Rittenhouse's Counsel: Defending a Client, Not a Cause

Kyle Rittenhouse's chief counsel, Mark Richards, hasn't been known to give interviews about the case. Now that it's over, he has spoken.

It's an enlightening interview about the role of criminal defense attorneys. We don't represent causes, we represent individuals.

I was hired by the two first lawyers. I’m not going to use their names,” Richards said Friday. “They wanted to use Kyle for a cause and something that I think was inappropriate – and I don’t represent causes. I represent clients"

.....Richards...said that to him, the only thing that mattered was “whether he was found not guilty or not.'"

As for the choice of a defense strategy:

Regardless of what was happening behind the scenes, the strategy from Richards and [co-counsel] Chirafisi in court was clear: get the jury to regard Rittenhouse as a scared teenager who shot to save his life.


Richards says the first time he met Rittenhouse, he told him "....if he’s looking for somebody to go off on a crusade, I wasn’t his lawyer.”

On the decision to put Rittenhouse on the stand:

Richards said they tested their case against a pair of mock juries and found it was “substantially better” with Rittenhouse testifying. “It wasn’t a close call,” he said.

People think criminal trials are about a search for the truth. They are not. They never have been. They are about one thing only: Has the prosecution proven each and every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

< Rittenhouse Closing Arguments | Another Thanksgiving With COVID Lurking in the Wings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If it's true, as I have read, that donations (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 21, 2021 at 10:08:47 PM EST
    for Rittenhouse's defense amounted to $2 million, how is it possible that the defense did not have a competent electronic evidence/video consulant to receive and manage the discovery for them? How could a defense lawyer who did not even have command of the pertinent vocabulary have asked the prosecutor to deliver the drone video to them, for example, by cell phone AirDrop or as an email attachment, from lawyer to lawyer? And how could the prosecutor agree to that? It led to a big kerfuffle that made both sides look bad.

    I'm not sure there was an argreement (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 09:04:06 AM EST
    to use AirDrop.  Here's what I remember...
    When discussing the video file mess, one of Rittenhouse's lawyers (Natalie Wisco) told the judge they had been using DropBox for previous transfers and she never used her phone to open the file (as the prosecution claimed).

    First the prosecution blamed Wisco, then blamed their detective, then decided it was just "a technical glitch".


    On the other hand, it appears (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    that the defense spent some of that money well, using a professional jury-selection consultant (ordinarily, a social psychologist), and conducting two preparatory mock trials to test different tactics and strategies on a hired "jury."

    I'm Not So Sure About the "Never" (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 10:43:03 AM EST
    People think criminal trials are about a search for the truth. They are not. They never have been. They are about one thing only: Has the prosecution proven each and every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt?

    I have read that many times before now but don't see that there has to be a conflict between the given requirements for a guilty verdict and searching for the truth.  The way that the adversary system has developed in the US with often unequal quality of advocates on the two sides, playing games with withholding evidence, lack of questioning of witnesses by neutral parties make Jeralyn's statement true for current US criminal justice but was it true in the early days of the US?  It certainly isn't true now in those countries with an inquisitorial system.

    With the mind-set of a former prosecutor, (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    obviously the prosecutor sought the truth, and/or a guilty verdict.  The defense sought a not guilty verdict. Note:  dismissing cases, post filing and prelim was disfavored.

    The Public Wants the Truth (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 08:47:53 PM EST
    And if there is an impression that trials don't find it, the respect the citizenry has for the judicial system suffers.

    You are projecting, from your own (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Peter G on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 09:41:48 PM EST
    hobby-horse of advocating an inquisitorial system. You have stated your opinion on this subject on this site dozens of times. What basis do you have for asserting the "the Public" has a similar opinion? Anyone who has taken and understood a course (high school or college) on American government, including the political philosophy embedded in our Constitution, would know that the purpose of a jury trial is interpose the power of ordinary citizens between the State, acting through prosecutors and judges, and the accused, when the States seeks to deprive that person of "liberty." A system that lacks that protection is what the Framers called "tyranny."

    Only 1/3 of Americans Have Confidence (none / 0) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 11:01:50 AM EST
    I agree with Peter (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 11:13:32 PM EST
    Any informed American knows that trials are not designed to arrive at the "truth".  It's about evidence, and whether the Plaintiff (either the United States, a state, municpality, etc) has produced enough evidence to meet their burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases and by a preponderance of evidence (e.g. 51% ) in civil cases. The criminal justice system addresses guilt or no guilt -- not "he did it" or "he didn't do it".

    that's why I keep having (none / 0) (#122)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    to remind people that he was found "Not Guilty", not innocent. the two are plain different things, per Chas. I.

    What to do (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 04:18:42 PM EST
    The time has come (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    the walrus said, to speak of other things: of shoes and ships and ceiling wax and cabbages and kings.

    At (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 04:46:47 PM EST
    least it's safer than going out and actually punching a Nazi in the face.

    You are safe (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 12:51:39 PM EST
    The Prosecutor in the Arbery (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 03:38:48 PM EST
    murder trial, Linda Dunikoski, did a great job. The NYTimes provides an account of her strategy, including tone along with a laser-focus on the facts and law. She was assigned to Glynn County, along the Georgia coast from her position in Cobb County in the Atlanta suburbs. Prior to her tenure in Cobb she served as a prosecutor of a range of crimes in Fulton County (the bulk of Atlanta)for many years.

    Ms. Dlunikoski may be the right person to prosecute TFG, if indicted in Fulton County, regarding that infamous call to Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger.

     TGF's trial should be accorded a prosecutor experienced in trials of common criminals. The tone should downplay the supposed importance of the defendant and focus on the alleged crime and applicable Georgia law. A better chance of conviction of a common criminal by jurors than an uncommon defense such as presidential deference.


    I love that single-minded purpose (2.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Juanita Moreno on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 03:21:32 AM EST
    I think the decision to put Kyle on the stand wasn't a close call because there's no question he was defending himself from violent men intent on causing harm. I wish folks would break free of the social and corporate-owned media manipulation surrounding this and other incidents and start thinking for themselves again. This case exposes a very dangerous trend of deliberate "divide and conquer" strategies that are destroying our country. The case is a referendum on so many issues we are grappling with - race, racism, gun rights, how to keep guns out of the hands of those who seek to harm others, how to ensure we can protect ourselves from those who want to cause us harm and even the corporate manipulation strategies that are sucking the life out of our nation.

    What a breath of fresh air to hear his attorney reject the idea of causes this case represents to focus and win on the facts and evidence in this case. Kyle Rittenhouse is not what the media portrayed him as. He's just a young man who tried to do what's right who got duped into participating and now has to live with what the violent men who attacked him forced him to do to protect his life.

    His life will be hard from here forward, but the question is what can the rest of us do to prevent these kinds of disastrous conflicts in the future. I hope we can break down the artificial divides created by corporate media dishonesty and find the shared goals and values that will allow us to reclaim the promise this country has always offered - shared prosperity and equal opportunity for all.

    so (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    the poor sap got "duped into participating". Who pray tell did this duping? I see nothing from you condemning the NRA, the right wing Militia groups and the pundits and  politicians. Instead you put the onus on us lefties who are appalled by the violence to show a little more compassion for fools with guns,  as if a little more understanding from us would bring peace upon the land.

    That little punk armed himself for war and he found it, yet somehow in your eyes he and his enablers are not culpable for it.


    Us lefties (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:24:37 PM EST
    Appalled by violence!  Antifa/BLM (lefty) riots left many dead and countless livelihoods burned to the ground. All cheered on by lefties siting "justified rage."  

    To get the ball rolling in Kenosha lefty governor Tony Evers issued the following call to arms following the Jacob Blake shooting.


    Then to make sure the lefty rioters and arsonists would not be to inhibited he limited the National Guard call out to a grossly insufficient 125 for a mob estimated in low six figures.


    Don't be such a (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jondee on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:41:50 PM EST
    a transparently idiotic putz, Tucker.

    You can't point to one post here of anyone "cheering on" violence and destruction.

    If you have such a desperate, uncontrollable need to lie out your ass, go back to talking about how Trump won and Sandy Hook was a false flag.


    Stop lying (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    the BLM protests were overwhelming peaceful considering their size and scope. You guys gripe about fake news, while the BS that that spews from you is incredible. Your words
    Antifa/BLM (lefty) riots left many dead and countless livelihoods burned to the ground. All cheered on by lefties siting "justified rage."
    are much more inflammatory then Evers' and are also a lie.  

    You have no cites (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    to support any of this rubbish.

    Show me your evidence or supporting facts or any of this.....


    Source that quote, please (none / 0) (#39)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 09:11:24 PM EST
    as I am in Wisconsin and followed every story that I could find on the Blake case -- from rightwing as well as leftwing blogs, in addition to mainstream media -- and I also follow Evers and his staffers on Twitter,

    And I never saw that from the Governor.

    And had he said it, the rightwing bloggers here still would be posting it daily.


    Evers Quote (none / 0) (#43)
    by BGinCA on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 08:10:34 AM EST
    From Evers Twitter account on Aug. 23 2020

    Funny (none / 0) (#47)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    how the original was not in ALL CAPS. Just an innocent transcription error I'm sure.

    Yeah, I noticed that, too (none / 0) (#78)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:40:28 PM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:41:52 PM EST
    Abduhl, shouldn't you and Juanita (none / 0) (#123)
    by cpinva on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 09:44:00 PM EST
    be back in Russia by now? No doubt Comrade Putin would like to have a word or two, with the both of you, about just how badly your attempts at trolling have gone.

    I think it's because it obvious that he's not anything like he's been portrayed for the past year by the media. I think the defense saw what I saw - a misguided kid who was in way over his head, who shouldn't have been there that night yet was earnest in his desire to protect his community. The adults who encouraged him to help defend Kenosha should have realized the risks and told him he's too young. If I had been there, I would have told him he'll be a target for rioters angry at people putting out fires or stopping the violence. I know this because I've been at protests that turned into riots. I've put out fires, I've tried to deescalate protesters before they start creating chaos. I even taught anti-violence tactics for Occupy Wall Street protests way back in when it began. I wish the adults in Kyle's life supported his good intentions but counseled him not to help because his youth itself would make him a target of violent men. That's why I encouraged people here to open their hearts and minds and consider providing guidance to young men like him.

    Read that comment quickly before it disappears. It looks like some down-raters are trying to make sure good people who visit this site don't get to read my suggestions. Heck, even my Choose kindness comment was deemed too threatening or something to allow other readers to see it. Really? Do we have to accept slurs against poor people in order to be acceptable at TalkLeft?

    From the testimony and video evidence, it's clear that this kid didn't pick a fight with the nutcase who called him the N-word and screamed that he was going to kill him. Please take the time to listen to Kyle talk before the riots started as he explains that he has his med kit to help people and he needs a weapon to protect himself because he might have to run into danger. Well that certainly turned out to be true. It's obvious Kyle had good intentions but didn't realize that a protest might draw men as dangerous as Rosenbaum. I've also had personal experience with violent, aggressive men intent on killing or causing serious harm. There's no question someone like Rosenbaum could kill a woman or a teenager like Kyle with his bare hands. Yet NPR and others try to characterize him as a peaceful protester armed only with a plastic bag. Pffttt. Unlike Kyle, evidence shows Rosenbaum was intent on causing harm from the very first videos we've seen of him screaming at people and trying to initiate fights.

    As a woman who is weaker than an aggressive adult man, I empathize with how it might have felt when Kyle was being attacked by the vicious, dangerous man that Rosenbaum ended up being. It's ok with me if you want to believe the opposite, that Rosenbaum, the pedophile who was arrested for sexually assaulting at least 5 children, was actually some kind of hero while Kyle was a racist, white nationalist agitator from out of state who illegally bought an AR-15 (CNN, MSNBC and npr/NYT are still claiming that), carried it across state lines for the purpose of murdering peaceful protesters. That Kyle was "brandishing" his weapon (another lie npr/NYT and others are still saying but I'll retract that if someone, anyone posts a video of him waving his rifle around or inappropriately pointing it at peaceful protesters). Many still believe that Kyle was an "active shooter," a description that disparages the pain and suffering caused by actual active shooters who have deliberately murdered innocent children in our schools, lesbians and gays, movie and mall-goers and co-workers who in no way deserved their wrath. That he picked a fight with Rosenbaum before murdering him, a claim clearly disproven by testimony and actual court evidence. See the FBI infrared videos that show Rosenbaum waiting or hiding between two cars, coming out only after Kyle had walked past. Remember, Rosenbaum threatened to kill both Kyle and Jason Lackowski, the ex-marine he was with. But it was Kyle he waited to target, the younger, weaker, less experienced teenager.


    Sorry, I must have forgotten (none / 0) (#16)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 09:36:11 AM EST
    to condemn the NRA, the right wing Militia groups, pundits and politicians before addressing what I wanted to comment on which is why I think the defense attorney said his decision to put Kyle on the stand wasn't a close call (the topic of this thread).

    So let me take care of my omission right now before you downrate this comment too:

         The NRA sucks. They're a greedy, unethical organization whose leaders prey on people's fears to convince them to spend huge amounts of money on guns. ✓  They also support terrible right wing Republican politicians, whom I despise. ✓  I also dislike most right-wing pundits, especially the ones that continually lie. ✓  Not happy about left-wing pundits who lie either, especially those who keep repeating the disproven characterizations of Rittenhouse. I am furious with the government and police allowing endless violence at what could be peaceful protests, putting all of us at risk. I don't think right-wing militias are a good solution either, which is why I suggested we do this to prevent a dangerous void that leads to armed citizens protecting their communities. You'll have to read that comment quickly because my good ideas might soon disappear to appease those here who have forgotten how or are simply unwilling to agree to disagree.

    Now that that's done, is it now OK to post my opinion on the topic in this thread?


    Do you get paid by the word? (4.56 / 9) (#18)
    by leap on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 10:28:22 AM EST

    Shorter (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 12:12:53 PM EST
    Juanita: I alone get to decide who the good guys and the bad guys are and vigilante justice rocks!

    Ha, sorry. I have strong feelings (3.50 / 2) (#20)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 11:15:00 AM EST
    and my previous comments might disappear. Folks can just jump past my ideas if they're wrong or tl;dr But for those who agree with my analysis of the problem, maybe it's helpful to have a big synopsis to share with others.

    I'm really trying to do what I can to make things better but social media seems to be causing everyone to dig in with hatred towards anyone with a different analysis of the situation even though we have shared values and goals. If we can't agree on what transpired, we can't work together to prevent future tragedies. If you mistakenly try to fix the wrong problem (like "Kyle is a murderer,") it's like changing your bike tire when you have a flat on your car. You won't get far.

    To put him on the stand, they must have seen him as I do. If you want to continue to believe the negative characterization promoted by the very media that makes millions of dollars off these divisions they create, feel free to do so. I prefer to seek the truth, and I hope other viewers do also. If I'm wrong, please someone post a picture that validates the corporate media's depiction of the events. Find any picture of Kyle "brandishing his weapon" (waving it around). Post any video of him approaching Rosenbaum that might contradict the other videos that show Rosenbaum attacking Kyle from behind. Thousands of videos and pictures were taken that night. Surely if the corporate media is right, there are pictures or testimony or something to back up their claims. The FBI infrared video shows the entire event: Rosenbaum went after Kyle without provocation and may have even been hiding in wait. And no, having a weapon to stop rioters from hurting you is not provocation or reasonable grounds for attacking Kyle. Kyle wisely ran away (retreated) from the aggressive Rosenbaum. It wasn't until Rosenbaum had cornered Kyle and Rosenbaum's friend or associate Josh Ziminski fired the weapon he had been carrying around all night (yep, that's on video too) that Kyle turned and defended himself against a vicious man who had earlier called him a F@cking N-word. That's the evidence the jury saw and I hope those of you who are down-rating me can set aside your bias and look at it too.

    From there it spirals badly with the other men attacking Kyle as he tries to run to the police. The video evidence indicates that each of the shootings were also justified self-defense. If a malicious angry man screams that he's going to kill me, I'd take him at his word. I wouldn't ever want to take a life but I would have done so in each of those instances that young teenager found himself in. Yes, an adult in his life should have told Kyle he shouldn't be there, he was too young to handle dangerous adult angry men. But Kyle's attorneys were able to show the jury who he was and who actually started this deadly conflict. Not surprisingly, the four men who attacked him all had violent criminal backgrounds.

    No, Jondee, before you put words in my mouth again, I do not believe any of these men "had it coming," as you said. I specifically said the opposite. None of them "deserved" to be shot, only that their criminal histories and violent past help us make sense of what happened that night. Acknowledging what happened and why helps us to avoid this kind of tragedy in the future.

    Given all this evidence, I think the defense attorneys knew their client is a good kid who was there with the intention to help. Even after multiple physical attacks on him, Kyle had the restraint to lower his rifle when the final attacker, Gaige Grosskreutz, stopped chasing him and put his empty hands in the air. Turns out Kyle's not a racist murderer after all! Unfortunately, Grosskreutz decided to attack him after all, drawing his loaded, unregistered Glock from where it was illegally hidden under his shirt and rushed Kyle as he lay on the ground, pointing the gun at his head. But don't take my word for it. Check out Grosskreutz own testimony when the excellent defense attorney got him to contradict what he told the police (he claimed he hadn't chased Kyle and he didn't have a gun in his hand) simply by showing him the picture of him with his Glock pointed at Kyle's head. Clear self-defense again. I think the defense knew the evidence was sound and that showing who this kid is was what they needed to get it that other bad actors caused the problem, not the naive teenager just trying to protect his community.

    All of this information is available if you listen to the testimony and look at the video evidence, especially material I've referred to. But you'll have to read my comments quickly because some folks here are very invested in others not being exposed to the facts of this case. I think the defense did an excellent job, and putting Kyle on the stand clinched it.

    I get it that some folks are really angry at him, so much so that my understanding and compassion towards Kyle causes down-rating of my comments. I shouldn't have to join that anger bubble in order to comment here. Can't people here can be firm in their shared opinion without down-rating others in in an attempt to silence and to ensure no one else gets exposed to a slightly different perspective? If it's conformity you want, there are hundreds of thousands of F-Kyle posts on other blogs to enjoy. So how about we all agree that we want to make the world a better place without you silencing me for expressing my beliefs on Kyle's intentions, his actions and what happened that night. Bear in mind that suppressing my voice here simply widens the divide. When you do that, you risk tipping uninformed angry people over the edge, causing even more violence toward innocent bystanders. If you don't agree with me, please just say so, don't try to get my comments hidden. Other readers might want to hear what I have to say. Not just because this might be why the attorneys put Kyle on the stand, but because if we want to prevent future tragedies, blaming Kyle and labeling him a racist murderer doesn't help. You can't fix that problem because it's not true. But if you realize the media portrayal is opposite of what Kyle's defense attorneys and the jury believed, then we can work together to get the actual violent actors out of our protests.


    At least you use paragraphs. (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by leap on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 02:35:00 PM EST

    Tucker? (3.67 / 3) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    Is that you?

    I don't know who Tucker is (none / 0) (#13)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 01:11:44 AM EST
    but if you have a beef with him, please leave me out of it. Yesterday someone called me a "pal" of another commenter. I don't know any other person at this site.

    Do (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 04:48:48 AM EST
    your research. You rail(correctly IMO) about
    a very dangerous trend of deliberate "divide and conquer" strategies that are destroying our country.
    Yet you are ignorant of one of the main purveyors of such strategies.

    You go on and on about how "poor" Kyle was manipulated (again true to a point) but you seem to point your finger at everyone else besides the true manipulators.


    Clearly right-wing talking heads (3.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    are making big bucks by stirring up divisions just like the corporate news on our side does. But we've known of their deceit for decades. It breaks my heart to realize that now sociopaths on both sides are willing to trick people into fighting each other so more profits are generated from this perpetual strife.

    I hope many who see this re-assess and reject both Left and Right wing corporate-owned media distortions and lies. What if people continue to forward and promote these dishonest, discredited memes about Kyle and they result in attacks on the jury members or Kyle's family, the attorneys, court staff or for that matter, white people in general. Or brown people who don't agree with violent protests. I've seen white people call other white people racist for putting out fires at protests! That's out of control misplaced and misguided anger. Given the hostility out there, I think our future is grim.

    This case wasn't just about Kyle, it was a referendum on self-defense, on whether it's OK to use violence against one group to protest violence against another and whether people who look a certain way are inherently bad or "the enemy" because of the group they were born into.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    sociopaths on both sides
    I will name a few on one side off the top of my head on one side, Donald tRump, Tucker Carlson, Paul Gosar, I could go on.

    Name a few on the other side that comes close to those or STFU.


    OK, you're right (none / 0) (#29)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:00:57 PM EST
    There's no comparison. Unless you step outside the news. Can't think of a Democratic leader as horrific and despicable as Trump but if you ignore that Trump is dumb as a bag of bricks, maybe Henry Kissinger might be high up there on the list of evil sociopaths for his role in Nixon's murderous attack on innocent people in Cambodia.

    But as far as talking heads go, I guess years of enjoyment watching Rachael Maddow and the like taking down unethical Republicans makes it hard for me to pick an individual who's anywhere near as dishonest as Fox news talking heads. I can think of some examples dishonest memes a few of our contemporary Dem leaders have created, especially regarding false claims of racism, but maybe I should wait to see if my other comments get "disappeared" by low ratings.


    You are very new here, so fwiw (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 07:13:03 PM EST
    low ratings do not "disappear" comments.

    The very few comments that do disappear (like a half-dozen or less each year) are deleted by Jeralyn, and she always leaves an explanation.

    At the top of the comments on each topic/thread there are multiple options/settings for viewing comments (nested, ignore ratings, oldest first, etc.), experiment with them and find the one you like.


    It's not new (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 07:18:15 PM EST
    62) Since Zimmerman was inappropriately [none / 0] Replies: 1

    posted by Juanita Moreno on 04/30/2013 03:56:36 PM EST

    attached to Tuesday Open Thread

    Excellent sleuthing (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:19:20 AM EST
    Leroy Brown

    Well that guy continued to be a jerk (none / 0) (#46)
    by Juanita Moreno on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    In December 2015, Zimmerman tweeted two photos of a topless woman he claimed was his ex-girlfriend...

    Still, I'm always surprised that anyone frequenting a legal site would want the courts to be inappropriately used to convict someone for the parts of his actions they didn't like even though the actual incident was self-defense. He should have minded his own business, and Martin should have stayed at his father's house once he arrived there safely. Sadly, Z wasn't charged with harassment, he was charged with murder.


    The self-defense (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    was when the armed-and-threatening jag-off got slammed to the pavement.

    Losing the fight doesn't magically make you a non-instigator, counselor.


    Under the traditional American definition (none / 0) (#49)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    of self-defense, which prevailed for two hundred years until various forces of reaction (in my view) got to work on those laws through state legislatures in the 1990s and since, was that the privilege of self-defense was lost to anyone who was an unjustified first aggressor. "Unjustified" means not having a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of being the victim of (unjustified) deadly force, or disregarding an available avenue of safe retreat. I always thought that rule struck a reasonable moral balance that discouraged violence. I honestly don't see how any version of that rule (and especially not its watered-down contemporary versions) can work in a society that allows widespread civilian carrying of firearms, either open or concealed.

    Self-Defense (none / 0) (#57)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    Your comment is one of the more measured ones in this thread, and so I am curious if you agree that Rittenhouse had a valid self-defense claim. Also Zimmerman. People may have strong feelings about these cases, but the jury did find self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence. Zimmerman and Rittenhouse were being attacked.  Isn't the system working?

    I have no reason to question the jury verdict (4.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    The jurors heard all the evidence over days of trial. I did not. Therefore I have no opinion of my own about the KR verdict. But BCinGA is right, the jury did not "find self defense beyond a reasonable doubt." The verdict means that the jury was left with reasonable doubt that KR may have acted in self-defense, as defined under the very pro-accused Wisconsin statute. That's all it means, which required an acquittal. All of which has nothing to do with Zimmerman. I see no connection and little similarity between the two cases.

    The system is working (none / 0) (#63)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:57:20 PM EST
    If I understood you right, I was responding to your comment about how the self-defense rules have changed, and how much more difficult it is to  determine self-defense now that so many people armed, even at mostly peaceful protests (although of course cars and skateboards and fists can inflict much damage too). The similarity for  Rittenhouse and Zimmerman was that they used guns to stop the attacks. Of course, there were differences too and Rittenhouse had three different circumstances with three different attackers. But the system worked. I guess that was my question and you have answered it.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:25:31 PM EST
    the system working, often does not equate to justice served and it always seems to "work" better for certain types of people.

    the jury did find self-defense beyond a reasonable (none / 0) (#58)
    by BGinCA on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    I think you have this backwards. The jury found that the prosecution  did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KR was not exercising his right of self defense. If the burden of proof were on KR there may have been a different outcome.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#61)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    Yes, I had that wrong. Obviously I am not a lawyer and appreciate all the lawyers' takes on this case!

    So (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:15:40 PM EST
    in essence the prosecution would have to "prove a negative" to win a conviction.

    That's interesting (none / 0) (#66)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:24:51 PM EST
    And yet I believe that self-defense is called an affirmative defense?

    There are affirmative defenses, and then (none / 0) (#77)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:18:16 PM EST
    there are affirmative defenses. Self-defense appears to be an "affirmative defense" in Wisconsin only in the sense that the prosecution need not disprove it until and unless the defense adduces at least "some" evidence to put the issue in contention. This is called "the burden of going forward." The burden of proof then shifts back to the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. A full-scale, old-fashioned affirmative defense (prior to the "reformed" version introduced in the 1960s) would require the defendant to prove all the requirements of a valid self-defense claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that that formula is not unconstitutional. So it is up to each state to decide how to formulate the terms of the defense in their own law.

    On (3.67 / 3) (#23)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 12:25:48 PM EST
    to bothsiderism now I see. I know not what this "our side corporate media" you refer to is. The fact that you construct such a strawman shows me that you are not in the same ballbark of my team.

    Really? Really? (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    you blather about the "corporate" media and you don't know who Tucker Carlson is?

    You have zero, absolutely zero, credibility.


    Try to be more specific in your sarcasm next time (none / 0) (#30)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:02:56 PM EST
    His last name would have helped.

    Try (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    improving the camouflage  on your RW talking points if you want to upgrade your troll game.

    I'm not your enemy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 11:35:22 PM EST
    I might have posted too much, but I'm feeling driven by the fierce urgency of now.

    The more that good people promote false memes, the more we're destroying our chance to have a functional society. MSNBC continues to stir the pot today claiming that the right to self-defense now outweighs our 1st Amendment rights. (I won't link to their divisive nonsense.) Well if you're one of the many people who still believe the media's false characterization that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered peaceful protesters, I guess that would make sense to you. But if you understand how the media fooled people in this case, you'll realize that Kyle's self-defense case helps us utilize our 1st Amendment rights via non-violent protests. Thanks to him and others, maybe our side will demand the police do their jobs and arrest these dangerous rioters.

    Dysfunctional men like Rosenbaum wreck things by putting us all at risk. In spite of media memes to the contrary, Rosenbaum was the violent agitator, not the armed men who showed up to fill the void left by the police. When we do our jobs as Americans and seek the truth, we reject media manipulation and resist this slide into fascism we've been spiraling into for a few decades.

    I hope folks who haven't seen the evidence take my advice and see for themselves because the reality is that people like Kyle are on our side. We're the just and righteous side that demands an end to racism and white privilege. The side that declares that violent rioters are NOT helping our cause. We're the people regardless of political affiliation who are willing to come together on shared values and fight the good fight.

    If you feel a stab of pleasure seeing a Fu@k Kyle T-shirt, consider that years of media encouragement of hatred might be something you want to resist, if only for your own mental health. Every social media post that degrades our values can provide you a rush of "anger cortisol" which is addictive. Fox news figured this out decades ago but now the Left has fallen prey to the same strategies. Hate on Kyle one day and the next day you can be sucked more easily into MSNBC's dishonesty. Fight it folks. Open your hearts and start using your minds again. If you're already doing that, then please help others in your circles to wake up and fight the group-think that has taken over our society.

    Kyle's life will never be the same, and not just because millions of misinformed people now hate him. As a veteran, I can tell you that doing what's right is not easy. I don't think he'll ever get over taking two lives in spite of being forced to fight for his life by a maniac rioter who put every peaceful protester there at risk. We do not have to accept violence at BLM protests. It's not racist to put out the fires. And for gods sake white people, stop hating on yourselves. You can end white privilege without operating from a white=bad mentality and racializing everything that happens.

    The more we indulge in the false divisions created by those who profit from our fighting each other, the more we'll see this kind of crazy from Democrats so manipulated that they've lost their hearts as well as their minds.


    FK (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:00:06 AM EST
    you, I get to decide who my enemies are not you. Anybody to straps up and decides to take the law into their own hands is my enemy, full stop. Anyone who thinks these people should be coddled is my enemy full stop. Anyone who refuses to point to the real enablers of violence and hatred in the political and media is my enemy, full stop.

    Once more with feeling FK YOU!


    Those violent men (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jondee on Mon Nov 22, 2021 at 12:29:33 PM EST
    "forced" him to protect his life, because he was on the scene with a deadly, violent weapon and all the non-mind readers had no way of knowing what his intentions were.

    You keep leaving that part out, which is surprising, given the fact that you keep talking as if you were there to personally witness every second of what transpired.


    Those armed men walked around all night with no (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Juanita Moreno on Tue Nov 23, 2021 at 09:30:35 AM EST
    problems until a crazy man decided to target and attack the weakest and most inexperienced of them, a teenager. Protecting your community is a reasonable thing to do. Calling someone the N-word, telling him you're going to kill him, then chasing him down and trying to take his weapon is not reasonable.

    The videos made that night show that none of the armed men trying to protect their community did anything wrong.

    Jondee, you could ignore all of the testimony and simply watch the videos of Rosenbaum's aggressive hostility and you might understand where the problem originated.


    Look at the evidence (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    The parts of your comments that stick out most for me is your argument to look at all the evidence that points to self-defense. I don't see where all the vitriol toward you is coming from other than your posts are so long! I remember all the excellent discussions here during the Zimmermnan trial and came back hoping for more on this trial, but most of these comments seem to be ad hominem. Kind of supports some of what you're saying (although there is certainly a lot there to pick and choose from).

    Yet somehow, no one else (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    shot even one person, while Rittenhouse shot three.

    Here in Isconsin, most of us see hat he is a thug.


    An inexperienced teenager with a semi-automatic (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 09:06:51 PM EST
    Slung across his body.

    Client versus cause (none / 0) (#83)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    It seems that most of the commenters here see Rittenhouse as a cause rather than as a defendant in a self-defense case. These are different conversations.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 04:58:49 AM EST
    confess to that, the cause being absolutely against vigilante justice.

    I have no doubt that Rittenhouse was in fear for his life, IMO he is a coward, as many of these gun humpers are.

    The problem as I see it is that it all seems to boil down to the equation, coward + gun = license to kill.


    Often more effect than cause (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 07:25:34 AM EST
    I think most of the vigilante cowboys carry guns because they are cowards.  Afraid of everyone and everything.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 07:40:29 AM EST
    I know from my own family members they are often picked on and bullied as children so they grow up wanting to be a cop.  If they can't do that, three in my family did, it's easy to see why the guns and the membership in a group is so attractive to them.

    Seriously check out a group pic of these guys.  Not usually many captains of sports or prom kings in sight.


    Instant (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 08:01:34 AM EST
    courage and manhood enhancer.

    A generality. (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:54:02 PM EST
    Projection (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 07:28:04 AM EST
    Cause Celebre (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    Rittenhouse and Mother Rittenhouse met with TFG at Mar-a-Lago.  "He called, he wanted to know if he could come over, say hello, because he was a fan." Trump said during an interview with Fox's Hannity.

    Maybe Rittenhouse came with his AR 15-sytle weapon so as to assist the Secret Service with their duties. He even has Trump's telephone number as most do, of course.

    such a happy group (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by leap on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    group of thugs. Wonder who the thug on the right is? Looks like a generic Russian thug.

    The Arbery verdict is in (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    Lots of guilty.

    Almost all. counts.

    Remember (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    this case would have never come to trial if the video hadn't surfaced. I figured it was a run of the mill cover up between the cops and prosecutors but it was deeper then that.
    A former district attorney in Georgia has been charged after allegedly interfering with the arrest of a man involved in the 2020 shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery.
    Not just letting the case "disappear" into the bureaucracy, the prosecutor allegedly obstructed justice from the beginning
    Johnson -- on the day of the shooting -- prevented two Glynn County police officers from exercising their duties "by directing that Travis McMichael should not be placed under arrest, contrary to the laws of said State, the good order, peace, and dignity thereof,"  

    finally (none / 0) (#51)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    a victory for justice, I was literally on the edge of  my seat. Nervous times, and the rule of law is still on life support but I will enjoy my Thanksgiving a little bit more tomorrow.

    On this we agree (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    The system works (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:11:58 PM EST
    A victory for justice in both cases. The jury saw all the evidence and came to the just conclusion in both.

    I thought Roddy Bryan should have had (4.00 / 1) (#68)
    by McBain on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    his own trial.  

    NO ONE thinks the system is perfect. (none / 0) (#75)
    by ladybug on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:03:54 PM EST
    Prosecutors are often too zealous and sometines too lax, as we have also seen in these recent days. But the sentence for Bryan does seem excessive, and here we may have real disagreements about the sentences that were received. What should be the sentence for his part?

    They haven't been sentenced yet (none / 0) (#91)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 08:25:37 AM EST
    As for Bryan's convictions, I don't really know enough about his case and the law to have a strong opinion but I don't think he benefited by being in the same trial as the McMichaels.  The George Floyd cops got split into two trials.  Why not do that here?  Was it just to save money?

    Did his attorney ask? (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 09:56:46 AM EST
    Apparently, he waited until late (none / 0) (#94)
    by McBain on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    in the trial...

    Gough explained his decision to wait until very late in the trial to file a motion to sever his client's case from that of the McMichaels.

    "Really until the charge conference on Friday it really wasn't clear how things were going," he said. "And we do what we feel we need to do at the time. We file the motion, the courts rule, we move on."

    Is there any leeway? (none / 0) (#93)
    by ladybug on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    I was under the impression that these sentences are mandatory, but I am sure that you know more about that than I do. I just read the comments on the other thread about this trial and they are similar to this one. It is a shame that we cannot discuss even the facts civilly, much less hold all news outlets accountable for misinformation and pool the good information. I have learned some good facts from this discussion however, wading through the other stuff.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    2014 Georgia Code
    Article 1 - HOMICIDE
    § 16-5-1 - Murder; malice murder; felony murder; murder in the second degree
    Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-1 (2014)
    (a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

    (b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

    (c) A person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

    (d) A person commits the offense of murder in the second degree when, in the commission of cruelty to children in the second degree, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

    (e) (1) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.

    (2) A person convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 30 years.


    As (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:44:49 PM EST
    a bonus it might give the trolls a sad and they might shut up for a while.

    Can you serve (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:28:14 PM EST
    as a Congressional intern while in prison?   Asking for Marjorie Taylor Green and Madison Cawthorn.

    Yes, Travis McMichael (the son) (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    found guilty of malice murder and felony murder; Greg McMichael (the father) found guilty of felony murder, not guilty of malice murder; William Bryan (the neighbor), found not guilty of malice murder, but guilty of felony murder.

    Under Georgia law malice murder is when a person unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being. Felony murder applies when someone who has no plans to kill intentionally commits another felony and a person dies as a result---must be convicted of an underlying felony to be guilty of felony murder.

    Under Georgia laws the sentence for malice murder and felony murder is the same (a difference without a distinction).  Life in prison with or without parole, depending on the judge. However, with parole, need to serve 30 years before eligible.


    If the statutory penalties are as you say, (4.50 / 2) (#59)
    by Peter G on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    which I do not doubt, then Georgia is over-punishing both offenses. A life sentence should not be imposed, in my opinion (if ever), without an intent to cause death as well as the actual result of causing a death. It sounds like Georgia's "malice murder" is what most American jurisdictions call "second degree murder," which requires "malice" (as used in homicide law, a cold-blooded, highly reckless disregard for the value of human life) but not a subjective intent to cause death, which makes it "first degree murder." In other words, engaging in conduct that creates an outrageous and unreasonable risk of causing death (like shooting into a crowd, for example), without necessarily intending to kill anyone.  And the paradigm "felony murder" is a death that results accidentally or otherwise unintentionally from the commission of a dangerous felony, such as kidnapping, arson or robbery (be it a victim of the felony, co-perpetrator, bystander or pursuing police officer), even if the particular defendant did not intend that anyone be killed and did not directly participate in the act that directly caused the death. Both are serious crimes, obviously, but failing to distinguish between "bad" and "worse" is morally obtuse (and arguably creates a "nothing-to-lose" incentive for criminals to kill their victims).

    Yes, at least (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 04:37:24 PM EST
    the death penalty was off the table by the prosecution.  

    So, based on the statutory language, (none / 0) (#107)
    by Peter G on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    as posted by Oculus below, I guessed wrong what Georgia means by "malice murder." Apparently, it is Georgia's name for what most Americans would think of as "first degree murder," that is, causing the death of another person in cold blood (deliberately, in both senses of the word) and with the specific intent to kill. Not at all unusual that it carries a mandatory life sentence, with or without parole eligibility, as determined either by the jury or (in this case) by the trial judge.

    Summary (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    It's a good day (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 05:06:34 PM EST
    In the same way the election was good.  Meaning it worked seemingly  in spite of everything and mostly because of the stupidity of the people convicted today.

    I wonder if those chirping giddily about "how the system worked" are even aware of the history of this.  That the original prosecutor is under indictment for criminal misconduct, if I understood what I just heard, for trying to bury the case while the victims family was told he was killed committing a burglary.

    Yeah, like the last election it worked. Finally. But it ain't nothing to be proud of.  And it's in fact a kind of miracle it worked at all.
    And it's nothing to base optimism on.  


    I (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 05:47:56 PM EST
    was kind of shocked when I re-discovered this via google today. I have heard zero mention of this over the past couple of weeks, almost like the media wants to ignore that aspect of the story which IMO rather important to the entire story.

    Today at the presser they (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 05:54:06 PM EST
    kept talking about the heroic work of the mother.  That none of this would have happened without her

    That she and the family were lied to about the circumstances of his death just makes the skin crawl.  It's police state 101.

    And kudos of course to the morons for releasing that video.


    No (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    doubt in my mind without the video they are home free, never even charged. CRT indeed.

    History from CNN (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 05:47:21 PM EST
    The day after the shooting, Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson recused herself from the case, citing Gregory McMichael's position as a former investigator in her office.
    According to the Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr's Office, it wasn't until February 27 that the AG's office received a letter from Johnson requesting the appointment of a new prosecutor.
    (Jackson was indicted and arrested last month for her alleged actions, on charges of violation of oath of a public officer and obstruction of a police officer, according to a release from the AG's office. She has previously denied wrongdoing.)
    The case was then taken over by District Attorney of the Waycross Judicial Circuit, George Barnhill.



    As I understand (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 24, 2021 at 07:21:28 PM EST
    it Barnhill was in on the coverup too. Johnson sent it over to him when the heat was on her.

    I would say this is the result of people voting for prosecutors but I believe both of these were appointed by Sonny Perdue.


    Finally (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 06:16:25 AM EST
    some comic relief
    Kyle Rittenhouse's high-profile murder trial came to an end Friday with an acquittal, but the legal fight over the fate of his $2 million bail money is just beginning.
    With Lin Q Wood as a central character no less!

    This is also worth a chuckle

    Kyle Rittenhouse says he never meant to pose for photos with the Proud Boys, and blamed his former attorneys for introducing them into his case.

    The meetings "were set up by my former attorney, who was fired because of that, for putting me in situations like that with people I don't agree with," Rittenhouse said.

    As part of his exclusive interview with NewsNation's Ashleigh Banfield, which airs tonight at 10 p.m. ET, Rittenhouse said he didn't know making the "OK" sign with his hand had become a white supremacist signal, and he didn't know he was in a bar full of Proud Boys members.

    The photos of Rittenhouse at a bar with Proud Boys were circulated as proof that he was aligned with them, but he blames his previous attorneys, John Pierce and Lin Wood.

    Do I Understand Provocation? (none / 0) (#95)
    by RickyJim on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 01:09:31 PM EST
    1. Arbery's killers were guilty because a black guy jogging in a white neighborhood is not enough provocation to arrest him or point a rifle at him.

    2. Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty because carrying a rifle in the open in Wisconsin is not enough provocation for others to try to take it away from him.

    3.  George Zimmerman was not guilty because getting out of his car and trying to catch sight of Trayvon Martin was not enough provocation for Martin to beat him up.

    So deciding whether using deadly force against a person fighting with you is legal amounts to deciding if you unreasonably provoked him as well as the potential threat to yourself if you didn't use deadly force?  I'll admit I am confused so I don't look for fights.

    Heh ... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 10:06:11 AM EST
    ... getting out of his car and trying to catch sight of Trayvon Martin ...

    That was funny.


    That is All the Evidence Implies (none / 0) (#104)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 02:35:49 PM EST
    HaHa.  Listen to what Zimmerman said in his phone call with the dispatcher.  Happy Thanksgiving and Black Friday.

    "All the evidence implies" .... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 06:50:02 PM EST
    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha ....

    The guy who admitted he was following him?  I mean, looking for a street sign?



    He Never Said He Was Following Him (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by RickyJim on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 07:33:34 PM EST
    He only said he was trying to catch sight of Martin.  I have been trying for years to school you in the evidence in this case.  All you can do is bray in return.

    I think you know I believe Zimmerman did (none / 0) (#126)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    nothing wrong that night but I believe you're incorrect to say "He never said he was following him".  
    Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
    Zimmerman:  "Yeah"
    Dispatcher:  "OK, we don't need  you to do that"
    Zimmerman:  "OK"

    To your main point, it's pretty obvious Zimmerman wasn't looking for a physical confrontation, he wanted to give the police accurate information while maintaining a safe distance.  

    To bring this back to Rittenhouse, while Zimmerman did nothing wrong, I believe Rittenhouse made a mistake by going to the protest but that mistake did not remove his right of self defense. The myth that Rittenhouse carried a gun accross state lines is similar to the myth the police told Zimmerman to stay in his car. Many of the facts are different but the media coverage lies/misinformation are similar.

    I keep thinking people will wake up and not trust the first thing they hear/read about these conversational cases but it hasn't happened yet.  


    What Did Zimmerman Mean by Yeah? (none / 0) (#128)
    by RickyJim on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    That he was trying to see if he could track him, more particularly if Martin was leaving by the back entrance. That can be deduced from the part of the conversation with the dispatcher after the portion you quoted.  It is a far cry from Ben Crump's fantasy that Zimmerman ran after Martin, overtook him and then shot him.  There is also no evidence that Martin was waiting in ambush for Zimmerman.  My guess is that Martin, instead of going to the house he was staying, stayed outside because of better cellphone reception and they bumped into each other unintentionally.  

    William Barr: I'm (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    having trouble with the word "suggested."

    Whoops (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    He Never Said He Was Following Him

    Hard to "school" someone when they have a better command of the basic facts than you do.  Not sure what you think can by "deduced" from what, but I'm simply pointing to Zimmerman's own words:

    Zimmerman: Okay. These a$$holes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in, and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.
    Dispatcher: So, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
    Zimmerman: No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left-- you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
    Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
    Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
    Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
    Zimmerman: The back entrance... Fu@king punks. These a$$holes, they always get away...
    Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
    Zimmerman:  "Yeah"
    Dispatcher:  "OK, we don't need  you to do that"
    Zimmerman:  "OK"

    But your "guess" at what happened was almost as amusing.


    Post the Part After He Left his Vehicle (none / 0) (#152)
    by RickyJim on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 09:48:57 PM EST
    He repeatedly complains he can't see Martin and doesn't know where he is. The screaming starts less than 2 minutes after he hung up with the dispatcher.  I ignored his following in the car because it wasn't germane to the self defense case.  There is no evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin after he got out of his car and that is the important part. And there is no evidence that Zimmerman did not shoot in self defense.

    There wasn't any evidence Arbery was jogging (4.00 / 1) (#100)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    I believe the McMichaels were convicted because in order to claim self defense, they needed to justify the pursuit. There was some controversy over the citizen's arrest law jury instructions. It suggested the crime needed to be observed or in their immediate knowledge not just assumed because of past crimes.

    Had they observed Arbery going in and out of the home they would have had a much better chance of acquittal.  

    I'm not sure why Roddy Bryan was convicted.  


    Controversy (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BGinCA on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    Not. I think the law is pretty clear:

    O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
    17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

    A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

    No one had knowledge of Arbery committing a felony (because he he didn't) As far as proving he was jogging: Under what circumstances would that be required?
    Bryant was clearly guilty of false imprisonment at the least. As a direct consequence a murder was committed, hence felony murder.


    Mcbain (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 03:53:55 PM EST
    on Rittenhouse: Suck it libs, the law is clear and the evidence is strong.

    On Arbery: Suck it libs, the law is murky, what evidence?


    What is immediate knowlege? (2.00 / 3) (#108)
    by McBain on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 09:25:02 AM EST
    And what is probably grounds for suspicion? Trespassing with intent to seal can be a felony even if nothing is actually stolen.  

    Arbery had been caught on camera multiple times inside that home, usually at night.  Items had been reported as stolen.  No one knows if Arbery took them but it's reasonable to suspect he was burglar. Had the McMichaels been on duty police, I believe they would have had probable cause, but as citizens, it's not clear to me.  

    This wasn't a case of two men deciding to chase down a jogger simply because he was black. That neighborhood was concerned about Arbery and the police weren't able to find him.  I don't fault the McMichaels for wanting to do something but their decision to chase after Arbery in their truck was poor.  That said, I'm not sure they deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives.

    As for Bryan, false imprisonment while drying truck seems like a new one. Any precedents on that? I think he needs a new trial.  


    You (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    seem to be desperately searching for a justification for murder.

    Bryan used (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    his truck to chase and block Arbery.  They came at him from both directions. Without Bryan, Arbery could have evaded the McMichaels.  

    That is false imprisonment.

    They ran him down like an animal.

    And intent to steal?  What evidence of that is there? He obviously was carrying nothing. He had stolen nothing.  These good ol' white boys just did not like this black guy running lose in their neighborhood--that was deemd suspicious--and justification for running him down.

    And not deserving life in prison?  If the defendants were black in the South?  They would get a death sentence.  


    If a civilian voluntarily chooses to undertake (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Peter G on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    the responsibility of making a citizen's arrest, they had better know the rules and take the risk of getting it wrong. We assign to the police the awesome power and authority to deprive others of their freedom in the interest of civil order and permission to use force (but only to the extent necessary) to carry out that authority. They wear uniforms and badges to put the rest of us on notice that they are in the special class of persons who have that authority. And we insist that they be trained before going on duty, including training in well-developed legal concepts that govern their work, such as "probable cause," which is the Fourth Amendment constitutional standard for a valid arrest. The requirement of knowledge of the facts giving rise to probable cause for a warrantless felony arrest serves in part to encourage police (and others) to seek a warrant from a "neutral and detached magistrate" whenever feasible, to evaluate the reasonableness of the probable cause. If people were allowed to just take it upon themselves to make a "citizen's arrest" on any lesser basis, the risk of error, social disruption and interpersonal violence would obviously be unacceptable. It is therefore totally appropriate that the burden be placed on the person claiming "citizen's arrest" as a justification for allegedly criminal conduct to show that they were not just possibly reasonable (as with self-defense) but actually correct. If they do not fully understand the pertinent legal concepts, such as Georgia's "immediate knowledge" and "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion," then they had better refrain from trying to exercise that kind of power over another person.

    That's a one hour class (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    from an introductory course in criminal law and procedure.

    Only one burglary call (none / 0) (#112)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 11:48:46 AM EST
    to police in prior year in this neighborhood.

    And that involved theft of electronics from a boat at some indistinct time in the past.


    And the evidence of racism? (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 12:10:09 PM EST
    Well, let's start with the stars and bars on the McMichael truck.

    And defense attorney's comments:  We don't want any more black pastors in the courtroom audience.

    And the defense attorney comment about Arbery having dirty toenails.  

    The stench of racism was thick.


    And the Defense (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    exercising peremptory challenges to all but one black juror.  The Judge found that appeared discriminatory.

    And, in spite of the Prosecutor's Batson challenge, the Defense counsel were able to make up some excuse.

    McMichael said Arbery "was trapped like a rat."

    But shrewd Prosecutor to leave much of the race issue alone, even though everyone knew it was there, and focus on the facts for the 11 white jurors.  


    Yes, there was evidence he (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 11:37:24 AM EST
    was jogging.

    The videotape.

    It looked like "jogging" to me.  Steady, rhythmic gait.  Not looking over his shoulder.  Not all that fast--and given his slender, athletic, young build, he could go a lot faster.

    If you see a white man running, you think it he is  jogging; If you see a black man running, he is up to no good.  Comment during 20/20 Special on the murder.

    He was a runner.

    And, going into a house under construction.  I can't tell you how many times I have done that.  Just to see it; imagine what you would build.  Dream.

    This murder was despicable.  White privilege on display.  They can stop anyone.  Blacks are just always under suspicion.  

    This was a clear case of murder.  I am aghast, but maybe should not be, that anyone could question this.


    The 20/20 comment (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    was by Pulitzer Prize winning writer Mitchell Jackson.

    And, this citizens arrest law was apparently a remnant of the fugitive slave laws.  Citizens tracking down escaped slaves.  


    Thankfully (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 05:49:21 AM EST
    the citizen's arrest law has now been repealed. Too bad it took this kind of horrific murder to get rid of it.

    Arbery was wearing (none / 0) (#114)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    clothes that one wears to run.....Not rob someone or steal something.  He was not carrying a bag, or anything at all.

    I look at Arbery and I see an athletic guy in gym clothes.  

    What do you see?  A black guy up to no good?  A suspicious burglar?


    Everyone knows (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 12:06:40 PM EST
    you can't "jog" with long dirty toenails.

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by FlJoe on Sat Nov 27, 2021 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    not like he did something really bad like whistling at a white woman or something.

    It's impossible to know for sure what (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 09:50:31 AM EST
    Arbery's intent was but it's reasonable to suspect he was looking for something to steal.  Based on what I saw in the trial and other evidence not admissible (prior arrests) I believe there could also be a mental health explanation.  

    If the McMichaels and Bryan live long enough I believe they'll eventually win an appeal.  At some point, after politics change a bit, people will look back at this and the Chauvin trial and realize you can't have fair trials when jurors know there will likely be significant consequences of a not guilty verdict.

    Those consequences could be violence and destruction in their community, losing jobs, friends and family. In general, it's too much to ask of jurors to reach a fair decision when there's so much else at stake.  


    No, it was not reasonable to suspect (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by MKS on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 03:32:01 PM EST
    Arbery was looking for something to steal.

    That is just your bigotry showing.  There is no evidence he stole anything.


    And even if it had been reasonable to suspect (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Peter G on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    this or that, which I agree in the Arbery case there was not, a "reasonable suspicion" does not suffice under the Fourth Amendment to justify an arrest. At most, it can justify a brief stop for investigation (which as far as I know there is no "citizen's arrest" version of), but it does not even authorize a frisk (pat-down of the outer garments) of the person unless there are separately reasonable grounds to believe the person to be armed and presently dangerous.

    You (none / 0) (#127)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 10:36:51 AM EST
    are disgusting, or should I say deplorable. In your fantasies do you hold the shotgun or the noose?

    I read it as (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ladybug on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    an attempt to acknowledge that false or slanted news accounts are fueling passions on both sides, which makes it harder for juries to be impartial. With so much need for prosecutorial reform and so much disinformation, it is good to question if the prosecutor's charges are justified and what the facts are in each case.  I did not follow the Arbery case in detail, but there are legitimate questions to ask. I think it is more productive to explore these facts, as many here did with the Zimmerman case, than to verbally attack each other. While the protests are mostly peaceful, too much violence breaks out around them. Don't you think this may influence juries, along with the sensational and often false news coverage?  

    FK (none / 0) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    your "legitimate questions to ask" BS. You are also an apologist for murder in my book. I am tired of being civil to your kind.

    Yes, the patient (none / 0) (#137)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    understanding approach appears wasted on many.

    If you did not follow (none / 0) (#138)
    by MKS on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    the Arbery case in detail, how would you know there are "legitimate questions to ask?

    It was before my time but the (none / 0) (#139)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    Dr. Sam Sheppard case is interesting to look at.  Intense media bias, conviction, 10 years later a new trial, acquittal.
    Some newspapers and other media in Ohio were accused of bias against Sheppard and inflammatory coverage of the case, and were criticized for immediately labeling him the only viable suspect. A federal judge later criticized the media, "If ever there was a trial by newspaper, this is a perfect example. And the most insidious example was the Cleveland Press. For some reason that newspaper took upon itself the role of accuser, judge, and jury."[5]

    It appeared that the local media influenced the investigators. On July 21, 1954, the Cleveland Press ran a front-page editorial titled "Do It Now, Dr. Gerber" which called for a public inquest. Hours later, Dr. Samuel Gerber, the coroner investigating the murder, announced that he would hold an inquest the next day.[6] The Cleveland Press ran another front-page editorial titled "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?" on July 30 which was titled in later editions, "Quit Stalling and Bring Him In!"[7][8] That night, Sheppard was arrested for a police interrogation.[9]

    There are probably (none / 0) (#141)
    by ladybug on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    other cases like this one too, but now we have social media, national attention, and a polarized nation.  The flaw in the system is that some prosecutors or jurors could act based on political pressure or their own biases rather than on the facts of a case. The Kenosha prosecutors appeared to be dishonest, the Waukesha prosector in Darryl Brooks' case was too lenient, the first prosecutor in the Arbery case was indicted, and the second prosecutor could have been affected by public pressure to get the maximal life sentence for these defendants. The defendants and victims are human beings not causes and human beings are all flawed. We should care about biased and incorrect media coverage.

    "....a polarized nation." (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    Yes, opposite poles.  One faction treasures democracy, the other is anti-Dmocratic; one faction works toward diversity, the other supports white supremacy; one faction is for fair elections, the other is for voter suppression/ subversion of vote counting; one faction is in favor of eliminating the COVID pandemic, the other is pro-virus and works to prolong the viral pandemic.  Democracy, Democratic Party, Fascism, Republican Party.   Yes, polarized sounds so nice.

    "Polarized sounds so nice" (none / 0) (#155)
    by ladybug on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 07:52:27 AM EST
    I recognize the irony but don't see your point. I was commenting on media and ideological pressure on juries and prosecutors. If your perceived "factions" comprise the whole country, then you agree we are polarized, but somehow you sound sarcastic.

    Sarcasm or parody? (none / 0) (#157)
    by ladybug on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 08:06:42 AM EST
    Actually, I can't decide if your comment is sarcasm or parody.

    "Reasonable to suspect" (none / 0) (#143)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ...

    If the McMichaels and Bryan live long enough I believe they'll eventually win an appeal.

    I have a niece that believes in the Easter Bunny.


    Jury selection has begun for Smollett (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 04:29:00 PM EST
    Brace yourself.  Troll catnip.  

    Is it wrong (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 06:40:52 PM EST
    I'm kind of looking forward to their commentary?  Does that make me a bad person?

    with you a troll?

    I didn't realize this fool's brush with the law hadn't concluded years ago...

    Anyway, unless there is some bombshell we don't know about, like the brothers changing their story under oath or that the prosecution has steeply overcharged, how could he not be convicted?

    If the facts of the case really are what we've seen reported for several years now, Smollett is simply a embarrassment. If the facts are what we've seen reported for a couple years now, and Smollett goes through with the trial, he's simply a fool.

    imo of course.

    Is this a guy you really want to fan boi?

    If so, I am looking forward to your commentary.


    I haven't seen one (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 10, 2021 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    fanboi or boiz, of Smollet here yet.
    Be so kind as to point me to one.

    This whole "we believe Jussie" nonsense is a boogieman/red herring in the conservative imagination that needs to be expunged along with the thousand or so other boogiemen conservatives like to flog to death - for lack of anything meaningful to talk about.

    Don't get me started.


    This sounded to me like Cpt felt Smollett (none / 0) (#161)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 10, 2021 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    was innocent. And was kinda gleefully looking forward to "trolls" commenting that he was guilty. My bad. I guess.

    Jury selection has begun for Smollett (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 01:29:00 PM PST
    Brace yourself.  Troll catnip.  

    Parent | Reply to This

        Is it wrong (none / 0) (#149)
        by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 03:40:52 PM PST
        I'm kind of looking forward to their commentary?  Does that make me a bad person?

        Parent | Reply to This

    Does that make me a bad person? (none / 0) (#151)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 09:37:35 PM EST

    No (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 07:05:50 AM EST
    It not that.

    Guilty on all counts (none / 0) (#158)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 10, 2021 at 12:05:57 PM EST

    Sorry, guilty on 5 of 6 charges (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 10, 2021 at 12:12:05 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 02:33:04 PM EST
    actually think that nobody really understands provocation, or more correctly provocation is in the eye of the beholder(first prosecutor then jury).

    IMO these case are very closely related, they all started with individuals arming themselves and proceeding to take the law into their hands one way or another and ending with the shooters claiming self defense.

    I will give my uninformed take on all of them.

    1. Without the video this case never sees prosecution. The video was pretty damming although it did show Arbery grabbing for the gun at the last moment but the victims statements after the shooting were even worse. When you tell the cops that you had him cornered like a rat, it kind of blows that whole self defense thing. The prosecutors had a strong case and they didn't blow it, the defense counsel were racists hicks straight out of a Harper lee novel. The judge was straight out of central casting, stern but fair.

    2. Open carry is by definition not provocative or it wouldn't be legal(in theory?). The prosecutor couldn't prove that Rittenhouse showed any aggressive behavior before the shooting started and the video clearly shows that all the victims were making aggressive moves towards him, justified or not. Bottom line the prosecution had a fairly weak case(as the laws are written) and they didn't help their case at all with some serious blunder, the defense was excellent and apparently well funded, the judge came off as a petty tyrant and biased.

    3. Who knows? This always seemed like a case of dead men tell no tales, no video, no eye witnesses.  We are left with only Zimmerman's narrative to go on. Evidence showed that at least for a while Trayvon was being stalked by an armed man and that would probably make anyone fear for their safety. I actually thought the Prosecution had a decent chance on this one, at least better then in the Rittenhouse but from what I remember they seemed rather lackadaisical and sloppy and the defense was pretty good. Don't remember much about the judge, which is probably a good sign.

    Slight Disagreement About Zimmerman (none / 0) (#97)
    by RickyJim on Thu Nov 25, 2021 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    There was no video but there was audio of somebody screaming Help! during the event.  The prosecution claimed they had "experts" who would demonstrate that Martin was the one screaming.  This "evidence" was shot down during a Daubert hearing.  This left the prosecution with nothing substantial to disprove Zimmerman's account and they should have dropped the case then.

    There was an eye witness in the Zimmerman trial (none / 0) (#101)
    by McBain on Fri Nov 26, 2021 at 11:25:13 AM EST
    John Goode testified Martin was on top of Zimmerman throwing down punches.  

    I watched Rittenhouse being interviewed (none / 0) (#129)
    by McBain on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 11:40:41 AM EST
    by Ashleigh Banfield.  He had some very interesting things to say about his previous counsel, John Pierce and Lin Wood relating to client vs. cause...

    Rittenhouse: So Lin Wood and John Pierce, on Aug. 27, became counsel. They started raising money and they raised over $2 million before Sept. 5, 2020. And they wanted to fight extradition with a militia argument ... I didn't even know what a militia was until Nov. 20 when I got bailed out.

    But they went on to say that I was in an unorganized militia, which is just not true. And they didn't respect my wishes. And they kept me away from my family for 87 days.

    I thank them for raising the money. But I could have been bailed out a lot sooner, in September, if they hadn't kept me in jail....

    Banfield: And so it was his political views that led to you firing Lin Wood?

    Rittenhouse: A mixture of a little bit of that.

    Banfield: And what else was in the mix?

    Rittenhouse: Just how he is as a person.

    Banfield: And what does that mean?

    Rittenhouse: He's insane.

    Banfield: What made you think he was insane?

    Rittenhouse: Just how he, like how he thinks he's God, and he just says all these weird things like: "We're going to keep that boy in jail, because there's not going to be any... civil or criminal cases come the election," which is just complete insanity....

    Rittenhouse: That's a good question. I didn't know that the OK hand sign was a symbol for white supremacy, just as I didn't know that those people in the bar were Proud Boys. They were set up by my former attorney, who was fired because of that, for putting me in situations like that, with people I don't agree with, by having them set up for security without telling us their background. And if I would have known they were Proud Boys, I would have said absolutely not.

    Banfield: So, to be clear, which attorney put you in that bar?

    Rittenhouse: John Pierce.

    Thanks for posting the transcript. (none / 0) (#135)
    by ladybug on Sun Nov 28, 2021 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    I wonder if people who see KR as a cause can read this interview with an open mind. He was/is not political, wants to be a nurse, agrees with everyone that he should not have put himself into that situation, was traumatized by it, would not do that again, etc. He appears to be very naïve but sincere. Many of the media narratives were off track about his motives, but we all deplore the appearance of violence and guns at protests.

    I don't know what his real opinions are (none / 0) (#140)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 10:33:58 AM EST
    He was obviously coached before and during that interview.  In general, I don't think it's in his best interest to be doing these interviews, especially if he wants to sue the media.  
    Something that might help his civil suit efforts in terms of damages...
    Several student groups are demanding that Arizona State University kick Kyle Rittenhouse out of their school for being a "racist murderer."...

    ..."Students for Socialism" is one of the groups demanding action and says it will be hosting a rally on Wednesday, December 1st, to "rally against racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse being permitted on our campus," according to one tweet from the group.

    What "civil suit"? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 06:10:29 PM EST
    Who is he suing and for what?  I know conservatives love to lump all the media together and try to blame them for everything almost as much as they love pretending to be a victim, but inquiring minds want to know how this helps his imaginary "civil suit".

    Training to be an R.N. Comforting. (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    What (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Nov 29, 2021 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    you wouldn't want to put your life in his hands?  I can't imagine why.  I wonder if he would bring his assault rifle to work.   Just, you know, for safety.

    Any predictions about (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 07:26:11 AM EST
    how soon we get a decision on this?

    Former President Donald Trump faces a major test in Washington on Tuesday, as he attempts to convince a federal appeals court he should be able to keep records from his presidency from the House select committee that's investigating the January 6 US Capitol riot.

    The arguments are likely to be an uphill battle for the former President. The Biden administration and the House are aligned against him in wanting transparency about communications in the West Wing as Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election result and his supporters raided the Capitol. Trump lost his first round in court in the case, more quickly and resoundingly than his losses when he tried to claim broad protections from investigations while he was President.

    Prosecutors not giving up on Cosby (none / 0) (#156)
    by McBain on Tue Nov 30, 2021 at 08:01:55 AM EST
    Prosecutors announced Monday that they have asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling that overturned Bill Cosby's 2018 sexual assault conviction, arguing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's June decision sets a dangerous precedent with "far-reaching negative consequences."  

    I think it's time to let it go and move on.