Rittenhouse Case

[dismalist]

The jury has found Rittenhouse not guilty on all counts.

That's a travesty. It's also--for the free speech heroes among us--going to seriously chill protest, since it makes it clear that murdering protesters is permissible (as if all those new laws allowing you to run them over didn't already).

Agreed. I'm guessing the jury felt sorry for the dumb kid.

The idiot judge's signaling moves didn't help, either.

M.

Are you particularly sorry for the one who beat Rittenhouse over the head with a skateboard, or the one who (by his own admission on the stand) got shot after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse?

A few posters have commented on the Rittenhouse Case in various ways. See above. In addition to the outcome  -- the justice of the verdict, one might question the process of getting to the verdict.

Marsh's question is about the weight of the evidence. It's a fair question, a question that must be answered -- by a juror. Were I a juror I would not hesitate to answer it, one way or the other.

As for the other comments, where is the travesty?

--In the jury selection system?
--Size of the jury? 12, 24, the whole public?
--In the judge selection system?
--In the laws?
--In trial by jury under Common Law? Under Civil Law? In trial by jury at all?
--In the share of jurors needed to convict?

We don't need a Committee of Public Safety, or do we?

Feeling sorry for the dumb kid is quite possible, but all 12? I doubt it.

The judge could be incompetent or biased. Prosecution has means to deal with it.

Look, what are better alternatives? Trial by public opinion? Trial by journalists' opinions? If so, I prefer jousting!

[marshwiggle]

There are several YouTube channels by lawyers, and it was interesting watching those channels about 2 trials simultaneously; the Elizabeth Holmes/Theranos trial, and the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. These lawyers (who have no connection to either case; they only get their information from the public sources) have progressively noted how the prosecution's case became ever more solid in one case, and ever more tenuous in the other. The difference is quite dramatic.

[Parasaurolophus]

I'm a bit tired and busy to engage in detail at the moment, so I'll spare you. But I want to note one thing:

On the one hand, "the Left" had to abase itself because someone punched a Nazi in the face. We spent months dissecting it, and "the left" fell over itself to disavow violence, even against Nazis.

On the other hand, this guy murdered two people and maimed a third (and got away with it). And he's being very vocally cheered along for it.




Juries often return bad verdicts. That's a cost we have to live with. And I remain firm in my belief that it's better to let someone get off than to wrongly imprison another. But we need to be able to recognize when the system has returned a bad verdict like this. And all the Rittenhero bullshit is deeply, deeply worrying. This guy is not being disavowed by the right: he's been and is being lionized. That should worry us all.

[dismalist]

Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.

Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?

[Parasaurolophus]

Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.

Sure, fine. He killed them with an illegal gun he obtained so he could shoot people with it. He compromised them to a permanent end. Whatever.

And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).

Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?

There are problems with both. Obviously.

[dismalist]

Apparently, the man didn't murder two people, nor was he guilty of maiming a third. That's what a trial by jury determines.

Sure, fine. He killed them with an illegal gun he obtained so he could shoot people with it. He compromised them to a permanent end. Whatever.

And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).

Is the problem with the outcome or with the system?

There are problems with both. Obviously.

Not obvious at all.

Bad judge? Incompetent prosecution! System must be broke?

An outcome one doesn't like is not a sufficient condition for believing that the outcome was either some random error or that the system is rotten.

Looks to me like some people don't like the outcome on other grounds.

[mahagonny]

And according to the judge, the people he killed weren't "victims", they were "rioters" or "looters" (never mind that the latter appellations are defamatory and haven't been established).

I didn't care for that either. This might cause the jury to be biased in favor of those that Kyle shot, as looting is a heroic act of social justice, made necessary by the fact that white people have refused to make an offer of cash reparations. How does the jury know they are looters? They may have just been hanging around, trying to get esteem by association.

[Langue_doc]

One of the NYT articles on the verdict:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html

[ciao_yall]

Here's a New Yorker article.

Closing sentences:

If a jury appears to sanction vigilantism, it seems likely that more altercations between protesters and counter-protesters will turn deadly.

Thomas sees the case as "a bellwether," putting "guns at the forefront of the stability of our democracy." Protecting citizens' safety "is a primary function of our government," she said. "Yet it's gotten to the point where this idea that you have a right to carry a loaded weapon is starting to literally overtake other rights—the right to express your vote, the right to assemble without fear."

[adel9216]

Omg, this is just horrible, horrible. I have never heard of a Black person getting away with murdering two people to be honest. :/

[mahagonny]

plus one ^

Here's a New Yorker article.

Closing sentences:

If a jury appears to sanction vigilantism, it seems likely that more altercations between protesters and counter-protesters will turn deadly.

Thomas sees the case as "a bellwether," putting "guns at the forefront of the stability of our democracy." Protecting citizens' safety "is a primary function of our government," she said. "Yet it's gotten to the point where this idea that you have a right to carry a loaded weapon is starting to literally overtake other rights—the right to express your vote, the right to assemble without fear."

More silly liberal outrage. The lesson to be taken from this horrible experience is that things like this are bound to happen when the mayor of the city neglects to let the police keep peace on the streets.
The term 'mostly peaceful protests' from the insufferable liberal media is the culprit. Over the last couple years untold mayhem has been permitted because not all protesters are doing illegal things. So what?
whacking someone with your skateboard is illegal. So is verbally threatening to kill someone. This is what the dead men did. These things are incendiary and may lead to horrible consequences. Common sense.

ETA: and the other lesson to be taken from this disaster: thank God and the rule of law we have the courts. Even when people are going insane the law, jury, judge, can do their work. 'The wheels of justice grind slow but fine.'

John Kass

https://johnkassnews.com/who-will-apologize-to-kyle-rittenhouse-biden-the-media-dont-hold-your-breath/

From the New Yorker:

"President Donald Trump had been highlighting the destructive aspects of such protests in order to malign the Black Lives Matter movement."

This is kind of stuff that makes my blood boil. Many of the protests were riots. 'Riots' is the proper English language term for when citizens assemble and disturb the peace with mayhem. The POTUS is as capable of noticing this as are the people who elected him, and it is his job to have a conversation with us from time to time about the state of the nation.

[Wahoo Redux]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.

You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.

I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.

[Parasaurolophus]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.

You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.

I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.

He was attacked because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.

[Wahoo Redux]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.

You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.

I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.

He was attacked because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.

Review the chain of events.

[dismalist]

The kid was being attacked. I have only watched the videos once, but it seemed pretty clear to me.

No matter the defendant's color, no matter the attitudes toward firearms, I think the jury did the right thing.

You cannot find someone guilty of murder simply to make an example or because of the possibility that something might happen in the future.

I stopped reading the New Yorker's political pieces for the same reason I do not watch FOX News.

He was attacked because he shot someone. The people he killed and maimed were unarmed and not his attackers.

Even the New York Times article above doesn't say that: He shot someone because he was attacked by that someone. [After that he was skateboarded and then threatened with a pistol.]