Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DDT" data-source="post: 408046" data-attributes="member: 1379">It's a tactic they'll use.&nbsp; I can't speak for US case law, but I am familiar with a somewhat similar case law outcome here:Two small groups of young men arranged a meeting at a local park.&nbsp; In this case they seemed to be wannabe gangsters, up to no good basically.&nbsp; A verbal argument broke out for whatever reason, and one dude grabbed a baseball bat from the trunk of his car, and started approaching the other group in a threatening manner with it.The other group actually retreated, but bat boy continued to advance on them.&nbsp; So one dude from the other group pulls out a concealed pistol, which he wasn't legally permitted to even possess, and shoots bat boy.&nbsp; Bat boy didn't die, but was seriously injured.This shooter was found not guilty of all charges.&nbsp; In the ruling, the judge determined that simply possessing a weapon (even illegally) had no bearing on this self-defense case.&nbsp; So basically, he didn't threaten anyone, he attempted to retreat, and he only used his pistol as the last line of defense against bat boy.Self-defense laws are all over the map, but at least in Canada if you are retreating from an active threat of grievous bodily harm or death (like Rittenhouse did), you can use what tools you have on person, even if it's a gun that's not legal.It's an old law the courts still follow here occasionally, known as the &quot;Defense of Necessity.&quot;&nbsp; You can break the law legally to save your own life, or the lives of others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DDT, post: 408046, member: 1379"] It's a tactic they'll use. I can't speak for US case law, but I am familiar with a somewhat similar case law outcome here: Two small groups of young men arranged a meeting at a local park. In this case they seemed to be wannabe gangsters, up to no good basically. A verbal argument broke out for whatever reason, and one dude grabbed a baseball bat from the trunk of his car, and started approaching the other group in a threatening manner with it. The other group actually retreated, but bat boy continued to advance on them. So one dude from the other group pulls out a concealed pistol, which he wasn't legally permitted to even possess, and shoots bat boy. Bat boy didn't die, but was seriously injured. This shooter was found not guilty of all charges. In the ruling, the judge determined that simply possessing a weapon (even illegally) had no bearing on this self-defense case. So basically, he didn't threaten anyone, he attempted to retreat, and he only used his pistol as the last line of defense against bat boy. Self-defense laws are all over the map, but at least in Canada if you are retreating from an active threat of grievous bodily harm or death (like Rittenhouse did), you can use what tools you have on person, even if it's a gun that's not legal. It's an old law the courts still follow here occasionally, known as the "Defense of Necessity." You can break the law legally to save your own life, or the lives of others. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification