I disagree strongly. It won't encourage vigilante justice. The George Zimmerman verdict didn't, and neither will the Rittenhouse.Originally Posted by Sanlmar
Unbelievable. Actually, totally believable. See my clowning of the judicial system above.
Vigilante justice will be a growing phenomenon, as well. Especially, rectifying court decisions. A large portion of the public is going to be behind this and support via social media. Heroes will be minted. Ritty has been described as such. Frankly, Druff’s sentiments are an example too.
In the mean time, sorry Druff.
The justification for using deadly force for self-defense when faced with an attack by a superior force is long established in the law--Kyle Rittenhouse was not the first person in history to have to resort to using a firearm in self defense. But The city of Kenosha, like just about any other city would, put Rittenhouse through the ordeal of trial to show the rest of us what the authorities will do to discourage using firearms even if circumstances justify. The prosecution knew they had a weak case, but they had to make Rittenhouse sweat and to show the public the nightmare experience that will follow a shooting.
Read these two books which cover the use of firearms for self-defense, and the consequences that follow.
"In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" & "Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense" by Massad Ayoob,
The Rittenhouse case followed the pattern outlined in those books. Rittenhouse was fortunate the jury followed the law rather allowed itself to be swayed by emotion.
Reply With Quote