Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[GMDino]

(11-17-2021, 02:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I know you are referring to groups outside the trial, but I just want to add that, for those who don't think acquittal in cases like Rittenhouse's is really in the public interest, challenging "the legal reasons he will be ...found not guilty" is the opposite of "ignoring" them. It is placing them front and center of debate. 

If laws were really wholly apolitical and their application just blind justice, we wouldn't be constantly monitoring outcomes and changing laws.
 
That self defense laws are currently the focus so much political activism by "both sides" is a pretty clear indication that they are not entirely separate from politics. 

E.g., If the gun lobby helps pass a "stand your ground" law WI, generalizing the Castle Doctrine to any site outside the home, that doesn't mean the law is "blind" because it is now law. It favors one group's values and sense of justice over another's. If some unarmed person is killed by an armed person during an argument over a fender bender, because he felt (or claims) his life was in danger, how the law determines "irrelevancies" now favors the armed person (though circumstances may not absolve the shooter is in every case). 

One side, it's ground favored by law, gets to say "here's the facts" and "here's the law." End of discussion. But citizens do not have to leave it at that, if they think laws need to be reviewed. 

I had typed and then deleted a bit in there about how *I* thought it fair/okay to look at these  self-defense laws and how they are applied but I don't want to get too deep into the weed on that issue when it won't affect the outcome of this case.