The verdict is in, and the protests are about to go into full swing.
In a previous post, the actions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were discussed. In all three cases, plus the other cases with unknown assailants, they took aggressive actions that could be reasonably interpreted as meant to cause death or serious bodily injury to Rittenhouse, and he defended himself by using deadly force. His defense was justified.
The trial was very interesting. We saw how the prosecution tried to make a case, and violated Rittenhouse’s rights in the the process, where they didn’t have evidence to meet the standards required to convict him of the charges that they brought. We also saw how the prosecution’s witnesses backed up Rittenhouse’s defense case.
The Simple Facts
-
His actions met all of the elements of self-defense and use of deadly force in self-defense.
-
Rittenhouse was over charged.
-
The prosecution, responsible for the over charging, was also malicious and should be officially reprimanded for malicious prosecution, and violations of law in their interactions with Rittenhouse on the stand and by failing to provide the defense with evidence.
-
The prosecution failed to even come close to meeting the standards of any of the charges that they brought, except the possession by a minor. The possession charge was thrown out because of the poorly written law.
-
Mainstream Media failed in their duties to report the facts, and instead, inserted their opinions that were not supported by the facts in the case. Multiple lawsuits should be expected, soon, against members of the media and their employers for failing to meet the standards of the press and for their malicious actions and defamation of character.
The Arguments
Rittenhouse should not have been there
This is the worst argument that people can make. Rittenhouse had a legal right to be there. He is a citizen and has the same right to assemble as the rioters. These same people seem to think that the protestors had some kind of higher-level rights than others. In fact, many of the supporters of the rioters have even claimed that they had the right to steal and destroy private, as well as public, property because they were protesting. There is no such right.
Rittenhouse should not have been open carrying an AR-15
As covered by the trial, Rittenhouse was not old enough to own and carry a pistol, much less conceal it legally. There was no law violated.
Rittenhouse instigated the violence
Nope. Not the case. He was there, at the invitation of property owners, to help protect their property, but never instigated anything. He was chased by the crowd, he was accosted, and he defended himself to prevent his death or serious bodily harm. This was made very clear in the trial.
Summary
Bad decisions were made by all parties. However, those that were killed or injured by Rittenhouse made worse decisions when they chose to attack an armed person.