Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(10-28-2021, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I'm not reading this entire thread. Rittenhouse had a firearm illegally, but the shooting was, IMHO, justified. He was being chased, a round was fired by someone in the chase, and that is when he turned to find someone right on top of him. I would likely have reacted the same way. Guy would've had a 9mm bullet go through him instead of a 5.56, but the result is the same.

Now, the judge saying the term "victim" is prohibited can be understandable given the loaded connotations. However, other terms still allowed are also quite loaded. I definitely think the decision is a bit one-sided. Either we seek to rid the room of pathos or we let it in, don't let one side play with it while the other can't.

All in all, I believe Rittenhouse should be found guilty of his possession charge, but that's it.

There's a bit more to it so it's not as one sided as the headline make it seem.

(10-28-2021, 12:42 PM)jj22 Wrote: Not to get involved in this debate between the two of you, but for me it's important because of the argument of standing your ground. Standing your ground means your home your street your neighborhood (which is a stretch, but for the sake of argument) - or at least it should. You can't go looking for trouble (in my opinion), then claim standing your ground. Ideally as a parent, I'd argue he had no business involved in that mess anyway. We learned in the Travon case that this isn't so since he was killed after he was followed for miles and then confronted. But because he started wining the fight and got shot, the guy didn't get jail because he "stood his ground". The law I guess, but ridiculous as he shouldn't have been searching for trouble. He too became a hero of the right (even tho as time went on people realized he wasn't a good person at all).

When do we draw the line for standing your ground. Can I come to your place (state, home, street), involve myself in something that doesn't involve me, and then kill you and claim I am "standing my ground". Ideally the message would be (if politics wasn't involved), mind ya own business and you wouldn't have gotten into this trouble.

But that common sense is out the window. 

The sad thing is he can "stand his ground" anywhere.  In some sates he can initiate the confrontation and be found not guilty, or even charged, for killing someone because he was "attacked".  (Zimmerman)

But I think in this case it will be more "Self defense" than stand your ground (without knowing that state's laws).

Now if he had not gone, had not been armed, had not attempted to do something he was not trained or prepared to do there would have been no killing to defend.  But all of that will be moot because he will be seen to have been, pardon this, the "victim" of an attack that he had to shoot to protect himself.

And again I think it is stupid that someone can put themselves in that situation and then claim they were the victim when they had the choice to not be there at all.  Just as the three dead people had a choice not to chase him.  In the end Rittenhouse's choice led to the deaths but they will be found justified because the people he agitated didn't walk away from him.