11-02-2021, 09:05 PM
(11-02-2021, 08:50 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: From my understanding that is what DA offices do? They generally go heavy handed and throw as many charges as possible and see what sticks. Part of the broken system. Goes hand in hand with money helping people stay out of jail while the less fortunate get railroaded when they don't have a team of lawyers.
You're not wrong that the DA's office tends to overcharge, that is unless you have a "progressive" DA who tends to not charge at all or dramatically undercharge. This is/was typically done to give the DA's office something to "take back" during plea bargaining discussions. However, even under those circumstances there should be sufficient evidence to justify the charge. As explained and illustrated in this thread there is ample evidence that Rittenhouse acted in self defense and virtually nothing that contradicts that.
Quote:I'm gonna have to agree to disagree. I think a minor with a rifle, killing people in the middle of the street, in the middle of the night, during a riot, in a state he doesn't live deserves a trial. IDK I'm not a LEO. Doesn't seem like the type of thing to sweep under the rug though.
If the evidence supports it, absolutely. It just doesn't in this case, and it doesn't come close to doing so. As is common for those who dislike Rittenhouse, you raise a lot of legal irrelevancies. "Minor with a rifle", irrelevant to a claim of self defense. "Middle of the night", irrelevant to a claim of self defense. "During a riot", actually works in Rittenhouse's favor. "In a state he doesn't live", perhaps the ultimate in irrelevant facts to a claim of self defense in this case.
As I explained several times in this thread, poor judgment is not illegal. Physically attacking someone for no legal reason is. I wouldn't go to a predictable riot on my time off and would advise anyone listening not to do so as well. But simply being present at one is not illegal and shouldn't be. The crux of this case is who attacked who first and does being attacked as he was justify Rittenhouse's response of using deadly force. As I have said several time, there's reams of evidence available that completely supports his claim of self defense. I have not seen one piece of evidence that casts doubt on it. If you, or anyone else, has access to such evidence I would urge you to share it.
