Yeah, they won’t hire him, because they and everyone else (including his fans) know he should be in jail right now!
4 Likes
That’s not really how that works. The defense could file a motion to dismiss the charges, but that’s difficult. Basically, (and I’m oversimplifying) the court in evaluating a motion like that would say, “Ok, let’s say everything the prosecution is saying is true. If that’s the case, and there’s still no law that’s been broken, then we can dismiss the charges.” Here, that wasn’t the case. If everything the prosecution was alleging were true, Rittenhouse would have been guilty of murder. The law, however, draws some lines for the jury to decide whether or not Rittenhouse reasonably feared for his life. And it doesn’t matter, legally, if he put himself in that position to begin with. In Wisconsin, those lines are very broad. If the jury had decided otherwise, it likely would have been grounds for a successful appeal.
And you don’t think that referring to the people Rittenhouse killed as “looters” rather than “victims” could have had any bearing whatsoever on how the jury decided that question?
11 Likes
No, in this case, I don’t think it did. This entire case sucks. In every way. But the problem, beyond assholes like Rittenhouse, is the way the law is written in Wisconsin. If this had happened in Massachusetts, Rittenhouse would be rotting in prison right now.
Even with the Wisconsin law, this seems misinterpreted. Otherwise, someone yelling at me at a football game is someone I can shoot dead and claim self-defense. That’s not what the law says or means, therefore, it was misapplied.
Much like the early (racist) interpretations by local police and prosecutors in the Ahmaud Arbery murder, which were corrected once the video came out and non-racist prosecutors were brought in. Similar concept but thankfully corrected in time for justice to be somewhat served.
12 Likes
You really don’t know what you are talking about here. Everything I was talking about were efforts by the judge to tip scales in favor of the defense. Muddying up the waters with wild skews on the applicable law and outright violations of normal criminal trial procedure.
No, it is not normal at all to have surprise expert witnesses. Nor is it normal to enforce deliberately skewed language in a criminal trial. Expert disclosure serves a legit purpose in apprising the adversary as to the substance and value of the expert testimony. Giving them time to address and rebut it. These are not minor transgressions.
In the end they made a mockery of what self defense was. Self defense requires perceived grave threats and not being the one to initiate hostile action. Nether applied there. If the judge favored the prosecution in such a blatant fashion it would be grounds for mistrial. But prosecutors don’t have the ability to retry a defendant based in egregious court conduct.
Whatever you think or have been told how the law works here, it’s wildly incorrect.
11 Likes
But it has exceptions for being the aggressor. Rittenhouse actively sought out his first victim and the other two reacted to him as an active shooter. “He was wiggling in front of my gun” is not being in fear for one’s life. Nor was, “they were trying to keep me from fleeing the scene of a murder”
10 Likes
IANAL, yet. I’m going to point everyone to this video from an actual lawyer explaining all this much better.
Was this really only last year…? This timeline, if you survive it, is fucking exhausting. 
13 Likes
Meh, not impressed. It’s answers to a lot of layperson remarks but misses important facts and interpretations of the law.
Rittenhouse was seen on the drone video chasing his first victim initially. Making him the aggressor. Said victim was not acting in a threatening manner. Yes, being unarmed isn’t a complete defense in of itself, but the actions themselves weren’t threatening regardless. He was held at gunpoint at a short distance and just gunned down. The other two victims were already noted as trying to stop the active shooter. The last victim had his hands in the air in a surrender gesture. The acquittal was bullshit. The law was not applied properly here, it’s not at fault.
15 Likes
Yup
16 Likes
Worked for MY.
1 Like
Don’t be quite so sure that it ‘worked out for him,’ just yet.
I anticipate the inevitable dumpster fire that will ensue…
13 Likes
Those folks seem to revel in the dumpster fires. They are chaos engines.
7 Likes
Also refusing to call the victims as such and allowing the defense to call them looters was blatantly prejudicial. As was letting two unscheduled surprise expert witnesses for the defense to spew bullshit and attack prosecution evidence. It was an ambush that left no chance for rebuttal or possible likely exclusion.
It was murder 2. Depraved mind/not premeditated killing.
12 Likes
Sounds like the independent contractors at my work. They get mad when I tell our management they aren’t doing their jobs correctly. Ummm… that’s my job; I report when you are not meeting the specifics of your contract. If you do your job correctly, you’d never even know I existed. As for the Murder Child? Maybe you don’t go around threatening people with a firearm next time, eh Boy Wonder? I predict Rittenhouse will have a short life. Live it up now, kid. There’s not much left.
Not sustainable; too many volatile substances combined eventually explode.
7 Likes
No argument here.
3 Likes
You have it backwards. Where an admitted killer is claiming self defense it is ENTIRELY proper for the judge to insist that the decedents not be called “victims”. Calling them “victims” is as prejudicial as it gets in a case that hinges on the very question of whether or not they were victims (meanwhile the case doesn’t hinge on whether or not they were looters).
I know it seems like a grave injustice. I too wish he’d gone to jail for what he did and there’s a good likelihood he’ll still be found liable in a civil trial given the different burden of proof.
But in a state where it’s legal to run around with an AR-15, it’s extremely hard to convict someone of murder when they use it during a fight. Even if they instigated the fight. Which is why allowing or encouraging people to carry guns is such an incredibly stupid public policy.
No it isn’t. But calling them “looters” is certainly prejudicial. Victims is neutral. They were killed, it was homicide. Again the ambush expert witnesses aren’t even remotely proper and entirely prejudicial as well. Since it gives no chance for “experts” to be vetted, their testimony to be evaluated for admissibility nor a rebuttal.
The acquittal was legally a shitshow. They made a mockery of self defense and the jury basically signed off on a nascent mass murderer because they vilified the victims. At no point was there even a credible belief of a threat. He was the aggressor. He acted deliberately and killed a person who was unarmed at a short distance. Then he killed a person trying to prevent him from fleeing the scene and almost killed a person trying to get him to back away.
He brought a gun to a protest because the cops encouraged right wing violence and murder against protesters. As they have done elsewhere.
11 Likes
