Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse - Answers and Questions Part 1: Legal Issues · 2:07am Nov 22nd, 2021
I'm gratified to see that Ponyland has not blown up into acrimonious horseapples like just about every other social media platform in Western (so-called) Civilization over this one. I suspect a lot of you have already made up your minds before you ever heard the first shred of actual evidence, but I'll try to speak reasonably anyway...
Let's begin at the end, and talk about legal matters. I'd missed this originally, but listen very carefully to the words of the Clerk of the Court uses as she reads the verdict:
Did you catch that word, "Information", in the verdict? In American jurisprudence, "Information" means that the prosecutor filed the charges on his own hook, without presenting the evidence in favor of the charges to a Grand Jury. A Grand Jury, in American Jurisprudence, hears the prosecution's evidence, and, if they deem the prosecution's evidence to be sufficent, they issue an indictment. An "information" means that the prosecutor filed the charges directly... which implies that either a) he thought the case was a slam-dunk (unlikely, given the evidence that had already gotten to the public), or b) he realized that the case was weaksauce at best, and didn't want to take a chance on the Grand Jury giving the "wrong" answer - which is particularly remarkable, given that , in practice, the prosecutor is the only one who decides what evidence to present to the Grand Jury, as expressed by the old adage that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
What does that tell you about the strength of the prosecution's evidence in this case? THEN, ask yourself how many other times the prosecutors in the DA's Office in Kenosha might have filed charges with an information instead of an indictment when the eyes of the world were NOT on them, and the defendant was NOT a Caucasian Male....
_Edit: This was Part 1 of a multipart series. Tune in later for more... I have to abandon this project. Series is discontinued. Sorry, but I can't keep up with a news cycle that isn't even a 24-hour news cycle, but a 2-hour news cycle, repeated 12 times... If you want to follow up on Wisconsin v. Rittenhouse, there's a fisking of the case here: https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/11/21/fisking-one-of-the-many-dumb-hot-takes-on-the-rittenhouse-case/ [Fair warning: the author was a Concealed Weapons License Instructor, and has little to no patience for nonsense on the topic, so expect obscenity and profanity on the ignorance of the person he's fisking, as well as those who display similar ignorance in the comments.]
The only thing I'd add is that the author kind of glossed over just how egregiously the prosecutor violated Rittenhouse's rights during the trial. (I counted at least three separate Sixth Amendment violations, when he violated the Brady decision rules about discovery, and at least two serial Fifth Amendment violations when the prosecutor tried to use Rittenhouse's invoking his right to remain silent without a lawyer present, in order to smear Rittenhouse with the "he pled the 5th, he must be guilty!" routine...
The WHOLE REASON we have the Fifth Amendment is not only to preclude torturing confessions out of suspects, but also to prevent wordgames of the sort Cardinal Richilieu endorsed when he famously stated, "Give me five lines written by the most virtuous man alive, and I shall burn him at the stake for Heresy..." Excuse me for being a little bit defensive about a fundamental RIGHT, okay?!?
_Edit, continued: BTW, did you notice that a Georgia jury convicted a trio of white boiz of Murder when they tried to claim self-defense in the course of a "Citizen's Arrest" in the Arbery case? Also, that a prosecutor, who apparently tried to cover for them, got indicted? (Apparently, my Google-fu is weaksauce, but I recall an ABC News story that effectively indicted a Georgia ADA for Malfeasance, because she either didn't present the case to a Gran Jury, or did, and left evidence out of the presentation...)
The more I read about the proceedings, the more I came to understand that it seems to be agreed that Rittenhouse himself shouldn't have been there doing what he was doing, but that he wasn't and didn't do anything strictly against the law. A disconnect between morality and legalese, which is particularly visible in this case with polarized viewpoints on either side and dead people in the middle.
And yeah, I can believe that The Game was being played all through the process, which is what created so much confusion in me over exactly what was going on inside the trial itself.
5610072
Schachza, I don't believe that there's any immorality to be found in Rittenhouse's going to Kenosha, either. By all accounts at trial, he was, in fact, cleaning up graffiti, offering first aid, and extinguishing fires. The character witnesses all back that up. A laudable goal, and I applaud the young man's sense of citizenship...
Having said that, in my opinion, it was, at best, ill-advised to do so. He exposed himself to undue and excessive risk for insufficient result. In the end, the rioters stole and vandalized property, burned buildings, and assaulted uninvolved people with abandon, in spite of his efforts to mitigate it.
But, there is no statute or moral tenet against errors in judgment or following bad advice. Otherwise, every city in America would have to have prison walls around it, like outtakes from Escape from New York...
5610074
Do not confuse my comment about people's moral disagreement with Rittenhouse's presence in that location at that time doing what he was doing with an insinuation of immorality. It was made in reference to people feeling that he had done wrong despite not breaking any actual laws, which is entirely viewer morality.
EDIT: This is exactly why I prefer written arguments; my first and second attempts would have still missed the core disconnect between us, furthering an argument that didn't exist until I tried to respond. So, thankfully editing into the third try got it all back on track.
5610180
I understand. My point is that "ill-advised" =! "immoral", and too many people out there are conflating the two. (ETA) I was commenting more on viewer morality than Rittenhouse's, I suppose...(/edit)
He's not wrong for trying to do the right thing. He's perhaps foolish for trying to do it in the face of a mob bent on destruction, but he's not wrong. (ETA) Saying that it makes him wrong is a bit too close to victim-blaming...
You might take a look at the statement from Pink Pistols on the verdict, and the followup comments from their National Coordinator -she explained the difference better than I can...(/edit)
(ETA) BTW, I take your point about the difficulty in trying to express oneself in this medium. I've had to edit twice, and I'll probably have to edit it again...(/edit)
Comment on the edits, eh? Well, ummm...
- Yes, our national attention span, at least as presented by by the media is distressingly short. But then, there's also a constant stream of upsetting stuff arising from the whole of the humansphere... Tucker Carlson quickly became my next distressed "Please, God, why?!"
-That author pegged my Biasmeter hard just the same as the guy he was lambasting, though each in different ways. (I hate "All Repubs Are Evil" just as much as I hate "All Dems Are Evil.") So, I take him with just as much salt as I do the other guy. (I'm particularly put off by the unsourced thing being picked apart, which the critiquer specifically labels a stand in for all the similar arguments out there. Might be genuine, but could just as easily be a strawman, so my caution was flagged right at the start.)
-Yes, I was following Arbery alongside Rittenhouse. And as far as I've seen, there were some very key differences. Like... Rittenhouse tried to escape and ended up shooting when that didn't work; Arbery tried to escape and ended up dying when that didn't work. I don't kmow what else to say other than my mind was changed about Rittenhouse (and I've tried to correct others based on that) but I currently feel the outcome of the Arbery trial is justified. EDIT: Why is it "Rittenhouse" and "Arbery"? One was the defendant, the other is not on trial. (That's rhetorical, btw)
5611307
Yeah. The guy got fed up and went off. He writes pretty good novels, though...
And I'm grateful that they got it right in Georgia. It took far too long, and there were too many shenanigans being played by the DA, but they finally got it right. I believe that there are similar cases of malfeasance and misconduct in DA'S Offices across the country. It would be interesting to see that become a topic of discussion nationwide..
And I suspect that people simply look for a short, single word label, rather than pick a naming conventionand stick with it. It's lazy, but bucking that trend is like sweeping back the tide... *sigh*