Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Jezcoe

@STODR

Like I said you better be 100% correct.

But you don’t have to be.

You just have to be the one who lives.

And that is the point.

I think the better example would be Zimmerman and Martin.

Yep. Only one guy got the right to stand their ground that night.

The one who lived.

It’s about who was the attacker again. Martin had gotten away from the scary neighborhood watchman, then he returned.

[zantax]

@Scratch

@gooddad409

I think some are truly disturbed about that.

No…some are truly disturbed by people trying to play cop and taking the law into their own hands… Zimmerman, Rittenhouse and those 3 rednecks are perfect examples…

We will defend our neighborhoods from rioters, don’t like it, don’t come here and act like an idiot. Only Democrat mayors allow that nonsense.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

According to Z. Which again, is the point: the survivor tells the tale, and is incentivized to lie.

[zantax]

@Supreme_War_Pig

According to Z. Which again, is the point: the survivor tells the tale, and is incentivized to lie.

Live on tape confirming he had lost him. Martin had ample time to get home had that been his goal.

[Scratch]

@zantax

We will defend our neighborhoods from rioters, don’t like it, don’t come here and act like an idiot.

Martin and Arbury were rioters? Or how about that ■■■■■■■ in texas who shot the guy sitting in the car in front of his house?

[zantax]

Not familiar with that one.

[Scratch]

@zantax

Not familiar with that one.

Texas homeowner fatally shoots man who had pulled into his driveway

“He got a handgun and ran outside, according to the affidavit. According to the account he gave the police, the car had its headlights on at that point and began rapidly backing out of the driveway; he chased after it, “struck the front driver’s-side door window twice with his handgun” and then fired the gun, striking the driver.”

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@zantax

@Supreme_War_Pig

According to Z. Which again, is the point: the survivor tells the tale, and is incentivized to lie.

Live on tape confirming he had lost him. Martin had ample time to get home had that been his goal.

Unless Z intercepted him and forced a confrontation. The point is, we will never know because Martin is dead, and we only have Z’s account, who again is strongly incentivized to lie.

But the point here is not to relitigate that whole thing. The point is that we may want to take a look at self defense laws, given that when somebody is killed, we often have only one side of the story.

[zantax]

Umm, no, there was at least one witness if I recall, who heard him pleading for his life. No desire to rehash that case, the jurors have spoken.

[tnt]

@WuWei

He was running away.

He was repositioning himself. His weapon is effective at longer ranges. The guy with the skateboard’s weapon was effective at close range. Rittenhouse was trying to reposition himself to make his opponents weapon less effective so he could use his weapon on him.

And no, I don’t think that’s the case. But it could have been.

[zantax]

But it wasn’t, you don’t get to kill people for what you are afraid they might do.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

He was running away.

He was repositioning himself. His weapon is effective at longer ranges. The guy with the skateboard’s weapon was effective at close range. Rittenhouse was trying to reposition himself to make his opponents weapon less effective so he could use his weapon on him.

And no, I don’t think that’s the case. But it could have been.

Struggling so bad.

What about this really offends you?

[tnt]

Of course you do.
Rittenhouse was afraid the guy with the skate board was going to severely hurt or kill him so he got to kill him.

[tnt]

I’m pointing out that some one with a rifle running anywhere doesn’t mean he’s not going to shoot someone.

If you have a gun and the other guy has a skateboard you would maximize your xhanxes of killing them before they killed you by positioning yourself outside of the range of their skateboard before using your weapon with its longer range.

[WuWei]

@tnt

I’m pointing out that some one with a rifle running anywhere doesn’t mean he’s not going to shoot someone.

If you have a gun and the other guy has a skateboard you would maximize your xhanxes of killing them before they killed you by positioning yourself outside of the range of their skateboard before using your weapon with its longer range.

Sure. What really offends you about this?

[tnt]

Offend?

Just wondering what an active shooter would look like and wondering why the dead people don’t get to claim they were afraid for their lives and the lives of others and were trying to neutralize an active shooter

Except of course for the fact that they are dead.

[Scratch]

@zantax

But it wasn’t, you don’t get to kill people for what you are afraid they might do.

So the “He was in fear of his life” defense is no longer acceptable?

[WuWei]

@tnt

Offend?

Just wondering what an active shooter would look like and wondering why the dead people don’t get to claim they were afraid for their lives and the lives of others and were trying to neutralize an active shooter

Except of course for the fact that they are dead.

Sure. The one who lived tried it.

What about this really offends you?

[WuWei]

@Scratch

@zantax

But it wasn’t, you don’t get to kill people for what you are afraid they might do.

So the “He was in fear of his life” defense is no longer acceptable?

Sure. What about this really offends you?

[PAmoderate37]

@WuWei

Sure. What really offends you about this?

It seems to me there are some people who think Rittenhouse should be judged guilty for simply being there with a gun. The rest is meaningless to them.