The Rittenhouse and Aubery trials raise two extremely important legal questions pertaining to self-defense:
- The system gives the police a great deal of deference as to split-second decisions on the use of deadly force. Should vigilantes be entitled to the same level of deference?
- For a vigilante, is the fear that an unarmed person might take your gun and use it on you enough to make out a valid claim of self-defense?
The correct answers to these questions, of course, are no and no; otherwise, the law is basically authorizing anyone with a gun to use it on anyone at any time. Whether the juries in the two cases will agree remains to be seen.