Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 16,840
- 13,765
- 146
So in a hypothetical, if Grosskreutz - the armed man who was shot and injured by KR, had instead of backing away with hands up shot and killed KR would you have considered that self-defense?Not to me, but i believe in the right to self defense.
A jury trial for this hypothetical would likely have found it self-defense under Wisconsin law as a reasonable person could have believed they were in threat of great bodily injury or death from an active shooter.
The linked video below (yes it’s YT but the guy is a lawyer, sources his facts and tries to present opinions about both the prosecution and defense) goes into good detail about Wisconsin’s self defense laws and why a reasonable jury that found KR not guilty would probably not find someone who shot him guilty eithee
I suggest watching the video below if you’ve got 20 minutes. It suggests why the jury’s conclusion could be reasonable and why there is a fundamental problem with how the law is written.The problem here is that you believe your opinion to be fact, it's not. The weapons charge was dropped by an actual judge, a fellow who went to law school. While I'm sure your legal training was top notch, perhaps you missed the day Wisconsin gun laws were discussed. FYI, crossing state lines is completely legal. Tens of thousands of people do it every day. Most states even have a welcoming sign at the border.
Everything else is hyperbole and sophistry. You ignore the entire situation as if the single event of Rittenhouse being attacked happened in a vacuum, it didn't.
Four stupid people met on the street that night, that two died is tragic, but not surprising. That you believe your opinion should carry more weight than the jury is also tragic, but not surprising.
That’s one of the conclusions of this video.So if the guy who got shot by Rittenhouse, while pointing his own gun at the guy, had fired first, and killed Rittenhouse - would the entire case have played out in reverse?
As Rittenhouse shot him ('vaporising' his bicep, reportedly) he must, logically, have also been pointing _his_ gun at that guy. That guy I'm sure could also have claimed to have been in fear for his life, especially as Rittenhouse had already shot someone at that point.
The whole thing seems absurd, and a consequence of what an insane country the US is.
I completely agree with his comment that there is fundamental problem with the law if it incentivizes finding the last man standing as not guilty. Being against vigilantes shouldn’t be a controversial position.