Posted on 11/17/2021 10:29:58 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Neither the judge nor the jury wants the acquittal to be attributed to them.
The jury should have been sequestered for deliberations.
The video shows the confrontation by Joseph Rosenbaum and his shooting. It follows a shot believed to be fired by Joshua Ziminsky. It was a shot that made Rittenhouse fearing for his life. Rittenhouse hears Ziminsky’s words that tells Rosembaum to get him and kill him. This is the incident that triggers Rittenhouse being chased and being cornered before Rittenhouse shoots him while he lunges at him. The enhanced video should show the evidence that will find Rittenhouse justified by self-defense.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html
My understanding, without regard to WI statutes, is that the right to self-defense can go back and forth during an altercation.
For example, let's say that Kyle DID point his rifle in a provocative way at somebody.
That might justify Rosenbaum attacking Rittenhouse.
However, as soon as Rittenhouse runs away from the altercation, then Rosenbaum is not longer justified in attacking.
The unjustified continuance of an attack by Rosenbaum then allows Rittenhouse to claim self-defense.
If, prior to the shooting, Rosenbaum had turned around and begun walking away from Rittenhouse,
then Rittenhouse would no longer be justified in an act of self-defense.
For example, the judge waited until issuing jury instructions to toss the gun charge. He didn't suggest that it was time to measure the gun. He asked whether the gun had been measured and the prosecution was forced to admit that it had been and was found to be legal.
Had the prosecution claimed that the gun had been measured and found to be illegal, the judge may have instructed the jury that no evidence as to the length of the gun had been introduced and therefor the charge is dismissed. Either way, Kyle is not jeopardized by the gun charge.
Similarly, the judge has not yet ruled on the defense motions to declare a mistrial. Kyle is better off if the jury finds him not guilty. I think if the jury finds him guilty of one count, but not guilty of all the others, the judge may then be able to recognize the not guilty verdicts and declare a mistrial with respect to the others, with or without prejudice.
Again, having the judge wait works to Kyle's advantage and is part of the protection against double jeopardy. Kyle might even benefit from a lesser charge conviction on one count. Perhaps the judge can dismiss the highest charge, only allowing retrial on the lesser charge.
My point is that we don't yet know what action by the judge would most benefit Kyle, though it seems to me that granting defense motions as late as possible does do that.
Good point that the defense should have pointed out.
They called it the Unicorn video. It appeared out of magic.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Likely an FBI surveillance drone video. They film these protests for evidence of civil rights violations against “protestors.”
What’s the standard here, precise FBI surveillance, precise, high res evidence...
... or friggin “beyond reasonable doubt” ?
Thanks, Tex. Now then, as I was saying about the Kim Gardner School of Law...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.