11-17-2021, 01:24 PM
(11-17-2021, 12:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, here. I really don't like Rittenhouse, folks like him, or those that are putting him up on a pedestal. I'm also not someone that believes in protecting property with deadly weapons. But, I feel like far too many people are using that point of view to lead them down a path where they ignore the law.
Given the nature of the country right now this type of lionization is/was inevitable and would have happened in the exact same way if a BLM supporter killed three far right protestors after they were attacked. People want to vicariously vent their spleen at the "other" and this is as close as many people will be able to get to doing so.
This raises a very interesting point though, and one that has been obscured, or little acknowledged, throughout this thread. You can think what Rittenhouse did was dumb, moronic or the stupidest thing you've ever heard of, but still understand that he legally defended himself. That's why most, if not all, of the arguments against him are along the lines of "he shouldn't have been there", "he crossed state lines", "he violated curfew", etc. none of which, importantly, have any bearing on whether he was attacked and then legally defended himself. Essentially, those arguing for conviction want any counter protestor of any sort to be a target for physical violence with impunity, because they "shouldn't be there."
The laws governing what constitutes murder have no political bias, which is why actually following them is so important. Sometime the law will work in a way you find favorable, sometimes it will not, but if it is applied equally then the outcome will always, or should always, be fair. And that's what anyone should want out of the criminal justice system. There's a reason that Lady Justice is blindfolded, because who is accused is not what's important, the evidence and facts of the case are.
