Whilst the arguements seem to have veered more towards issues around 2A I think that your words sum up how it is so deeply set in peoples minds.
The fact that you even use the word "probably".
Adding another person to a riot and an armed one at that does nothing to ease any tensions.
Actually, my use of probably there was for a different reason... I was quietly objecting to the whole line of thinking. The whole " he shouldn't have been there" argument is a superfluous claim that acts like it isn't.
No one should have been there. Not him, not the burners or looters or property destroyers. And had they not been there, he wouldn't have. So to start the analysis at, 'he shouldn't have been there" kinda starts at the middle and makes a claim that applies to everyone that was there seem as if it didn't. It's a bit of a slight of hand, even though most doing it don't recognize that's what they are doing.
No one should have been burning or looting. And absent burning and looting, plus the abdication of their duties by politicians who were playing political games, the likes of Rittenhouse wouldn't have been there to start. It's not as if he goes out playing night guard every night of the week.
So when you say adding another person to a riot as if there should have been a riot to start with. There shouldn't have been a riot to start with. And once there is one, picking on the people AGAINST the destruction of other people's property and safety seem to me an odd take on the problem.
Hence my objection. Which you caught :)
But then from my long distance view, it appears that doing anything but upholding 2A and NOT wanting to go to a riot well armed is almost considered as being unpatriotic.
Nope. Has nothing to do with patriotism. Just common sense. It's like thinking a soldier going to war is being patriotic for having amour. He isn't. He simply understands the expectation. Same here.
Now had no one at the riots had guns but the defendant and his cohorts, then you'd have had a point. But evidence to the contrary abound. So....
Even questioning why somethign from the 1700's is still relevent today seems mad to me (and before you say it , yes we have plenty of archaic laws that remain over here)...one I recall from my youth, being that it was still legal to shoot welsh people found within the City walls of Chester after midnight, so long as you did it with a bow and arrow!
That's a weird law. Seems you guys had Sundown towns too.
In relation to your comparisons, whilst they can be general and many cases are looked at in relation to case law there are always huge differences in context and circumstances which is where
@Bigga is coming from.
...and btw.... its KAZ, not KATZ
Again neither Bigga nor 'KAZ' have a point here. They are making a generalized false claim. It's an ideological claim. Nothing more.
The Smallings and Rittenhouse cases couldn't be any more similar as far as fact patterns go. And the arguments used by the defense was the same. Client should not be guilty on the account of self defense.
Similarities are obvious to the honest arbiter:
Similar circumstances: Outside their homes, intent to defend property, happened during a riot, both had guns, but used their guns after a perceived attack, both surrendered and both were charged on some similar counts ( albeit, Rittenhouse included more severe count of murder and not just attempted) and they both won on self defense.
Where the cases are different actually favors Rittenhouse.
1. He shot at people who had no right to attack him, Smallings shot at cops who had a legal right to instruct people to disperse.
2. The video evidence in Rittenhouse case was overwhelming. In Smallings case it wasn't.
So if either one had a greater chance of failing, I'd be Smallings. Yet he won. And so did Rittenhouse. Neither was shocking.
To put it in simpler terms (helping Bigger understand :p) ... Suppose you went to a market to buy a loaf of bread, And you were able to buy the loaf with only 5 pounds in your pocket, most people with common sense will conclude someone else would be able to buy the loaf if they had 10 pounds in their pockets. Because... You know 10 is more than 5...
A retort that goes but the second example didn't have 5 pounds, so it's not the same, will strike any adult as... Well.
THe problem here is that most don't recognize how clear cut this case was... Under the law, and based on the evidence, it was a near guaranteed acquital.
The only reason why this isn't understood is because there is a media class who'd prefer a different outcome and thus kept a slanted coverage all through. That was unfortunate.
