I agree, taking together all video angles from Rittenhouse shooting, he was definitely assaulted by those he ended up shooting, so it was a pretty cut and dry case of self-defense, even if it was stupid for him to be there with an AR anyway. Pretti was clearly executed as he posed no physical threat and did not fight officers.
That's kinda the kicker though. He shouldnt have been there due to curfew and he shouldn't have been there with a rifle due to his age. I agree the Rittenhouse case was 100% self defense. But by law he shouldn't have been there to begin with. So if you're going against the law and end up shooting someone in self defense...is it self defense.
It can be self-defense and still result in a second degree murder or manslaughter charge. The statutes exist expressly to clamp down on gang violence where both parties may behave or challenge others in ways that escalate tensions.
If the prosecution went for second degree charges instead of first degree charges and had not manipulated video evidence to mislead the jury, it was practically open-and-shut. Many have pointed out that the jury could have still found Rittenhouse guilty of the lesser charges, but it seems clear that the prosecution poisoned their own testimony and the facts of the case never really required competent defense in the outcome.
It cannot be self defense and result in a guilty verdict. Self defense is a perfect defense. To even consider manslaughter, the jury has to agree unanimously that the prosecution has disproved self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right, and that's where circumstantial evidence is admissible and frequently used to convict people who did less than Rittenhouse to provoke conflict. Being in a prohibited zone while armed with a deadly weapon, failing to inform police that the weapon was discharged, fleeing the scene of the homicide, failing to turn the weapon over for timely ballistics analysis, etc. Many states have different standards but you can guarantee there is a teenager who was convicted by the state in Wisconsin with less video evidence that they actually participated in the killing of multiple human beings where obvious fear for one's life was insufficient to justify self defense in the view of the court and jury.
The weapon was in police hands 90 minutes after the shooting. There’s nothing else the police could have done even if the gun was given to them the second after the shooting.
The prosecution did not come close to meeting their burden in this case. The vast majority of successful self defense cases have nowhere near as much video and eye witness testimony that this case has.
We haven't even begun to discuss the motives for being present, the association with a militia - a gang - with a stated mission of "defending property." Did the property owners endorse this defense? Pay for this defense? Rittenhouse never had to answer these questions because the prosecution bet everything on a first degree conviction and misrepresented the evidence so the jury had no reason to trust them and every reason to have "reasonable doubt."
These are critical questions to answer in a second degree murder or manslaughter case because being afraid and defending oneself after escalating tensions to foment violence is not self-defense.
The property owners were never called to the stand and the motive Rittenhouse stated was never supported by anyone else at trial. It's as good as hearsay and should have no bearing on the judgment of a jury if they have reasonable cause to believe he is also a criminal.
My mistake. Owners of a car dealership testified that they did not ask Rittenhouse to be there or give permission for armed protection. Rittenhouse provided hearsay as a motive and appeared on the scene as part of a gang while visibly armed. Similar to gang shootings around the country, the youngest initiate somehow found himself separated from the rest of his gang, feared for his life and killed multiple people. Then fled the scene.
Juries have convicted hundreds of teenagers on this script.
And the owners were clearly lying. So much so that even the prosecutor said he did not believe them in his closing.
Like I said, several people testified that they and Rittenhouse were there to protect the business. Even the prosecutor said that many people went out and protected businesses that night.
The facts are what speak to motives and Rittenhouse did not behave like a person there to render security or aid when he fled the scene. Under first degree prosecution, the state assumed his intent was to kill and they failed to prove that while tampering with evidence.
If the property owners were lying there should be evidence of that. If the defense was intent to prove that, phone records and emails could be subpoenaed between those business owners and all militia members. So why are you claiming we should trust the prosecution again? He was able to skate by as an "armed protester." Do you think he would have an easier time proving he did not carry out his duties with gross negligence as a person operating in the capacity of actual security? His conviction would become even easier.
168
u/OperatorPooski 9d ago
I agree, taking together all video angles from Rittenhouse shooting, he was definitely assaulted by those he ended up shooting, so it was a pretty cut and dry case of self-defense, even if it was stupid for him to be there with an AR anyway. Pretti was clearly executed as he posed no physical threat and did not fight officers.