Good piece by Wonkette, but they fast-forwarded from acquittal to Senator Rittenhouse without considering the civil wrongful death lawsuit(s) that will follow the criminal trial. Lower burden of proof, much higher caliber of attorneys than the prosecutors here, and those attorneys will choose a better venue than Judge MAGA. I am reminded of another poorly prosecuted case almost 30 years ago where the killer was acquitted, and it was the civil judgment that caused some real pain.
I think Rittenhouse will really need to start dipping into his GoFundMe when discovery starts in earnest. If I were their attorney, I would put his ugly crying mug up on video next to him taking a victory lap at the bar once he got out on bail. He really gives Shkreli a run for his money in the backpfeifengesicht category.
Could be. On the other hand, they’re probably in a better mood these days and less inclined to be violent (for now). With gas and food prices increasing under Biden, voting restrictions in place and Rittenhouse’s pending acquittal they see the likelihood that Democrats will lose mid-terms and Trump will be re-elected in 2024.
And yet, people who have killed others who were genuinely defending themselves from immediate risk of death, often in their own homes, are still convicted of or plead guilty to some level of homicide. For instance, when the police break into their home in the middle of the night without announcing themselves, or when an abusive ex-husband returns to finish the job.
Let’s face it, it’s not the law that’s protecting Rittenhouse, it his whiteness and maleness.
Though for the record, if someone does think there is any chance that what he did was within the law, probably the sensible reaction is less Rittenhouse was acting within his rights and more oh god, the laws are completely broken and need to be changed as soon as possible.
Doing this in front of the jury, explicitly after the judge told you not to, is a great way to get a mistrial. If he wanted to do it , he should have asked for a sidebar/chambers, explained it to the judge out of view of the jury, the defense lawyer would object surely, the judge would make a decision, and then they would go back in front of the jury and act accordingly.
Endrunning a judge’s rules is always going to be a bad idea.
Note the /s sarcasm mark, dude. I don’t, but many Americans do. You might not believe it personally, but ignoring the gaping racial disparities that exist in our criminal justice system and that are CLEARLY not living up to the blind justice ideal that you are championing here only perpetuates it, whether that’s your goal or not. We can’t just assume that the ideal will work and justice will be served, when it is abundantly apparently that it very much does not work and justice will not be served.
You might very much believe you’re being even handed here, and just noting how the case is following the law, but the judge (a figure meant to be impartial, to instruct the jury and to guide both sides towards representing their sides within the bounds of the law) was clearly biased from the start, and Rittenhouse is going to get off. It’s just another example of the racist miscarriages of justice that happens literally on a daily basis here in America…
This case is about race. Because he was acting to defend white supremacy and was making friends with white supremacists and getting money from white supremacists, etc, etc.
Bingo. We even have the direct counterpart to Rittenhouse to compare it to. White guy brings a gun to a protest, and has a much better claim to self-defense than Rittenhouse, but because he was a BLM protester who killed a MAGA anti-protester, he was executed by police before he could even get a trial.
Oh, and none of the cops who rolled up and started shooting without identifying themselves were held accountable for that, either.
at least according to the wonkete article linked above:
[at the] pre-trial hearing, he said he was inclined to keep the video out but didn’t make a final ruling… Most lawyers would probably think [that] left the door open for them to lay the appropriate foundation to get the evidence admitted. The prosecutors did not mention the video.
you and i are not lawyers. we’re channeling the media we’re reading or listening to. therefore, some level of credulity needs to be kept when reading reporters’ opinions of things even when they’re stated like fact
until an interview happens with the lead prosecutor, we’re speculating. they are a person who does this for a living, he probably has at least some idea of what he’s doing and why
I can’t remember the specifics, but either that bible verse about hearsay or a reference to it was put into a 1998 Supreme Court Opinion by Antonin Scalia. One of the many legal presents he left us.
I agree that he’s likely going to be acquitted. There’s just enough evidence that he might have feared for his life. Whether or not he shot in “self-defense” or cold blood really begs the question as why a 17-year-old was trying to defend someone else’s property using an assault rifle? What are the larger societal problems that allowed this situation to take place?
Of course he felt threatened, he’s a kid who got in wayyyy over his head and didn’t know what he was doing. He shouldn’t have been there. Unfortunately, that’s not a crime, but it is the problem.
Sheeeet, I don’t know how, but I’d totally forgotten about that.
Yep, excellent counter example.
I’m not saying it’s not about race, bc it obviously is, but you’re (or my) race won’t protect us if we’re fighting for the “wrong” side.
It’s not a trap. It just seems like, whenever it’s a white guy in court, defenders come out of the woodwork to point at the law. But when it’s a woman or BIPOC folks, a similar group likewise show up to nitpick what they “did wrong.”
It’s just another facet of a society that is based on white supremacy and misogyny. People don’t even realize they are doing it.
