I think the judge, along with the defense lawyer, believes those that want to come back tomorrow have decided this is going to demand a deliberation to come to a conclusion and do not believe the defendant is innocent. The jurors that want to meet tonight regardless of the lateness of the proceedings have already made up their mind and believe he acted in self-defense. What are the chances this is a hung jury and unable to come to a conclusion?
I think this kind of CLUE about the jury will make the defense attorney rethink his strategy to the jury. I think the judge is faulty in his actions with the jury and is playing them as well.
The defense attorney's have no appreciation of the FACT Rittenhouse aggrivated every one of the situations whereby he used his gun to terrorize, kill and maim. The dead men were intent on getting the gun away a killer. That is all they saw. They died attempting to save lives. Rittenhouse was pointing the gun at people without reason. He is dangerous and the people that night knew they had a problem. The prosecutor proved that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense attorney is ineffective. He is to me. He is raising doubt with every authority involved in the prosecution. It is a POPULAR MIND-SET and he is hoping the jury buys it. If he wants to raise doubt, do it where it is plausible that mistakes were made. Every person for the prosecution is not lying or biased against Rittenhouse. That is not realistic.
...The Marsy’s Law (click here) initiative began in California and was led and sponsored by Marsy’s brother, Dr. Henry T. Nicholas III. When it passed in November 2008, Proposition 9, The California Victims’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy’s Law, became the strongest and most comprehensive Constitutional victims’ rights laws in the U.S. and put California at the forefront of the national victims’ rights movement....
The prosecutor doesn't believe in the Rule of Law either. There are ethical issues here.
...Imperfect Self-defense (click here)
Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however.
For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.
Some states also consider instances where the person claiming self-defense provoked the attack as imperfect self-defense. For example, if a person creates a conflict that becomes violent then unintentionally kills the other party while defending himself, a claim of self-defense might reduce the charges or punishment, but would not excuse the killing entirely....
A killer cannot cause the event of a murder and then say it was self-defense regardless of any assessment that attacks were not going to happen. Rittenhouse, then a teen of 17 years can be said to be innocent in his assessment in going into the crowd in the first place and that is why there are people dead and maimed.
Rittenhouse knew the AR-15 was dangerous. He decided there were "bad people" in Kenosha that should not be there while he does not live there. That is vigilantism and just because he didn't think of himself as a vigilante doesn't mean he is innocent of causing the circumstances leading to the murders. The defense is trying to blur the line between wrongful actions of a 17 year old by saying all the gun charges are dropped, therefore, Rittenhouse was allowed to do what he did.
Rittenhouse is guilty. He carelessly went into a KNOWN dangerous situation where police were already involved in protecting the city as best they could. He complicated the scene and caused more problems and not less. He aggrivated aggression by others simply because he was there with an AR-15.
No one is saying the rioting was legal or correct, but, it isn't suppose to kill.
Kyle Rittenhouse knew he was a vigilante and he knew he was part of a militia. The majority of the gun owners in the USA are not part of a militia nor would answer the call to charge into a crowd for the purpose of killing people under the guise of protecting property.
August 27, 2021By Barbara Ortutay and Anita Snow
