michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 20, 2021 14:29:56 GMT
Not sure this story features high up the agenda in the UK as the version of the BBC I get abroad tends to lead with American stories. I have to explicitly click "UK" but then of course I miss out on the top world stories. www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59358172Anyway, without spending a long time researching this I think I'm still not getting it. A young man has been found innocent of murder but the story spends most of the time quoting people who are questioning it. Its apparently "self defence" but no background on why. There surely must be some background or a random sample of 12 people would surely not have found him innocent. I do find it very distasteful that a court decision is questioned like this. Other stories might run as poor innocent bloke who has spent months inside now finally freed. In law, surely that is exactly what has happened ?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 14:54:31 GMT
You are right. Challenging of decisions of courts is wrong except by due process, but the questioning of laws is fine.
Which takes you back to a major split in the States which concerns gun-carry The prosecutors had a tough call to make especially as in the state the kid killed these people he only did a bit wrong and the three main witnesses are either dead or in a coma
This what happens when you mix up politics and the law.
Still at least all the information is freely available and can be discussed openly
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 20, 2021 15:57:00 GMT
Undisputed facts, expressed as neutrally as I can... --- The 17yo accused travelled to another city, across a state line (albeit only 20 miles away) on the second day of unrest which had already veering into violence, rioting and looting after dark. The demonstration was about the police shooting of somebody who was accused of domestic violence and who had a knife. He was tasered, then seven shots were fired at his back as he reached into a car. He was against the protestors. The accused took along an automatic assault rifle. On the third day of the unrest, his second day in the city, he decided he was going to "protect" a second-hand car dealership along with other armed anti-demonstrators (even though the management hadn't asked for anybody's help). This photo was taken early in the evening, before it all kicked off.. The accused is on the centre of the pic, in the white cap. At about midnight, he got involved in a scuffle, and was being chased by an unarmed man. A bystander fired a shot into the air. The teenager turned round and shot his unarmed pursuer four times, fatally. He then ran away, and a crowd tried to stop him and remove his gun. One of them tried to kick him, and was shot at but missed. Another hit him with a skateboard, and was fatally shot in the chest. He then ran away again. Somebody else tried to stop him, pulling their own hand gun out. That person was shot in the arm, non-fatally. He then went to police, who were looking for an "active shooter", with his hands up and his gun across his chest. The police told him to get out of the way, and tried to pepper-spray him when he didn't, because they didn't think he was the one they were looking for... He went home, and turned himself in the next day. He was charged with six crimes, and released on bail. Two homicides, one attempted homicide, two reckless endangerment, possession of a weapon by an under 18. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenosha_unrest_shooting--- His defence was very heavily funded by various political lobbies, and did a lot of coaching of the accused in preparation for his appearance in court. US trials allow the prosecutors and defence to reduce a large pool of potential jurors (nearly 180 in this case), rejecting the ones they feel least appropriate. Twenty were selected by this process. One was dismissed for telling a joke about the police shooting that led to the unrest (); and a pregnant woman was allowed to leave. The remaining eighteen jurors sat through the entire trial, before the accused himself chose twelve of them for the deliberations, by picking numbers out of a tombola-style device. edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/us/consultant-jury-oj-simpson-working-in-rittenhouse-trial/index.htmlwww.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/piece-theater-legal-experts-weigh-kyle-rittenhouse-seating-jurors-deci-rcna5779The jury found him not guilty of all charges, accepting that he acted entirely in self-defence. You can see why not everybody might agree with that verdict...
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 20, 2021 16:42:57 GMT
I am so glad to be a European.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 20, 2021 16:57:13 GMT
Undisputed facts, expressed as neutrally as I can... --- The jury found him not guilty of all charges, accepting that he acted entirely in self-defence. You can see why not everybody might agree with that verdict... And, of course, the subtext and context that I left out of that precis... The man who was shot was black, just a few months after the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, after months of BLM protests and counter-protests, and in the run-up to the presidential election. Rittenhouse aligned himself with white-supremacist groups, both before and in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. Personal opinion? He went looking for trouble, and he damn well found it. Self-defence, my furry buttocks.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 20, 2021 17:00:42 GMT
"Self-defence, my furry buttocks"
Were you there?
Have you seen the video footage of the actual shootings?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 20, 2021 17:23:20 GMT
Some interesting and some, dare I say _some_ predictable, replies.
I think Adrian's list of facts do somewhat play on the fact that we don't have a gun culture here. So when we see armed men that aren't police/military we instantly even subconsciously think they are up to no good. Presumably the jury made their decision in the context of a country where carrying arms in many counties is routine.
But however they came to their decision you surely accept it otherwise society breaks down. What we see with the mainstream media is IMO not that different from Brexit post referendum.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 20, 2021 17:31:14 GMT
I also suggest reading the official transcripts from the trial, not the Right or Left Wing Hysterical Media Versions.
My favourite, and I paraphrase, is the Prosecutor when questioning the fellow who was shot but survived.
Prosecutor: "So, his rifle wasn't pointed at you?"
Witness: "No Sir".
Prosecutor: "But he raised his gun and shot you after you pointed your handgun at him?"
Witness: "Yes Sir."
It was an extremely wild and chaotic night (obviously!), but there seems adequate and various video footage available.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 17:33:11 GMT
Presumably the jury made their decision in the context of a country where carrying arms in many counties is routine. I can't think of any circumstances in which a 17 year old carrying an assault rifle is a good idea.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 20, 2021 17:41:34 GMT
"Self-defence, my furry buttocks"Were you there? Have you seen the video footage of the actual shootings? Stroppy boy goes looking for trouble, tooled up for trouble, finds trouble. He complains it's sooo unfair. At the very least, surely he was absolutely slam-dunk guilty of the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon? Actually, I was incorrect in my summing-up. The defence asked the judge to dismiss that charge late in the trial, and he agreed. The jury never got to consider it. Because, apparently, an automatic assault rifle isn't "dangerous" if the barrel is longer than 16", as his was. abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 17:41:57 GMT
I should probably add that I'm... ok with accepting the jury's verdict, and I have some sympathy with michaelc 's discomfort with the "court decision being questioned like this" (though it will be interesting to see if there's an appeal). That having been said there was no need for him to be there. There was no need for him to carry an assault rifle. The simple fact is that had he not driven to that city, armed, he wouldn't have shot and killed those men. If he wasn't guilty of murder, he was guilty of gross stupidity.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 20, 2021 17:58:40 GMT
...and I have some sympathy with michaelc 's discomfort with the "court decision being questioned like this" Is Biden's comment not a lot milder than, say, our own PM saying that he "profoundly disagrees" with a Supreme Court judgement? Does it mean all comment on judicial decisions is somehow out of bounds, and they are inherently inviolate and infallible? Wouldn't that mean that there was never any need at all for an appeals procedure, let alone the concept of "miscarriages of justice"? Unfortunately, that's not currently explicitly illegal...
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 18:09:07 GMT
Is Biden's comment not a lot milder than, say, our own PM saying that he "profoundly disagrees" with a Supreme Court judgement? Does it mean all comment on judicial decisions is somehow out of bounds, and they are inherently inviolate and infallible? Wouldn't that mean that there was never any need at all for an appeals procedure, let alone the concept of "miscarriages of justice"? I agree. It comes down to how much confidence you have in the judiciary / legal system. The UK's is hardly perfect, but I have more faith in it than I do in the US, which throws up some pretty bizarre (to my eyes at least) decisions with depressing regularity. But thankfully the US is not on a level with Belarus / Russia / China. My starting point is still that the system, and juries, try to reach an appropriate verdict, and where they fail there is still legal recourse for the system to try to "get it right".
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 20, 2021 18:38:20 GMT
Presumably the jury made their decision in the context of a country where carrying arms in many counties is routine. I can't think of any circumstances in which a 17 year old carrying an assault rifle is a good idea. But aren't you mixing the issues of gun control with judicial justice ? I agree with you on a morality level though. Also about "an appeal", I _thought_ that until recently in most western democracies once you are proclaimed "innocent" there is no appeal to make you guilty. Quite right from a moral stand point. I think in the UK there were some changes but I think they only apply in very narrow cases?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Nov 20, 2021 19:23:36 GMT
michaelc I don't think so. At least not intentionally. To my, British, eyes the issue of gun control in the US is... bonkers. Any discussion of it being equally febrile and partisan. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't be monumentally stupid. Re appeals, you're right - you're looking for double jeopardy. Equally that doesn't mean that other charges can't be brought. I'm no lawyer but it does surprise me that deliberately and unnecessarily inserting yourself into a situation that results in you "having to" defend yourself with lethal force in a premeditated fashion, isn't materially different from simply using lethal force in a premeditated fashion. It's just contrived. In a rational world a "fault" in such a system would result in that system being adjusted to prevent recurrence of the fault. Which means changing the law. Which is unlikely to happen any time soon in the US . Still, as we've seen with the Paterson case in the UK recently what you don't do is change the rules "in flight". And it that means Rittenhouse gets off scot free then so be it .
|
|