Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Considering two of the individuals will never get a day in court or ever be charged with anything, and the one survivor was not charged with any crime related to Rittenhouse, then Rittenhouse cannot be called the victim of a crime and, at very least, Grosskreutz cannot be excluded from the definition of "victim of a crime."
If we're using the low bar of being the victim of an act that may be prosecuted by the state, then the other three are still victims, as Rittenhouse was actually prosecuted by the state.
If Grosskreutz had shot and killed Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pulled the trigger, he would likely be free today, whether from avoiding charges altogether (which there is precedent for in situations where people have engaged and killed people they believed to be active shooters), or by using the defence of others defence in Wisconsin law.
So, you may argue Rittenhouse is a victim based on whatever definition you want, but any definition you use applies to at least one, if not all, of the other three involved.
|
You're wrong.
The jury determined: KR did nothing wrong because the other three made credible threats KR's wellbeing (or acted in a way that could cause grievous bodily harm).
The reality is that there were three perpetrators and one victim. As Marlo Stanfield said: You want it to be one way. But it's the other way.