People who are actually following the Rittenhouse trial with a reasonable amount of legal knowledge. With regard only to facts and not emotion, what do you think his guilt or innocence is? And on what charges?

People who are actually following the Rittenhouse trial with a reasonable amount of legal knowledge. With regard only to facts and not emotion, what do you think his guilt or innocence is? And on what charges?

What do you think?

12 Points
Upvote Downvote

15 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. So far it appears the defense is arguing off of facts, while the prosecution is arguing off of politics-based emotions, and the prosecution is getting destroyed.

    I’m pretty sure the prosecution is intentionally trying to get a mistrail with it’s bad behaviour, so the next trial will have a different judge, and I only say that because the Livestream I’m watching with lawyers like Robert Barnes and Viva Frei suggested it. So take that only as speculation, not fact.

  2. It seems likely he’ll be innocent of homicide certainly. He *is* guilty of carrying a firearm that isn’t licensed to him, but he may not be punished for that somehow.

    This is the difficulty of our legal system with regard to things like self-defense. Is he guilty of homicide by current law? It seems like the answer is probably no. However, he packed up a gun he couldn’t legally carry, traveled out of his city to a nearby one that he had no business in (I don’t care that it’s “only” a half-hour drive, this was a deliberate and unnecessary decision), and ended two lives there as a result of a conflict he never should have been in.

    Legally, he’ll probably get off scot-free. Morally, I think it’s undeniable that his shitty, stupid actions led directly to two deaths.

  3. It’s one of the most clear-cut cases of self defense in legal history. The DA only brought to trial because of the possibilities of riots if they didn’t. So now they’ve brought a 100% losing case to trial so they can tell the mob it was the jury’s fault when it inevitably gets shot down.

    Which is kind of fucked up, since there are already people trying to dox the jurors and threatening to show up at their houses if they make the “wrong” decision. The state is putting innocent people in harm’s way to protect itself.

  4. Not following too closely but it seems pretty strongly within the self defense statute, especially given that he was actively fleeing attacks and only fired when people directly physically threatening him got within a few feet.

    Even if there were an issue with him provoking attacks which might preclude self defense, there’s an explicit carve out where fleeing regains the right to self defense.

  5. The fundamental question we need answered is: if you bring a gun to an otherwise non gun event, are you okay to use it. There is a trend among 2A people to cause a fight, then shoot the other person when they fight back.

    This is really the question we need answered. This case isn’t perfect (few are), but this is the fundamental question. He went there with a gun to shoot people. Then he shot people. Is this the country we want to live in.

    That isn’t intended as a bullshit question.

  6. He’s definitely innocent. Just watch the footage. He was there to protect people/ their businesses and express his 2a rights. He was chased down by thugs with weapons and acted accordingly.

Leave a Reply