The Rittenhouse and McMichael/Bryan trials

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I decided to start a new thread about this because I really don't think that discussion of the Rittenhouse trial should ever have been in the WTF thread (I haven't moved the other posts, though I might at some point). With the case with the jury, I wanted to make some comments before they reach a verdict. I have followed the trial, I would say, semi-closely, and also looked closer at a few things. A lot that I thought I knew has turned out to be different than I thought it was. First of all, it seems to have been accepted as gospel that Rittenhouse's mother drove him across state lines to the protests. That is almost certainly completely false; indeed the picture that was used to "prove" that she was there at Kenosha wasn't even of Kenosha. Secondly, the reporting that the three men that Rittenhouse shot were simply peaceful protesters is definitely false. Needless to say, they did not deserve to be shot and killed or injured, but they are not blameless for what happened. Thirdly, based on actual legal standards (as opposed to political beliefs) the case is much less clear-cut than many people have made it out to be. Certainly, their actions were a lot worse than I realized before I started paying attention to the trial.

Clearly, Rittenhouse should not have been there prowling around with an assault rifle, but that is almost irrelevant to whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in self-defense in shooting and killing Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, shooting and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, and putting other people at risk. The jury has a hard job, and at the end of the day I think that their verdict needs to be respected, though I fear that if it is anything other than a straight conviction on all charges chaos will ensue.

All that being said, this opinion piece that I saw a few days ago at CNN by Peniel E. Joseph, a professor of history and the Barbara Jordan Chair in ethics and political values and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin addressing aspects of the Rittenhouse trial and also the trial of Gregory and Travis McMichael and William Bryan for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery (a much clearer cut case in my opinion, despite the fact that the defendants in that case also claim self-defense, and despite the fact that discriminatory process of choosing a jury makes an acquittal or mistrial much more likely than it should be), really does a good job of addressing what the two cases say about race in America at this time. I really strongly recommend reading it.

What Kyle Rittenhouse's tears reveal about America

[Voronwë the Faithful]

After all the WTFing about the judge's decision to allow the men who were shot to be described in negative terms by the defense if they could provide evidence to back it up, the lead prosecutor, Thomas Binger, stated during his closing statement that if Rosenbaum hadn't been fatally shot, he [Binger] would have likely charged him with arson.

[elengil]

Last I checked, though, arson didn't come with the death penalty.

[Frelga]

And also, in a civilized society they don't shoot criminals in the street, they have a whole thing with the fair trial.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Of course both of those things are true. They are also completely irrelevant.

[N.E. Brigand]

I guess if the defense could refer to Rosenbaum as an "arsonist," then the prosecution should have been allowed to refer to Rittenhouse as a "shooter."

This long article on Rittenhouse from June in The New Yorker is valuable, I think, both in fleshing out some of the details that the general public may not know and in showing how the Rittenhouse case has been used (and how Rittenhouse sometimes seemed to let himself be used) by political actors on different sides:

Kyle Rittenhouse, American Vigilante

However, it is out of date. It doesn't mention Rosenbaum having set a dumpster on fire, and I hadn't seen that mentioned in any article prior to the prosecution mentioning it in the closing arguments.

The article also doesn't say how Rittenhouse got to Kenosha that night. And per your description, V, of the claim that Rittenhouse's mother drove there as being "almost certainly completely false," I gather that wasn't established one way or the other at the trial either. Isn't it just bizarre that no one seems to be able to pin down that very basic piece of information?

In the end, I find it hard to get past the fact that Rittenhouse killed two unarmed men, one of whom had done him no harm (and from whom I believe Rittenhouse could have retreated) and the other of whom attacked him using a skateboard but had reason to believe that Rittenhouse had just shot someone (which was true) and was a danger to others (which remains uncertain).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I guess if the defense could refer to Rosenbaum as an "arsonist," then the prosecution should have been allowed to refer to Rittenhouse as a "shooter."

The prosecution was allowed to refer to him as a "cold blooded killer."

[Frelga]

That IS what they are trying to prove, though.

[N.E. Brigand]

I guess if the defense could refer to Rosenbaum as an "arsonist," then the prosecution should have been allowed to refer to Rittenhouse as a "shooter."

The prosecution was allowed to refer to him as a "cold blooded killer."

Thanks for that information. Was that only in the opening/closing arguments?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I believe so. I can't imagine what other circumstance they would have had to use language like that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Last I checked, though, arson didn't come with the death penalty.

A somewhat similar issue to this has arisen in the McMichael/Bryan trial. Travis McMichael, the defendant that actually shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery, is the only defendant to take the stand on his own defense (the defense just rested so the others are not going to). While cross-examining him, prosecutor Larissa Ollivierre asked "Do you believe that someone stealing is deserving of the death penalty?" The defense objected and asked that the court admonist Ollivierre and instruct the jury to ignore the question. The judge agreed:

“The court does find that the question that was presented was inflammatory and irrelevant. And completely unnecessary, particularly given the witness that was on the stand. It has potentially injected into this case issues not appropriate for the jury and which were in fact discussed and brought up pretrial,” the judge said. “Counsel should have either known or should have known that this was a question that should not have been asked," he said.

Bryan's defense attorney Kevin Gough (the same one who has repeatedly objected to the presence of "black pastors") called for a mistrial based on the question. I'm not clear whether or not the judge has ruled on the request (if he has, he rejected it since closing arguments are scheduled to begin on Monday).

[elengil]

Good article that sums up my frustration with the whole affair
https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/column/ ... ab5a9.html

[Dave_LF]

No comment on this particular case since I have stayed willfully ignorant of the details, but the bar for what you're allowed to do to prevent crime is and should be lower than what you're allowed to do to punish it after the fact. If a crazed druggie breaks into my house and attacks me, and I kill him the struggle, I don't think there's a court in the world that would conclude I committed a crime by doing so. But if he kills me instead, many would hold back from sentencing him to death. There's no contradiction there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Good article that sums up my frustration with the whole affair
https://madison.com/wsj/opinion/column/ ... ab5a9.html

That's a good article (or, opinion piece, I suppose would be the correct term). I might have some further comments about it later, but I largely agree with the points made by the author.

[Dave_LF]

It certainly seems like the burden of proof should be on the killer to prove self-defense instead of the prosecution having to prove it wasn't. When people kill each other, we should start from the assumption that a crime has been committed; if just to deter people from taking that step until they're really sure they need to.

[Frelga]

Looks like it's an open season on protesters. Unless.they are wearing MAGA hats.

[elengil]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/us/kyle- ... index.html
not guilty on all charges

[N.E. Brigand]

One of the people who Kyle Rittenhouse killed was Anthony Huber, who attacked Rittenhouse with a skateboard because he was apparently under the belief that Rittenhouse was an active shooter who had just killed someone. That belief was at least half true.

(Huber's parents today issued a statement that reads, in part, "Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son.")

If Huber had killed Rittenhouse in his attempt to prevent Rittenhouse from shooting anyone else, would he have been acquitted of murdering Rittenhouse?

[elengil]

That's always been my biggest issue with these stand-your-ground and self-defense laws. It's not that I disagree with the idea of self defense, but rather the way it's always protrayed. Who exactly is entitled to self-defense?? Who is allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves against a threat and who isn't? Why weren't any of the people there entitled to defend themselves against the man with the gun who was actually shooting people?

It's also, incidentally, my biggest issue with people who claim an active shooter can be stopped by someone with a gun - because as soon as you do, you can become the 'active shooter' in the perception of those around you. Where does *that* rabbit-hole end??

[N.E. Brigand]

The Rittenhouse Trial and the Looming Wild West -- an interesting essay published a few days ago:

What’s undisputed in the case is that Kyle Rittenhouse took an AR-15 and traveled to patrol at the margins of a protest against the police shooting of Jacob Blake. That protest happened in a community where Rittenhouse did not live, indeed in another state altogether, and by the end of the night he had used his rifle to shoot three people, killing two of them and blasting apart the biceps of the third. ....

The prosecution has urged that the victims had their own right of self defense, but the truth is that right would only have done them any good if they had prevailed. The victims’ right to defend themselves would have mattered if Rittenhouse instead of themselves lay dead or injured, and if they instead of him had been hailed into court to answer for the mayhem. The state’s law did nothing to keep him and them apart, and it offered them no protection from the threat they perceived in Rittenhouse or the fight they found themselves in; it only potentially would have shielded them from the consequences of winning it.

In other words, as I implied above, current laws seems designed to encourage people to kill each other in acts of vigilantism.