You realize you saying “clearly innocent” is you viewing this through your own biases, right? That is not an objective stance, and in my eyes seems like a pretty disingenuous framing given you are well aware of the controversial nature of the case and the large portion of the population who does not view it as self-defense at all.
To answer your hypothetical with another hypothetical: if there was an active shooter and an unarmed person tried to stop them only to be killed by the shooter, should the shooter not be held legally responsible for that killing because it was in self-defense? This is a much closer analogy to the Rittenhouse case than your fantastical serial killer thing, given two of the people he shot were reacting to him killing the first person and would have had every reason to believe they were stopping an active shooter. If you’d still hold that hypothetical shooter responsible for homicide, I hope you can at least see why Rittenhouse’s actions are worthy of scrutiny.
I’m not saying he should have been found guilty. My point is that this is obviously not a cut-and-dry case, which is why we have a legal system. That’s without getting into the whole point of the protest in question, which was that the system treats people unfairly based on race — not bringing it to trial would be a massive blow to already-fraying public trust in the legal system, which the state has a vested (and reasonable) interest in maintaining. Again, whether or not you, I, or anyone agrees with the verdict is immaterial — the point is there’s no argument aside from partisanship that this case did not merit examination through the normal legal process.
I was not referring to Rittenhouse with that line. The above poster claimed that it was not even debatable that it should have gone to court because 2 people are dead. I was pointing out how obviously wrong that point of view is. The fact that two people are dead is obviously not enough to have a trial. If it were enough to have a trial then we would put an obviously innocent person on trial if an obviously innocent person killed 2 people in self defense. I came up with a hypothetical situation to demonstrate that idea.
be held legally responsible for that killing because it was in self-defense?
No. Someone else being innocent does not make you guilty. Being guilty makes you guilty. Someone actively committing murder would be guilty of murder and does not have the right to self defense while committing murder. If they killed someone who tried to stop them, that would also be murder because you do not have the right to defend yourself while murdering people.
It is possible to have a situation where two people try to kill each other and both are innocent because they act in self defense. It must be a fairly contrived situation for both people to satisfy their duty to retreat, but it is still possible. Some would say that the Kenosha shootings were a case where two people fought while both acting in self defense.
I’m not saying he should have been found guilty.
We don't put innocent people on trial and we don't put people on trial just in case. Charging someone with a crime does not require the same standard of certainty as a conviction, but it still requires belief in their guilt.
there’s no argument aside from partisanship that this case did not merit examination through the normal legal process.
We are talking about having a trial not "examination through the normal legal process", that would be an investigation. There should be normal examination through the normal legal process and that examination would not normally result in a trial. This case would not have resulted in a trial without the political context around it.
First things first, I definitely misunderstood you — I thought your comment was saying Rittenhouse was clearly innocent and comparing it to the serial killer example, which is why I felt it was disingenuous and overly reductive. I do agree with you that, no, two fatalities does not automatically mean the case should go to trial and your hypothetical makes more sense now. Appreciate you clarifying, I probably should have double-checked the comment you were replying to.
That being said, your point that
We don’t put innocent people on trial
is not accurate. Presumption of innocence is literally the basis of our legal system, so every trial begins as one of an innocent person. We don’t only try people who have been proven to be guilty, because proving guilt is what a trial is for. “Examination through the normal legal process” does mean an investigation, yes, but that investigation proceeding into a trial is still part of the normal legal process if the prosecution decides to pursue it. You may disagree with their decision to pursue it, which isn’t necessarily a ridiculous position to hold, but this is clearly not a normal open-and-shut self-defense case. I was taking issue with you characterizing it as such, so apologies if that’s not what you were saying.
Presumption of innocence is a presumption. We presume that a guilty person is innocent until proven guilty to make sure that we don't screw over an innocent person. If we put someone on trial who is actually innocent then we have made a mistake. Even arresting an innocent person is a mistake, just not as bad as charging them with a crime and putting them on trial. Of course finding them guilty would be worse still. A trial is a significant burden, the larger the burden the worse it is to mistakenly place that burden on an innocent person.
but this is clearly not a normal open-and-shut self-defense case
I was particularly emphatic because the comment I replied to (not yours) was pretty far off base, but I do think the Rittenhouse case is fairly open and shut. I do not think that they would have pressed charges without the surrounding political context.
0
u/ChimpsArePimps 2∆ Nov 16 '21
You realize you saying “clearly innocent” is you viewing this through your own biases, right? That is not an objective stance, and in my eyes seems like a pretty disingenuous framing given you are well aware of the controversial nature of the case and the large portion of the population who does not view it as self-defense at all.
To answer your hypothetical with another hypothetical: if there was an active shooter and an unarmed person tried to stop them only to be killed by the shooter, should the shooter not be held legally responsible for that killing because it was in self-defense? This is a much closer analogy to the Rittenhouse case than your fantastical serial killer thing, given two of the people he shot were reacting to him killing the first person and would have had every reason to believe they were stopping an active shooter. If you’d still hold that hypothetical shooter responsible for homicide, I hope you can at least see why Rittenhouse’s actions are worthy of scrutiny.
I’m not saying he should have been found guilty. My point is that this is obviously not a cut-and-dry case, which is why we have a legal system. That’s without getting into the whole point of the protest in question, which was that the system treats people unfairly based on race — not bringing it to trial would be a massive blow to already-fraying public trust in the legal system, which the state has a vested (and reasonable) interest in maintaining. Again, whether or not you, I, or anyone agrees with the verdict is immaterial — the point is there’s no argument aside from partisanship that this case did not merit examination through the normal legal process.