More "largely peaceful" Portland protests

[Brownshoe]

(08-29-2020, 01:31 AM)Dill Wrote: Appreciate the response. I know what considerations the legal frame excludes. And how the incident plays in the media is not my concern here. 

How R, got there with the gun does matter, though, if we are trying to understand why these incidents occur--keep occuring.

Determing whether the 17-year-old was behaving reasonably under a homicide statute will not provide that understanding.

Were I a juror, I would ask for more clarification on the legal rationale for excluding actions/decisions by which a boy placed himself in a riot with a gun in a position to "reasonably" defend himself.  To me this looks like one of those issues that spurs challenges, changes and reframing of legal principles. That would be a legal research project, perhaps. 

From what Rittenhouse's lawyer said he got the AR15 from a friend who lives in Wisconsin (Rittenhouse lives on the boarder, so Kenosha was about ~20 min away from where he lived). The lawyer also said that it wasn't illegal for him to have the AR15 since it's legal to open carry a long gun at his age. Now, because it's from his lawyer I would take it with a grain of salt.


From a neutral eye witness testimony (a reporter) Rittenhouse didn't start the conflict and was trying to flee the conflict. Everything I see points to self defense. I don't know if Kyle (Rittenhouse) will even be charged with anything honestly. To be fair, I don't think that he should have been there. I think he should have left this to the police and the national guard. I think he should have been arrested as soon as the police were able to. He defiantly shouldn't have been able to leave without being in handcuffs and under investigation.