Rittenhouse and his parents should go to prison for something. Not murder, perhaps, but something. This is also exactly why everyone that had their hands in the Aubrey murder should be in prison right along side the shooter. DA's, law enforcement, all of them. How can mounting up in the back of the family pickup truck to chase down a black man, then shooting him, be considered self defense? Anybody keep up with the jury selection for the Aubrey case? It probably won't surprise any of you to learn their is only one black person on the jury. I was disappointed, but not surprised.
Just remember: if it wasn’t for video, every one of those pieces of shit in both incidents would all be regarded as heroes right now. Police constantly whine about being scrutinized now, but it’s simple why: being filmed has revealed their true colours. They are not the heroes tv and film made them out to be— they are lazy, corrupt lying assholes. And their prosecutor and judge drinking buddies are just as bad.
One of the biggest issues is that the public law sector (lawyers, judges, clericals, etc) think that they're on the "same team" as the police.
I don't know this guy personally, but have been in mixed company a few times and we have quite a few mutual FB friends. A lot of people are saying they've known him their whole life and he'd never do anything like that etc etc. But I gotta think that if they have enough DNA evidence to arrest you on a 7-8 year old cold case and the artist renderings look spot on, it doesn't look very good. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pist-40-committed-string-sexual-assaults.html His charges: PC 209(B)(1) Felony KIDNAP TO COMMIT ANOTHER CRIME PC 211 Felony ROBBERY PC 261(A)(2) Felony RAPE - BY MEANS OF FORCE, VIOLENCE, DURESS, MENACE, OR FEAR PC 288A(C)(2) Felony ORAL COPULATION BY FORCE, VIO, DURESS, MENACE, FEAR OF HARM
Based on the testimony in court today, I think he’s walking free. The prosecutor literally facepalmed when one of the witnesses said he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before he was shot.
This video is hilarious... 3 lawyers commenting on the live stream. https://www.reddit.com/r/ActualPubl...rs_publicly_streaming_their_reactions_to_the/
Well, considering how badly the prosecution screwed up, he could probably whip out his dick and start beating off and he'd still walk.
Did they screw up, or should we all have never been there in the fist place? Not to put too fine a point on it, but if a convicted pedophile who is lighting fire to buildings ever screams at me that he's going to kill me and then chases me down the road...I would hope to not be accused of murder. However, given that I live in Canada, it's entirely possible that the Crown would suggest I should have run faster. Who knows.
It seems to me like the prosecution placed too much faith in unreliable witnesses. Those witnesses made them feel they had more a case than they really did. I think it’s generally agreed upon that the kid is a piece of shit who should have never been there in the first place. But once he was in the thick of it, he might have ended up having cause to defend himself. He might be convicted of lesser offenses but a murder charge was an overreach. And who knows, the jury might just be biased enough towards the kid to let him skate on all of it.
Prosecution basically lost this case at pre-trial. Once the judge excluded arguments about Rittenhouse's state of mind and motivation for being there, it was over. Once the jury has to assume that he was magicked into place holding a rifle and no idea how he got there, proving it wasn't self-defense becomes an incredibly uphill battle.
Is that actually a valid play? Like, could the DA be thinking that he'll get a mistrial here then try again with a fresh judge and jury and maybe better evidence admitted and better coaching of his own witnesses?
The judge can rule a mistrial with prejudice (which the defense has actually asked for as of a few minutes ago), which means the case would not be retried. It's effectively the same thing as acquittal. Given that this is an option for the judge, it would be crazy reckless for the prosecution to attempt this gambit.
It's a "valid" play until the judge decides that the prosecution is conducting themselves in such an awful way that he declares a mistrial with prejudice, which means they double jeopardy comes into play and he can't be retried. So far the prosecution has done the following: Questioning Rittenhouse's taking of the 5th Amendment when he was arrested; Badgering a witness for the defense over something related to a completely different trial; Bringing up evidence and arguments that were already deemed inadmissible by the judge; Not shutting up when the judge instructs him to do so. The entire situation was pretty polluted by the media, as usual, so it's interesting that the facts are finally being laid out in a meaningful way.
Am I the only one not terribly surprised by the fact pattern? Like this all feels pretty much in line with what was publicly out there before trial. I feel like people read one or two headlines, applied the average American's "mostly literate" reading level to it, drew whatever conclusions they liked, and then blamed the media for "misinforming" them about something they didn't particularly care to be informed about in the first place.