I don’t know how closely you have been following Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial. It’s pretty hard to escape it here in Chicago—Kenosha is almost a Chicago suburb.
From what I have heard of yesterday’s proceedings, the prosecution basically made the defense’s case for them. Now the defense is puttin Rittenhouse on the stand to testify in his own defense which is usually a mistake. All illustrating a point I’ve made around here from time to time: just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean you’re a good lawyer.
My own view is that Kyle Rittenhouse was in fact defending himself but he shouldn’t have been there at that time, doing what he was doing and armed. That was a formula for tragedy. From what I’ve heard he shouldn’t be convicted of first degree intentional homicide or recklessly endangering safety. I think he should be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and failure to comply with an emergency order for sure.
It also is a case in point for how, when the legal authorities stand down in the presence of violent disorder, somebody else is likely to stand up and the outcome will be worse than enforcing the law in the first place. I hope people learn a lesson from that but I doubt that they will.
Caveat, I am not a lawyer. Rittenhouse is testifying because the positions of the prosecution and defense are switched from a normal trial.
Usually, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime occurred. In this case, it is a fact that Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 men. Rittenhouse is raising the claim of self defense. So the defense needs to prove to some standard that Rittenhouse’s action was self defense.
Not testifying is related to the saying “better to remain silent than remove all doubt…”. That doesn’t apply here.
“My own view is that Kyle Rittenhouse was in fact defending himself but he shouldn’t have been there at that time, doing what he was doing and armed. That was a formula for tragedy. From what I’ve heard he shouldn’t be convicted of first degree intentional homicide or recklessly endangering safety. I think he should be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 and failure to comply with an emergency order for sure.”
That couldn’t have been said any better. Of course, from what I have seen of the trial that’s my summary conclusion as well, so I of course would think so. The kid made a gross error in judgment. But the real crime was illegal possession and violation of an order, better intentions notwithstanding.
CO – what you said is exactly what legal commentators have said. He now has to show that he acted reasonably in a presumptive need for self-defense.
“It also is a case in point for how, when the legal authorities stand down in the presence of violent disorder, somebody else is likely to stand up and the outcome will be worse than enforcing the law in the first place.”
The essential point that all the progressive types don’t seem to understand with their la la land prescriptions.
I haven’t followed the trial. From what I remember your analysis and conclusions sound about right but I don’t really have a dog in this fight.
I think you are largely correct. At 17 he should not have been carrying a gun around in a large crowd. Nothing good was going to come out of that. Guess my only caveat would be if they found social media/texts to friends saying he was hoping he would get a chance to shoot someone.
I think his parents knew he was going. I think there ought to be some charge against them. Not sure what. What idiot parent lets their kid go run around like that? If they didnt know then I would leave the parents alone.
Steve
In my view it’s not smart to chase down and try to harm armed men.
If you are upset by racial injustice, provoked by the diatribes of race hustlers and social justice warriors, that’s your motivation. Don’t confuse that with legal rights you can act upon and expect legal validation of your own aggressive actions.
You have precipitated a struggle that might well end someone’s life, even your own.
You were talking about Ahmaud Arbery, or have I missed the drift?
“What idiot parent lets their kid go run around like that? If they didnt know then I would leave the parents alone.”
I definitely agree with that. But I also remember my own history as a 17 year old and the things I did that my precious mother was never aware of. Point being, kids can be difficult and deceptive little shits. I say that based on personal experience….
Wife asked me what I would have done if I had seen him running around the crowd alone and carrying a rifle. He is undersized and looks like he is 15. Told her it was hard to say. I would hope I would’ve approached him and tried to get him out of there. Alternatively, I know she wouldn’t leave me and I wouldn’t want her to get hurt so I try to get as far away as quick as possible. While this wasn’t premeditated murder far as I can tell it was pretty much a predestined shooting.
Steve
I think that’s another way of saying what I said above. It’s wrong but it’s not intentional homicide.