|
The two cases have absolutely nothing to do with each other in terms of the laws involved or how they apply.
Potter was convicted because she made a mistake that, based on her training and responsibility, she absolutely shouldn't have made AND that mistake cost someone their life. She never claimed it was self-defense and admitted from the beginning that it was a mistake. Therefore the only thing at issue was whether the mistake rose to the level of criminal negligence and the jury said it did.
Rittenhouse was acquitted because the circumstances of the shootings he was involved in met the definition of self-defense under the existing statutes. He never claimed that the shootings were a mistake, but rather that they were justified based on the circumstances. The jury agreed.
|