Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(10-30-2021, 02:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.


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.


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.

I'll always find it interesting that we live in a country where we have people that say you better shoot the person if you want to use a gun to defend yourself, to the point that NOT shooting them is considered more of a crime.  I understand a warning shot could go anywhere...so could a shot through an attacker.  But that's a different discussion.

Intent is the key to this case, I think, and I agree it will be next to impossible to prove that he went there to kill.

As a purely thought experiment / discussion we can talk about why he went there, armed, to protect businesses and property.  I said earlier maybe he thought his scary looking gun would make people leave...or maybe he thought he'd be willing to kill a stranger to protect a stranger.

Impossible to prove but interesting to discuss.

I'm sure his defense team will say he was armed to protect himself because he was entering a dangerous situation.  Perfectly legal I assume.  But the thought experiment/discussion can be about WHY he went to a dangerous situation as an unprepared, untrained minor.  One he could have easily avoided completely.

I agree we are not lawyers, and the one who was gets crapped on all the time anyway, but discussing the emotional/hypothetical aspects of the case can be entertaining and informative as long as we understand none of that will matter when the trial starts.