We all know why he was changed. As I mentioned before what is and isn’t prosecuted is quite often political. Defending one’s self or properly is inconvenient when riots for ‘progress’ are in effect.
These prosecutors are not only inept they ought to be charged.
This seems relevant:
Yes, because he shot three people. But I’ll admit the testimony so far seems to imply his defense will hold up.
But the point here is the testimony you’re referring to is the prosecution’s testimony. If the prosecution themselves only have evidence which “seems to imply his defense will hold up”, then that raises a very good question as to why they prosecuted him. And if the answer is that no matter how innocent the guy was under the law, they prosecuted him anyway “because he shot three people” as you say, then that suggests it was intended as a punitive measure, to put people through hell who shoot in defense of their lives, even if they’re legally innocent in that situation. Which is exactly the claim octopus was making.
Personally, I’m not sure of it, though. I agree that the prosecution was immoral and done with nefarious intent. But I think it’s just that the rioters who were shot were identified with BLM, while Rittenhouse is identified with RW elements. In that circumstance, going after him has a lot of appeal in certain circles.
Wrong. He was charged because of politics. And now it appears the prosecutor done fucked up. They knew they didn’t have a case and tried to create a witness. Abusing power and ignoring clear and incontrovertible evidence to enact a predetermined outcome is beyond contemptible.
AFAIC, any non-LEO who shoots anyone in public – and not, say, someone who breaks into their home – should be criminally charged. If you carry a firearm in public, the burden should be on you to prove you were justified in firing it.
I’m aware this runs contrary to most laws in this country.
Well if you’re suggesting that the prosecution was done for this reason, then ISTM that you and octopus are saying very similar things.
By “events that led to the situation that night” do you mean the reasons the protests were occurring or the reason people got shot at that protest? Because I’m not sure those two sets of reasons overlap in the way you’re thinking they do.
The way I understand it is, white guy shoots several other white guys at protest held for black man who was shot by white cop.
The burden is always on the person pulling the trigger LEO or not. But that burden can be shown to the police and district attorney during the investigation without any charges being filed or any trial needed. Prosecutors routinely decline to file charges against people who use lethal force in self defense. The fact that this prosecutor did shows that either Rittenhouses attorney failed to convince them that his actions fell under the privilege of self defense, or there is a political motive to the prosecution.
That’s what I am saying. I can’t speak for @octopus but I am wondering how Rittenhouse’s attorney “failed to convince” the prosecutor that no charges were warranted when the prosecutor’s own witness is making a hornbook case for self defense. It really is to the point that bringing charges borders on prosecutorial misconduct.
I honestly don’t understand why people are making so much of Grosskreutz’s testimony.
I know we don’t really need a hypothetical here, but hypothetically, let’s say I walk into a bank in Texas carrying a long gun. I shoot the security guard by the door and, this being Texas, a half a dozen customers draw their personal firearms and aim at me. One by one I get the drop on them.
I can claim self defense in the trial, but the fact that the customers were all pointing their guns at me doesn’t exactly help my case, right?
If someone is pointing their gun at you, does that not put you in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm? If yes, then you are describing lawful self defense.
I don’t get what Rittenhouse’s critics are suggesting. They seem to think people should just be allowed to forcibly take his gun away from him and he should not be allowed to open fire to prevent them from doing so.
Just to be clear - a bank robber who has already killed somebody is lawfully allowed to kill the people trying to stop him? Because it’s self defense?
Well clearly “it depends.” If Rittenhouse were an active shooter who did just show up and start plugging protesters in cold blood, then yes, people should be allowed to forcibly take his gun away and he shouldn’t be allowed to shoot them in response. This whole case swings on perception. People thought he was an active shooter and were trying to stop him. That one of them pointed a gun at him doesn’t exactly negate any of that, so I’m not sure why people are saying things like “the prosecution’s witness is making the defense’s case for them.”
The Rittenhouse trial is local to me. Even the article I read made the same point.
“…prosecutors rested their murder case after 5 1/2 days of testimony that were aimed at portraying Rittenhouse as the aggressor but often bolstered the young man’s claim of self-defense” (From here)
Of course not.
Because I thought it was agreed upthread that the first shooting was clear self-defense based on the video. However from that shooting, others got the mistaken, yet still good faith belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter so they tried in good faith to disarm him.
Problem was he was not like a bank robber. He hadn’t done anything wrong, so he retains his self right, even against others who thought they were doing the right thing.
I think Rittenhouse is gigantic piece of shit and deserves anything bad that happens to him.
He’s going to get off and that’ll be the correct decision.
I don’t remember there being agreement on that. I think we all agree that’s how it will most likely shake out in court, or at least where most of us would put our money, but I don’t think it’s “clear.” I also think the trial was always going to hinge on whether or not that first shooting was justified.
Just like in the bank hypothetical, it all hinges on if the security guard killing was justified. If so, then you’re allowed to plug all of those armed customers who point their guns at you. If that first killing wasn’t justified, you’re not. But in either case, the fact that customers pointed guns at the suspect is irrelevant. So I’m still not sure what the big deal about that bit of testimony was.
Not at all. My position has nothing to do with the political climate or the occasion for the incident, whereas @octopus seems to be claiming that, were the occasion not a BLM protest, no charges would have been filed.
Very true. I believe those decisions are too lenient. In this case, two people died. The shooter should not be left to walk free without the full scrutiny of the law. I’m not a lawyer nor a LEO, so take my opinion with all the grains of salt you want.
I’m coming around to this point of view.