Probably that, as this thread is just 24hrs old vs the 15 months old Rittenhouse thread yet doesn't have the same number of replies, GD must therefore be full of racists - as a guess anyway, although I know I'm probably being unfairly harsh with my bias towards Klinck.
Regarding the case it's a right mess and I suspect the defendents will be found not guilty of murder even if I disagree with that in most regards, but found guilty of a lesser charge. To me and my understanding of events (could be wrong TBF) -
1. Seeing someone trespassing in an area which has suffered from B&E and then seeing the "suspect" running away so deciding to give chase in you car - not illegal but debateable in reality.
2. Attempting to perform a citizens arrest whilst you are armed - not illegal but, to me, a bad decision for many, many reasons. Mainly that you have no idea how the "arrested" will react etc.
3. Getting into a fight with the "suspect" so you shoot him - could be classed as self-defense but there were many other options available rather than getting into a fight which should have been avoided at all costs.
Then you have the reverse -
1. Out for a jog and you pop over to a house being built (IIRC) to have a look through the door - trespassing but a tiny thing.
2. Carry on jogging and suddenly a truck with 3 angry, armed men jump out shouting and pointing their guns at you so you, understandably, feel threatened - a fairly normal human reaction.
3. One of the guys tries to grab you so, fearing for your life you fight back but get shot and die.
Both sides "could" claim self defense, but the aggressor (to me) is the guy who tried to grab the jogger as there were many other non-violent ways the guy could have been "stopped", even just driving beside him whilst on the phone with the police etc (or any other scenario) so I would think that a jury will decide that his actions led to the shooting, hence a conviction on a lesser charge.
