Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws

[GWH]

@Jezcoe

Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Do people have the right to defend against that?

So no one. Good talk.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

How did Huber know that Rittenhouse’s first act was one of self defense?

He didn’t care. He used a blunt club to attack without knowing any of the facts.

Bicep guy admitted he didn’t see anything. he thought R said he was with the cops, ran back toward the crowd then turned around to get him again at the mobs urging. Never claimed to have seen the initial shooting.

But he did know that there was a guy shooting people.

From his perspective in the moment what did Rittenhouse look like?

If Grosskreutz had shot an killed Rittenhouse, would he be able to claim self defense?

As the trial showed, shooting someone doesn’t mean the law was broken. Or automatically give you the legal right to murder them. Because self-defense is a thing.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

The only reason that it isn’t the case is because Rittenhouse lived.

Grosskreutz lived.

He got to tell his side of the story.

So did Grosskreutz

[Jezcoe]

@STODR

You are making a good case for why libs should not be allowed to own guns. You can’t grasp the simple difference between being attacked and attacking.

Rittenhouse was the one shooting people that night.

Only in hindsight we get to figure out what happened.

If he had gotten killed, the person who had killed him would be able to claim self defense and likely would have gotten off.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

But he did know that there was a guy shooting people.

No he didn’t. He testified he was told.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@STODR

You are making a good case for why libs should not be allowed to own guns. You can’t grasp the simple difference between being attacked and attacking.

Rittenhouse was the one shooting people that night.

Only in hindsight we get to figure out what happened.

If he had gotten killed, the person who had killed him would be able to claim self defense and likely would have gotten off.

So what?

[WuWei]

Colbert is a

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@WuWei

@Jezcoe

How did Huber know that Rittenhouse’s first act was one of self defense?

He didn’t care. He used a blunt club to attack without knowing any of the facts.

Bicep guy admitted he didn’t see anything. he thought R said he was with the cops, ran back toward the crowd then turned around to get him again at the mobs urging. Never claimed to have seen the initial shooting.

But he did know that there was a guy shooting people.

From his perspective in the moment what did Rittenhouse look like?

If Grosskreutz had shot an killed Rittenhouse, would he be able to claim self defense?

As the trial showed, shooting someone doesn’t mean the law was broken. Or automatically give you the legal right to murder them. Because self-defense is a thing.

I agree that self defense is a thing.

Everyone has a right to it. Not sure why Rittenhouse is the only one who was entitled to it that night.

[zantax]

Umm, because he wasn’t the agressor. This is getting tiresome.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Umm, because he wasn’t the agressor. This is getting tiresome.

But you see.

They didn’t know that.

He was an active shooter in that moment

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Umm, because he wasn’t the agressor. This is getting tiresome.

But you see.

They didn’t know that.

He was an active shooter in that moment

They didn’t know anything one way or the other, not a good idea to act on ignorance, you see the results. Would you kill someone if the crowd yells get them?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

They didn’t know anything one way or the other, not a good idea to act on ignorance, you see the results. Would you kill someone if the crowd yells get them?

In an active shooter situation?

Who knows what would happen?

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

They didn’t know anything one way or the other, not a good idea to act on ignorance, you see the results. Would you kill someone if the crowd yells get them?

In an active shooter situation?

Who knows what would happen?

So as long as you heard a gunshot, you will murder anyone with a gun the crowd tells you to even though it is legal to be armed? Are you sure that’s your answer?

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

Not sure why Rittenhouse is the only one who was entitled to it that night.

He was the only defender.

[DougBH]

If they didn’t know, perhaps they shouldn’t assume in a way to make it ok for them to attack him.
And, while he might have tried it, I’m not so sure Huber would have been successful in arguing self defense since he was the one chasing Rittenhouse down. In fact, he would have been in about the same situation as the three who chased the jogger down, in Georgia.

[DougBH]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

Umm, because he wasn’t the agressor. This is getting tiresome.

But you see.

They didn’t know that.

He was an active shooter in that moment

We didn’t know that. We thought he had been stealing from that house so we….

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

In an active shooter situation?

Who knows what would happen?

A person who knew what he was doing.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

So as long as you heard a gunshot, you will murder anyone with a gun the crowd tells you to even though it is legal to be armed? Are you sure that’s your answer?

If someone feels threatened they have the right to self defense

Rittenhouse had shot two people and was an active shooter.

Is he the only one with the right to self defense in that moment?

[mot1man]

It’s almost as if there isn’t plenty of video around for EVERYONE to see what went down that night.

[WuWei]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

So as long as you heard a gunshot, you will murder anyone with a gun the crowd tells you to even though it is legal to be armed? Are you sure that’s your answer?

If someone feels threatened they have the right to self defense

Rittenhouse had shot two people and was an active shooter.

Is he the only one with the right to self defense in that moment?

He was the only non-aggressor, so yes.