|
|
|
|
|
|
by fncypants
2114 days ago
|
|
|
This is not how to look at this if you want to find a way to solve our society’s ills. The gunman was the instigator because he travelled to riots and not to protect anyone he knows or his own property. He brought an assault rifle and walked the streets. Why would anyone not looking for trouble do that? That’s vigilantism. The police are there to deal with it. Not untrained teenagers. Remember, the second amendment is because we want a “well regulated” militia not randos with guns. When you do what this person did, you make it inevitable that gun violence will be the result. That’s why self defense laws do not protect you if you unnecessarily created the situation that led to you having to defend yourself. The problem with police violence is an extension of this. Police training is directed at control and overwhelming force. Even when there is an alternative path to de-escalate. When you are being attacked, even if you just committed a crime and the attacker is a police officer, your instinct is to fight back. The result is continued escalation until someone is dead. |
|
|
Reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu_Shoulan_v._Peng_Yu - same ethic of "if it wasn't his property, he must have been looking for trouble"; If that's the case every out-of-town protest/rioter is also an instigator.
Truth is, we don't know what preceded Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse, and until we do, we don't know who threw the first punch.
> The police are there to deal with it
last I heard the US police have no duty to protect. Until this is changed, people will be in no hurry to surrender the right to bear arms.