, it is not inconceivable that a shooter could kill people trying to disarm him in the interest of public safety—and get off on “self defense” if his lawyers could convince a jury that a “reasonable person” would also feel threatened in the same situation, and he was “retreating” after the previous kill, etc.