I strongly agree that Kyle showed outstanding judgement regarding his use of force. He was under severe distress and showed great restraint in responding to the deadly force used against him.Flightmare wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:01 pmHad Kyle opened fire indiscriminately upon the crowd, things would likely be very different for him.
As it stands, he stopped 3 active threats and removed himself from the situation. I think this is a good example for all of us. Just my opinion.
I am not a lawyer, but as I understand the law regarding rioting:
-legal dictionaryPersons Liable
Principal rioters are those who are present and actively participate in the riot. All persons present who are not actually assisting in the suppression of the riot can be regarded as participants when their presence is intentional and tends to encourage the rioters.
...
Defenses
There is never any justification for a riot. The only defense that can be claimed is that an element of the offense is absent. Participation is an essential element. Establishing that an individual's presence at the scene of a riot was accidental can remove any presumption of guilt.
There appears to be quite a bit of legal liability for rioters. Unless you can show you were present to suppress the rioting or were accidentally there... those supporting the riot appear to share the guilt along with those firebombing and assaulting with weapons.