Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the bolded is one of the most interesting questions raised by this case. 

I would disagree. Making that claim works under the assumption that Rittenhouse was there with the intent to kill. Given his attempts to escape the situation, first, the likelihood of that is slim. Unless we see evidence presented in the trial that shows Rittenhouse was there with intent to do harm, that question isn't really being raised by anyone other than those that are trying to convict based on anything other than the actual evidence before us. That's not how the legal system works.

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: As is the question of how political viewpoints cant be built into law and then protected from scrutiny, in part by controlling what can count as legal fact/evidence and how "attackers" are defined.  

Who is "innocent until proven guilty"?  Remember the story of Marissa Alexander; a jury took all of 12 minutes to decide Florida's Stand-your-Ground law did not protect her for firing a warning shot into the ceiling of her home when her husband attacked her, and who was sentenced to 20 years in prison?  https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-overturns-20-year-sentence-woman-fired-warning/story?id=20387742

The problem with brining up cases from different states with very different circumstances is it comes of as trying to muddy the waters and deflect from the current topic. The Alexander situation was a result of a law in Florida that did not allow for warning shots. Warning shots are a controversial topic in self-defense/stand-your-ground discussions. They put bystanders at risk (that bullet is going to go somewhere and isn't going to stop until it hits something) and it can also be argued that if you feel confident enough to fire a warning shot to attempt to end a threat, then the threat may not have been great enough to warrant lethal force in the first place (not saying I agree with this, but it is an argument that has been made).

There was also some poor handling of the case that should never have happened, but the law was as it was. It was a bad law and, IIRC, it was changed because of this case.

(10-30-2021, 01:50 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like most people posting here share your perplexity regarding legal determinations of "self-defense" in this country.
Hence all the questions about the legality of R's behavior at various points.

That's because most people here aren't lawyers, haven't taken classes on these laws, or don't teach these sorts of laws to others. These aren't simple laws to understand. There is a reason that classes for concealed handgun permits are a good thing and they should focus on these laws in addition to safe and effective firearm handling. It should be a part of being a responsible gun owner and carrier and it's why I teach those classes.