Today’s Rittenhouse trial drama
[Hat tip: commenter Barry Meislin.]
Here’s an article about what’s transpired today in the Rittenhouse trial. Pretty dramatic.
This witness is the third person shot by Rittenhouse, the one who survived:
Rittenhouse trial should be over immediately. pic.twitter.com/PHZnHS5rD9
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) November 8, 2021
My goodness. Apparently this is their last witness, and what Frei is referring to is that the judge should grant a directed verdict when the prosecution rests. I predict there is an extremely low possibility that will happen, although I think it should happen.
This really goes to show how hard it is to prosecute a case – even a political case – when the fact situation goes against you. You can prep a witness as much as you want, but now and then he’ll tell the truth.
Of course, the jury is free to disregard that truth, which they certainly seemed to do in the Chauvin trial.
Just to highlight the reaction of the prosecution today:
when your star witness loses your case pic.twitter.com/6KycAXEkIx
— wyatt (@tummymuncher) November 8, 2021
So, the victim was the aggressor, and Rittenhouse reacted with a measured response in self-defense to an immediate threat. There was no Capitol hero, and the threat was probable, not merely plausible. The progressive condition was not Fentanyl-induced, but their trans-social behavior was self-induced… egged on over a multi-trimester period by social justice. Nice (pun intended).
Problem is the prosecution hasn’t lost yet.
And then there is the problem of jury intimidation as an earlier report makes clear.
There was also a report that Rittenhouse was planning to take the stand later on in is own defense; but if the Prosecution’s case has evaporated, why would he choose to do that?
Never show emotion as an attorney when the witness says something detrimental to your case. Isn’t that like rule #1? It was even in “A Few Good Men”
Our criminal justice system has degenerated into a leftist parody of justice. Facts don’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter. Jury opinions have become little more than a measure of local woke indoctrination success.
A “Chicago Sun Times” columnist expresses the new Progressive legal doctrine as applied to Rittenhouse (https://tinyurl.com/pwktnz3d). Self-defense is no longer a legal right, much less a constitutional right. For Rittenhouse, self-defense is merely a trial tactic, something that should not only be denied, but mocked. The Progressive view is that “Rittenhouse had absolutely no legitimate reason to be there that night, and … he deserves serious punishment.”
And just in case there are any jurors left who believe in the right of self-defense, they will probably surrender to cowardice induced by threats from BLM activists (https://tinyurl.com/52ufu8ph).
Even the judge has been threatened by the mob (https://tinyurl.com/4zx3xatu).
After watching the Chauvin trial, I don’t think that Rittenhouse stands a chance of acquittal. A mistrial is his only hope. Is there one brave juror ready to die at the hands of the mob? I very much doubt it.
Rittenhouse has a chance only because his attackers were white. I would think he’d get off on the Grosskreutz shooting given this testimony, and maybe for the guy who hit him with a skateboard. Rosenbaum didn’t have a gun, but apparently went for Rittenhouse’s gun, so it’s hard to believe there won’t be a single juror who accepts the self-defense argument. Maybe a hung jury though.
why are these people so eager to destroy a kid who is obviously innocent with their lies and manipulations?
“Self-defense is no longer a legal right, much less a constitutional right.” Cornflour
If Ritrenhouse is found guilty, that will be the inescapable conclusion. No right is more basic than the right to self-defense, as it is integral to the right to life itself. If the exercise of that former right, now hinges upon who is threatening your life.. then America will have reached an irreversible point in its spiral down into another Civil War.
Though we on the right dread it, having now suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object,” evincing a design to reduce America under absolute Despotism, it becomes ever less tenable to deny that they are pursuing that goal.
A new vaccine mandate takes effect today in Los Angeles.
“Anyone wanting to enter a shopping mall, movie theater, or other businesses like nail salons or gyms will be required to show proof of vaccination.”
“15 days to slow the spread became get the Jab or lose your job” Fla. Gov. Ron De Santis
Another kind of self-defense is similarly under attack.
https://www.city-journal.org/scientific-merit-and-the-equity-cult
Further proof that the country is being sovietized.
That Truth is being tribalized.
That science is being subverted.
That advancement—or even staying in the same place—will be rendered impossible.
Somewhere, “Biden” is smiling….
I tried reading that article from the Chicago Sun Time. It was so poorly written and reasoned I literally wouldn’t be surprised if it was originally submitted in crayon. It’s hard to believe the person that wrote it might actually have a college degree.
More reasons for “Biden” to smile:
https://justthenews.com/world/mexico/sunvolume-opioids-flooding-us-worst-its-ever-been-says-outgoing-dea-el-paso-chief
Ok…Let’s say the judge directs a verdict & sends the jury home without ever having to vote g/ng. We’ll see riots etc…
BUT…knowing that…Do you think the judge allows this into the jury room where they know that too (and they know the bad guys know where they live) and a guilty on all charges surely comes out?
“…Chicago Sun-Times…”
Not a very honest journalistic effort, no (though the writer was able to, um, express himself, I guess).
But I did notice a link to another Sun-Times eye-opener:
“Illinois to get at least $17 billion from the Biden infrastructure bill; could be more”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2021/11/7/22769245/illinois-get-least-17-billion-biden-infrastructure-bill-could-be-more
Ah yes, corruption the way we like it!
File under: Bribe Back Better!
That witness statement was gobsmacking. I mean, it only happens in the movies, right?
Agree that jury intimidation is a real concern. Maybe all jurors should be issued an AR-15 with full load-out and free lessons. Or at least tell the would-be intimidators that that’s the new deal.
I know, I am being silly. But for a serious reason: which is, these tyrannical hysterics and professional troublemakers need to face real incentives toward better behavior. A friend once commented, “People only change when they’re in pain.” Fine: apply some.
Jimmy wrote: “Rosenbaum didn’t have a gun, but apparently went for Rittenhouse’s gun, so it’s hard to believe there won’t be a single juror who accepts the self-defense argument. Maybe a hung jury though.”
This is why a directed verdict should be provided. This and the potential of jury intimidation. Ace at AoS suggested the judge could and might wait to provide a directed verdict after the jury has provided their verdict. I don’t know how that’s possible, but I’m not a lawyer and especially don’t know the court process in Wisconsin.
I have been a juror in a serious criminal matter (sexual assault of a child), and I think Jimmy is right. It is pretty clear the DA tacked on the misdemeanor, because it is a slam duck with the statutes (although it opens up a good argument on the Constitutionality of such statutes). If you didn’t know the facts, that misdemeanor opens up the negligence for the homicide. After that, while the jurors are instructed to consider reasonable doubt for the defendant, self-defense will cause an aspect of the jurors to objectively consider the reasonable doubt of the shot protestors.
For me, I think the last two shots are a bit more justified. Jimmy’s point about Rosenbaum introduces a potential doubt that Rosenbaum actually would carry out his vocal threat. To be clear, that’s my laymen analysis of how others might see the evidence. As far as I’m concerned, Rosenbaum’s chunking of the flaming Walmart Bag along with his clear verbal threats suggests he was a serious threat to Rittenhouse’s life. I think the facts are clear enough for a directed verdict.
Jury intimidation is the issue now. The judge should do a directed verdict but I wonder if he has the guts?
The Judge may be guided by a different standard in weighing the evidence at the end of the trial, before submitting it to the jury, than the more deferential one to the prosecution’s evidence at the end of its case in chief. He may elect to go that route.
Mike K:
Wasn’t there jury intimidation in the Chauvin trial, as well? Didn’t matter.
Leland:
It doesn’t matter what any of the three people who were shot actually were thinking or intending by their actions and their words. The only thing relevant is whether their actions and words could cause a reasonable person under Rittenhouse’s circumstances to consider they presented a serious and imminent threat of bodily harm that would call for self-defense. And don’t think there should be any doubt that the answer is “yes.” But of course a jury might see it differently, especially a threatened jury.
Holy crap put your self into the mind of a young man who is try to get to safety and what was he supposed to do? What would a reasonable person do if he was in danger of bodily harm? That is the whole situation, if a person has means to defend himself, should he defend himself? The jury should decide, yes, self defense is reasonable. That will be all.
There’s a criminal difference between “prepping a witness” and “suborning perjury.”
The Prosecutor should be prosecuted.
“Wasn’t there jury intimidation in the Chauvin trial?”
By none other than Maxine Waters:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/house/549692-dershowitz-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-to-intimidate-chauvin-jury%3famp
Bizarre how there was no change of venue for this trial, nor for the Chauvin trial.
Now we have the FBI raiding two addresses associated with a reputable journalistic effort, Project Veritas, looking for Senile Joe’s daughter’s diary. Theft (which had not occurred!) is not a federal crime, so why was the FBI in on the hunt? It has no basis whatsoever for the raids. What stupid Democratic judge signed the warrants?
We are descending as a crashing culture and republic at an ever -accelerating speed.
Might as well consider the Democratic Party as totalitarian, anti- democratic.
On you-tube, I just now chanced upon a two-minute video of the ABC mention of the surviving witness’ testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrVKqTCdM-A
Suffice it to say, the coverage sets a totally different tone there from what we’ve been reading about (and viewing) here.
ABC did manage, finally, to get the witness’ “correct” response (to “it was only when you pointed your gun at him, that he [Rittenhouse] fired, right?”), but they sure didn’t get the prosecuting attorney’s face palm.
They then pointed out somberly that “if convicted, Rittenhouse could face life in prison.”
My impression is that they’re setting up for outrage (for sure) and riots (if at all possible). Good for ratings and wonderful for hating on the eeevil guys.
Oh, by the way, the surviving witness was “following” Rittenhouse, not “chasing” him. /SARC/
“…the surviving witness…”
Surely, you mean the surviving “victim”….
– – – – – – –
As for “THE DIARY”, the FBI’s (i.e., “Biden”‘s junkyard dog’s) behavior in this particular paper chase can only mean that the thing is GENUINE.
…Though I’m not sure how this can hurt someone who’s already known—in spite of the media’s Herculean methods—as the most corrupt president-elect ever to steal-not-steal an election….
(Just wondering whether said diary will come to be known, along with Samuel Pepys’s, Anne Frank’s—and various and sundry dogs’ and cats’—to be a trademark representative of the genre….)
File under: Ah, those Biden’s are such kidders…
OldTexan-
To me the left will rationalize it as he should never have been there to begin with. It was THEIR protest. THEIR right to do as they wish. Look at how they act at any sign of counter protest.
I believe they will hang their hats on using his being armed and his age. To argue that he had no right to begin there anyway. And on that single point alone I believe they have the law on their side. And they will then use this to boot strap the rest of the charges to Rittenhouse.
The left spends an inordinate amount of time distorting perceptions. And convincing themselves that they know the “real” thoughts of their opponents. To me his best chance is that at least one of the people (preferably 2-3) simply hang the jury. And that the devastating testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Means they realize how it would be nearly impossible to later fix that testimony through re framing questions. And simply give up on a retrial.
That of course potentially leaves Rittenhouse in legal jeopardy for the rest of his life. But would at least get him off the hook for the foreseeable future
Neo-
Under our new liberal alignment. Jury intimidation is the entire point. Never mind that this was one of the key things they stood AGAINST in the south since at least the 50’s.
Now because its for their cause the method is perfectly just.
Rittenhouse is a true American hero. Nothing the judge and jury can do will change that.
Rittenhouse is the victim of an abusive, unjust prosecution. Let us hope he doesn’t also become the victim of an abusive, unjust conviction.
I don’t think it’s right to say he’s a hero, though. Any good that he was doing by offering medical assistance was outweighed by the fact that he lost control of the situation and had to take two lives. He thought he could handle it. He couldn’t, and two people are dead because of that.
That doesn’t make him a murderer. But it should temper any inclination to call him a hero. He’s a kid whose poor judgement put him in a tragic situation.
I just hope he can get over all this and get on with his life.
Neo, I agree with you. Legally it doesn’t matter. Jurors can be told the law, but other things will affect their reasoning and decision.
Part of Rittenhouse’s problem is reasonable people in charge of the city found it reasonable to restrain police from protecting property, a reasonable person thought it was a good day to let Rosenbaum out of mental health care, and reasonable people chose to enter a protest with loaded weapons. My reasoning says it is all nuts.
My idea of justice would hold the city leaders responsible, not this kid nor the businesses whose property was destroyed. But here we are.
I don’t think it’s right to say he’s a hero, though. Any good that he was doing by offering medical assistance was outweighed by the fact that he lost control of the situation and had to take two lives. He thought he could handle it. He couldn’t, and two people are dead because of that.
He’s not at fault that other people are predatory. He disposed of them as the situation demanded.
Re Bauxite’s comments:
Two vicious thugs are dead. A third vicious thug had his bicep blown off.
Rittenhouse didn’t lose control of anything. He defended Kenosha honorably.
I reject Bauxite’s suggestion that I temper my inclination to call Rittenhouse a hero.
Barry Meislin (2:13 am) wrote, regarding M J R ‘s 1:27 am post (in which M J R referred to the surviving “witness”): “Surely, you mean the surviving ‘victim’.”
Surely, you are correct, and I happily accept your amendment. [smile]
I wouldn’t say he lost control of the situation. He was never in control of the murderous, unhinged behavior of the rioters, nor could he be expected to be. He may have acted with more bravery than self-preservation in continuing to try to do the right thing among a lot of unhinged thugs, but that is very far from reprehensible morally.
Legally, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether anyone thinks he had a good reason to be there. He had a legal right to be there, and even if he had not, he engaged in absolutely no behavior that qualifies as instigating an altercation. That was all on his attackers.
Lots of people are making the serious mistake of imagining that “he had no business being there at all” is a negation of the “innocence” standard under self-defense law. It’s a bad argument any any circumstances, and a perfectly disastrous one when the underlying assumption is that ordinary citizens have “no business” discouraging rioters by standing armed in front of stores. Rittenhouse’s “crime” was to make rioters feel bad by withholding approval from them and spoiling their fun by putting out fires.
@ M J R > “Suffice it to say, the coverage sets a totally different tone there from what we’ve been reading about (and viewing) here.”
Not the Bee had a good round-up of the way the Democrat Media is framing the narrative. It makes it very easy to understand why our liberal friends have a different view of the world.
https://notthebee.com/article/the-prosecutions-star-witness-against-kyle-rittenhouse-admitted-he-got-shot-after-pulling-a-gun-here-was-the-medias-insane-spin-on-that-testimony
Bonus story:
https://notthebee.com/article/narrative-control-facebook-wont-allow-you-to-search-for-kyle-rittenhouse-try-it-now
Scott Adams was close to correct about the left and right watching the same movie on different screens: we actually are no longer even in the same theater, and the left has several reels of the film missing.
@ Chris > “Never show emotion as an attorney when the witness says something detrimental to your case.”
I have been wondering, about this particularly but also some of the prior testimony: did the prosecutors go in thinking their witnesses were going to say something different (which they had almost certainly coached), and so they were blind-sided when the truth came out instead?
I was especially amazed at how calmly and matter-of-factly Grosskreutz made his jaw-dropping admission.
Did he even realize how important it was?
The jury’s fears are quite justified.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/11/09/someone-was-caught-taking-secret-video-of-rittenhouse-jury-following-threat-n1531102?utm_source=piano&utm_medium=onsite&utm_campaign=-1
“I have been wondering, about this particularly….”
It’s been bothering me too. The deputy DA’s response was so over the top—so theatrical (so unprofessionally theatrical)—that I wonder if he was in fact acting.
But why would he be acting?….
To elicit a huge feeling of vindication on the part of Rittenhouse, his attorneys and those who support him (and justice in this sordid trial)?…
…before some sort of coming boom is leveled on Rittenhouse either by further revelations, or tricks…or the expectations of intimidation of jury and/or judge, or the actual trial verdict?
Perhaps. (Even if this might seem nutty, off the wall, absurd; even if it seems overly paranoid—well, things are, in fact, insane here and all across the country…)
But maybe the ADA did in fact react the way he truly felt.
(Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar….)