Kyle Rittenhouse verdict opinion

So, this is something that I found short enough on social media, but long enough to post here. And given it is an opinion on a hot button issue, I figured I'd copy and paste it here. It's on kyle rittenhouse. Something I havent been paying much attention to, as cultural issues like this don't really interest me much, and because I'd rather, ya know, advocate for UBI, but I figure this is substantial enough to post about. 

-----

 

Eh, I've been mostly staying out of the kyle rittenhouse thing, precisely because Im not a legal expert and don't like to make judgments about the law either way. And given that the standard of evidence is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it's kind of hard to convict people for stuff sometimes.

 

I know people love to see themselves as legal experts on this stuff, but they're not. Laypeople are not always good judges of what's legal and illegal push comes to shove. And given the standard it's hard to see people as guilty under the law. So they end up getting disappointed when a not guilty thing is read and they think he should be guilty.

 

Based on gut feeling it seems like rittenhouse should be found guilty of SOMETHING. I mean the dude went across state lines with an assault rifle, got himself into a situation where he had to use the gun, and he used it. It's a crap situation all around. Still, looking into the actual charges, and combining that with the videos I recall seeing, I can see why he got off on the murder/homicide charges.

 

The fact is, they couldnt prove he DIDNT fire in self defense, and given the ambiguity of the situation, eh, I see the argument. Now, AGAIN, this is not to say the dude should've been there in the first place. He shouldnt have. ANd I'm baffled he wasn't at least nailed on a lesser charge. But it looks like those charges were dismissed due to ambiguity in the law and blah blah blah. He had good lawyers, and yeah, maybe the judge was biased.

 

Overall though, eh, despite not being happy with some aspects of the verdict, I'd say justice has been served. I know, this is gonna be an extremely controversial opinion here. But again, proving stuff beyond reasonable doubt is hard, and if ambiguity exists, its better that the person be found innocent than guilty, as the burden of proof has not been reached.

 

This does not in any way mean kyle rittenhouse isnt a scumbag. I wanna make clear I think he is. He was a dude who wanted to play soldier, ended up shooting people, and yeah, it sucks. But, the way the laws were written, and given the standards of the court case, the burden of convicting him had apparently not been reached.

 

Honestly, the big thing here is throwing out the lesser charges. He was out past curfew, he shouldve been guilty of that. And him having a gun in the first place. I would argue he should probably be guilty of something there too. But those werent the big charges being discussed, and they were dismissed for whatever reason, so...

 

My biggest issue with this trial is dismissing the lesser charges that should've, quite frankly, stuck around, and he should've, quite frankly, been convicted of. I dont think they can necessarily prove something as severe as murder or reckless endangerment here. But let's be freaking honest, the dude shouldn't have been there and he shouldn't have had a freaking gun. If anything this case shows that maybe we need new laws against people playing soldier in a community that isnt their own in the first place. This should've been a slam dunk for at least a lesser charge IMO. But, that's law for you. Sometimes it sucks. Sometimes it's messy. But that's law. 

 

---

EDIT: Looking at the gun charge it looks like it was dismissed because there was a loophole that allowed minors to have long barreled rifles for hunting, and apparently an AR15 qualified. So the big problem here is America's gun laws. The gun wasn't used for hunting. But because of, once again, legal ambiguity, Rittenhouse got off.