Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
He's just a kid, ffs... unlike the bastard who murdered Ashley Babbit.
Would it have been too much to at least ask for a few tears? Tears usually poor down unrestrained when someone is so emotional they start sobbing and sputtering and shaking uncontrollably.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't believe it was self defense, Rittenhouse was playing vigilante.Ashley Babbitt was a domestic terrorist and part of a hostile mob who broke through a reinforced glass door while ignoring the demands of the police officer to stop. That was self defense.
Rittenhouse might have put himself into a situation where risk was elevated, but that doesn't mean he did not, when in that situation, encounter a genuine risk to himself to which a legitimate response was the use of deadly force.
As far as I can tell- and reporting quality is very poor- it is not at all clear what precisely happened and where one can ascribe legal culpability. One might be inclined to say that this chap went into a battlezone looking for trouble and he got what he was looking for- so he should pay the consequences for the negative situation which ensued. However, I suspect there would be some problems applying that reasoning universally.
[edit] I would say that even if it were true that he went there to shoot people it is not necessarily the case that when he did in fact shoot someone that was a manifestation of the prior 'intention'. That might sound like quibbling but its highly significant. A man might go to a house intending to kill someone and when they get there find the person actually was planning to kill them and they attack, unprovoked, first. If the man defends himself with lethal force he hasn't committed murder, and we can never know that he would not have renieged on his intention when he got in front of the person...
Regarding Babbitt, personally I don't think the term 'domestic terrorist' is particularly aposite, though that is more to do with the term 'terrorist' itself. Certainly she was a criminal and her behaviour amounted to insurrection/treason. It is probably a good thing that more people were not shot to death in that incident, a testimony to the maturity of the police in that incident perhaps, though I don't think it would have been wrong if they had decided to open fire the moment people started to storm into/smash the windows/access points of the building. I see it in terms of 'lese majesty'.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Rittenhouse might have put himself into a situation where risk was elevated, but that doesn't mean he did not, when in that situation, encounter a genuine risk to himself to which a legitimate response was the use of deadly force.As far as I can tell- and reporting quality is very poor- it is not at all clear what precisely happened and where one can ascribe legal culpability. One might be inclined to say that this chap went into a battlezone looking for trouble and he got what he was looking for- so he should pay the consequences for the negative situation which ensued. However, I suspect there would be some problems applying that reasoning universally.
[edit] I would say that even if it were true that he went there to shoot people it is not necessarily the case that when he did in fact shoot someone that was a manifestation of the prior 'intention'. That might sound like quibbling but its highly significant. A man might go to a house intending to kill someone and when they get there find the person actually was planning to kill them and they attack, unprovoked, first. If the man defends himself with lethal force he hasn't committed murder, and we can never know that he would not have renieged on his intention when he got in front of the person...
Regarding Babbitt, personally I don't think the term 'domestic terrorist' is particularly aposite, though that is more to do with the term 'terrorist' itself. Certainly she was a criminal and her behaviour amounted to insurrection/treason. It is probably a good thing that more people were not shot to death in that incident, a testimony to the maturity of the police in that incident perhaps, though I don't think it would have been wrong if they had decided to open fire the moment people started to storm into/smash the windows/access points of the building. I see it in terms of 'lese majesty'.
There's where we have different degrees of murder/manslaughter.
If Rittenhouse is found guilty over one or more of the deaths he caused, it will likely be manslaughter and not murder, I'd guess involuntary manslaughter, but it could be voluntary.
As for him shooting someone with deadly force but not killing them, that's another set of crimes.
So the narrative has already shifted to blaming the judge. lmao
Anyway, if it's a mistrial it will likely be with prejudice meaning they can't try Kyle again. Anyway, I half way expect that the prosecution intends for that to happen just so they can twist the narrative in such a way to blame the judge rather than their own incompetence as well as the fact that they had almost no case in the first place. The media certainly will run with it.
That's disingenuous. People have been talking about the judge's very selective dismissal of the evidence that doesn't favor Rittenhouse from the start, before the trial started.
And of course the defense is asking for a 'mistrial with prejudice', that favors their client. You'd think a case with a claimed "almost no case" wouldn't need that.