David Henderson said "the law allows you to consider whether he should have backed down."

OK. but that doesn't change my initial question. If you are being chased by someone (i.e., backing down) and they go for your gun, is it reasonable to fear for your life?

The facts don't help you. We all agree that he should not have showed up there with a gun. But that was legal to do. Again, I ask you. If someone is going for your gun, would you fear for your life? That's the question that it came down to for the jury. It could have gone another way, but its crazy to be surprised it went the way it did.




>>
>>What it ultimately came down to is: If you have a gun, and
>>someone chases you and goes to grab your gun, is it
>reasonable
>>to fear that person is going to kill you?
>>
>
>If you listen to what David Henderson said at the very end
>
>"the law allows you to consider whether he should have backed
>down."
>
>>This case was never about should he have not gone to a
>chaotic
>>scene with a gun. Because the answer is he should not but
>it's
>>not against the law.
>>
>>
>
>I talked about the chaotic scene because Pimp described it as
>a guy caught up, which it's not.
>
>>Sharpton had it right in the clip you shared, its about the
>>law and changing the law.
>>
>
>Nah David Henderson said it's the system not the law. Changing
>the law is a band aide if it happens.
>
>>Its also worth going back 20 seconds in the clip you shared
>>because that very prosecutor said this was a difficult case
>to
>>win...which is my point.
>
>Yeah David Henderson also said it was winnable. He said the
>law was not the problem so much as the system is the problem.
>>
>>Also his fist metaphor doesn't hold up because fist fights
>and
>>gun fights are just so fundamentally different.
>>
>
>
>The first two who Rittenhouse killed did not have guns so it's
>not a gun fight.
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"