Texas, it’s like a whole nother country….
If you don’t get held up by law enforcement, or anyone else who could be armed, for walking around town with a long gun, or any gun in your hand and not in a holster, you’re either somewhere they know you real damn well or somewhere something is going very wrong and you look right enough.
Three people were shot. The country expects a trial and testimony about the circumstances.
Rittenhouse is very lucky that the video indicates self-defense. The gun in the paramedic’s hand makes a big difference. It’s pointed at Kyle.
I expect they’ll hit him with the harshest penalty for the under age weapons charge.
You’re going to have to expand on that. In a case where the police and the D.A. feel it’s justified self defense you would still insist on a trial? You would insist a D.A. prosecute someone for something they believe they are not guilty of?
Yeah, it may become clear based on the testimony and evidence, but very often we only see something as obvious only after we get the information we may not have had at the start.
Though AFAIK the discretion to decline charges in a self-defense situation usually comes about when it IS so utterly obvious right off the bat that most people would say “oh yeah, THAT, that’s clean”.
People will easily put the scenario of guy breaking in through the window in the middle of the night, or, crackhead trying to carjack you with the kids in the back, over the threshold; but often it’s not that simple.
Otherwise, there is a lot of friction created when someone ends up dead and the authorities say “oh, clearly self-defense, no need to bother”.
Looks likely.
Right. And being able to show to the world what the evidence is, probably also goes a long way to making the verdict better received. Let’s face it, there’s the court where the trial is happening AND the Court of Public Opinion.
(Question to those who followed closely – was it described how was Rittenhouse carrying, before the confrontation arose? Did he have it slung at his back in the old style, across in front in the new style, or was he holding it at low ready? i.e. would he look to a lay observer like he was merely carrying, or like he would be imminently firing? Doesn’t change the legals but I can imagine that altering how jumpy everyone would have felt.)
(Aside: any kid of mine, while still a minor dependent of mine, ain’t appointing him/her/themself an armed defender of anything. But that’s just me.)
Ya mean the way I’ve seen, almost, every ‘open carry’ provocature advocate carrying?
We’ve seen plenty of cases where the police and the DA declined to prosecute on flimsy or zero evidence of self defense. (Trevon Martin and Ahmaud Arbery, to name just two.) Sure, they probably represent a small percentage of purported self-defense shootings, but they demonstrate that the decision to declare a fatal shooting self-defense shouldn’t be left to one or two people who may or may not have all the facts. These decisions should be held up to the full scrutiny of the law.
If the law stated that a shooter automatically faced criminal charges, the DA wouldn’t be making the call based on what he or she believes the facts to be. If it’s blindingly obvious that the shooting was self-defense, a defense attorney ought to be able to convince a judge without an extensive trial.
Of course, I’m well aware that such a law might discourage people from carrying firearms. That’s a feature, not a bug.
I believe that’s against accepted prosecutorial ethics. In general, a prosecutor has an obligation to persue justice and not to prosecute people who he or she does not believe to be guilty. From :Standards for the Prosecution Function (americanbar.org)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict. The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
The prosecutor should not make a statement of fact or law, or offer evidence, that the prosecutor does not reasonably believe to be true, to a court, lawyer, witness, or third party, except for lawfully authorized investigative purposes. In addition, while seeking to accommodate legitimate confidentiality, safety or security concerns, a prosecutor should correct a prosecutor’s representation of material fact or law that the prosecutor reasonably believes is, or later learns was, false, and should disclose a material fact or facts when necessary to avoid assisting a fraudulent or criminal act or to avoid misleading a judge or factfinder.
I hope they get him on the curfew violation too. (although I don’t think he was indicted for that)
The curfew violation was dismissed at the end of the government’s case because the government (apparently) failed to introduce evidence that a curfew was in effect.
Well, this case surely seems to have two sides. It is quite interesting to follow. Seems to me more than one person is guilty of various things.
IANAL, but if the law could flat out mandate that shooters automatically be charged, a prosecutor’s ethics wouldn’t have anything to do with it. He or she can present the facts, a public defender can demonstrate how the facts indicate self-defense, and a judge can rule accordingly. It just guarantees that a prosecutor can’t make the call alone.
Oops.
I’m not sure that a law can do that, as it would be mandating that people be charged with crimes that they did not commit. That sounds like something that might be unconstitutonal or something, but what do I know.
That aside, the way you depict it would not be similar to the Rittenhouse trial. In this case, the prosecutors are not merely “present[ing] the facts” but are actively spinning those facts in an attempt to convince the jury that Rittenhouse did not have a reasonable fear of his life at the time he shot. To the extent that this is not actually a credible interpretation of the facts, that would present problems even under your proposal.
IANA criminal L but, is there already any other example of a situation that brings automatic criminal prosecution and trial without any sort of prior evaluation if the case is worth it? (and as mentioned: a prosecution and trial is not merely an instrument for “presenting the facts”)
But that’s the point. Who determines whether they committed the crimes or not?
Right, because these prosecutors actually believe Rittenhouse is guilty. Under my proposed law, if prosecutors believed the shooting was justifiable self-defense, they could present the court with “Defendant was approached by three men swinging ninja swords, and witnesses heard them vow to ‘slice the defendant into cat food.’ Defendant shot all three dead. The state rests.” It would be over in minutes – but less clear-cut cases would be guaranteed greater scrutiny.
You’re describing what a grand jury does not what happens on a trial. The trial is never just the facts. Each side interprets the facts for the jury.
Good point. (Did I mention IANAL? 
) OK, I’ll amend my proposal to make any public fatal shooting by a non-LEO subject to automatic grand jury review.
Again, the whole point is to not let one person decide that a fatal shooting was “obviously” self defense.
I’ve stayed away from this topic and thread, but could not help but watch his performance this morning. And it was very clear what he was doing, who he was inspired by, so I quickly made a meme:
The prosecutor got the judge very upset. I’ve seen trials where they would cut to a sidebar. But this time it was in open court. The jury had been sent out.
The news will probably publish some sound bites.
In light of that testimony by G.G. it’s looking like Rittenhouse will walk.
But Rittenhouse will always have a face that random strangers want to slap the shit out of. I certainly hope that happens a lot to him in life.