Smokey1
Well-Known Member
I stated earlier that I thought the prosecutor appeared to be one who might withhold exculpatory evidence and I was right.
The Rittenhouse Incident
- Thread starter kom526
- Start date
I stated earlier that I thought the prosecutor appeared to be one who might withhold exculpatory evidence and I was right.
The Photo That Perfectly Explains the Folly of Key Prosecution Argument Against Rittenhouse
Carried to its logical conclusion, it would almost seem that Kraus was effectively arguing that Gaige Grosskreutz, who blew up the prosecution’s case last week when he admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only fired his weapon at him after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, would have deserved to die because he was armed with a Glock. But they’ve previously argued in so many words that he was justified in pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse because there were reports purportedly swirling during the chaos that an active shooter was at large. So it’s like the prosecution is trying to have it both ways here.
But beyond that particular inconsistency, a larger issue looms with the argument that a person who is unarmed doesn’t present a strong enough threat to be able to justify using deadly force in the form of a loaded gun in self-defense. It’s an argument that has been insinuated repeatedly in “straight news” pieces where reporters are always quick to note that someone who was a shooting victim, especially in the case of an officer-involved shooting, was “unarmed.” The insinuation is clear. In the media’s mind, “unarmed” = “not a threat.”
Carried to its logical conclusion, it would almost seem that Kraus was effectively arguing that Gaige Grosskreutz, who blew up the prosecution’s case last week when he admitted under oath that Rittenhouse only fired his weapon at him after he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, would have deserved to die because he was armed with a Glock. But they’ve previously argued in so many words that he was justified in pointing his Glock at Rittenhouse because there were reports purportedly swirling during the chaos that an active shooter was at large. So it’s like the prosecution is trying to have it both ways here.
But beyond that particular inconsistency, a larger issue looms with the argument that a person who is unarmed doesn’t present a strong enough threat to be able to justify using deadly force in the form of a loaded gun in self-defense. It’s an argument that has been insinuated repeatedly in “straight news” pieces where reporters are always quick to note that someone who was a shooting victim, especially in the case of an officer-involved shooting, was “unarmed.” The insinuation is clear. In the media’s mind, “unarmed” = “not a threat.”
As I understand our judicial system, the Judge can overrule the Jury.
It's his Court.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
It's not a huge town, so maybe there aren't any perfect examples. But it would be pretty funny if the defense could show examples of when the local DA's office (or this exact prosecutor) have determined not to prosecute a police shooting of an unarmed person.
ginwoman
Well-Known Member
Would love to see it
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
I suspected as much, but having very limited experience with the judicial system, I wasn't sure. And I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
TPD
the poor dad
Just watched TimCast video that gurps posted and he says yes
My wife suggested the defense should have brought in a skateboard and a watermelon to smash.
Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
Let’s go Brandon flags flying outside Kenosha court house.
Love it.
Love it.
glhs837
Power with Control
Having faced four guys with just fists, I'm here to tell you, anyone who thinks you could possibly face four attackers with just your fists and expect anything other than an asswhupping has NEVER been there. He's watched movies where the attackers wait politely and take their turn at our hero. In reality, you, the target has enough real estate that at least two can hit you at the same time. I remember quite clearly that I took about 4 or more shots before they were driven off. Had they not been, I'm damn sure I was about 15 seconds away from being taken down to stomping level.
Tech
Well-Known Member
Fox News = 
I have it on for if the Rittenhouse jurors come back, but they're covering the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial that I can't care about right now because I can only care about one set of strangers at a time.
I have it on for if the Rittenhouse jurors come back, but they're covering the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial that I can't care about right now because I can only care about one set of strangers at a time.
frequentflier
happy to be living
I have been running errands all day and just came in and turned on FOX. They are showing Capitol Hill live crap. grrrrFox News =
I have it on for if the Rittenhouse jurors come back, but they're covering the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial that I can't care about right now because I can only care about one set of strangers at a time.