Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Should Rittenhouse have been there. › Reply To: Should Rittenhouse have been there.
NoMesorah- You are certainly correct that if the goal was survival, staying home was the best bet, and concealed carry was the 2nd best option. However, the point was to protect and clean up businesses, while providing a back up plan for survival if that became necessary, which it did.
I don’t really understand what you mean by “You have to commit to use the gun or call it off”
running away with a gun is absolutely a valid tactic. people spend a lot of time practicing tactical retreats/withdrawals, leapfrogging when backup is available, etc.
You don’t always shoot to kill, you shoot to stop the threat- for the first two, they stopped when they died. the third guy stopped after he was shot in the arm. Killing him at that point would be murder, because there is no reason to keep shooting if he’s no longer a threat.
What would be accomplished by dropping the gun or holding it by the muzzle? I highly doubt that people would have stopped chasing him, as mobs are not known for their rational decision-making abilities. There is no rule that you have to kill anyone you are forced to shoot, and there is no rule governing the speed at which you retreat in a fight (other than “as fast as is prudent”). he wasn’t pointing the rifle over his shoulder and cranking off rounds, he was running away, and then shot when he was knocked to the ground from behind and beaten. The prudent decision was to get away ASAP from the murderous mob that just tried to kill him 3 times.
“One can try to calmly back away with a drawn gun. But do not make a break for it.”
Why not? wouldn’t you want to get away from the people who tried to take your gun and then kill you with theirs as fast as possible? what would be the reason to go slow?