the ball on covering this case from the start. right from the start there were a couple of things that were pretty immediately obvious. one was we knew what wisconsin self-defense law was and the other was there was a lot of video evidence out there in the public domain. what the video evidence showed is rittenhouse was being chased before he fired fatal shots, that he was knocked to the ground, that he was attacked before he fired fatal shots. if you knew wisconsin's self-defense law and you knew through the rules around open carrying, you knew he was going to have a strong defense. but what a lot of people did is they took the foolishness of being there, trecklessness of being there in itself, 17-year-old armed with a rifle going to a social unrest, that's ridiculous. 17-year-olds shouldn't be doing that. and they conflated that with all that followed, and that's a big mistake. that's not how juries look at it. juries look at the law. they compare the law to the facts, and under wisconsin self-defense law, he had a strong defense, and honestly, it
Related Keywords
Things , Lot , One , Couple , Case , Video Evidence , Wisconsin , Start , Mother , Self Defense Law , Ball , Public Domain , Shots , Rittenhouse , Rules , Ground , Defense , People , Trecklessness , Rifle , Unrest , 17 , Law , Facts , Injuries , Shouldn T , Mistake ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.