Of murder yes, but was he also charged with manslaughter? Because you can certainly make a much stronger case for that.
I am not trying the case and there are plenty of forum lawyers who are arguing his defense's case. I am also not ignoring the simple facts that (1) he shouldn't have had the assault rifle to begin with and (2) he shouldn't have been there with the assault rifle. The same people that defended george zimmerman ("he was afraid for his life" despite being the one carrying the gun) successfully got Zimmerman off and I fully expect that rittenhouse will walk scot free after killing two and wounding a third. He will be a hero to the same people that made zimmerman a hero. Maybe fox news will give him a show, who knows?
Intruded by traveling across state lines with his firearm to interfere with their protest. I'm not saying in a legal sense of the word. He brought a weapon there to enter into a conflict. That was his intention. It seems reasonable that the people who fought with the gun-toting kid feared for their own safety and any and all attempts to disarm Rittenhouse were made in an effort to save themselves. It would be different if Rittenhouse hadn't traveled there brandishing a gun. It is entirely possible that he walks free. If that happens, I beleive it would be following the law. I don't beleive that is the only possible just outcome, however.
OK, but how would you find him if on the jury, given what know about the facts of the case? Is he legally guilty of murder?
I'd find him guilty of manslaughter. I don't know if that is an option, but he would be spending time in jail if I was on the jury. I'd also be hoping he has Bubba as a cell mate...
If the lawyers prove that he felt his life was in danger. I also don't believe he (1) should have had the assault rifle to begin with and (2) he should not have been there with the assault rifle. And I believe his having the assault rifle led to his being attacked. And, I am not so sure he proved he believed his life was in danger. Do you believe he should serve prison time?
How does he prove what he felt? The events that led to him shooting those people aren’t under dispute. The jury has to decide if a reasonable person, under that situation, could believe that their life was in danger. Should he serve prison time? Probably not, according to the law. He was carrying a weapon while under age. Some punishment is warranted for that. Him being armed and in the midst of other protesters/rioters was apparently not illegal (aside from the fact he was underage). If he was pointing his gun at people and threatening them and that’s what instigated all of this, then jail time could be warranted. But if it was merely his armed presence that caused a protesters to chase after him and fire a weapon in a threatening manner, then I don’t consider him legally responsible for shooting back in self defense. Do you think the law says differently?
You're never going to prove that. You're also never going to prove this. That changes nothing about the legal standing of Rittenhouse in relation to the 3 shootings. I agree, but it also does not change how the charges in relation to the 3 shootings are going to be adjudicated. It's nearly impossible that he walks free. He's guilty on a few things, but none of them are in direct relation to the shootings.
So you think the fact that people were retreating when he actually shot them has no bearing on this? You act like he was being stomped out when he shot all three of those guys were not even engaging him at the time he shot and kept shooting while they were retreating.
Wanted to respond to this as this has come up in other cases where self-defense is claimed. From the standpoint of those shot by Rittenhouse yes an argument can be made for self-defense. The problem is that two of them are dead and can't argue from their standpoint. What we have is that Rittenhouse is alive, was in an altercation where someone was using force against him and will be argued potentially lethal force. Now let's say Rittenhouse was killed by a severe blow to the head yes I could see a case that the other guy was acting in self-defense against someone who was using lethal force against him and others. That isn't the case though and so we have to look at the specific merits of Rittenhouse's claim of self-defense.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...ttenhouse-said-people-were-trying-to-hurt-him The man tried to take his gun, chased after him while Rittenhouse was yelling “friendly”, and threw the bag at him, and there was also a gunshot fired.
Why would you, unarmed, chase after someone who is holding a gun and you believe to be dangerous, if you feared for your own safety? Is that a reasonable action to take?
I don't know. Perhaps they feared that if they didn't stop him they or others would have been killed. This is all supposition at this point.
That'd make sense for a mass shooter who was firing indiscriminately into crowds. This isn't one of those situations. Rittenhouse was running away from conflict when Huber trucked him and Grosskreutz aimed his handgun.
