Legal Eagle always puts out good stuff. I transcribed the end here, because it serves as a very good thing to think about when weighing the overall result of the trial.
Legal Eagle always puts out good stuff. I transcribed the end here, because it serves as a very good thing to think about when weighing the overall result of the trial.
For those that are happy that Rittenhouse was found not guilty, they should also be in favor of an alternate reality where Gaige Grosskreutz shot and killed Kyle Rittenhouse. If you think Rosenbaum, Huber, or Grosskreutz provoked a response from Kyle Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse's deadly force probably gave them the right to use deadly force right back under the same laws. If Kyle Rittenhouse is not guilty, by reason of self-defense, Gaige Grosskreutz would also have been not guilty if he had shot and killed Kyle Rittenhouse. And keep in mind that in this scenario, Kyle Rittenhouse is dead and it would have been Grosskreutz setting the narrative. And to the extent you think Grosskreutz would have crafted his testimony to support an arguement of self-defense, then consider that Kyle Rittenhouse probably crafted his story in exactly the same way. So the ultimate takeaway here is that these incidents are murky at best. Occurred in a jurisdiction with very broad self-defense and firearm laws. The prosecution had a very high standard to meet. And while we didn't cover it in this video, the defendant put on a very good defense. The rest I will leave to you.
More of the same - where he talks about whether the judge was biased in favor of Rittenhouse. On the topic of referring to the victims (yes, Schroeder, I'm doing it) as rioters or looters, my...
More of the same - where he talks about whether the judge was biased in favor of Rittenhouse. On the topic of referring to the victims (yes, Schroeder, I'm doing it) as rioters or looters, my spidey senses were tingling. Schroeder establishes that the defense could call them rioters and looters if they can prove that those terms are accurate. In my opinion, there's a devil in the details here: We don't care whether they were rioting or looting. We care whether Rittenhouse knew that (or reasonably believed that). If they did criminal things elsewhere that night, then that should not cloud the judgement of Rittenhouse's behavior.
Rittenhouse is not a cop, nor a judge, jury, or executioner. Whether he knows anything about the history of his victims is irrelevant, it's not his place to judge whether something is legal and...
We care whether Rittenhouse knew that (or reasonably believed that)
Rittenhouse is not a cop, nor a judge, jury, or executioner. Whether he knows anything about the history of his victims is irrelevant, it's not his place to judge whether something is legal and what the punishment should be.
That is completely correct, except insofar as that illegality affects his right to live. But that's not my point at all. Either one doesn't admit those descriptions at all (which would be...
That is completely correct, except insofar as that illegality affects his right to live.
But that's not my point at all. Either one doesn't admit those descriptions at all (which would be consistent with your beliefs) or one admits those descriptions from Rittenhouse's (reasonable) perspective. To pull in evidence that was not available to Rittenhouse to justify his state of mind is absurd. That's all I'm saying.
Also: Knowing that someone else who is attacking you right now has a propensity for violence is absolutely relevant, as it affects how high you think the threat to your life is. From that perspective, I could imagine what you mentioned to be completely irrelevant to be quite relevant. To what degree that applies to Rittenhouse's case, I can't say.
Legal Eagle always puts out good stuff. I transcribed the end here, because it serves as a very good thing to think about when weighing the overall result of the trial.
More of the same - where he talks about whether the judge was biased in favor of Rittenhouse. On the topic of referring to the victims (yes, Schroeder, I'm doing it) as rioters or looters, my spidey senses were tingling. Schroeder establishes that the defense could call them rioters and looters if they can prove that those terms are accurate. In my opinion, there's a devil in the details here: We don't care whether they were rioting or looting. We care whether Rittenhouse knew that (or reasonably believed that). If they did criminal things elsewhere that night, then that should not cloud the judgement of Rittenhouse's behavior.
Rittenhouse is not a cop, nor a judge, jury, or executioner. Whether he knows anything about the history of his victims is irrelevant, it's not his place to judge whether something is legal and what the punishment should be.
That is completely correct, except insofar as that illegality affects his right to live.
But that's not my point at all. Either one doesn't admit those descriptions at all (which would be consistent with your beliefs) or one admits those descriptions from Rittenhouse's (reasonable) perspective. To pull in evidence that was not available to Rittenhouse to justify his state of mind is absurd. That's all I'm saying.
Also: Knowing that someone else who is attacking you right now has a propensity for violence is absolutely relevant, as it affects how high you think the threat to your life is. From that perspective, I could imagine what you mentioned to be completely irrelevant to be quite relevant. To what degree that applies to Rittenhouse's case, I can't say.
Hah, I just saw it in my recommendations and was about to add it. It adds more context to the situation so thanks for doing it.