Quote Originally Posted by country978 View Post
Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post

Because as a matter of public policy law enforcement and local/state government want to discourage severely any use of firearms by citizens--read Massad Ayoob's writings on self-defense with firearms (In the Gravest Extreme or Deadly Force). Ayoob estimates you will spend $10,000 in legal fees for every bullet you shoot in self-defense even if you are 100% justified.
what about the reasonable person standard? what reasonable person would say there is evidence of murder or any of the lesser charges associated with the killing after seeing the video? What other evidence should there need to be to show he acted in self defense? I'm sure there have been many instances where a person kills another person and sufficient evidence exists to prove the innocence of the person doing the killing and this leads to a dismissal of charges or no charges at all. He's not entirely innocent but charging him in the killing itself seems politically motivated in whats supposed to be a country free from such injustice.
your objections are well founded---this should be an easy win for the defense imo...yet, local government fears loss of control so they will try this case even though they know they have poor chance of conviction; their goal is to discourage the public from using firearms by subjecting Rittenhouse to a drawn out, expensive trial; 130 years ago in the American frontier this is a matter that goes no farther than an inquest, no trial brought--it's just that social forces in the law have tilted against firearms and citizen on citizen violence.