“Five elements of self-defense”?

Rittenhouse Derangement Syndrome is strong in Harvard “Law” professor Ronald Sullivan. This effing idiot attempted to analyze the Rittenhouse verdict to show why it was wrong. If this was a law class at Harvard…


First, the use of force must be proportionate to the force employed by the aggressor. If the aggressor lightly punches the victim in the arm, for example, the victim cannot use deadly force in response. It’s not proportional.


Full stop. You need read no more. If this was a class lecture, I would stand up, walk out, and go to the registrar to unenroll from Sullivan’s course and demand a full refund of all fees. Who wants to spend hard earned money on a class taught by a liar and/or ignoramus?

Defensive force does not have to be proportionate to the aggressive force. It has to be proportionate to the threat. To the reasonably perceived threat.

If you are a sixtyish, frail woman, and some 250 pound, muscle-bound thug sucker punches you in the head, you are not limited to punching back with your tiny fist (assuming you’re still conscious to do so). You can use whatever force you reasonably think necessary to stop a potentially lethal attack. I’m reminded of this:


“Gun control is the idea that it‘s better to see a woman dead in an alley, strangled
with her own pantyhose, than to see her with a gun in her hand.”—T.D. Melrose”


I suppose “Professor” Sullivan would believe the rape victim could only fight back by trying to cornhole her rapist with a dildo. If I were the cynical type I might wonder — what with his odd take on defensive force — what hobbies Sullivan indulges in during his spare time…

Oh. Wait. I am pretty damned cynical.

Hmm… Let’s try applying Sullivan’s — sadly, not so unique — take to another right: speech.

Imagine someone had been arrested for protesting at the Capitol. You’re discussing arguing about it with Joe S. Commie.

Commie states that the Supreme Court has ruled that people have no right to criticize government.

Knowing that Joe Commie is lying, you attempt to cite little facts, noting that the US Constitution recognizes “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

And all of Commie Joe’s collective friends jump your shit for using a disproportionate argument: truth. You’re only allowed to counter Joe’s weak, easily disproved lie with your own made up bullshit, that they can disprove. Facts aren’t fair.

Whoa. Kinda like a Harvard law class.

Published by

Bear

2A advocate, writer, firearms policy & law analyst, general observer of pre-apocalyptic American life.

One thought on ““Five elements of self-defense”?”

  1. It never ceases to amaze me how many of these clowns that have never been in a confrontation beyond a spousal disagreement, yet
    can pontificate on the proper (and proportionate) use of defensive force.

    If you’ve never been in a life-or-death fight, just STFU. There are no rules, and there are no gentlemen … just survivors and corpses.

    I would suggest that folks who have an interest read up on Massad
    Ayoob.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *