Hot Take: It’s Not Self-Defense If You Bring A Weapon To A Place ‘Where You Know Violence Is Basically Guaranteed’

Twitchy

Most of the hot takes from the Kyle Rittenhouse trial have come from the prosecutor, but the media is helping things along. The prosecution’s job was to prove that Rittenhouse didn’t fire in self-defense, and The Intercept’s Ryan Grim has a suggestion that might help out in future riots. Consider this: You lose grounds for self-defense if you bring a weapon into a public place where violence is basically guaranteed — like a firey but mostly peaceful Black Lives Matter protest.

We don’t get it … where violence is basically guaranteed … against you? Against random people? Who was guaranteeing there’d be violence?

What people could do with anger about the Rittenhouse trial is advocate for a law that says that if you bring a weapon to a public place where you know violence is basically guaranteed, you lose any self defense grounds

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) November 10, 2021

"Violence is basically guaranteed…"

At mostly peaceful BLM protests?

— Yancy (@yancypart2) November 11, 2021

Attention: We are planning violence here, so you must leave your weapons at home while we burn and loot, or face the legal consequences!

— Rex Ratio (@vermontaigne) November 11, 2021

"public place where you know violence is basically guaranteed" So, what exactly are you saying about his attackers and the crowd?

— TheRealMirCat (@TRMirCat) November 11, 2021

Hot Take: It’s Not Self-Defense If You Bring A Weapon To A Place ‘Where You Know Violence Is Basically Guaranteed’

Twitchy

You might like:

Stories You May Like