Kyle Rittenhouse
The judge in the murder trial of Kenosha, WI, shooter Kyle Rittenhouse clearly is trying to arrange for a not-guilty finding, according to a legal expert. The expert, a professor at a school of law in the Upper Midwest. also notes that a prosecutor failed to properly address a key piece of evidence that points to Rittenhouse's guilt. Testimony has concluded, and closing arguments are expected to begin on Monday.
It all suggests that a killer likely will go free and points to the corruption and incompetence (or both) that infests our "justice system." Jeffrey Swartz, professor of criminal law at Western Michigan University, is a former judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney. Swartz does not like what he sees at the Rittenhouse trial. From a Cooley Law School press release:
Western Michigan University Cooley Law School Professor Jeffrey Swartz, who previously served as a judge in Florida’s Miami-Dade County and as a prosecutor and defense attorney, believes Judge Bruce Schroeder’s rulings from the bench are one-sided in favor of the defense. “It’s abundantly clear the judge is trying to direct the case toward an acquittal,” said Swartz.
Additionally, Swartz believes the judge “may reserve ruling on the defense’s motion for a mistrial until or unless the jury comes back with a verdict of guilty.” Swartz says, “if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, the judge could then rule a mistrial. I do not believe the prosecutor’s actions were that egregious to justify a mistrial with a finding of purposeful and calculated misconduct. ”
When discussing this trial Swartz notes that “it’s true, judges can substantially affect outcomes, which is being demonstrated by Judge Schroeder’s rulings and his demeanor toward the prosecution.”
As for the prosecution, its performance has been less than stellar, Swartz notes:
Swartz notes that the prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger, missed an important piece of evidence when laying out his case. Swartz said, “photos show Rittenhouse walking with his gun strapped over his shoulder with his finger on the trigger and safety in the off position before any of the shootings happened. Rittenhouse said he feared individuals were going to steal his gun. But his actions, including having the gun strapped to his body, with his finger on the trigger, and the gun’s safety not activated, indicate he was prepared to kill and open to the opportunity to kill.”
21 comments:
Sounds like we can look forward to an acquittal early next week.
This professor has some balls -- and he also knows what he's talking about. Good for him.
Props to the leadership of Western Michigan University (WMU) for allowing a faculty member to speak out this way. It's the professor's absolute right under he First Amendment to speak out on a matter of public concern, but it's impressive -- and a genuine effort at public education -- for the university to issue a formal press release with the prof's insights on this important case. A lot of universities probably would not be so bold.
I see WMU's press release as the university essentially endorsing a faculty member's right to make insightful, but controversial and critical statements, about a matter regarding powerful public figures. It's also an example of non-censorship. I say," Bravo. This is the kind of free speech from public employees that we need."
Thanks for posting this, LS. I haven't seen this kind of analysis from any other expert on this case.
You're welcome, @9:27. One thing that impressed me is this professor's background. He's been a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and now a law professor. It's hard to imagine a more knowledgeable, well-rounded individual to comment on this case.
Prof. Swartz has all the bases covered, and that's why I think his opinions are so important. I hope he draws national attention, perhaps at WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
So, I guess cold-blooded murder is OK now, as long as a Trumper does it?
An acquittal hasn't happened yet, of course, but if it does, that could be one of the ugly lessons from this. Specifically, I would say it suggests murder is OK if a white, right-winger with a gun commits it.
Another possible lesson from an acquittal: Concerned citizens, who know an armed gunman already has killed one person, should not attempt to inhibit the gunman's actions to keep him from killing others.
My big question: Why was it any of Kyle Rittenhouse's business to be in Kenosha, especially with a deadly weapon. Security wasn't up to him, and he didn't have the authority, to protect businesses in which he had no interest. He should have been home watching a Cubs game.
Roger, I think we are watching 2 different videos. Kyle was announcing his intention to go to the police and was not actively shooting, nor was he even pointing his gun at anyone. Once he was tripped, someone started hitting him with a skate board, which justifies deadly force. Then a second guy is holding his hands up, Kyle points the gun down, then guy then points the gun at Kyle, again justifying deadly force, so Kyle shoots him. Once the threat is over, he stops shooting. Thats not an active shooter.
Also, do we have access to the picture the professor spoke of, with Kyle holding a weapon off safe with his finger on the trigger?
@12:25 I'll ask you the same thing about Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz. Why were they in Kenosha? Kyle did nothing wrong when he extinguished the fire. It was only after being chased and hearing a gunshot that Kyle shot. Why was it Kyle's business, 'the on-the-go necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'
@6:47 -- I'm not watching a video at all. I'm writing about the opinions of a law professor who is a former judge, prosecutor, defense attorney. I think he's an awfully strong source.
Rittenhouse already had shot three people, killing two, but he wasn't an active shooter? Not sure how you figure that. Deadly force is OK against a guy with a skateboard? Not sure about that. My guess is that Rosenbaum and Huber were there to protest, as they had every right to do. Grosskreutz, an actual medic, apparently was there to render aid to those who might need it. So, you are saying Kyle Rittenhouse gets to decide what is evil and who is supposed to die because of it? Sounds like you see him as a sort of God, a "Great Decider."
BTW, in the photo on this post, you can see Rittenhouse's index finger extended straight out toward what appears to be the trigger. I have no idea how an AR-15 is put together, so not sure about the safety. The prof. probably has access to better photos -- and full court testimony -- plus knowledge of how these guns work. I trust him as a source.
I think you should watch the videos and read up on how weapons function and laws work. In one video you see Kyle run back to check on the first guy he shot. There was another person there tending to the wound. Kyle began to run off. He was firing shots and therefore is not an active shooter. The mob decided to attack him and he defended himself. At that point you could say he was actively shooting, but that was because they were attacking him. Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Surely you won't argue that a skateboard could cause serious bodily harm especially when swung at someones head. So your guess is they were there to protest. As long as we are guessing, my guess is they were there to riot. Kyle had every right to be there and had every right to protect himself. In fact, when Grosskreutz has his hands up, Kyle doesn't point his gun at him, let alone shoot at him. Only when Grosskreutz decides to charge and point his pistol at Ky;e does Kyle raise his rifle and shoot him. It's clear f you watch the videos or listen to the testimony.
You suggest you know the law and you say the dead and injured were there to riot, so please tell us this: What law gives Kyle Rittenhouse the authority to enforce order at a riot?
As for what's clear, I would suggest this: Of all the people present that night, how many shot and killed (or seriously injured) anyone else. The answer is one, Kyle Rittenhouse. That's because he came to kill, with the mindset and the equipment to kill.
Yet Kyle didn't just kill anyone. He waited until he was being chased by someone who was threatening to kill him. Which, I might add, is illegal. Kyle then looped around to check on the guy he shot, then ran towards the police, not shooting at anyone until he was tripped and attacked. That's a real killer instinct right there. If he had sat in the darkness and fired a few rounds off, I would agree with you, but watch the videos, listen to the testimony and actually think about it. You don't need authority to do the right thing. He was running with a fire extinguisher to put out fires.
What gave the rioters the right to chase Kyle down and attack him? He was running from the area, and was no longer shooting. Why was it their job to stop him?
Maybe because they had already witnessed him fatally shoot one person? Maybe they were trying to protect lives?
Except they didn't witness it. The fact that while Kyle was running he was asked on video if he had shot someone. Had they witnessed it, they wouldn't have had to ask.
Who asked him if he had shot someone? What was his answer?
A few protesters apparently knew someone had been shot and seriously wounded (fatally, it turns out), and Rittenhouse called attention to himself by having a big-ass gun strapped to his chest, which wasn't very smart. The protesters likely were able to put 2 and 2 together, and they came up with the right answer -- Rittenhouse had just shot and killed a guy he knew was unarmed, so it's hard to see how that is self-defense.
Grisskreutz Facebook live video showed him running beside Kyle asking him if he shot someone. Kyle was still running down the road with his AR aimed in a safe manner. There were multiple gun shots going off in at least one of the videos. With all the gunfire, how did they know for sure it was him when they had to question him about it? Grosskreutz can then be heard yelling get him and he shot someone. That's when the mob moved in.
How did Kyle know the first guy he shot was unarmed? This guy began chasing him for putting out an arsonists fire. The guy repeatedly yelled fuck you, I'm going to kill you. When you have a "big ass gun" and someone chases you, they know something you don't. Had Kyle not shot when he did, that guy would have been on top of him and serious injury was coming, be it by a weapon or his bare fists. Which as an aside, personal weapons (hands, fists, feet ect.) Caused 662 deaths in 2020, while rifles only accounted for 455. I think we know at least 1 of the rifle deaths was on response to someone stating he was going to kill someone with his bare hands, assuming he didn't take the rifle from Kyle. As a further aside. Blunt objects accounted for 393 deaths and hand guns 8,029.
From a CNN report today:
Rittenhouse's attorneys have argued that the "grainy" video that captures Rittenhouse's actions the night of August 25 is unreliable because it was enhanced by "artificial intelligence" software. The defense attorneys claimed this added pixels to the photographic material now used against their client to prove he "pointed" his weapon, provoking Rosenbaum to attack him; the prosecution didn't offer any expert testimony to the contrary.
Did Rittenhousr point his gun at Rosenbaum, provoking the whole chain of events. Some video evidence apparently indicates the answer is yes. From the video I've seen, I can't tell.
Post a Comment