The trial took place with
two duel stories. To prosecutors, Rittenhouse was a wary of AR-15-style weapons, a trouble seeker. In his defense, Rittenhouse was a sobbing teenager who testified that he found himself attacked and in those flashy moments made a rational decision to defend himself.
The jury clearly believed the latter, which, based on the facts, laws, and other circumstances of the trial, should come as no surprise.
This case has always been an uphill battle for prosecutors. The crucial issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defence, meaning he feared for his life when he pulled the trigger and shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz that night.
Trying to weigh Rittenhouse’s claim of self-defense between two dueling stories was no easy task for the jury. One could reasonably argue that Rittenhouse incited attacks on him by openly carrying his weapon in a threatening manner, and that he had the choice to withdraw or avoid using it. deadly force, even in self-defense. If the judges find either of these to be true, it wins
self defense request. But there is also evidence – including vital videos of the events in question and Rittenhouse’s own testimony – that in key moments just before he pulled the trigger, Rittenhouse acted in response to the allegations. imminent threat to his personal safety because
he believes he is in danger.
Current legislation and legal standards also create a difficult path for prosecutors trying to win convictions here. Our criminal justice system generally favors the accused, because of our core belief that it is better to see a guilty person free than to convict an innocent person. In criminal cases, therefore, prosecutors carry the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Like in many other states, Wisconsin law is sympathetic to murder defendants
self-defence statement. Once the defendant raises the issue of self-defense, the prosecutor must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
In the end, Judge Bruce Schroeder, who presided over the case with a ruthless attitude and frequently stuck out his tongue, did not make things easy for prosecutors. To some, the judge’s conduct seemed to betray prejudice in favor of Rittenhouse – for example, when he
rule that prosecutors would not be allowed to treat Rittenhouse’s victims as “victims” and
mobilize a round of applause for a defense witness in the stands because he was a veteran.
We don’t know exactly what the jury’s reasoning was in reaching its verdict – jury deliberations take place in secret, so unless jurors choose to discuss experience Then we won’t see how they make decisions or what evidence is most appealing to them. But it seems that with the evidence supporting both stories, jurors concluded that the prosecution failed to meet its responsibilities – and based on this record, it is impossible to find fault with that.
This issue – whether the defendant acted rationally in a stressful time – is an important jury question. This is exactly why we have a jury system where 12 members of the community gather to judge their fellow human beings. We, as a democracy, want the law to be governed by a group
ordinary individual people who rely on common sense and everyday experience to make joint decisions.
Without question, Rittenhouse need not be in Kenosha armed with a weapon as he raced around the streets in a situation that was clearly unpredictable and ultimately dangerous. If he exercised better judgment and decided not to go that night, Rosenbaum and Huber would almost certainly still be alive. But in Wisconsin, that initial decision, even a bad one, did not constitute a crime, and the jury found his subsequent actions justifiable.
Those of us who don’t want to worry about whether people like Kyle Rittenhouse will continue to swing their guns at public gatherings, thereby greatly increasing the risk of violence, should channel our energies. into change
open law enforcement in Wisconsin.
Public sentiment after an episode was deemed unfair – and there are many who feel outraged that Rittenhouse went away for claiming to be in self-defense when he put himself in the position in the first place – can sting. trigger for change. For example, in Georgia, after the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, the legislature repealed
citizen arrest law that Arbery is believed to be the killer and that his accomplices are relying on it (although the defendants in Arbery’s murder can still claim that).
If public concern about Rittenhouse’s conduct and its outcomes leads to a re-examination of Wisconsin’s gun laws, it will be a positive to emerge in this tragic episode.
.
Source link
