Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimalTates
Actually that's getting pretty close to justify killing someone.
If on April 1 a bunch of high school students pranked a security guard into believing a kid was a school shooter with fake blood, playing dead, and the kid came out with a realistic looking toy hand gun as the students screamed, he would be justified in shooting him - because he reasonably believed to be an active shooter thanks to the "crowd."
Again, it's not about Rittenhouse. I don't know why you can't grasp this for someone who has so clearly pretended to follow the trial and pretend to know the law. It's about what his would-be-assailant believed. Was it reasonable to believe that after hearing several shots fired, the crowd labelling him an active shooter and seeing him shoot and kill someone that he was? ####ing rights anyone would be able to claim they reasonably believed him to be.
It's the very reason that Rittenhouse got off on his attempted murder. Because he reasonably believed the person was about to shoot him, he did not need to mind-read to know the true intention of Grosskreutz. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was NOT acting in self-defense. It's not the other way around.
There's the word in bold for you.
|
Good luck winning that case.
The prosecution would have plenty of video and plenty of witnesses showing KR operating specifically in self defense, and was attempting to retreat to the police. In fact, he TOLD Grosskreutz that he was trying to get to the police. (You can't claim self defense against a person who is retreating). He was posing no immediate threat to anyone after the Huber shooting.
And yet GG is going to run up, shoot him, and claim self defense for a 3rd party potential victim that doesn't exist.
And the justiciation? "I heard the mob yelling about an active shooter."
The notion is comical.