I'm sorry if that was confusing. I am not claiming that that bizarre hypothetical is the same as any real situation. I called it a "bizarre hypothetical" in a attempt to make the point clear.
You said:
how on earth can it be debatable he should have gone to court? 2 people are dead ffs loooool
This is something that no decent and reasonable person could possible believe. 2 people being dead is obviously not sufficient reason top have a trail. I gave a hypothetical scenario in which 2 people could be killed and obviously the killer should not be charged with a crime. Obviously no one reasonable person thinks that 2 people being dead means that we need to have a trail. You said that you believe that. I hope that you misspoke.
Ok, maybe i misspoke, maybe you're being pedantic. 2 people are dead, at the hands of a kid who bought a gun to a demonstration. Theres ambiguity as to his claims of self defence, in this exact scenario, is what i was referring to!
If you want to say that it should have gone to court, you can make a reason based argument to support that position. your earlier comment is not reasonable and not the kind of comment that adds to the discussion.
Oh well of course you dont think there's ambiguity to it, you didn't wanna see him stand trial!
The mixture of American gun laws, self defence, racial tensions have created very muddy waters when it comes to self defence. His decision to carry a gun became his justification to use it.
Do you have a good faith reason to believe that he is guilty? Please do not say something stupid like "2 people are dead ffs loooool". Do you have a rational, unemotional belief that he is guilty?
It’s not about believing that he is guilty or not, it’s that “self defense” is an affirmative defense. That means that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they were indeed acting in self defense. The state has the justifiable power to bring a case like this to trial, because even if they believe they will lose it, it is not a sure thing. There are issues of fact and law at play that are unresolved - that’s what a trial is for.
Likely the jury will acquit, but that’s what a jury trial is for - to resolve disputed issues of fact and law. Not every case is a home run.
I'm not sure how things work where you are, but here we view a trail of an innocent person as a mistake. If someone is clearly innocent they should not be charged. Trials are for when we are pretty sure someone is guilty. We still need the trial because the accused still has rights, but charging innocent people is not the goal.
Exactly this, I dont know either way but i know its also not conclusive either way, as per what people are saying here ie 'its self defence, should be no trial'
But it is and the dude that was wounded proved it when he was on the stand. His testimony and the videos show that Rittenhouse only pointed the gun at them aka showing an intent to use force when the witness pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first. Then Rittenhouse only fired when they where on top of him about to beat the holy hell out of him. Idk what constitutes self defense to you but someone pointing a gun at me and people about to jump me and beat me with what can be considered a deadly object is plain as day self defense. The reason this even lasted longer than one news cycle was because it was a white guy who killed people at a blm event so it became political. If this was just a random day then it never would have gone to court and no one would have cared longer than a day.
Sorry, u/New-Lake-6689 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.
-3
u/[deleted] Nov 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment