Comments by "Zer0" (@ForeverZer0) on "'The Five' react to Kyle Rittenhouse testimony" video.

I absolutely hate the "he shouldn't have been there" excuse. It is so lazy, and complete nonsense. Neither should any of the people who were shot, so what is their point? It is a completely irrelevant point, and has absolutely no effect on determining self-defense. He shouldn't have been there, so he should have just allowed himself to be killed? That is the alternative that someone is really saying when they say "he shouldn't have been there", which is absolutely absurd, disgusting, evil, and categorical irrelevant legally.
8
@JKP8300 Since Kyle "should not have been there", he forfeited his right to self-defense and should have died? That is what you are saying. That is not hyperbole, that is literally and legally the argument you are making.
2
@JKP8300 So if a minor walks into a bar that they are "not supposed to be at", they are free to be assaulted and killed? This is your logical conclusion. Also your personal definition of "reasonable" is irrelevant, the law is pretty clear about it, and it not even contested by any prosecutor. Sorry, I think I will stick with the commonsense legal definition over what you think it is. Please read the Wisconsin statute on self-defense, it is pretty clear and unambiguous. 939.48 if that will help you.
1
@JKP8300 I really don't know how much more simplistic it could be stated. "Shouldn't have been there" is completely irrelevant, and could be said for every single person involved, but only if you had any interest in logical consistency, which it is pretty apparent that you do not, hence these circular arguments where we are back at the beginning again.
1