The Kyle Rittenhouse case was genuinely complicated and could have gone either way. Conversely, the Ahmaud Arbery case is genuinely simple: a bunch of armed white vigilantes chased an unarmed Black guy and then shot him when he fought back against them.
I haven't followed the trial—which, yes, means I should probably shut up—and I've been wondering all along just what the defense could possibly say about all this. Closing arguments are now underway and the Washington Post provides a quick summary:
The defense has argued that the McMichaels and Bryan were carrying out a legitimate citizen’s arrest in a neighborhood on edge about crime. The McMichaels have said they recognized Arbery from surveillance footage and an in-person encounter at an under-construction home that Arbery entered several times in the months leading up to the shooting.
A citizen's arrest? For a guy who was just jogging on the street and never did anything even remotely illegal? I guess those of you who have followed the trial know all about this, but it barely even seems like a defense to me. A jogger can hardly be said to be fleeing the scene of a felony, after all.
All I can say is that these guys better be convicted. There's just no way they can be let off for what they did.
But Kevin, McMichaels says he pointed his gun at Arbery in order to "deescalate" the situation. And it didn't work, so it was clearly Arbery's fault.
I’m really loath to get involved in this discussion because self defense is an extremely complex and technical beyond belief part of criminal law but, in a manner of speaking, you’re correctly describing the intersection between open carry laws, law permitting “citizens arrests”, and self defense.
It was legal to carry weapons, it was legal to arrest the victim for good, bad or no reasons, and so when the victim struggled with his murderer this created fear for his (the murder’s) life—which, in turn, arguably allowed him to defend himself with lethal force even though he was the initial aggressor in a dangerous situation of his own making. A self defense acquittal is a real possibility.
"it was legal to arrest the victim for good, bad or no reasons" That's not suppose to be true. There has to be a rational basis for attempting a citizen's arrest, i.e probable cause for a felony, otherwise it is criminal assault and no self-defense defense is allowed.
It shouldn't be true and, technically, it isn't true. The problem, again, is the intersection between these different concepts such as our permissive gun laws, our highly subjective self defense laws and our equally subjective citizens arrest laws which, at least in Georgia, allow citizens to arrest someone they reasonably suspect is committing or has committed a felony in their presence.
The problem is the modern tendency to judge the "reasonableness" of a certain category of defendants (RW males) by a very permissive standard. Thus, the basis for both the citizens arrest and the selfdefense claim are permitted to be subjective and allow for the defendant's biases and irrational but sincere beliefs to be given a huge amount of weight (which would not have been the case in a self-defense situation in the past).
@Mitch Guthman
According to the prosecution's closing argument, you can attempt a citizen's arrest if you actually witness the commission of a felony, or see the perpetrator fleeing the scene, and for no other reason. She was citing Georgia law, probably changed from its original intent of allowing white guys to hassle, humiliate and maybe kill blacks, who are probably runaway slaves but who are for sure guilty of uppitiness.
My understanding is that's in line with the instruction that the judge plans on giving. A "citizens arrest" requires a felony to have been committed in the defendant's presence and there are no police available.
If that is ultimately the instruction, it arguably means that she might not even give a selfdefense instruction because the defense wouldn't be available to any of the defendants since they were the initial aggressors (no justification for combat pursuant to citizens arrest) and there was no withdrawal communicated and no genuine attempt to retreat. This would mean that at the time of the killing, all of the defendants had lost the right to claim selfdefense.
So I will be curious to see what the instructions are about self defense; including whether the instruction of withdrawn and retreat also are given. Which, in the absence of jury nullification, is basically an instruction that conviction is required under the law.
It sounds like pleading insanity.
I think the original assumption was that the judge would allow something broader in scope (vague suspicion) and time (saw something months ago). Then the focus would be on a subjective question like reasonableness of the suspicion and therefore the subjective reasonableness of using deadly force. Evidently it’s possible that there’s limits on hunting blacks for sport even in Georgia. We’ll see.
The Kyle Rittenhouse case was also open and shut. When a person drive 30 miles to the woods and walks into the trees with a loaded rifle, they are not there to assist the hunters or protect others' hunting blinds. They are there to hunt - to shoot and to kill.
Rittenhouse drove to Kenosha with a fully loaded military assault rifle. He was not there to assist anyone or to protect anything. He was there to hunt - to shoot and to kill.
Then why didn't the prosecution assert that? I guess you have the inside scoop.
The judge ruled that the prosecutors could not make that argument when the prosecution tried to enter evidence on these facts.
It's my understanding that Rittenhouse wasn't the one who carried the firearm across state lines. The main debatable point is the justification for the judge throwing out the illegal weapon charge. Once that was gone, the defense had an incredibly high hurdle in proving without a doubt that Rittenhouse's actions weren't in self defense.
As regrettable as the decision is (I think Rittenhouse at least deserves punishment for his recklessness), the deaths are owed mostly to our ridiculous gun laws and the encouragement by the local police of such stupid vigilantism.
Mostly agree. It was a questionable decision at best to go there. That said, it was legal. And as far as the charges that were brought, the decisions leading up the immediate actions of Rittenhouse defending himself were irrelevant.
I thought (but I might be wrong) that the original gun charge was just him carrying the gun in public and nothing to do with crossing state lines. The charge was thrown out because the law actually permits 17 year olds to carry long guns. Presumably to allow for hunting or just specifically to prevent people posessing sawed-off shotguns.
The law about minors carrying firearms in Wisconsin is murky at best, and many legal experts have criticized the judge's decision. In any case, the exception allowing minors to carry for hunting purposes doesn't apply -- unless you contend that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha to hunt human beings.
"decisions leading up the immediate actions of Rittenhouse defending himself were irrelevant" that's not suppose to be true if those decisions involve a crime on Rittenhouse's part.
Just to be clear: Whether or not the gun or the defendant crossed state lines is not relevant to anything. It wasn't relevant to the state law charges (of which he was acquitted). Nor would it be relevant to the federal civil rights changes which the DOJ should bring against Rittenhouse (it's the deprivation of civil rights or deprivation of civil rights under color of law (police encouragement of vigilantes,etc) that matters; traveling in interstate commerce is not required.
I'd need to recheck due to many updates/corrections, but didn't the person who made the strawman purchase of the weapon keep it stored in Wisconsin for Rittenhouse when he crossed the border to claim that he is an EMT (a lie) & was there to protect people & a dealer's cars?
At least that was one version of who had the gun before his arrival. There were also various reports about whether he drove, or his mother or a friend did; at some point, I had no more time to view court proceedings to sort out the varying news items.
And Wisconsin's "self-defense" law IS different from that used in some other jurisdictions. I think that it should be revised, just as many "stand your ground" laws should be - not to mention the laws that Republican legislators have passed protecting anyone driving a vehicle into protesters!
If the ACLU is not able to file lawsuits in those situations because it is considered to not have standing, I hope that it assists the injured parties & survivors of any dead victims will pursue lawsuits.
Legal protections enacted as cover for RW violence must be ended.
"RW" violence is irrelevant. Your being dialectical and not thinking through the real implications.
You have brain rot.
This is an interesting post about the way in which open carry laws interact with situations in which the subjective nature of self defense claims to produce bizarre results such as where a perpetrator has shot someone and now confronts people who are trying to disarm and apprehended him:
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/21/buddha-christ-and-hercules-walk-into-a-bar-in-1938-wyoming/
Rittenhouse, the confused mixed race boy is what got him off considering Rosen i am a quarter Jewish Baum attacked his mixed raceness. These things never get media print.
Ah, there's the race-ethnicity-and-genetics obsessed Spades that we've all come to loath. For a few days there last week, I thought perhaps you grew a conscience, but now I see you're* back to your* bigoted ways.
*Correct usage of both "you're" and "your." Take note of it, since you also claim to be so smart compared to the rest of us morons, idiots and dipshits.
Had he? In of his rants from a few days ago he made reference to Gosar and how he was trying to hide his "true origins"
Please don't feed the semi-literate racist troll. It only leaves its droppings to get attention.
A semi-automatic rifle is not a "military assault rifle". Military rifles are fully automatic, and you can't buy those.
The case is not open and shut because Rittenhouse heard a gun go off near him while he was running from Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse also said, "He was chasing me, I was alone, he threatened to kill me earlier that night. I didn't want to have to shoot him. I pointed it at him because he kept running at me and I didn't want him to chase me."
Rosenbaum then grabbed the gun and Rittenhouse said he thought if Rosenbaum got the gun he would shoot him. So no way this is a simple case for the jury when jurors are instructed to decided if the defendant truly feared for his life.
Looking forward to them being acquitted and then, just like with Rittenhouse, bloggers will be telling us the case "was genuinely complicated and could have gone either way." And the normalization of right-wing violence continues.
The cases are totally different. I don't think any rational person was expecting Rittenhouse to be found guilty (or at least guilty on all charges). In my opinion he was clearly defending himself. It's hard to find any justification whatsoever for the defendants in the Arbery case.
I think reckless endangerment would have been completely justified in the case of Rittenhouse. He inserts himself into a volatile situation with a military-style rifle. Whatever his intentions, it was inviting exactly the sort of thing that happened.
One tragedy that came from this, beside the loss of life of his victims, was that the jury had the opportunity to put a seal of criminality on the sort of vigilante actions that this kid - and a bunch of other so-called militia types - to carry on the books into the future. As it stands now, you want to pretend to be a big-shot, gun-toting enforcement wannabe, go right ahead. You've got self-defense as an excuse for any killing you "have' to do.
"He inserts himself into a volatile situation..."
Exact same could be said for the rioters.
but rittenhouse is the one who killed 2 people and shot another so...
Were the people he shot rioting? Or looting?
No.
The difference here is that Rittenhouse attempted to leave and Rosenbaum pursued him.
I suppose as Brandon Sanderson says “Every man is a hero of his own story.” But another way of characterizing things is that Rittenhouse was attempting to flee the scene of a crime and resisting arrest.
It's also worth remembering the testimony of the medical examiner: 'Kelley testified that Rosenbaum was first wounded in the groin, then in the hand and thigh, as he faced Rittenhouse. After that, Rosenbaum was shot in the head and in the back. Kelley testified the final two shots were at a downward angle."
He essentially murdered a man who was trying to apprehend me after he'd committed a crime. And by any reasonable definition, Rittenhouse committed a very deliberate murder—something he'd obviously been seeking to do for a long time. Plus, it's pretty had to shoot someone in the back in selfdefense.
https://www.wuwm.com/2021-11-10/forensic-pathologist-testifies-kyle-rittenhouse-shot-joseph-rosenbaum-at-close-range
Your comment makes sense except for the last sentence. You can't just shoot people and claim self defense. If you go by the Rittenhouse case, one of the following must occur first:
1) Somewhen threatens to kill you, and they later chase you and grab your gun.
2) Someone points a gun at you.
3) Someone hits you in the head with a heavy object.
I realize finer points are missing, like for #2 and #3 the persons involved may have thought they were trying to disarm a dangerous person.
Yes, totally different. Whereas as Rittenhouse engaged in #whitegenocide -- however essential, as the deceased are known liberals & one was allegedly a Jaredfoglian paedarast -- which is something you do not support, the Mc Michaels & their friend were stanching the Great Replacement by taking a nonwhite out of circulation.
But that’s the question and the complaint about the rulings that allowed him to claim self defense. For example, had he not been permitted by the judge’s ruling to legally carry a firearm, the defense of self and others would not have been available and there would have been an instruction along those lines.
Similarly, when he claimed his first victim he shouldn’t have been permitted to claim self defense both because he wasn’t legally entitled to carry the gun but also because his claimed fear of death or imminent harm was not objectively reasonable. Yet, time and time again, we see this same category of perpetrators starting a fight while armed and then escalating the conflict which they themselves started.
We need to reform self defense laws to strengthen the rule that initial aggressors must withdraw from the conflict and retreat as a condition to claiming self defense. And we must abolish open carry laws.
If they are not convicted it will be a formal establishment that being black is still inherently criminal
The cases are totally different. I don't think any rational person was expecting Rittenhouse to be found guilty (or at least guilty on all charges). In my opinion he was clearly defending himself. It's hard to find any justification whatsoever for the defendants in the Arbery case.
In the Rittenhouse case, were the victims trying to stop an active shooter or just harassing an innocent kid who just happened to have an AK-47?
The jurors have to make their judgement on the case presented. The laws really were not written for a case like this.
Minor point -
An AK-47 is an automatic rifle developed by the Soviets. You can't buy automatic rifles in the US.
Rittenhouse had an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic rifle. It may look like an automatic rifle, but it's not.
> There's just no way they can be let off for what they did.
Well *that's* just asking for it.
Of course there is a way they “can” be acquitted. And ostensibly the workings of justice system in this country mean they “may” be acquitted. At the same time it seems clear from the layperson’s armchair that there is no way they “should” be acquitted. That bit of grammar nitpicking out of the way, having made the statement you have, if they are acquitted what will you do? Post a strongly-worded blog entry, man the barricades, or take a photo jaunt to New Zealand?
Cheap shot, rick_jones.
I might meet you at "inexpensive"... Kevin made a rather absolute statement and I am calling him on it. I interpret it as another "So long as I don't have to do anything about it myself" thing from him, along with climate change.
Given that it's a jury of white men in rural Georgia and the (nonwhite!!!) defendent is being represented by an uppity woman, conviction is probably just a slim possibility.
There is one black juror. But, yeah, point taken.
Does Georgia require unanimous decisions for these sorts of cases?
I believe so. I thought a unanimous decision is always required? But regardless, I have heard in the media coverage of this case the need for a unanimous verdict.
Until recently, unanimous verdicts weren't required in some states such as Louisiana.
Supreme court just ruled that state laws that don't require unanimous verdicts are unconstitutional.
SCOTUS says a unanimous decision is always required in criminal cases. The ruling struck down laws in Oregon and Louisiana that permitted non-unanimous decisions.
The judge in the Arbery case is better than Schroeder, but the defense attorney is so vile, I would hope that he is disbarred. His bigotry is shamefully obvious & reminds me of the sixties.
"A citizen's arrest? For a guy who was just jogging on the street and never did anything even remotely illegal?"
It was a citizen's arrest for someone blatantly committing the crime of jogging while black.
Poppycock. Black gang activity is high in that area mostly due to drug use/buying. But they would probably run from the real thing. Wannabe heroes.
In a Mc Mansion suburb?
Who's the gang leader, Walter White or Tuco Salamanca?
I think Spades is the gang leader.
Please don't feed the racist troll. It only leaves its droppings to get attention.
Don't mess with Walter White, that's what I hear.
Hahaha... yes, this neighborhood of Satilla Shores definitely looks like it was overrun with "Black gang activity." (Is Black gang activity worse than any other gang activity?)
https://goo.gl/maps/ja442w4LSxUFPZaU7
Why, on street view, you can see absolutely no bars on any of the homes' windows, no graffiti tags on any structures nor any high fencing to keep out strangers, all of which are sure signs that your* neighborhood is crime-infested and dangerous.
*Again, correct usage of the word "your" since I know your damaged brain has difficulty distinguishing between homonyms.)
Don't know that we disagree. It's just what I call one black guy jogging in a nominally white neighborhood, Spades considers a high level of black gang activity.
Noted MAGA O'Shea Jackson, Sr., did say, "A gang is with whomever I'm steppin'..."
So, yes, a one-person gang is possible. & in Arbery's case, he was jogging, e.g. stepping.
Jogging in a white neighborhood while black.
They hit the wrong ni.......dumb shits.
"> There's just no way they can be let off for what they did."
Do I misunderstand the facts of the case?
1) These are white guys who were concerned about property values, crime, and the degradation of America.
2) The (can't say victim,) rioter they shot was black and was in their neighborhood.
Seems like a classic case for which the 2nd Amendment was created.
(This is sarcasm and a commentary of current Republican principles)
Riot on an Empty Street is a great album.
If Ahmaud Arbery is a king of convenience, he was doing nothing wrong.
Jury Nullification is still a thing. So yeah they will get off.
I guess the "crime" would technically be trespassing. Though that hardly justifies rounding up a posse for a citizen's arrest. But with the state of our 'stand your ground' and self defense laws in our country, won't be surprised if they are able to get off.
Not trespassing to simply enter a construction site under Georgia law. It is in fact routine in such neighborhoods as this for neighbors to take a look at the construction.
Shouldn't they at least have tried to call the cops before setting off on their hunting trip?
Juries are unpredictable animals when there’s not the kind of solidarity and mutually reinforcing feelings about things that characterized the Deep South for most of our country’s history. And it’s entirely possible that the defense has badly overplayed the race card. I know they’re a bunch of good old boys who know how to play to white hometown juries but it’s also possible that their smug bigotry (and assumption that we’re still in the 1960’s where it’s still open season on uppity blacks) might actually alienate the jurors by taking their bigotry for granted.
It depends on how the jury views the citizen's arrest claim and the hand-to-hand struggle between Travis McMichael and Arbery. They might have enough doubt to think it possible that McMichael lawfully aimed a weapon at Arbery and then was close to being overpowered by him.
But that would depend to a large extent on the legality of the citizen's arrest. If I understand how the judge will instruct the jury, it will be along the lines of traditional citizens arrest statutes, namely, the crime needs to take place in the defendant's presence and there are no police available rather than arrest on a "reasonable" suspicion that a felony or some kind of crime had been at some time in the past.
If that's essentially how the judge instructs the jury, then the defense is probably correct in saying that it's essentially a directed verdict of guilty because McMichael would be considered the initial aggressor and therefore not entitled to have used deadly force even if he believed that the weapon was about to be taken away from him.
I did look up Georgia's selfdefense law when this murder to place and my understanding is that the initial aggressor is not entitled to use deadly force unless he has withdrawn from combat and (at least tried) to retreat (could easily be wrong—if there's a Georgia lawyer in the house, I would like to hear about the state's selfdefense rule).
Thanks for pointing out this relevant information on the proceedings and the law.
I think the relevance of that claim (or even the ability to argue that to the jury) would depend upon the lawfulness of the supposed citizens arrest and of whether self defense would be available to McMichael. My understanding is that the judge will instruct the jury that a citizens arrest requires seeing the felony being committed and no ability to summon police. But McMichael‘s claim seems to be that he saw the victim possibly commit a misdemeanor several months ago, so I don’t think he can argue citizens arrest as justification.
That would leave him as the initial aggressor. As I understand Georgia law, the initial aggressor must withdraw and retreat before being entitled to the defense of self defense. Since he did no such thing, I don’t believe he’s entitled to a self defense instruction or, if he is, there instruction would require the jury to find either he wasn’t the initial aggressor (obviously impossible) or the he did, in fact, withdraw, effectively communicate his withdraw, and then retreat (which doesn’t seem to accord with the facts brought out at trial).
Interestingly, the victim would have had a perfect self defense claim had he been able to gain McMichael‘s gun and kills his attackers.
Also, if there’s a Georgia criminal law reading this thread: Is there a Georgia instruction on imperfect self defense?
The Wisconsin case was ‘genuinely complicated’ only because of stupid laws and stupid decisions by the authorities. Other jurisdictions have banned wooden poles for signs because of the risk that they could be used as weapons. Allowing firearms at protests is lunacy. But as long as we keep electing legislators who are only about grandstanding for the gun nuts*, instead of thoughtfully considering public safety, we will have more and more shootouts.
*I don’t include hunters or other shooting-sports fans, I mean the people who want to carry guns everywhere, and who want to own guns for which civilians have no legitimate need.
This is very close to exactly my take on both cases. Wisconsin and many other places have terrible laws which should be changed, but the laws as written make the rittenhouse case complex. I don't think I would have decided not guilty if I were on the jury, but I do see that decision as legally defensible. The Arbery case is open and shut guilty. If they are not found guilty, it is an explicit, unambiguous declaration that white men chasing down and murdering a black man is legal. It is a return to the days of klan lynchings carried out with impunity, but now also on camera.
But the horrifying thing is I expect they will not be found guilty.
"If they are not found guilty, it is an explicit, unambiguous declaration that white men chasing down and murdering a black man is legal."
This was already unambiguously declared in the Trayvon Martin murder case.
no disagreement on that.
Except that Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman and slamming his head into the ground. Very different circumstances.
Dude, what are you smoking? Can I have some?
That's hotly disputed. But even so, anywhere except Florida, the initial aggressor is not entitled to claim selfdefense until he has withdrawn from combat and has at least tried to retreat.
Even under Florida law, the instructions under Florida's stand your ground law was arguably wrong since Zimmerman was unquestionably the initial aggressor and there was no objective basis for concluding that he ever genuinely tried to withdraw.
Even under Florida's "stand your ground" law, an initial aggressor must withdraw (but, inexplicably, not "retreat") because becoming entitled to the defense of "self-defense" and to use deadly force:
"A" defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. Fla. Stat. § 776.041(2)(b).
I think George Zimmerman was already well & truly brain damaged before whatever happened in his encounter on the freelance neighborhood watch.
I think he was excited about being able to kill a black man. He thought it would go smoothly and he’d be a hero instead of a defendant. But no matter how you slice it, this was a thrill killing all the way.
I don’t think Zimmerman was brain damaged, just an evil little man who wanted the high of the kill.
Oh come on. The Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case was just as murky. Zimmerman was patrolling the neighborhood out of crime concerns. Crimes committed in the neighborhood that year included 8 burglaries, 9 thefts, and one shooting. Residents said there were dozens of reports of attempted break-ins, which had created an atmosphere of fear in their neighborhood.
Zimmerman was acting as part of a neighborhood watch program of Feb 26. Three weeks prior to the shooting on Feb 26, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. On Feb 26 Zimmerman saw Martin from a distance and called the police and said, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy".
Martin ran for some reason, and Zimmerman chased him. When Zimmerman hung up with the police, the chase had stopped and he lost track of Martin. But after hanging up a violet confrontation occurred. We'll never know for sure what occurred. Martin may have attacked Zimmerman out of fear for his own life. Zimmerman said Martin was banging his head against the concrete, and he said there was a fight for his gun.
To me it was just a tragic situation. It says little about US race relations or anything else.
Kevin & all commenters seem to be assuming that juries decide cases on law & evidence. That's not how it works.
Actually, empirical research tends to support the claim that jurors do base their verdicts on the law and the evidence, that they labor conscientiously and collectively to determine the facts and apply the law as the judge explained it, and that, in criminal cases, they take the concept of reasonable doubt seriously. As the various commenters make clear, the Rittenhouse verdict is certainly compatible with the law as it currently exists in Wisconsin.
Based on what little I know, the Arbery defense seems to be on very weak ground: Georgia law (unlike some other states) allows a private person to use force in order to effectuate an arrest, but the arrest has to be based on "reasonable and probable ground of suspicion."
The similarity between Kenosha and Brunswick is both victims (the first person killed in Kenosha) grabbed another person's gun, resulting for the need of the killer to defend himself. Basically, Americans, and especially African Americans, cannot defend themselves from lethal weapons by attempting to push them away from themselves as targets or take them away to avoid being shot. If they do, they become a threat to the person threatening them with a gun and that person can then kill them in self-defense.
Another similarity is the final two victims of Rittenhouse's were attempting to make a citizen's arrest for the first killing.
Puts the lie to Run, Hide, Fight.
S/O to the AMC Theatres Active Shooter video.
I think little Kyle is as guilty of murder as these clowns in SC. If this is the sort of behavior self defense laws excuse, we need new laws.
The Rittenhouse jury interpreted "irrational panic that an unarmed man was going to take his gun, kill him and kill others" to be a "reasonable belief". On that basis, anyone can claim self-defense if they panic and kill someone they find scarily threatening. The problem is not the law, which sets a clear standard for the use of proportionate force in self-defense, but the huge loophole it gives sympathetic juries (and judges) to avoid convicting people guilty of murder. Just declare that a wholly unreasonable fear was a "reasonable belief".
Once the incels lost the transpanic defense in murders of nonbinary sex workers, we needed to throw their kind a bone so they wouldn't think the state was discriminating against them as differently coital.
The Horst Wessel who lived is a model for humanity.
The Rittenhouse case exposes the fact that there are 2 very different criminal justice systems in the US, one for whites, specifically white men, more specifically, white men that lean into the right wing christian ideology, and one for everyone else, more specifically, black people. No one with a working brain can argue if Rittenhouse was black he’d be free right now, let alone being alive as likely cops would have shot him.
Now the Aubrey case, which should be called the McMichael case, as they are the criminals, exposes the blatant racism in the US, more specifically, in the southern US. These men are racist thugs and should be convicted of 1st degree murder and should rot in prison forever. Will they be convicted, probably, but nothing surprises me in the US anymore. Overt racism is okay with about 30% of the population so all it will take is 1 juror to sit tight to not convict. And once again, white, right wing men are getting very different treatment from the criminal justice system that a black or brown person would be getting.
Lastly, some on this site making ridiculous technical arguments for self defense should be called what they are, racist trolls.
Good day.
Rittenhouse got off because the prosecution did a profoundly shitty job. I have to wonder if they, as with the cops they work with, were sympathetic.
The people Rittenhouse shot were also white. If it was a black teenager who had shot other black people under the same circumstances, I wouldn't bet on the outcome.
I guess you missed all the crazy racist shit one of the attorneys has been spouting?
This part of Georgia is big time Trump country. I would expect nearly anything from that jury.
If Drum had his way, Concerned Citizens would lose their right to arrest scary-looking Black men about whom they're "on edge." No thanks.
Yeah, dude, that's how I roll,
https://i.redd.it/yqkdm0r6y4181.jpg