4 ms·

The most interesting aspect for me was watching the polar opposite reactions to the same content. I was personally interested in the facts of the case, which I

The most interesting aspect for me was watching the polar opposite reactions to the same content. I was personally interested in the facts of the case, which I have been following since 8/25/2020. > For example, the dude who was shot in the arm testified and everyone was like "big win for Rittenhouse, he admitted he got shot only after he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse". This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. The other party in said videos being trapped into admitting that Kyle was right to shoot him was vidicating, both legally and personally for everyone who was rooting for Kyle. Before anyone gets horrified at my views on the case, Kyle was a good kid, being dumb and idealistic, trying to help, and protecting himself when that went south. I wish he hadn't stayed out that night, I wish his assailants had valued their lives more highly, and I hope that this will be a good example for everyone: don't put yourself in danger unless you're prepared for the consequences, and secondarily, fuck around and find out.

jjeaff 5y ago
I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in danger. To me, the part that made this case a tossup, was whether or not you believe it is reasonable to go out into public at night, while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so. But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > completely ridiculous and unreasonable Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
- Akronymus 5y ago
  ..., while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
- Meekro 5y ago
  The Rittenhouse shootings were in Wisconsin, not Michigan. The jury instructions[1] have no law like what you're describing. The self-defense standard explained by the judge is simply that the defendant must believe that the level of force used was necessary to terminate an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and the defendant's belief must be reasonable. However, "a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use.. self-defense against that attack." The judge ruled that it was legal for him to be carrying a gun that night, so while carrying a gun might provoke others, it's not unlawful conduct that provokes others. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhouse-trial-jury-instructions.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhous...
tinyhouse 5y ago
> This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. So now people on social media are the standard? People on social media are not objective. They see what they want to see, based on the team they are rooting for. There is a video showing the exact moment of the shooting and facts are facts. I agree with your last paragraph.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > People on social media are not objective. Neither are juries. Trials are about feeding the Jury the story they need to come to a specific conclusion. Removing any possible doubt from that story is vital.

jjeaff 5y ago

I think many people missed the point of the whole self defense argument. In Michigan, you can't claim self defense if you unreasonably put yourself or others in danger. To me, the part that made this case a tossup, was whether or not you believe it is reasonable to go out into public at night, while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. I find that completely ridiculous and unreasonable. Regardless of one's technical right to do so. But some people done agree and think it is totally acceptable to do so.

rpmisms 5y ago
> completely ridiculous and unreasonable Maybe, but it's also legal in Wisconsin.
Akronymus 5y ago
..., while there is civil unrest, unnecessarily, carrying a loaded rifle. are you referring to going out as unnecessary or the carrying a loaded rifle being unnecessary?
Meekro 5y ago
The Rittenhouse shootings were in Wisconsin, not Michigan. The jury instructions[1] have no law like what you're describing. The self-defense standard explained by the judge is simply that the defendant must believe that the level of force used was necessary to terminate an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm, and the defendant's belief must be reasonable. However, "a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack, and who does provoke an attack, is not allowed to use.. self-defense against that attack." The judge ruled that it was legal for him to be carrying a gun that night, so while carrying a gun might provoke others, it's not unlawful conduct that provokes others. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhouse-trial-jury-instructions.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/17/us/rittenhous...

tinyhouse 5y ago

> This was a very big deal. It was on the video, but as we've seen on social media, different people see different things. So now people on social media are the standard? People on social media are not objective. They see what they want to see, based on the team they are rooting for. There is a video showing the exact moment of the shooting and facts are facts. I agree with your last paragraph.

rpmisms 5y ago
> People on social media are not objective. Neither are juries. Trials are about feeding the Jury the story they need to come to a specific conclusion. Removing any possible doubt from that story is vital.