you and i talk in PM sometimes, but just letting you know publicly im glad to see you post cause that means you're alive and safe. i dont post all the craziness like that domestically because im paying attention to the war in ukraine, but i seen some of the ambushes LEOs been going through and it sucks. so thats why im glad to see you posting.
anyways, if you were to break down rittenhouse and then this incident (i think you and i agree with rittenhouse, my issue has always been he had no business being there in the first place), could this be an example of why having different standards when it comes to the law across the country be a negative?
i understand local sentiment and culture, but there has to be some sort of nationalize standard we have in this country that clearly defines a line between defense and vigilantism. i'm all for protecting people, in and some cases even property. however, there's a John Wayne aspect of this that is getting out of control when it comes to how we allow individuals to carry and behave with firearms. and not even the big boy guys, just normal side arms like a 9.
I really do appreciate that. I'll PM you in a bit to catch up.
When it comes to National 'standards' I think there are Pros and Cons to it. Before that though, when it comes to self defense, pretty much every State's statutes are pretty close to each other to begin with, mostly centering around 'imminence of the threat' and assessing the proportionality of the response. Where you start to see meaningful divergence is in States that require to retreat if possible which often allows you to be judged in hindsight, not by what was done in the moment.
What I Also think most people don't realize is that when a person makes a claim of self defense, the burden is not on them to prove it was self defense. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't, or at least it was not lawful self defense. Does this mean anyone can simply make the claim? Yep. But it also means they are admitting that they used physical force/killed the other person. I agree it is more than disappointing to see someone not held accountable for clearly being reckless, but from what I've seen over the last years since paying attention to different cases nationwide, way too many people are being charged and taken to court when they were very clear cases of self defense. If its a clear case of self defense, DA's shouldn't be changing people and making them have to find an average of $200k for a competent defense. AND because its in front of a jury, there's always a chance they can still get convicted despite the facts. Yet DAs will do this for no other reason than personal political ambition.
I think the Pro to a National 'standard' is in the uniformity. But the uniformity is also the Con. What if that one overarching standard says that when a person breaks into your house at night, you have a legal obligation to jump out of your window instead of confronting the intruder? That every member of your family has to pull a George Costanza at the kids party and run away instead of confronting the intruder?
Or how about the flip side: what if that standard is lowered to mirror what we see in the classic western movies?
And what if WE decide the standard needs to change? Because its too restrictive? too permissive? We'd have to petition Washington D.C. for change, not your State Assembly. I think if you really look at the standards/laws in place, you'll find the problem is really not within that law, but rather the DA's decisions to bring a case or not. I think too often we see a decision we don't like, and we immediately try to indict the System, when we should be indicting the person who made the decision.
