Di,
This is an issue weighing on my mind and my better intuitive element has you on my radar as purveyor of truth in that manner re; the Rittenhouse verdict.
Do you feel mens rea was/wasn't inadequately imposed.
My own suffering of that is as follows...
Some critics on Rittenhouse side say the shootings are justified based on the victims off of Rittenhouse's artillery were criminals and he was acting in self defense.
My argument is as follows...
I feel in life that we do not impose ourselves as equals but it is incumbent upon the individual opposite me. That is not to be confused with equal moral consideration. I point to the incumbent. If I feel I am being seen or even felt (yes felt) as an equal the incumbency is merited.
Therefore, my distinction as to whether or not a criminal is my equal is justified. It is in Rittenhouse's argument that self defense was justified which in my view it isn't. Simply because Rittenhouse did not have the same equal value placed on a subject he killed. It could have been you, me as targets.
In your estimation is Rittenhouse a murderer or a victim of circumstance as he was acquitted on.
To most of the world, owning a gun isn’t freedom. Not needing a gun is freedom.
No comments:
Post a Comment