Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws

[Tguns]

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?

[Samm]

@Scratch

Apparently Zimmerman and Martin did.

No. Apparently you are completely ignorant of the facts in that case.

[Samm]

@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…

Neither the Zimmerman, nor the Rittenhouse incidents bear any resemblance to the “three rednecks” incident. You should just walk away.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

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

No … according to the physical evidence collected by the police investigators.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@zantax

Not familiar with that one.

Texan 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.”

You seem to have missed this part:

"A Texas man is facing a first degree murder charge … :

[Samm]

@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.

We don’t convict people on “could have been.”

[Samm]

@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.

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.

[Samm]

@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.

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?

[Samm]

@tnt

I’m not offended. Having a discussion about self defense laws.

No you’re not. You’re just making ■■■■ up as you go along.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@WuWei

What do you disagree with?

People taking law into their own hands…

Defending your life is not taking the law into one’s hands.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@SneakySFDude

I have no problem with people defending their home or their own business’s . But just going downtown to play hero with a weapon is ridiculous and kind of pathetic really.

So people outside their homes should just passively allow someone to kill them?

[Supreme_War_Pig]

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.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

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

No … according to the physical evidence collected by the police investigators.

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.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@PAmoderate37

Why does it have to be their own business?

Because they are not cops…thats why.

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.

[Samm]

@Scratch

@WuWei

What should happen to people who attack cops who try to stop them?

What ever the legal remedy is…

Self-defense is legal.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Tguns

it’s not like gangbangers rely on constitutional or ANY legal form of carry to wander the streets strapped.

That is NOT what I said.

YOU said:

@Tguns

likely more people armed, possibly more confrontations. But eventually as stupid takes it’s toll, confrontational people will weed themselves out.

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.

[Samm]

@tnt

@WuWei

If you are going to say you are against people defending themselves from rioters and looters; maybe.

Do looters and rioters have a right to defend themselves from an active shooter?

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.

[Samm]

@Scratch

Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!” "

Kinda sounds like they thought Rittenhouse was an active shooter doesn’t it?

Nope. That’s not what a active shooter is.

[Striker840]

@Scratch

@Tguns

attack the kid with a riffle running away

And that brings us back to the second and third victims. How were they to know he wasn’t an active shooter…Did they not have a right to defend themselves?

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.

[Striker840]

@WuWei

@Scratch

And that brings us back to the second and third victims. How were they to know he wasn’t an active shooter…Did they not have a right to defend themselves?

Is it possible for this level of cognitive dullness to exist in real life?

Apparently so, there it is in full view.