I remember when Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman and the whole country was going nuts about the stand your ground law. Of course, stand your ground ended up being irrelevant to the case. Whether you believe Zimmerman or not about Martin being on top of him and slamming his head on the pavement (I don't), the ability to retreat wasn't there anymore anyway. Still, to this day, people don't seem to realize that.
The thing is, both sides incorrectly explained the stand your ground. It was kinda comical hearing leftists and conservatives both saying that stand your ground means that you have the right to use deadly force if you feel threatened while using different inflections.
The reality is that stand your ground is the right law. All stand your ground does in addition to any other bar for establishing self-defense is that the person facing imminent death or serious bodily harm doesn't need to attempt to retreat before defending him or herself.
Still, forget about what we actually believe about the details that we'll never see for ourselves in the Zimmerman case, the debate that it sparked was about how we should view self-defense and a great many people either didn't and still don't understand stand your ground laws or people do legitimately want would-be victims to have to establish an attempt to retreat lest they face murder charges.
Here's the thing with the self-defense debates surrounding the Rittenhouse case. A lot of you clearly still don't know your ass from a hole in the ground in regard to the details of this case; but, what's worse, some of you do generally know the details and still want Rittenhouse to be found guilty and, if you're on that side, you're simply against self-defense as a concept.
Scrape all of the arguments that you have about how Kyle never should have been there, he shouldn't have gone armed, he's an idiot, he crossed state lines with a gun (false), he was in illegal possession of a firearm (false), he should have been carrying a pistol instead (he actually would have been breaking the law if he had been), he was asking for trouble and so-on out of your brain because those factors are irrelevant as to whether or not he's guilty of murder.
Wisconsin doesn't require a person who is being attacked to retreat; but, in all three instants in which Kyle shot somebody, he was attempting to retreat. This is so much of the farce of the trial - Kyle didn't even need to attempt to run away from Rosenbaum under Wisconsin law; but, he did try to run away.
The only argument that any of y'all have for Kyle being guilty of murder is provocation and, as Kyle's defense lawyer said, "Hocus pocus, the prosecution's evidence is out of focus."
Most of you aren't making the provocation argument and that's because there's no argument. It's such a bad argument that the prosecution changed its story in a last ditch effort to get a conviction.
So, if you're not reaching for the argument that Kyle provoked Rosenbaum (and, no, Kyle just being there with a gun doesn't count as provocation by any legal standard), then your argument is simply that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves. Even if you do retreat, if the person assaulting you is faster than you and stronger than you, get ready to be at his mercy. If a person assaults you and you can't run away, you better hope that you're better with your fists than he is because you can't use a gun. Really, after you retreat and the person assaulting you catches up, you have to wait until he pulls his gun before you go for yours.
That's the reality. You're either against self-defense or you're even worse than that, you only support self-defense for people on your political side.
