Uninformed Takes on the Rittenhouse Trial/Outcome

[TygrBright]

There are a number of people here on DU who apparently feel free to opine on the trial, the verdict, etc. They get all emotional about it. They use words like "miscarriage of justice" and "systemic racism" and even more inflammatory terms.

Tsk-tsk.

You see, 1. These people don't know what they are talking about.

They are not lawyers, legal scholars, Constitutional jurists, well-informed legal analysts or experienced journalists on the judicial system beat. They don't understand the nuances of courtroom procedure, the constraints attorneys and judges must heed in order for their work to conform with the statutes and precedents that structure justice in America and/or particularly in Wisconsin. They probably haven't even read the many detailed and in-depth analyses of the trial proceedings that have been published in the press, online, etc., the last few weeks. They don't "get it."

And, 2. These people appear to believe that Democratic Underground is a themed social message board, not a juried, facts-only, Very Serious Discussion Forum for Highly Informed and Very Serious Legal Scholars.

So they are bringing in their wholly uninformed, emotional reactions to something they know effectively nothing about, and muddying the waters of Clear and Fact-Based Discourse with wild opinions, perfervid ranting, attempts to gin up and increase mere feeling-based outrage, and will actually end up DAMAGING THEIR OWN CAUSE by perpetuating uniformed and potentially harmful arguments in a public forum that should confine itself to measured, fact-based exploration, analysis, deconstruction, review, and the drawing of tentative hypotheses and possible incremental improvements to be carefully considered.

Which has a much higher chance of resulting in lasting, positive incremental changes than an outpouring of emotionally-based, unbalanced, uninformed outrage that a white teenager was able to shoot three people who were engaging in anti-racism protest and possibly even civil disobedience (although THAT certainly wasn't proved in the context of the incident or established at the trial), and that shooting caused the death of two of those people.

See, you don't know what you're talking about.

You think this is about a privileged white adolescent illegally obtaining killing tools and putting a shitload of effort into seeking out a particular type of excitement without regard to the law or the lives of other human beings.

You think this is about a judicial system fucked up with systemic racism to the extent that said adolescent can walk free after bullets from the gun he was illegally carrying far from his own home or property, bullets that left the muzzle of that gun when HE pulled the trigger, entered the bodies of three people, causing injury to one and ending the lives of two more.

You think this is about wider evidence of people from that court's jury pool, from the press, from Informed Legal Scholars and Important Knowledgeable Pundits being so focused on the drama of the trial itself and so blind, deaf, and dumb to the fundamental issues of social injustice, racism, gun violence, and mounting public tolerance of lethal authoritarian tactics by both law enforcement and vigilantes, that they can nod with regretful affirmation that those lives were worth less than the observation and preservation of a massively biased judicial process.

That of course, is where you're wrong. Take some time. Study the issues. Stop going off half-cocked expressing your outrage about what isn't the Real Issue at all. Stop trying to get other people-- smarter, more well-informed, balanced, people-- to share your horror at the situation.

Sit back and let them debate exactly what went wrong - not the emotional stuff like racism, corruption, etc., but the REAL stuff, like the wording of particular statutes, what decisions the prosecution SHOULD have made about which evidence to emphasize, what precedents the judge should never have brought in to support various rulings, etc.

After they've debated that enough, maybe a few years down the road, they'll come up with a list of a couple of things about the system that should be fixed, and then we can start the long process of getting laws revised, getting officers of the court investigated and censured, and other actions that will produce Real and Lasting Change.

Because widely-shared emotional responses to a fundamental outrage have never actually produced any worthwhile action.

So sit down and take a chill pill, y'all, and let the Real Experts sort it out.

admonitorially,
Bright

(And because I know it'll be absolutely necessary to tell some people here, the foregoing rant was 100% .)

[Straw Man]

1. The outrage isn't that Rittenhouse walked. You can blame Wisconsin law for that.

It's that a black defendant in exactly the same situation wouldn't have. That's the inherent racism.

[madville]

6. I've seen this thought posted 100 times since yesterday

But have yet to see anyone cite an actual real life self-defense incident where a Black person legally defending themselves didn’t walk. Are you aware of one?

Also curious if the people expressing this sentiment think if there were two identical cases, one black and one white, in the interest of equality, should they both be convicted? Or both be acquitted?

[musette_sf]

7. start with Marissa Alexander

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marissa_Alexander_case

[madville]

12. That's not even remotely similar

Here’s one were Black gangs in Chicago had a large shootout, one dead and two wounded, suspects arrested but charges dropped by the district attorney because they couldn’t determine who actually shot first and who was defending themselves.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/foxx-lightfoot-continue-disagreement-over-decision-not-to-file-charges-in-fatal-shooting/2629622/

[Straw Man]

22. I said "exactly the same situation."

Put this in the context of the riot and a black teenager walking the streets with a rifle. People confront him, trying to grab his gun. He kills two and wounds one. What do you think would happen?

[PTWB]

13. Actually, Black self defenders are routinely acquitted in court as well.

Here is one of many examples (this one very recent) where a black man shot at the police, was charged with attempted murder, claimed self defense, and was acquitted.

https://kstp.com/news/saint-paul-man-who-shot-at-minneapolis-police-in-self-defense-acquitted-of-all-charges-by-jury/6224974/

[ismnotwasm]

2. Everything in this country is racism backed

From beginning to now. It’s the fucking underpinnings of it.

That being said, law built on racism is still the law of the land.

[CrackityJones75]

10. Right?

The entire history of this country has been built upon the subjugation of other people based on race. And from there you can also add in sexism, classism, and a whole host of other isms. However Racism has been the driver of wealth for people in this country from the VERY beginning and through today. Everything about this country and it's tanding up for freedom and the american dream is the biggest bunch of bullshit ever sold to the human race.

Still our laws are the laws. As racist and out of touch some of them may be.

[mbusby]

3. Thanks for that last line...

...as I was about to go full Rambo.

[Hekate]

4. Gods love ya, Bright

[GoneOffShore]

5. Somebody didn't see the sarcasm tag.

[greenjar_01]

8. Absolutely beautiful, TygrBright - Perfect!

Unfortunately, it won't shame the people you're describing, since they are utterly shameless.

[drray23]

9. You did tag it as sarcasm however i saw posts already on DU

of people who pretty much posted along the lines of what you wrote and were dead serious, unfortunately.

[Devil Child]

11. Do you have an example uninfomed take to help explain

The privileged white adult who illegally carried killing tools and put a shit-ton of effort into seeking out a particular type of excitement without regard to the law or the lives of other human beings.

I'm asking about Gaige Grosskreutz btw.

Illegally concealed weapon by a felon THAT NIGHT. Prosecutable until his prior felony burglary conviction was expunged before able to do so. Done so to secure testimony by him for the prosecution. Also his DUI since the shooting but lets stay focused.

False claim to medic as his paramedic credentials had expired. False medic, violation of geneva convention etc. etc. etc.

On video following Rittenhouse's group before the shooting, following and filming them while carrying an concealed weapon.

His own testimony acknowledging Rittenhouse only shooting him after he raised his gun on him, a second time, and aimed.

admonitorially,
Child

[CentralMass]

14. In my 61 year I've bee tagged for jury duty once. I was the jury foreman on an OUI case 7 years ago.

The defendant was a fat cat banker. What you learn about the legal process and being a jurist is that it is not as simple making a determination of guilt or innocence based on your persinal opinion. At least in theory you have to follow the law and instructions from the judge and the limitations that they place on the available evidence and or question that either the prosecution or defence can ask witnesses . Then you need a unanimous decision. If they jury is hung you need to go back and deliberate and try to get everyone to come to a consensus. In the case where I was jury foreman the accused banker had a good attorney and the prosecution had the young assistant DA representing the prosecution. There was a "sidebar discussion" at the start if the trial. I can only guess that it limited the evidence that the prosecution could bring forth and the questions that the assistant DA could ask the state trooper involved with the arrest on the highway and those at the State Police barracks where he was booked. The only field sobriety test that was mentioned was the walk the straight line test. The officer indicated the the defendants stepped to the right at one point. I had driven that section of road for the better part of 25 years commuting to work and know it well. The officer was parked on a half mile on ramp on an up hill section that spanned about 2 miles of uphill grade when he spotted the defendant taul gating a semi befire pulling in the breakdown lane .The break down lane is narrow with a guard railing and Massuchesetts driver didn't get the nickname massholes for nothing. Drivers will and do stay in that slow lane when they see the police have pulled someone over or someone broken down and buzz by at 75mph a foot away. So stepping to the right while doing the walk was not a straight forward sign of guilt. Also the officer pulled in behind the defendant after he had pulled into the break down Lane and did not charge home with a motor vehicle moving violations. As he approached the drivers side window he observed that the defendant had a laptop open on the passenger seat and two cellphones . He had to knock on the window to get the drivers attention and then he only partially opened the window at which point the officer observed the smell of alcohol and that the driver had glassy eyes Either the prosecution was incompetent or they were limited by the judge in what questions they could ask the state trooper. When we went back to deliberate we collectively wondered why certain question were nit asked that would have helped make up minds. Were were fed lunch while we deliberated and ending up with a hung decision. We had one supersweet women who although very worried about being taken away from her caregiver responsibilities for her elderly mother did not want to ruin the bankers life. The other was a rather angry women that wanted to hang him by his toes. So at that point I asked that we be brought back into court to ask the judge to explain the definition of Operating Under The Influence to try and jog a few opinions one way or the other. I think we all thought he was guilty. He looked like an alcoholic and the testimony (or at least what little was allowed) from the police involved was compelling . However it is not about your personal opinion it is about followng the courts instruction and making a decision based on the available evidence and definition of the law. After we returned for our second deliberation we were all clear that one of the two "holdouts"
Was going to have to give in or we would be back the next day. So the women who was adamant about finding him guilty conceded and we ended up finding him not guilty. The other very sweet woman was adamant that she woukd not change her mind.

[Redleg]

15. I detect a note of sarcasm

Thank you for expressing those ideas. You are absolutely correct that an important issue is the wording of the statutes and that there are other larger points about how the law is unequally applied based on race.

I am a non-lawyer, Ph.D. holding person capable of understanding clearly-stated legal standards and engaging in critical thinking. I did study some constitutional law as part of a political science undergrad and employment and labor law as a grad student but don't consider myself to be an expert of the law. I do believe that I should be able to criticize the language of statutes when they are not written clearly or when they appear to leave open the possibility for abuse or a high probability of undesired outcomes from a normative perspective.

It seems to me that any person capable of critical thinking can see the problems inherent in a self-defense law that holds that "imminent threat" must be viewed from the perspective of the defendant rather than from a "reasonable person" perspective. It seems to me that the three people Rittenhouse shot could have also perceived Rittenhouse and his AR-15 as an imminent threat to their own safety and thus were within their own statutory rights to defend themselves with proportional means. It seems to me that since dead people can't testify as to their own perceptions of imminent threat, the person who did the killing will almost always have an advantage in a court of law.

It seems to me that lawyers should be collectively ashamed by statutes such as "stand your ground," that while not directly relevant to the Rittenhouse case, open the door for egregious behavior on the part of gun-wielders (as in the George Zimmerman case). Already some of these right-wing groups are advocating more aggressive armed opposition to protests and demonstrations they disagree with. It seems to me that they believe they can get away with what Rittenhouse got away with because of the way in which the statutes are written, interpreted, and applied in courts. Aggressive action by armed idiots would definitely create a chilling effect on the free speech rights of protesters who were acting within their legal constraints.

Furthermore, tolerating or encouraging private citizens to go armed to demonstrations for the purpose of protecting another person's private property (if we take Rittenhouse and others at their word) or helping the police enforce the law is clearly fraught with danger. Nobody in an official government capacity legally empowered these people to be first responders and they aren't accountable to anybody, except for after the fact where they could be held accountable for any crimes they commit. The same goes for militia groups who claim to exist to defend the citizenry from tyranny, "illegal aliens," and criminals. They don't answer to the legitimate government of the state or locality and nobody voted to empower them with police powers.

Perhaps these statutes should be subject to review by a panel of ethicists and others who might be better equipped to identify and address these failings. It's clear to me that some lawyers aren't up to the job. No offense intended to lawyers- I know some very fine lawyers and work with several in my academic college. I just find it offensive when some lawyers think that non-lawyers can't or shouldn't try to understand the wording of a statute because non-lawyers are lacking in whatever skill it takes to evaluate the wording of a statute. If the statute is written in such a way as to create confusion or has clear loopholes that permit abuse or clearly undesirable outcomes then it can't be a well-written law.

I would offer the same opportunity to a lawyer who read one of my academic publications and who had issues with the wording of a particular passage. While I wouldn't expect the lawyer to have expertise in my field of study, I would respect their point of view about the clarity of my writing.

[IbogaProject]

16. Our founding fathers wanted most to get off w jury trials

Our founding fathers wanted most to get off w jury trials. I think they wanted 10, 11 or even 12 murders to go free to prevent one innocent one from going to the gallows.

Obviously this isn't as applicable with so much video, but the jury has to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt, some founders wanted that standard to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. And it comes down to consensus where all those jurors want to get back to their lives.

I am disappointed at how biased the judge was in this case. The underage gun possession charge should have be an option.

[yagotme]

17. I read the deadly weapons law, and the exemptions.

It's poorly worded mess, but I don't think the judge had a real choice to keep it. Defense would have torn it apart (reasonable doubt, and all), and would probably have been grounds for an appeal. The original law was written, then exemptions were later added. You have to look at the exemptions to see where the judge is coming from.

[Mosby]

18. The media is not helping.

Link to tweet

JFC.

[Hav]

19. That looks like an uninformed take

but it seems some have a problem when that is pointed out.

[Mosby]

20. The three victims were white, not African American.

The Independent corrected the error eventually.

[Hav]

21. I know, with uninformed take I meant the claim about the victims

and not your point about the media. I actually agree about the first tweet that some are fanning the flames which may cause more riots.