Getting back to the topic of Colberts playing to his dullard base in saying we need to change self defense laws.
Can someone explain how changing such law will discourage violent miscreants from attacking otherwise innocent people?
Or, would this just encourage these misfits to act out their rage knowing their victims may be more hesitant to act in self defense.
I’m of the latter belief, is there anyone of the former belief?
No. Apparently you are completely ignorant of the facts in that case.
Neither the Zimmerman, nor the Rittenhouse incidents bear any resemblance to the “three rednecks” incident. You should just walk away.
No … according to the physical evidence collected by the police investigators.
You seem to have missed this part:
"A Texas man is facing a first degree murder charge … :
We don’t convict people on “could have been.”
No. It goes well beyond fear. The skate board guy hit him in the head with the edge of the board. His intent to cause physical harm was well established at that point.
They established that they were not afraid for their lives when they pursued the suspected “active shooter” instead of speaking cover. From where they were on the street, they could clearly see that he was running with his arms up (not holding the gun in a threatening manner) directly at the police line.
Why do you think that following the shooting (which they witnessed) that the police ignored Rittenhouse and ran past him toward the protesters?
No you’re not. You’re just making ■■■■ up as you go along.
Defending your life is not taking the law into one’s hands.
So people outside their homes should just passively allow someone to kill them? 
Okay, it’s not like I am saying we shouldn’t because I predict an increase in violence.
But again, we have CC in only 15 states, all of whom already have developed gun cultures of responsibility. What happens when we roll it out to the remaining 35?
Also, that study is from 2005. The America of today is not the same. I would argue that the anger and partisanship of today encourages a more violent country.
So yes, you have a study. I doubt if it is still applicable.
All that proves is that he was in a fight. That fact is not in dispute. What we don’t know, what we cannot know, aside from Z’ potentially biased testimony, is what he did to initiate the fight, and why it escalated to shooting.
I say Z initiated a confrontation, started to get his ass beat, and therefore killed T.
Cops are under no legal obligation to protect either you or your property. Cops standing by while rioters loot and burn if almost a meme over the last couple of years. If you aren’t fully prepared to protect you and yours, you may as well just hand it over to whomever wants it.
Self-defense is legal.
That is NOT what I said.
YOU said:
And I pointed out that by this logic, gang shootings should be reducing, as the shooters atrit themselves out. But this isn’t happening. There is no reason to anticipate a similar phenomenon with CC.
Yes, actually. But not when they are the aggressor. For example, you can’t hit someone in the head with a skateboard and then claim self-defense.
Nope. That’s not what a active shooter is.
Was anyone other than those actually attacking him get shot?
Surely he had plenty of “targets” to shoot. Yet he only shot those who attacked him, not much of an “active shooter”.
He had plenty of opportunity to do just that, yet he didn’t. Pretty much shoots the “active shooter” narrative full of holes.
Apparently so, there it is in full view.
