11-04-2021, 04:59 PM
(11-04-2021, 01:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If there is sufficient evidence that there is a crime, yes. Otherwise, no. Your position is antithetical to the very foundations of our legal system dating back hundreds of years. It is the state's job to prove your guilt, not your job to prove your innocence. If the state cannot meet a minimum burden of proof then no charges should be filed in the first place, ever.
No, what they get to do is decide if there is sufficient evidence to charge a person with a crime in the first place. This is done in order to prevent exactly what you advocate for, dragging obviously, or even likely, innocent people through the criminal court process. You are starting to get, though, why a corrupt DA, such as we currently have in L.A., San Francisco, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Chicago can have a very destructive impact on a community and cause crime rates to soar. Once you start treating the position as a platform for enforcing an ideology instead of the law you run into a lot of problems.
Whole point I’m trying to make is dead bodies caused by Rittenhouse shooting them is sufficient evidence. Bullets from his gun killed them. Period end of story. This isn’t a normal thing. That’s why I don’t view this as a political witch hunt as some like to claim.
The law says killing someone is illegal. He killed and there is no question about that. He was charged. Pretty easy to prove he was the one responsible for dead bodies. Now it’s on him to show why his actions were justified. He made the decision to open carry a lethal weapon to a riot and pull the trigger when he got scared. Nobody made that decision for him. Now he has to explain himself or be held responsible for the dead bodies he created.
