Rittenhouse found not guilty on all counts

[Rustyt1953]

 

[johngalt]

*
The problem with your assessment, which is arguably sound in terms of the politics of the situation, is that legal ethics, especially as related to the ethical standard for prosecutors, do not allow for such considerations. From any objective assessment, the charging decision was frivolous and malicious, and amply justifies disbarring that "prosecutor" (he is not of my tribe, and brings shame on all of us). Of all my friends and colleagues who actually do such legal work, myself included, only one was even remotely willing to defend the charging decision, and she had not followed the story nor was she aware of the falsehoods underlying the prosecution.

BTW, under the ethics rules, the elected prosecutor is just as exposed to disbarment for failing to rein in the assigned ADA.

The case reminds me of Nifong.

 

[johngalt]

From a strict legal standpoint, I can't argue with your prosecutorial source, but the law doesn't always drive decisions like this. Rittenhouse had to be charged...and here's why:

This was not a case of "self-defense" where a homeowner shot a burglar...or a merchant killed an armed robber. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a volatile, violent, highly-charged public situation, one where he had no personal stake, and then ended up taking two lives on a public street.

Regardless of whether he was legally justified in firing those shots -- and the jury ruled he was -- from the standpoint of maintaining order in an organized society, you can't have somebody do what he did and then have civil authorities put their stamp of approval on it. The public would never have stood for it.

Prosecutors are empowered to charge for violations of the law as written, not to create law for themselves.

 

[Beemerguy53]

Prosecutors are empowered to charge for violations of the law as written, not to create law for themselves.

In an ideal world I would agree, but prosecutors also live in the real world. And in that world, Rittenhouse went and inserted himself into a situation he shouldn't have, and ended up killing two men and injuring a third. They needed to send a message that this is unacceptable -- even if it didn't violate the law -- both for the citizens of Kenosha and for any Kyle-wannabes out there.

After Rittenhouse was acquitted, the usual suspects were all over television wailing that the verdict put the stamp of approval on vigilantism. I can't imagine the reaction if they hadn't even charged him!

 

[johngalt]

In an ideal world I would agree, but prosecutors also live in the real world. And in that world, Rittenhouse went and inserted himself into a situation he shouldn't have, and ended up killing two men and injuring a third. They needed to send a message that this is unacceptable -- even if it didn't violate the law -- both for the citizens of Kenosha and for any Kyle-wannabes out there.

After Rittenhouse was acquitted, the usual suspects were all over television wailing that the verdict put the stamp of approval on vigilantism. I can't imagine the reaction if they hadn't even charged him!

If only there was as much angst over the pillagers being there as Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse violated no law by being there. Wise? Probably not - what possible upside could there be? But I wasn't there. He had family there.

He committed no vigilantism. He did not look for trouble - he ran from it and only fired when chased and attacked. I don't get this assertion that it is unacceptable for one to protect himself.

Prosecutors can't prosecute for breaking laws that don't exist, regardless of politics. Binger should be Nifonged.

 

[biku324]

In an ideal world I would agree, but prosecutors also live in the real world. And in that world, Rittenhouse went and inserted himself into a situation he shouldn't have, and ended up killing two men and injuring a third. They needed to send a message that this is unacceptable -- even if it didn't violate the law -- both for the citizens of Kenosha and for any Kyle-wannabes out there.

After Rittenhouse was acquitted, the usual suspects were all over television wailing that the verdict put the stamp of approval on vigilantism. I can't imagine the reaction if they hadn't even charged him!

And in the meantime, his 'friends' who posted $2 million bond are fighting over getting pieces of it.

People suck.

Lin Wood Attempting to Get Back Kyle Rittenhouse's $2m Bail Money

 

[88IROC]

From a strict legal standpoint, I can't argue with your prosecutorial source, but the law doesn't always drive decisions like this. Rittenhouse had to be charged...and here's why:

This was not a case of "self-defense" where a homeowner shot a burglar...or a merchant killed an armed robber. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a volatile, violent, highly-charged public situation, one where he had no personal stake, and then ended up taking two lives on a public street.

Regardless of whether he was legally justified in firing those shots -- and the jury ruled he was -- from the standpoint of maintaining order in an organized society, you can't have somebody do what he did and then have civil authorities put their stamp of approval on it. The public would never have stood for it.

I understand that he had to be charged from a political standpoint - I used to be a politician (I'm better now) but that doesn't excuse the over charging or the conduct of the prosecutors.

 

[F4phantom]

Regardless of whether he was legally justified in firing those shots -- and the jury ruled he was -- from the standpoint of maintaining order in an organized society, you can't have somebody do what he did and then have civil authorities put their stamp of approval on it. The public would never have stood for it.

Civil authorities put their stamp of approval on the attacks of Federal court buildings, burning entire sections of towns to the ground, destroying public property (i.e. police vehicles), occupying sections of cities where murders happened and numerous occasions of looting. Civil authorities condoned all this stuff. The public did nothing.

 

[Doug44]

Which one had the right to be there KR or those burning and looting. Maybe there should have been more armed citizens protecting their city.

 

[444 Magnum]

Beemerguy, you should watch the KR/Tucker Carlson interview. I saw no malice whatsoever in this kid. He is a person who believes in service to his community and thought he was doing just that. He had been administering first aid to the protesters/rioters with whom he disagreed in principal.
The rioters had no business there. KR states he thought he was going to die there. He was being chased by a felon who had previously threatened him for no apparent reason. He shot him once and was trying to return to the same man to administer first aid (where's the malice?). That's when the crowd started chasing him and calling for his death. He was chased by felons and struck multiple times as he tried to go to the police.
After the incident, he still went to the police line to tell them what happened, they sent him home. He then went to the police in the neighboring town and reported the incident.
There was no malice in this young man's actions nor did he try to cover it up.
How can you blame him for protecting himself against convicted felons chasing him in an attempt at serious harm?

 

[Beemerguy53]

Civil authorities put their stamp of approval on the attacks of Federal court buildings, burning entire sections of towns to the ground, destroying public property (i.e. police vehicles), occupying sections of cities where murders happened and numerous occasions of looting. Civil authorities condoned all this stuff. The public did nothing.

I agree with you 100%, and have made these same points myself in a previous post on this thread:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/141309824-post20.html

 

[Beemerguy53]

Which one had the right to be there KR or those burning and looting. Maybe there should have been more armed citizens protecting their city.

Or maybe the civil authorities in Kenosha should have done their jobs, and maintained order in the first place.

Did young Mr. Rittenhouse have a right to be there? Apparently he did...but I stand by my opinion that it wasn't very smart for him to go there and get involved in a situation where he had no personal stake.

I raised two sons. If either of them, at age 17, had told me he was headed off to a riot, armed with a rifle, I would have put my foot you-know-where...

 

[Beemerguy53]

Beemerguy, you should watch the KR/Tucker Carlson interview. I saw no malice whatsoever in this kid. He is a person who believes in service to his community and thought he was doing just that. He had been administering first aid to the protesters/rioters with whom he disagreed in principal.
The rioters had no business there. KR states he thought he was going to die there. He was being chased by a felon who had previously threatened him for no apparent reason. He shot him once and was trying to return to the same man to administer first aid (where's the malice?). That's when the crowd started chasing him and calling for his death. He was chased by felons and struck multiple times as he tried to go to the police.
After the incident, he still went to the police line to tell them what happened, they sent him home. He then went to the police in the neighboring town and reported the incident.
There was no malice in this young man's actions nor did he try to cover it up.
How can you blame him for protecting himself against convicted felons chasing him in an attempt at serious harm?

I don't blame him for protecting himself.

I do blame him for putting himself in a position where he had to protect himself.

I don't think he acted with malice...but I think he used extremely poor judgment.

In all the back-and-forth on this subject, not one of the Forum members here has said he would want his own son to do what Rittenhouse did...

 

[kmyers]

Which one had the right to be there KR or those burning and looting. Maybe there should have been more armed citizens protecting their city.

True. Everybody will have their opinions and often they will differ. We had a couple of marches and protests locally here with zero issues or troubles all went well and no complaints about the protestors. They had more than a bit of criminal activity and violence in Kenosha. Commenting that Rittenhouse had no business there in the city to me personally is akin to asking: "Why are you here? Are your papers in order, comrade?".

 

[Beemerguy53]

True. Everybody will have their opinions and often they will differ. We had a couple of marches and protests locally here with zero issues or troubles all went well and no complaints about the protestors. They had more than a bit of criminal activity and violence in Kenosha. Commenting that Rittenhouse had no business there in the city to me personally is akin to asking: "Why are you here? Are your papers in order, comrade?".

Thanks for the ad hominem attack, and for deliberately twisting my words.

Again: I do not dispute Rittenhouse's legal right to be there. But he didn't have a dog in that fight: he didn't live in Kenosha, didn't own property or a business there, and had no personal stake in anything that was happening. I do not think it was a good idea for him to go there.

Now then...is that clear enough for you?

 

[kmyers]

Thanks for the ad hominem attack, and for deliberately twisting my words.

Again: I do not dispute Rittenhouse's legal right to be there. But he didn't have a dog in that fight: he didn't live in Kenosha, didn't own property or a business there, and had no personal stake in anything that was happening. I do not think it was a good idea for him to go there.

Now then...is that clear enough for you?

Plenty of things were already clear enough for me and as stated opinions will and do vary. Enough said on that.

 

[Beemer-mark]

I'm constantly astounded by the folks I encounter who do not know you cannot use deadly force to protect property. That's been the law mostly everywhere in the US since well before most of us were born.

Ah, not in Texas.

 

[Beemer-mark]

The Rittenhouse case and the McCloskey in St Louis were about self defense. The McCloskey's didn't shoot anyone but were prepared to do if the mob had carried things further. The left does not belief in self defense. You need to flee and hope you don't get killed. In Rittenhouse if you drop all preconceived notions about what he was doing there and concentrate on the time he his being chased then his age, his having a deadly weapon, crossing states lines, etc. are all irrelevant. I wonder if the DA would have charged him with crimes for being there with a deadly weapon if he wouldn't be on his way to prison.

 

[Beemer-mark]

Well, I think that's likely because there isn't much debate about the verdict in the Arbery case. I haven't seen anybody anywhere argue in support of what the defendants did in that situation...

The self defense case was extremely weak. Lower than weak. But the NYT ran a full page on why they're similar, the US is awash in guns, and the self defense justification will lead to more mass shootings.

 

[biku324]

Ah, not in Texas.

I rest my case. And yes, I am familiar with the Texas statute and jury instructions. Understand that the 'reasonableness' of that use of force is a question for the jury, or the judge in a bench trial.

Criminal Pattern Jury Charges (Criminal Defenses) (2015)
Chapter 36. Defense of Property
CPJC 36-8 Instruction—Deadly Force in Defense of One’s Own Personal Property