Jury to get to weigh some lesser charges in Rittenhouse case

No matter how misguided one may believe he was for being there in the first place. He still had a right to defend himself against a mob out to cause mayhem, destruction and death to anything that stood in their path. It's clear that these people were fixated on doing harm or murdering him as a mob, wherein they could just fade away into the woodwork and feign anonymity even possibly getting away with his killing amidst all of the chaos or by victim signalling and crying white supremisist as they are now. Personally I don't think he should have been there in with a riffle to do the state's job. But having said that, it's still his right to defend himself from injury or threats to his life.

The problem is there Mike, regardless of if he was in danger is irrelevant. Self defense laws all across the country very specifically state self defense doesn't apply if you put yourself into the situation intentionally. This is very important to remember because it is supposed to stop things exactly like this. I'm honestly amazed that this is even a split decision, but... not really surprised sadly. Everything in America has become an "us vs them" political issue. For example, If I hear someone at a bar I like has been drinking to much and wrecking the place, if I go there with a weapon and confront him, that isn't self defense anymore. Because I chose to put myself into harms way. Whereas if the guy goes after the bartender, or attacks another customer, that is self defense. It is a very nuanced thing. This kid chose to go somewhere he had no business being, put himself directly in that situation, and killed 2 people. What the other people were doing is completely and utterly irrelevant. Honestly, I'm concerned if he gets off what that will do to our country. Not just from what will happen directly after, whether it's protests or riots. But moreso the precedent it would set. It is essentially excusing people from taking the law into their own hands, and becoming judge, jury, and executioner if they chose to put themselves into a dangerous position.

If the people he shot were rioting, burning buildings, so on, they 100% should be tried and punished. The root of the problem comes down to, do you believe they had the right to a trial like our country says, or do you believe some kid has the right the put himself in a position to make that choice himself?

So let me get this straight. This kid claims that he had a right to shoot and kill because he felt his life threatened. Then by that logic, since he was brandishing a gun in a place he had no right to be with a gun in the first place, then anyone who saw him with his weapon, also had a right to shoot and kill him because he could have been deemed a threat to those people. He is just lucky that others had more restraint than he did. Heck, if I was there and saw him with his big ole gun, I would automatically consider him as the threat, thus giving me the right to take him out before he hurts anyone else.

This is a political prosecution. The DA did not charge Grosskreutz even though he was carrying a weapon illegally.