He was clearly reckless and stupid, and shouldn’t have been where he was. If he hadn’t been there, then people wouldn’t have been killed. That much is obvious to me. Saying he went there with an intent to kill protestors and was hunting them is more of a stretch. Maybe he did, but from what I’ve seen it’s far from clear that the evidence proves that beyond a reasonable doubt, which was my original point. I’m not trying to defend Kyle Rittenhouse, but I do think he deserves a fair trial and if the prosecution can’t make a solid legal case proving him guilty of a crime, then he should go free.
3 Likes
He was boasting beforehand of wanting to kill protesters. (Which the judge has excluded from evidence)
He took a weapon which he wasn’t even allowed to have without adult supervision, let alone carry across state lines.
Evidence is that the trial is well and truly biased in his favour.
And what if the prosecution won’t make a solid legal case? As far as anyone can see, it looks like they’re deliberately botching it, over and above the partisan judge and his shenanigans.
13 Likes
It already has been. See: Clive Bundy. These fuckers get off at every turn with, at best, slaps on the wrist when they violate the law. The system clings to any “reasonable doubt” they can manufacture for these clowns, while convicting black people for far longer sentences for far less serious crimes.
This judge has shown deep bias since day 1. He’s bent over backwards to make the defense’s job easy. And all the assertions that he’s “right” when the prosecution ignores his nonsensical rulings are the exact stupid technicalities I’m speaking of. This racist little YeeHadist will be set free after killing people, a moment of violence he went in search of and instigated. He will be lauded and praised by conservatives who see murdering those on the left as always justified behavior.
This country is a fucking joke right now. And the Democratic party has shown no fucking spine in changing it. Tepid “let’s work together” pleas are a waste of time, and people like Manchin just don’t give a fucking shit about any of it long as they’re being enriched.
16 Likes
That says exactly what I said. Here’s the relevant bit about imminent threat. Not that this part has to be an actual threat, not just a belief that there’s a threat. “As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense.”
4 Likes
He made multiple statements before hand and since to that effect, and has a history of publicly fantasizing about killing protestors. He planned to acquire and transport a weapon to Kenosha specifically for this purpose. He coordinated and discussed both with others.
This is all widely reported and on the public record. It is in the evidence the prosecution has entered, and attempted to enter into the trial.
Self defense does not generally involve that kind of pre-meditation.
This is also what’s at the heart of the Judge’s rant and the mistrial request. The judge had excluded evidence of Rittenhouse’s prior statements about his motivation. Rittenhouse’s statement on the stand that he sought to provide medical care to the protestors, contradicts his clear, public statements from before the attack. And his prior public justifications (which tended to be about protecting businesses from “rioters”). So the prosecution, rightly and legally from what I understand, re-entered some excluded evidence that directly contradicted his testimony.
That kinda undermines your fair trial bit. Rittenhouse is not getting a fair trial, but to his benefit. The judge has blocked core evidence of his motive, intent and pre-planning. Rittenhouse appears to have lied on the stand, and evidence that clearly shows it to be a lie. Can not be used.
13 Likes
With this judge there’s like no chance that Rittenhouse will be found guilty, is there? And there’s no chance that the prosecution won’t have totally valid grounds to argue for a mistrial and we will have to go through all of this again, is there?
I hope we’re that lucky. They’re aiming at a “mistrial with prejudice” which apparently means he wouldn’t be tried again.
5 Likes
9 Likes
He almost certainly won’t be found guilty of shooting and killing anyone; he has a solid defense team, the judge is biased and the prosecution team is inept. He might be found guilty of a weapons charge since he was underage. He won’t serve any prison time though.
3 Likes
But not Black Americans… He shot race traitors, so it’s okay to let him get away with it… after all, there is probably some Black teen who shoplifted something that needs to go up the river for a dime… /s
Our justice system is completely fucked and is not currently serving justice. It’s serving white supremacy.
You REALLY believe that? That if a Black teen had done that, who was being threatened by the cops, he would not be riddled with bullets or if not, be convicted to death?
Don’t gaslight us. We know what he did and we know what we saw.
16 Likes
He isn’t getting a fair trial - he’s getting a biased one. The judge isn’t allowing relevant evidence to be presented.
He doesn’t need more lawyers, the judge is already at his table.
7 Likes
You’re welcome to believe what you want, but I didn’t say that, and I don’t believe it.
I don’t disagree. Our system is supposed to maintain a high standard for burden of proof and I firmly believe that should apply equally to everyone. There’s no question, though, that we fail at that with people of color much more often than we do with quote people.
It was a hyperbolic hypothetical, responding to an equally hyperbolic hypothetical. And I didn’t say anything about race. Clearly the deck would be stacked against you if that scenario really happened, and it would be stacked far higher if you were black. And yes, it’s unlikely that you walk out alive in the first place, but that wasn’t really the point. If the scenario played out as described and you somehow managed to get a fair trial, then then legally you would be able to claim self defense.
Point of clarity, juries do not find people innocent. Guilty or not guilty are the verdicts. It’s an important distinction.
2 Likes
Where is Jamarcus Glover?
2 Likes
10 Likes
Well, much of that depends on your skin color.
It’s not for lack of evidence - there’s video footage of Rittenhouse prior to him shooting people literally saying he wished he could shoot looters and rioters. It’s (once again) because the judge isn’t allowing this evidence.
13 Likes
Maybe not the right to shoot you, but when has that ever stopped them?
7 Likes
if im understanding right, the prosecutor only did that after rittenhouse gave a justification for traveling there. previously the judge said motivation was off the table for the prosecution, but when the defense had it on the record one way - they felt they could try again.
maybe they did it in public as strategy - rightly or wrongly - to try to create a record of that attempt presuming the judge wouldn’t listen anyway.
…
one thing not mentioned is that this judge always disallows the word “victim”
“That’s pretty standard in his courtroom to not allow ‘victim,’” said Ted Kmiec, a local criminal defense lawyer who has had cases before Schroeder.
to me, it still seems a very right wing thing, and it’s still a problem - i guess it’s just important to note he foists that bs on everyone
6 Likes
The relevant bit is a couple paragraphs further down:
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.
