Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
I'd be careful with this argument Locke. Guns are legal and can be carried. In this case, he's underaged so hes breaking that law.
Causation is not something that can be proved. People threatened him because he had a rifle, why didn't everyone react then and not just a few guys.
This is bordering on the argument of a girl getting raped at a party at 3AM, arguing on the side that she shouldn't have been at said party at 3AM.
|
This is a pretty horrible analogy.
That being said, I do think you have a point about societal differences. In many states, it's just perfectly legal to carry guns. Also, many states have pretty clear laws about it essentially being legal to have a shootout as long as both parties are consenting. Reports are that there were at least 16 guns shots not coming from Rittenhouse in that area. For a Canadian hearing a single gunshot is pretty jarring. This was chaos with multiple armed parties discharging weapons.
Also, of consideration is that the criminal legal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I don't agree with what Rittenhouse was doing and see him as a complete d-bag, but the prosecution is going to have a tough time here. If Rittenhouse was indeed backing away from other parties, who were themselves armed, it's pretty easy to raise doubts.
As for the criticism of the judge, it's in the judge's interest to ensure that both sides are acting within their rights, to avoid an appeal or a mistrial. If the judge lets the prosecution get in evidence that it shouldn't, you're almost guaranteeing Rittenhouse's freedom, even if he is guilty. If certain evidence has already been ruled inadmissible a surefire way to see that Rittenhouse walks is to then allow that evidence to slip in.