- This topic has 4 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
In Kenosha Wisconsin during the riots, Kyle Rittenhouse was a 17 year old who shot and killed two people and wounded a third. All three had criminal records, all three were part of a crowd who were chasing and hounding Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot and wounded the prosecution’s star witness, who was aiming a loaded handgun at Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse’s defense team claims self-defense.
-
I have a feeling that he’s within his rights to self defense. I also don’t understand why people dislike this. It was a riot. He happened to arrive with proper equipment. People attacked him. He stopped them.
Others will say that he made poor choices by being there etc, but that doesn’t negate his right to self defense in most jurisdictions. He ran away from everybody who was ultimately shot for attacking him.
Still others will say he should face legal peril for open carrying a rifle during a riot. He was only 17. For them I say…okay but he is about to beat a rap where he was charged as an ADULT. If he beats that; then to go charge him with an underage crime seems a bit double dealing.
If he were my kid I would be simultaneously royally pissed at his choices, and really glad he was home safe and sound after defending himself.
Here’a a strange thought experiment: is Kyle rittenhouse more like Trayvon martin or Dylan Klebold? The press wants us to think he was akin to a school shooter. But reality is he was actively and aggressively threatened in every case. I think he’s more like martin.
____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work) -
Also of interest here is the prosecution’s tactics. In the last day or two they specifically asked jurors to accept negative inferences about the defendant because he elected not to tell his side of the story until the defense presentation at trial. They then elected to ignore the judges prior evidentiary rulings in front of the juror.
Alan Dershowitz is of the opinion these missteps by the prosecution were deliberate in the hope they could get a mistrial. Their case has been that poorly presented.
And our national sociologist in residence, LaBron tweets about the defendant’s performance on the stand. Personally, I think the Celtic’s player’s shoes are more thought provoking than James.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long -
I have a hard time understanding why the media rushed to judgment on Rittenhouse, and why the usual suspects are doubling down that he’s a murderer.
Last night, Neri and I watched several hours of .#Kylerittenhouse direct testimony and cross examination. We came away believing that #Kyle is telling the truth and that he acted in self defense. We found him to be a civic-minded patriot with a history of
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) November 11, 2021
It’s amazing, as well, how much the media mislead the public about the facts in the case… and how much highly educated, very smart people were willing to just accept the media narrative rather than wait to see what the evidence showed.
Again: look how many people are saying that they feel completely betrayed and misled by a year's worth of media coverage about the Rittenhouse case, now that they're watching the trial.
Maybe this should cause a bit of media self-critique? Yeah, I know.https://t.co/SWTfVcBryN
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 11, 2021
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1458520663506014211 (I also agree that Ana Kasperian is brave for acknowledging her error).
I am highly educated and reasonably perceptive, and it was only today that I learned the Kyle Rittenhouse victims were white.
My progressive bubble made this seem like a very different case than it is.
— Sarah Beth Burwick (@sarahbeth345) November 11, 2021
The only thing I can think of is that the media NEEDS a guilty verdict to stave off some libel suits. This is potentially Nick Sandmann on steroids. And it’s not just the mainstream media, it’s the very online people on Twitter. Earlier in the week, they started attacking the judge for admonishing the prosecutor. A law professor whose Twitter handle is “EvidenceProf” tried saying that the judge was wrong, because a prosecutor is allowed to comment that the defendant that testifies sat through trial and can comment that the defendant tailored his testimony to the evidence and testimony of others. Only the judge was (correctly) yelling at the prosecutor for commenting on the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, which is clear Griffin error, and one of the fundamental no-nos for prosecutors. Now the anti-judge floodgates / media narrative has begun.
We’ll see what the jury does, but in my view, this is a clear case of self-defense. All of it.
-
I thought (from the excerpts I saw) that he did very well on the stand.
The low road taken by the prosecution is also very unimpressive. You don’t comment on a defendant’s silence – ever. It’s pretty well-established black letter law.
So his chances seem very good to me.
I wouldn't give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn't have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness - yeah, and a little looking out for the other fella, too.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.