I don’t think so; imho it’s that Rittenhouse was placed on trial and faced the prospect of being behind bars until he was old and grey. That is what got the right-wing riled up: Rittenhouse being “persecuted” by anti-gun forces (perhaps even apologists for the protesters/rioters/looters) for exercising self-defense. Similarly, the outcry from the right over the McCloskey case. People on the right see both as examples of “anarcho-tyranny”: a state that can’t or won’t suppress crime and violence but yet somehow still insists on punishing people who arm or protect themselves.
I think you’ve summarized it well, but I would definitely quibble with the McCloskeys about their version of what was happening.
You are in danger of dying, or being crippled. I have seen people hospitalized after bar fights. I saw a person get crippled in a stupid schoolyard fight when he turned his back to walk away and the other kid drop-kicked him in the small of his back. We’ve had several deaths in my city from bouncers kicking the asses of unruly people.
Any time you get in a physical altercation with an adult you are risking major physical damage or death. I used to teach self defense, and we emphasized not getting in a fight in the first place for this reason. You can find videos online of people being killed from a single punch - person gets punched, blacks out, and falls backwards and smacks their head hard on the concrete.
If you think real fights are no big deal, or as that stupid prosecutor said, “You iust take the beating”, you probably got your opinion from TV. And given that this was a riot and the guy chasing him had been actung like a lunatic, and the cops had withdrawn and left people to fend for themselves, the kid had every reason to believe his life was in danger if caught.
Will this verdict now be taken by (mostly right-wing) extremist vigilantes as the green light to go on a murderous rampage of “self defense”?
The state can’t appeal after an acquittal.
As was stated they can’t appeal an acquittal.
The proper thing would be to revisit the judges ruling out of hearing of the jury not to assume you can now go against the previous ruling. It’s not up to either side to make the determination if something is now admissible and start to bring it up in front of a jury. It’s not an obscure legal point. This is something the prosecutor knows.
I believe Rittenhouse left the court in Tucker Carsons’ van. Carlson was interviewing him with a mike as they drove off.
The kid is going to make big bucks by killing people. But that may make him a target.
How is self defense a rampage? He wasn’t attacking anyone. He was fleeing. Most people would use the word rampage to describe a mob of people setting fires and doing $52 million dollars of damage to a community.
That was all over and KR was on the periphery. In fact he was outside the police cordon. Rosenbaum set some trash on fire in a dumpster.
Let’s be clear on the distinction between self defense and “self defense”. We’ve already discussed that this acquittal will be seen as a green light for other self-appointed vigilantes to bring their big guns to protests looking for trouble. Now, sure enough, the Proud Dicks are calling for more of the same. One of them writes “The left wont stop until their bodie(s) get stacked up like cord wood”.
That sure sounds to me like a call for vigilantes to go out on a murderous rampage. And if they think the Rittenhouse case is their cue, they will pretend that it’s all justified in “self defense”.
Looking for trouble? Trouble was the wanton destruction carried out by the rioters. Let’s call them left wing rioters since you injected politics into it.
Explain how that is stopped if the police don’t intervene. Let’s use your neighborhood and place of employment as a reference point. Your family’s lives and your livelihood are under attack.
Well, when it comes to that, I sure as hell don’t want all the Rittenhouse wanna-bes in my neighborhood.
I thought they could if there was a major error of law or procedure. Like what if the Judge tells, the jury, “You cannot find them guilty of murder 2.” but legally, yes the jury could. Or if the Judge is clearly so biased (not saying Shroeder was) that they overrule every prosecution objection even the ones that should be upheld and throw out all of their evidence for reasons. Suppose, the Judge tells the jury, “If you find this good, honest white man guilty of this crime, you are worse than Hitler.” and the defendant is acquitted - You’re telling me the State can’t appeal?
I don’t think vigilanteism is legal despite the Death Wish series.
OK. Burnt to the ground it is.
It’s not. But standing between property and rioters isn’t vigilantism.
If it can be done with a smile on your face, flowers in your hair, and song in your heart then you have my vote.
Buying an AR too shoot suspected looters walking out of a Walgreen’s is, And I would argue that going to another city to defend property that is not yours nor that you were ask to defend is too.
In all of those cases the State needs to get to the appeals court before a jury returns a verdict of not guilty or else jeopardy has attached and the defendant is forever free of prosecution. I think the only exception that has ever been recognized is if the defendant is convicted of bribing the jury, in which case it was held that he was never in jeopardy to begin with.
Ahhh OK. So like in my post, the prosecution needed to go to the appeals court when Binger got his dressing down saying, “We know the Judge originally ruled it inadmissible but NOW it is admissible and we need you to rule as such.”?
Yes. Every state is different, but I think the general rule is that an appeals court wouldn’t want to hear about a minor evidentiary issue; it had better be more along the lines of your latter examples. But generally, yes. The judge rules it inadmissible and Binger asks the judge for a continuance so he can appeal to the higher court. If the judge says no, one of the lackeys back at the office fires off a quick one pager to the appeals court requesting an emergency stay pending disposition of the appeal, which would be handled expeditiously one way or the other.
Again, with the proviso that we, the appeals court, are not going to be putting in overtime because of a hearsay objection or some such thing.