and the tl;dr of the whole trial is that assholes still have a right to self defense. If the prosecution had just gone after him for lesser offenses like crossing state lines with a gun he wasn't supposed to have they could have made his life pretty miserable. But just because some people think he shouldn't do something, doesn't mean he can't. I hope this chipmunk faced fucker has to go into hiding. Sadly, he'll probably be set for the rest of his life with far right speaking gigs.
I mean, maybe? My understanding is that the news media was supposed to be providing the details of what happened without editorializing the shit out of them and expecting people to read between the lines to get the data. NPR was still actively bullshitting about the case today when it said that he shot the other protestor when his hands were raised, which completely contradicts that protestor's own testimony.
If I went back in time five or ten years, and told younger you that we would all watch videos of an American city being looted and lit on fire, and that one of the mob setting the blaze was a convicted pedophile who had served ten years for raping five children, and he had been released from a psyche hold that day thanks to an attempted suicide, and that he would chase after a 17-year-old there to defend property and render aid, and that the 17 year old would shoot him after the pedophile chased him yelling, “I’m gonna kill you,” and someone else in the mob had fired a shot, and that you would think the 17 year old was the asshole, would you believe me?
What’s even scarier is that this is the highest profile of crimes. International news, 24-7 updates. And these are your “players” controlling the board, these nincompoops Did they interview ANYBODY before walking into the courtroom? They just keep fumbling the ball.
I ended up watching the bicep guy’s testimony in full. First I sat down and watched anything at length for this. Reading the articles it was slightly better than the Trayvon Martin trial. But still framing only parts that shed the best light on the prosecution. I read two articles that didn’t cover anything he said under cross at all.
He didn’t do well considering what he claims happened to him. He went on good morning America this morning where they did a prerecorded interview with him but it was heavily edited and didn’t cover anything helpful. But he did say something that was generally the opposite of what he testified to. The defense lawyers essentially got him to admit that he pointed his gun at the Rittenhouse first. Rittenhouse then shot him. On tv today, he said that wasn’t how it happened and he looked pissed and angry.
The prosecution’s questioning of Rittenhouse today was hilarious. They seriously asked him if he may have provoked the rioters because he was trying to put out fires.
Judge has dismissed the illegal possession charge, but I think he's wrong. The statute has an exception that says it does not apply to rifles and shotguns unless the minor is also in violation of 941.28 (possession of a short-barreled rifle/shotgun) or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593 (hunting regulations). It's clearly a carve out to allow hunting under the more specific regulations around hunting. The judge focused on 941.28 and dismissed the charge because the AR-15 was not a short-barreled rifle, but he ignored 29.593 which specifies the requirements to acquire a hunting license. I think it's a bit tortured logic to say that Rittenhouse was allowed to be armed because of the hunting exemption, but then didn't need to have a hunting license because he wasn't hunting.
Semi-related but watching the Judge and prosecution go back and forth over digital image scaling physically pains me.
Years ago, I was given a traffic ticket in Winnipeg - my first one. According to the cop, I had "stopped at that sign, but not enough." I thought it was total BS to give me a ticket for not pausing for a full three seconds in a residential area at 8:30am, given there was zero traffic, so I fought it in court. Almost a year later, I sat in the public area waiting for my case to be called. I was third or fourth on the docket. The first person called up explained that the roads were so icy they were unable to stop, so instead took an illegal turn to avoid barrelling through a stop sign into traffic. Judge ruled in the Crown's favour, even though the defendant had pictures. Second person explained that they ran a red light because their child had been burned at a barbecue and they were rushing to the hospital. Had the doctor's report with them. Judge ruled for the Crown. I looked around, at the judge, the court reporter, the Crown, all the cops, all the legal assistants and realized...every single one of these people makes their salary off the public tit, and there's no incentive to make any of it stop. The system doesn't want less crime, and it doesn't often factor in common sense. And quite a few people in it are dipshits. So, seeing DAs be total fuckwits at their job has zero shock for me. Someone else mentioned how terrified they are at the thought of being accused of a crime, and you're right to be scared. Imagine the ineptitude of, say, 7-11 or Walmart, and know that it extends to every job at every level. Having also been involved in not one but TWO garbage civil litigations, I've also learned that our system is based on anyone being able to sue anyone else anytime over anything. This Rittenhouse trial is a sham, and I hope the kid sues the state into oblivion.
I had the same questions on it. But I think Clutch nailed it that the prosecution just didn't end up pursuing it for whatever reason.