The juror that made the offensive Jacob Blake joke probably heard it from the judge.
Giving “jury nullification” a new meaning… >.<
This case will create the precedent that will take us closer to a civil war. Rittenhouse will get a slap on the wrist, which will encourage more assholes to take the largest fucking gun they can find to a protest and get into altercations. The testimony made front page on reddit (didn’t watch the video, it’s late) but saw the people are already cheering.
Let’s not exaggerate. The reason he’ll get a slap on the wrist - at most - is that the law is clear, and precedent already exists. The prosecution has absolutely no way to build a case and it shows. Speaking of Reddit, I checked a couple of subs about jurisprudence, and the “verdict” is almost unanimous that Mr Rittenhouse is in the right, legally speaking (I don’t think he is, ethically speaking). Even the NYT reports the difficulties that the Prosecutor has in establishing that Mr Rittenhouse broke the law. Now, again, I can’t stand Mr. Rittenhouse, but by the many “highlights” I’ve watched it’s evident that he didn’t break any law.
This is not an exaggeration.
It doesn’t seem that the witnesses corroborated that Mr Rittenhouse was an instigator. And here we’re talking about prosecution witnesses. Even with the first shooting, by the dumpster, everything - including FBI drone footage - points to Mr Rittenhouse being first threatened and the attacked. You get a very good point: the trial is not over, therefore mine is obviously just an opinion. Personally I was hoping he’d get some manslaughter charges for the first shooting, but from what I see even that will be very hard at this point.
I don’t totally disagree with this, but people bringing guns and rifles at a protest (on either side, if there is a side), isn’t new. Even yesterday’s witness admitted not only to having a concealed handgun, but even having pointed it. However, I think you will concur that the trial is not - and shouldn’t be - about “what happens if the accused gets convicted / acquitted but about the law.
Reddit lawyer? I am not that low! My degree comes from decades of practicing law on random online forums, often in conversations in which most participants base their opinions on newspaper titles only or, in the best case, tweets.Do you have a law degree, BTW or are you another Reddit lawyer?
I am not clear in one thing, and I haven’t seen any trial footage about it. Some claim that Rittenhouse just went there and asked for a firearm and got it. Others are saying that at the trial it was disclosed that during the morning he was helping cleaning the place and that he was asked (by the shady car dealers?) to stay there and that he then was given a weapon. Any idea which is which?
Well then, it’s decided. The defense can rest, send the jury to deliberation, which should take 30 seconds, and he can be acquitted immediately.
Yes, absolutely. No citizen has a duty to die or be victimized. Example: a lady steals a gun from a car. While walking home two men try to rape her. She can shoot them. She might be charged for unlawful possession, but certainly no homicide charge (another example is a very young kid shooting someone breaking in his house or committing violence on a family member).
I am not following that one, from what I’ve seen about it, I find hard to believe that the self defense argument will stand.
So who legally owns it? Mr Rittenhouse or his friend?
I don’t think there’s anything absolute about it. What if you stole somebody’s gun, and they try to get it back, you fear they are going to hurt you in the process, and you shoot them? You could say you feared for your life as the victim of your robbery attempted to hurt you to get the gun back. I doubt a jury would see it that way… but who knows?
At the age of 17, it’s not legal for Kyle to own it, period. There’s your answer.
That’s a different case and has little to do with the question I answered. The legality of the ownership of the weapon doesn’t limit the right to self defense, that’s my point. In the case you described above - which is Mr Rittenhouse defense on the first shooting - the owner is not the initiator of the act of violence, hence the self defense. That is, the legality of the possession is not the determinant factor.
Again, in the commission of a violent crime in which you’re the victim, you can defend yourself. So if someone is robbing a bank, you have the right to defend yourself.
Well, yes.
Reports maybe, anyone called by the prosecutor stated so? Because that’s what matters. Honest question because I haven’t heard it but, admittedly I haven’t listened to the whole thing.