This case (as much as we can tell from afar) is the reason we have juries, and the same can be said about the Rittenhouse case.
The defendants in this case (probably) have the law on their side, I’m not so sure they have right on their side - and that’s what the jury is for.
In the Rittenhouse case, Kyle may or may not have had the law on his side, but he UNQUESTIONABLY had right on his side, which, thanks to the jury, is why he is a free man today.
Wrong. Only in extraordinary cases are juries allowed to rule on “right” vs law.
The KR trial jury ruled on law, and only that. His right to defend himself is enshrined in law. The US Const requires gov’mt to protect that human right.
Where a jury might decide outside the law that the defendant did the right thing is when the judge countermands them and issues a directed verdict.
Now, in the AArbury case some might say it was wrong to bring a gun. Why? Don’t people have a right to be armed and protect themselves? They had no idea that he was not armed , himself. But, if AA did not threaten, did not make it reasonable to shoot — then the shotgun guy deserves to go to jail.