Opinion: What we can – and can’t – expect from the Rittenhouse jury

It is made all the more difficult by the burden of expectations.

The intense media coverage spurred a public already sharply divided by political differences to expect a political and social message from the jury’s verdict. But the law requires something completely different: a rigorous analysis of the facts and laws of 12 ordinary citizens isolated from outside pressure.

The evidence presented during the trial put a full menu of political issues at the center, sparking a debate that divided the nation. Should Americans, including 17-year-olds, be allowed to police the streets of a town in a neighboring state when law enforcement against some proves inadequate? Was Kyle Rittenhouse acting as a vigilante when he chose to arm himself and plunge into conflict by protesters and others, claiming that his purpose was to protect property and first aid? Is this legal if he is? Is Rittenhouse looking for trouble, and should this limit his right to assert his right to self-defence? Are we headed for an America where political factions are openly armed and protesters can roam the streets openly carrying AR-15s like militias in other countries? lawless and other war-torn?

On August 25, 2020, Rittenhouse armed herself with an AR-15-style assault rifle and carried a medical kit as she walked into downtown Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse, who went there from Antioch, Illinois, testified he intends to protect businesses and provide first aid during the third night of the following protest police shot Jacob Blake. This 18-year-old shot at four people that night, killed two and wounded a third. Prosecutors also accused the shootings of “reckless” that endangered the lives of other outsiders.

While the prosecution argued that by arriving at the protests with a weapon, he was provoke confrontation, Rittenhouse created an extraordinary power self defense request. During the two weeks of testing, Rittenhouse testified that one of the people he killed, Joseph Rosenbaum, threatened to kill him and went after him. Rittenhouse testified that he was afraid that Rosenbaum would be able to get hold of his rifle and kill him. You too testified that Anthony Huber was shot dead only after stabbing Rittenhouse in the neck with a skateboard and taking his gun.

The jury will need to evaluate the validity of his claim and other disputed testimony. The man wounded by Rittenhouse’s gunfire, Gaige Grosskreutz, said when cross check that he approached within five feet of Rittenhouse, first raising his hand in surrender and then lowering it, in which his Glock pistol sharp at the Rittenhouse. Advocate noted that this is different from The previous accounts of Grosskreutz.

Then there’s the fact that Wisconsin is an open bearing stateand Rittenhouse’s AR-15-like rifle is a legal weapon within those borders. Further complicating the case is the dispute over one of the best options by which jurors must judge Rittenhouse’s actions: video proof.

Rittenhouse’s The lawyer argued that the “grainy” video of Rittenhouse’s actions on the night of August 25 is unreliable because it has been augmented by “artificial intelligence” software. Defense attorneys claim this added pixels to photographic material currently used against their client to prove he “pointed” his weapon, inciting Rosenbaum to attack him; the prosecution did not give any professional evidence opposite.

Given the complexity of the Rittenhouse case, hopes of greater symbolism from the verdict would be puzzling. If any lesson is to be learned, it is not in the outcome but in the evidence presented at trial. Whether Rittenhouse is found guilty or innocent, one thing remains clear: The trailer, introduced mainly by the prosecutor, depicts a creepy, out-of-date scene in the streets of Kenosha on the evening of August. Law and order had collapsed with heavily armed civilians, as militiamen assumed the role of law enforcement.

Only thing could have been worse if some of the other protesters had also chosen to carry and fire an AR-15-like assault weapon in Wisconsin that night of violence. Then it is conceivable that the city has fallen into a state of open war. If the trial should send any message, it’s not to the public but to those explaining how to apply the Second Amendment to the streets of America in the 21st century. Let’s hope. judges of the Supreme Court decide now Whether it’s easier to carry a weapon in a densely populated urban environment was adjusted during the Rittenhouse test.

Kenosha feels like a microcosm of deeply divided America. And as the whole country awaits the verdict, 500 National Guard soldiers is in standby mode to ensure that judgments are admissible and enforced regardless of the outcome. If the country is to survive and prosper in the future, this is how we must settle our disputes: Before the courts of law, not with armed citizens patrolling the streets.

.



Source link