Like so many other Americans, I'm waiting on the jury in the Rittenhouse trial.
I know how I think it should go, based on the evidence I've seen, but one of the huge truths of the American judicial process, is that we never know what a jury might do. It's a crap shoot.
I have seen juries make some surprising decisions during my long career as a cop, and I am always comforted by the insight of Mark Twain on juries.
We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read.
- 4th of July speech 1873
I defer to the expertise of Mr. Clements, and hope that the jury makes the right decision.
3 comments:
I'm disappointed that the judge dismissed the misdemeanor firearms charge.
I know that it was/is a poorly written law, but it would have been a good "fallback" for the jury, if they do not want to send Rittenhouse to jail for many years for homicide.
IMHO, the kid made several poor decisions which led to him being in the situation that he found himself in, where he had to use the rifle in self-defense.
If he were my 17 yr old son, I would want to "break my foot off" in his butt for getting himself in the situation.
The entire prosecution seemed to be a threat against anyone who would dare resist the Democratic mob. The gun charges were bogus "add-ons" that referred to "special" weapons (e.g. BATF defined "short barreled rifles") and hunting without a permit. None of the specific circumstances applied to the night in question. Those charges should have been dismissed before trial.
Rittenhouse started out in a relatively safe part of the town where his parents lived, where he worked and where (as I recall) he grew up. He was with friends until he was cut-off by police action. The police did nothing to get him to safety or to protect "their" city. The rest was straight self-defense against attackers from a rioting mob. Those firearms charges were an irrelevant & erroneous. The Prosecuters had to know that those charges were propaganda and theater.
I do not know the exact details, but Rittenhouse started out on the sidelines, in a supposedly safe area, with people he knew, before he got sucked into the firestorm of the riot. He did not go to engage with the rioters. He was sucked into the chaos by the action and inaction of the local police. Avoiding trouble when the rioters target your community involves a good bit of luck. It is hard to say that he didn't belong in the town where he worked and probably grew up. He certainly had friends there. How far was he suposed to have run to flee the invaders?
All in all, it seems to have involved a poor choice of a victim by the "defective" members of the Democratic mob. Rittenhouse was no threat to anyone, but he was selected as a victim, apparently, because he was available, young, and probably looked "easy". He played straight "self-defense" and did it well. He shot only when under direct attack.
I note that the authorities did not arrest and prosecute any on the rioters who burned and looted Kenosha. They did nothing to protect the innocent in their town. The prosecution made it clear that they were punishing someone who resisted the mob. Rittenhouse's intentions were irrelevant to them.
Nothing of this was "planned" but Rittenhouse did handle himself well in the chaos. Hard to criticize him for being in what appeared to be a safe part of his home town.
"Those firearms charges were an irrelevant & erroneous. The Prosecutors had to know that those charges were propaganda and theater."
I am aware of that. However, had those charges being left in(the defense not ask them to be dismissed), he could be found guilty on ONLY those charges, and acquitted on the rest. Then he would have been positioned for a successful appeal on the gun charges. And no himicide charges to worry abot.
Rumor currently has it that at least two of the jurors are concerned for their own safety and families safety if they acquit Rittenhouse on all charges.
Post a Comment