Posted on 11/19/2021 6:02:44 PM PST by markomalley
Tony Katz (00:00):
We’re following this case. William Jacobson, Cornell law professor here to break down his take on the verdict and how he thinks it played out in the jury room. Kyle Rittenhouse, not guilty. All charges, Tony Katz. This is Tony Katz today….
It’s not guilty on all charges in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial…. William Jacobson joins us right now from Legal Insurrection, Cornell law professor that he is, he has been following the case at Legal Insurrection, and they’ve already got the email out. It is up at the site, legalinsurrection.com, not guilty on all counts. Let’s break it down from some interesting perspectives there. William Jacobson is this the result you expected and what makes you think it took four days to get there?
William Jacobson (01:46):
Well, it’s certainly the result that should have been. I mean, everybody was wondering why is it taking so long. I guess it took them that long to get to the right result. I’m assuming that there was a hold out, that there’s maybe one or two or three people who had to be convinced.But if somebody so clearly not guilty, so clearly acting in self-defense had been found guilty, it would have been almost unimaginable.
Tony Katz (02:27):
One of the things, one of the things that we we see, one of the things that, that, that we, we, we looked at as, as we look at this case, is that the prosecution really wanted to make the claim that the problem is, is that Kyle Rittenhouse was there. If Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t there, none of this would have happened. Why did that not work as a defense?
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Good interview. Well worth reading the whole thing.
We came very close to the Left and its Brandon Media jamming this lynching of Kyle Rittenhouse in our faces...
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd strike out.
Nice Diamonds are Forever reference.
Jill St. John for the Win!!!
If the prosecution had won then women would be in great trouble. The prosecution argued that everyone needs to take a beating every now and then. They also argued that its unlawful to use a gun when the person attacking you only has their hands or a skateboard or a smaller gun. What would women do if attacked? And finally they argued that provocation alone is enough to void someones right to self defense. Just having a gun is provocation. Like the short skirt theory, this is warped logic. If you listen to the prosecutor and think of Kyle as a women, the prosecutions arguments are insane.
Too young to be there with a gun?
Seriously? This coming from libs who day in day out instigate the under age to rape, loot, murder, cheat, sell drugs etc... Because as young they do not have to be treated as adult criminals...
Enough of this Salem hunt crap, using “babes” to get people hanged
I imagine that word got out pretty quick that arsonist were being shot on sight (Not) but sure put a damper on their riot.
One thing to take from this article is Kyle is a public figure and that makes it very difficult to win a defamation suit. Some really outrageous statements may qualify, but it won’t be as straightforward as the Sandman cases.
“The prosecution argued that everyone needs to take a beating every now and then. They also argued that its unlawful to use a gun when the person attacking you only has their hands or a skateboard or a smaller gun. What would women do if attacked?”
I actually think that was a huge mistake for the prosecutor to argue that way because every woman on the jury immediately went there in their heads, what would I do?
Bkmk
“ I imagine that word got out pretty quick that arsonist were being shot on sight (Not) but sure put a damper on their riot.”
————
A lot people are commenting about “no riots here, it’s too cold”. Well, I’m in San Antonio. It’s a bit cool, that’s it. But we have no rioting, either - too many ARs.
If he were convicted none of use would be able to defend ourselves from the mob, self defense would be racist
Nice post. Rationale priciples.
He became a very public figure when he shot 3 people and got charged with the murder of 2.
I don’t like it, but that’s a fact.
Sandman was just a kid who didn’t do anything but stand on some steps and got labeled a racist in the press.
I have heard this take from several legal experts.
Sandman didn’t shoot three people, kill two, and get charged with murder.
Your argument isn’t with me, its with lawyers that agree it was self defense.
To better understand the difference I suggest you go to law school.
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.