Rittenhouse Verdict

[bae]

The judge is acting like a defense attorney. Ugh!

What did he do?

[Alan]

It’s curious that the judge insisted that the people Kyle killed could not be called victims since their killer hadn’t been convicted but out of his second face he allowed the defense to call them rioters and looters despite the fact that they had not been convicted of anything either.

I don't think that was curious at all, I believe the event had already been declared a riot by city officials so the participants were indeed rioters. The jury is not tasked with determining the truth of that although they are tasked with determining whether or not Rittenhouse murdered two of the rioters or acted in self defense. To allow the rioters to be referred to as victims would be seen by the jury as facts not in evidence and potentially influence their decision of guilt or innocence. The judge's insistence is a proper element of jurisprudence.

[Alan]

What did he do?

He appears to be insisting on fairness.

[LDAHL]

It seems to now hinge on whether the jury interpretes Wisconsin’s legal definition of “provocation” to defeat the self-defense argument. The prosecution seems to be asserting that his very presence there was sufficient to constitute provocation. The defense seems to be claiming that alone doesn’t meet the statutory definition.

[jp1]

I don't think that was curious at all, I believe the event had already been declared a riot by city officials so the participants were indeed rioters. The jury is not tasked with determining the truth of that although they are tasked with determining whether or not Rittenhouse murdered two of the rioters or acted in self defense. To allow the rioters to be referred to as victims would be seen by the jury as facts not in evidence and potentially influence their decision of guilt or innocence. The judge's insistence is a proper element of jurisprudence.

Did any of the victims have stolen evidence on them at the time of their death? If not then the judge allowing them to be called looters would seem to be an error in favor of the defense.

[LDAHL]

I hear the jury has asked for additional copies of the instructions related to provocation and self- defense. I’m told that “provocation” in this state is a bit more complicated than what you might think. It’s good to see a jury trying to apply the law as written rather than through the lens of ideological bias.

[LDAHL]

Might have been a mistake for the prosecutor to play with the gun during his summation.

[bae]

Did any of the victims have stolen evidence on them at the time of their death? If not then the judge allowing them to be called looters would seem to be an error in favor of the defense.

Perhaps “cosplayers” would be a better term.

[bae]

Jury instructions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...-5f4edc8003cc/

[ToomuchStuff]

In the last week, my back went out, which also screwed up my guts (caused an intestinal blockage), so I have been working, busy and pretty miserable.
I haven't got to see much of the trial, so I have missed what they added on for charges. I have also missed how the firearm was obtained, who owns it, if they have been charged either state (or if maybe the feds are awaiting a verdict to come in and try a straw purchase charge) or federally, already.
Having read through the posts here, I agree with Bae, that this goes against one of the basic tenants of gun safety (avoid doing stupid things with stupid people), but that is NOT A LAW, and I certainly fear the society that tries to make it law (stupidity and ignorance is a fine line) as I am sure we have all done stupid things. Hell, the jury could be coming back as I type this, I am so out of the loop, right now.

Also had to deal with making some ownership decisions, at the same time the estate is being held up by a $60 bill, because x hospital put the wrong pay to information on their bill.