It’s like everyone involved with this trial is a colossal dumbass.
3 Likes
Another clip from The Verdict. What the law says doesn’t matter at this point. Neither does what the judge said or did. The jurors decide what justice is. At least that’s what Frank Galvin argued.
1 Like
It’s been a while, but isn’t the next scene a cut to a rick roll?
Maybe. In the version I saw, the prosecutor’s close was omitted. Never Gonna Give You Up could have fit in there.
1 Like
Those statements should have come in in the first place. However, no, you cannot open the door yourself and walk through it on cross examination to get around a ruling.
Seems pretty stupid that blatant judge error can’t be appealed because double jeopardy while prosecutor errors are always appealable.
Welcome to one of the things that sucks about being a prosecutor.
1 Like
Must be one of the few times the criminal justice system might work in favour of the poor. How terrible that an error allows them to get off without paying the sums of money the rich fork out to get off.
So what kind of precedent does this set? Take this situation -
I’m a concealed carry guy. I’m walking down the street and some random dude has a gun and points it at me. I take out my gun. I kill him. Self defense, right?
I’m a concealed carry guy. I’m walking down the street and some random dude has a gun and points it at me. I take out my gun. I don’t shoot. Random guy now feels threatened and kills me. Self defense?
Is it really whomever wins gets to claim self defense? Seems like wild west justice going on. This trial seems to have discounted anything that happens before the moment somebody is shot and killed. Is this going to hold up in the future? “Well, sure, I had my gun pointed at him, but I wasn’t actually going to shoot him until he pointed his gun at me?”
Does everybody get a walk now because it was self defense? Seems like they’re opening a pandora’s box. Black folks getting pulled over have a justified reason to shoot the cop based on “I felt my life was threatened”.
seems bad.
1 Like
Yep, and SCOTUS is about to give everyone the right to carry at all times and places nationwide. After that, the next step would be removing liability from shooters who miss their targets and kill bystanders, because who, really, can be 100% accurate 100% of the time when they feel their lives are in danger? Price of freedom.
Also nice to the see the usual consistency in the right wing. Can’t talk about how Kyle went to Wisconsin to possibly shoot people or him talking about shooting people prior to the fact, but no problem talking about how it’s not a big deal because one of his victims was a pedophile and a felon. I’m sure Kyle knew those facts before he pulled the trigger.
1 Like
I think there’s a part of the law that says the “aggressor” or some similar description can’t claim self-defense. I think that’s what the prosecution in the Rittenhouse case is hanging its hat on. In other words, you can’t go out looking for trouble and then claim self defense. I would agree though that the prosecution didn’t do a good enough job of driving this home, and it doesn’t look good for getting a conviction.
Jesus Christ, this judge in the Rittenhouse case is a joke. Just unbelievably bad.
I think if the jury returns a guilty verdict it is not impossible the judge sets it aside.
2 Likes
No, if you point your gun at someone for no good reason that isn’t lawful and you’d lose your right to self defense. According to the Wisconsin law if you take an unlawful action that provokes a forceful response you aren’t privileged with self defense when you react with deadly force to the force that your unlawful action provoked.
But on the other hand two people could have mutually consistent self defense claims because it’s based on their reasonable understanding of what’s happening. So let’s just say that Rittenhouse was justified in his original use of force against the first guy for argument’s sake. People in the crowd might reasonably think that Rittenhouse wasn’t justified in his use of force and needed to be stopped. So from their perspective they could easily have claimed that their use of force against Rittenhouse was justified while Rittenhouse still has a reasonable self defense claim against them. But if Rittenhouse wasn’t justified in the first use of force then every subsequent use of force by Rittenhouse is more or less automatically unjustified.
Seems crystal clear and clearly won’t lead to more people dying for stupid reasons.
Obviously the answer is more guns.
That the scales of justice are unfairly tipped against the state and defendants are given too many unfair advantages in the criminal justice system is certainly an interesting take.
5 Likes
Did he do something today?
Is there a live stream link?
Just watched what appeared to be an “economically anxious” person that was outside the courthouse screaming at BLM folks while wearing a bullet proof vest and carrying an AR-15 get asked by police to put his gun away. He then drove off in a Maserati.
1 Like
It really does seem pretty clear and I’m not sure why you think it’s not.
Removing all the guns from the situation would probably mean that everyone in the Rittenhouse situation lives which would obviously be a lot better than what happened.