11-20-2021, 12:25 AM
Wow! Been awhile since my shadow has haunted the hallowed halls of P&R! Frankly, I haven't had much to say about politics since Trump left, allowing me to retreat to my Fortress of Moderate Solitude...LOL!
A friend and I had discussed this trial weeks ago. She is a retired public defender, very level-headed, and also firmly entrenched in the Left camp. Our conclusion at that time was that this would go exactly the way it went. The difference between the state laws and the charges they were trying to prosecute just left too much open. Too much reasonable doubt.
The fact that the judge made an initial ruling that skewed towards the defense was not a game changer (and, personally, I mostly agree with his ruling). This is how court cases are: your side scores a point here, their side scores a point there, etc. It is sort of like football that way. Saying that your side lost a case solely because of one ruling is akin to saying your team lost the game solely due to one bad play. Your team never loses a game due solely to one bad play. Any NFL coach will tell you that.
The judge was correct in throwing out the misdemeanor weapons charge. The gun he used did not fit the description in the state statute. The barrel was a different size than the law precludes. Period. I feel this was just thrown in as additional by the prosecution, hoping but not expecting it would slip through. They should have known better, and they probably did.
Now, the prosecution had some statutory challenges in bringing their case. For one thing, Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter felonies like many other jurisdictions (charges that IMO might have been more appropriate). Homicide is far more difficult to prove. Also, Wisconsin law doesn't require premeditation. Another statutory issue comes from Wisconsin's definition of self-defense. It is one of the few places that permits the original aggressor to plead self-defense as an affirmative defense. There is a reason why most states don't have this: because they have more experience in these situations and know better.
The prosecution failed in a couple of critical areas. They were apparently unsuccessful in personalizing the individuals Rittenhouse shot to the jury, permitted the defense to infantilize Rittenhouse on the stand without a good counter, and probably were weaker than the defense in educating the jurors in the laws and how they fit the facts of the case.
Like it or not, that is how are legal system works. It was a fair trial and represented the laws of the jurisdiction.
A friend and I had discussed this trial weeks ago. She is a retired public defender, very level-headed, and also firmly entrenched in the Left camp. Our conclusion at that time was that this would go exactly the way it went. The difference between the state laws and the charges they were trying to prosecute just left too much open. Too much reasonable doubt.
The fact that the judge made an initial ruling that skewed towards the defense was not a game changer (and, personally, I mostly agree with his ruling). This is how court cases are: your side scores a point here, their side scores a point there, etc. It is sort of like football that way. Saying that your side lost a case solely because of one ruling is akin to saying your team lost the game solely due to one bad play. Your team never loses a game due solely to one bad play. Any NFL coach will tell you that.
The judge was correct in throwing out the misdemeanor weapons charge. The gun he used did not fit the description in the state statute. The barrel was a different size than the law precludes. Period. I feel this was just thrown in as additional by the prosecution, hoping but not expecting it would slip through. They should have known better, and they probably did.
Now, the prosecution had some statutory challenges in bringing their case. For one thing, Wisconsin doesn't have manslaughter felonies like many other jurisdictions (charges that IMO might have been more appropriate). Homicide is far more difficult to prove. Also, Wisconsin law doesn't require premeditation. Another statutory issue comes from Wisconsin's definition of self-defense. It is one of the few places that permits the original aggressor to plead self-defense as an affirmative defense. There is a reason why most states don't have this: because they have more experience in these situations and know better.
The prosecution failed in a couple of critical areas. They were apparently unsuccessful in personalizing the individuals Rittenhouse shot to the jury, permitted the defense to infantilize Rittenhouse on the stand without a good counter, and probably were weaker than the defense in educating the jurors in the laws and how they fit the facts of the case.
Like it or not, that is how are legal system works. It was a fair trial and represented the laws of the jurisdiction.
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
