discovolante wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:42 pm
snoozeofreason wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 26, 2021 7:18 pm
discovolante wrote: ↑
Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:15 am
Whether or not Kyle Rittenhouse would have been acquitted here I dunno.
I suppose it might be easier, in the UK, to argue that someone who left home with a gun over their shoulder had an intention to use it. Over here, it's not really something that you would take with you just on the off-chance that it might come in handy, but I get the impression that some USians will pick up a gun with as little thought as I would give to stuffing my phone in my pocket when I walk out the door.
True although I was thinking of it more as an 'all other things being equal' situation re the actual self defence defence.
I suppose that, in order to get to an 'all other things being equal' situation you would need to do a thought experiment where you imagine that the UK changed its laws and culture so as to normalise the carrying of weapons, but kept its existing definition of self-defence. In such a situation it's hard to see how someone in Rittenhouse's situation could be convicted of an offence. Guidance on self-defence places emphasis on the words of Lord Morris
"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
It also makes clear that there is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves.
So if Rittenhouse "honestly and instinctively" thought that his weapon might be taken from him and used against him, or that the people pursuing him might have weapons of their own that they could use on him, it would be lawful to act pre-emptively to prevent that happening - even if, in the cold light of day, the risk wasn't as great as he had perceived. It would be up to the prosecution to prove that Rittenhouse's belief was not honest and instinctive, and they would be unable to make the argument that someone carrying a gun had criminal intentions because they had already committed a criminal act by arming themselves. Luckily we in the UK do not live in the parallel world of my thought experiment but, if we did, it's hard to see how a conviction could be obtained.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?