11-20-2021, 06:46 PM
(11-20-2021, 06:17 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I did not claim that possession of the weapon was an act of aggression. My statement was "bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something". That is aggressive.
What is "ordering"? I understand what the word means but I have a hard time correlating the comparison to the Rittenhouse case. He extinguished a fire. There is no evidence of him "ordering" anyone to do anything. You've introduced pure speculation into a case in which a large number of facts are known. If you're introducing this as a possibility for future such encounters I still have to question the logic. There's a huge difference between saying, "Don't burn down that building" and "Stop what you're doing or there will be consequences". Both are "orders" and a reasonable person would have different reactions to the two, the person stating them being armed or not.
Quote:We accept it as part of law enforcement, but not as part of normal society. Claiming he "asked" people not to continue setting the dumpster afire colors the situation a certain way, but does not seem consistent with the situation. Perhaps it did occur that way. You and I were not there. It would not have made a difference in the case since Wisconsin statutes do not preclude the original aggressor from claiming self-defense anyway.
It wouldn't make a difference either way, unless Rittenhouse used threatening language or brandished his weapon. Shouting "Don't set the gas station on fire" while carrying a weapon could not, on its own, be reasonably perceived as a threat because any reasonable person would make the same statement. Reasonable people are not in favor of setting a gas station on fire.
Quote:As I said before, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off drawing guns and shooting him during the confrontation at the dumpster fire. Two of them would still be alive and all three would be walking free after claiming self defense. I don't necessarily like that. But it does seem to be the way our society wants to go. Welcome to the wild West, or at least the idealized version of it.
Sorry, but no, I don't see it. You're introducing a "what if" and then treating it as gospel. Within your scenario are a myriad of possible "orders" with varying degrees of reasonableness. Tone, words used, the context of the "order" itself would all be hugely relevant factors. You've essentially introduced a made up scenario to a case with a very clear set of facts and then extrapolated that scenario to future occurrences. It's a sloppy point at best, IMO and it isn't relevant based on known facts.
