Can your mind be changed about the Rittenhouse decision?

Question

At first, like many liberals, I was appalled by the Rittenhouse decision and felt that he should have been convicted of murder. My mind was changed by this excellent article by a Harvard Law professor:

https://quillette.com/2021/11/23/the-rittenhouse-trial-a-legal-scholar-responds/

WhiteSteve · Accepted Answer

To a point, but I’d say that it would just be about the actual legality. But American law is full of holes and s a ton of bullshit, let alone fairness in its enforcement, so it’s not something I hold in particularly high regard to start with.

I honestly never followed the trial, I just saw the video of the event. I’m not a person who lets law dictate my sense of right and wrong, I like to think my conscience is a little more sophisticated than that, haha. I know if something is right, even if the law says it’s wrong. I know if something is wrong, even if the law says it’s right. And to me, the “crime” was him being there and thinking he was doing something admirable. Tell me he’s “not guilty”, that’s fine. But don’t tell me the kid is a hero. I don't really conceptually agree with incarceration, I think that’s more barbaric than most of the crimes it’s intended to prevent, so I was never rooting for anyone to go to jail. And I don’t know if he was being tried as an adult, but I think that whole thing of trying minors as adults is bullshit too. You’re either an adult or you aren’t. Don’t move the goalposts on someone just because you want to. I’d hate to be held accountable today for shit I did even in my 20s, let alone when I was 17 lmao.

I don’t know if the judge did or didn’t, I haven’t heard anything of it if so, but I think it was kind of incumbent upon him at the end of the case to maybe make a statement that denounced what Rittenhouse did, basically a “hey kid, you made it out, you’re not going to be branded a murderer, you have a new lease on life….. but don’t you or anyone else out there think that what you were doing was smart, noble, or innocent. Nobody here is stupid. We all see it. You know why you went there, I don’t know if you ended up wanting the reality, but don’t look me in the eye and tell me you weren’t fully chubbed in the car while you were loading up your magazine. You wanted someone to engage you, you KNEW someone would engage you. Never do that again, and no one else should either.” If he didn’t say anything to that effect, I’d say that’s pretty irresponsible.

The case I’m really looking at is the Arbery case. If they let those two walk (again, not that I’m rooting for anyone to be in prison, but more to just say “hey! People! This kind of shit is nowhere even close to ok.”), then I might be done with America and start looking for a country with better values, priorities, and citizens.

DaveToo · Accepted Answer

No, and my reasoning is as follows:

This boy was not able to buy the gun used to murder two and wound another. His mommy bought it for him.
The boy had his mommy drive him across state lines with the said weapon for the sole purpose of shooting any rioters.
When the boy was seen with the weapon and approached, he escalated the situation to a point where one person beat the shit out of the punk, and "in self-defense" he shot him and another.
The boy went with the express purpose of using his illegal firearm, (illegal because was not old enough to possess such a weapon), to shoot someone, anyone he, in his infinite wisdom, was deemed a rioter.
He didn't belong there. He didn't belong there with a weapon. He created a situation whereby he was forced to kill two people.
The judge threw out the ONLY count against Rittenhouse, possession of that firearm. The judge spent the entire trial manipulating the prosecution's case.
Rittenhouse had a war chest of 2 million dollars and hired the best lawyers money could buy.

No, he got off scot-free for murdering two people, and he will do it again.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

He didn't start the fight, they approached him unprovoked, several times, and he only took action when his life was in imminent danger.

In any event, the first aggressor doctrine doesn't apply the way you are arguing, if someone starts a fight they are still entitled to the affirmative defense of self-defense if the other person escalates it to deadly force.

tatianamay · Accepted Answer

The law is full of loopholes. Its quite tricky and this case was very complicated. I, personally do not have an opinion on that guy. But at the same timw, I do not get why people are "celenpbrating" him and projecting him as some sort of a hero. Its absurd

bolverk · Answer

As someone who was not affected by the charged atmosphere around this case (I live in the UK) I could look at the case purely on the evidence both video and verbal that was presented at the trial, and I could clearly see that in all three instances where Rittenhouse discharged his weapon he was on the defensive,
hence his plea of not guilty.

What I find more egregious it the Prosecutorial Misconduct of the Prosecution, when ADA Thomas Binger attacked Rittenhouse’s 5th Amendment right to remain silent for which they were censured by Judge Schroeder, and again when Binger brought up evidence that Judge Schroeder had ruled inadmissible, and their failure to fully disclose all of the video evidence to the Defence and what they did disclose was of such low resolution as to be useless or so altered as in the ‘enhanced’ picture they introduced as ‘evidence’ that had so many processing artefacts in it as to render it meaningless, and the withheld the identity of the individual known as “Jump-Kick Man,”, identified as Maurice Freeland, a 39-year-old career criminal and convicted felon who has open charges of domestic violence, disorderly conduct, and criminal damage to property against him, he would not testify unless the Prosecution gave him immunity for those charges.

If there is not an investigation into Prosecution of this trial as Judge Schroeder hinted at during the trial I would be surprised as from what I can glean for other sources this is not Binger’s first time playing fast and loose with evidence and badgering his own witnesses on the stand and trying to persuade them to change their statements.

While the article by article by Harvard Law Professor Ronald S. Sullivan Jr was interesting it little influence on my conclusions about the trial.

UnknownReflection · Answer

Your mind wasn't changed, your mind and eyes were opened. Gladly so.

He did not do one single wrong thing.

-He is an American, and an American has every right to carry a gun specially in purpose of defense. Not a single soul can take this right away from "We The People"

-He went out there to protect his country and his fellow Americans against bunch of criminal savages. Rightfully so. This is every American's obligation and duty. He's being a true American with guts and the frontier spirit in compare to those who are softened and turned into obedient afraid cowards.

-Self-Defense never been a crime in this country and never will be. You attack me, pose risk to my country, neighborhood, town, or property or anyone I care about, I'm gonna shoot your ass down. It's my constitutional right. Period. Defending ourselves is the entire point of Americans having the right to be the militia and fight against any form of predator.

This entire case was nothing but a media and leftists game which failed at the end.

Imagine a white guy killing three white guys in self-defense, and it's somehow white supremacy. The stupidity and lunacy of those who get programmed to these plantations is beyond marvelous and mind blowing.

exitseven · Answer

Very good article. He does a good job looking dispassionately at the facts of the case.
I saw video on the night it happened that made up my mind for me. A man was knocked to the ground and was being attacked by multiple people. He was hit with a skateboard. He was in danger of having his weapon taken away from him. It was difficult for me to stay dispassionate after seeing the video.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

I don't have a strong opinion on the propriety of the verdict as I did not watch the trial, I didn't hear the witnesses, didn't see the tangible evidence, didn't hear the arguments of counsel, or the instructions on the law from the trial judge. Any opinion that I might reach would be based solely on what the MSM has allowed us to hear, and I will not have opinions shaped by those morons.

t-8900 · Answer

You're opened to dialogue. Congrats you've just broken free of the revolving maze of the 2 party system. If you watched all the footage you will see a clear cut case of self defense. I'll read the article later my phone is at 15%.

BCRanger10 · Answer

Not really. As I said in another debate a few days ago, the state of Wisconsin did not have a case and even if they did, they made it very poorly.

Though there are some things where there are reasonable disagreements with his conclusions and some things where he is just plain wrong, I generally think this is a decent article.

EnglishEuropean · Answer

I haven't really changed my mind on the decision because my mind wasn't truly made up. I didn't watch the whole trial and I haven't seen the infamous video.

As a "liberal" I'm not unhappy with the verdict because I feel like the case should be decided on the facts, not because of political considerations. I noted with unease that some of my "fellow liberals" were attacking the judge simply for following due process.

OddBeMe · Answer

I’ve tried to be consistent that a proper trial would give us the truth. And in a way, it decided the shooting was legal. Fine. It was a difficult case, unlike the Amaud case.

jiffyjeff1029 · Answer

No!! He was defending his life against multiple attackers and the media portrayed him as a cold blooded killer. They spun the story, this shows bias and was intended to ruin his case.

Sorry but not sorry!!

Iron_Man · Answer

Honestly I don’t know enough about it very tricky situation why was he there with a gun like that?

anylolone · Answer

Wanna be convinced of something else by someone who watched the whole trial and knew he was innocent from the start by checking the evidence?

Wanna go down the rabbit hole?

(and yes, I could, provided all evidence was demonstrated completely fake.)

Anonymous · Answer

It's not that the decision was wrong or right. It's that had he been a black man he would have been sentenced. No doubt about it. Many have been for similar crimes. For self defense crimes.

Not_Average · Answer

Yeah I followed it pretty closely and agree with the verdict. I thought it was pretty cold when he had a panic attack as he was describing the events, and the whole left media front mocked him saying it was fake.

Anonymous · Answer

Having watched the whole thing go down live on Twitter. I was always convinced he was innocent.

Juxtapose · Answer

Rittenhouse was a clear case of self defense from the start.

Uannoyme · Answer

Good article. Thanks for sharing.

LegendaryIcon · Answer

never. non trumpster can ever get me to change my mind that rittenhouse is a murderer

Fuentes · Answer

People see facts and then agree lol the video was enough proof it was self defense

Seangreen · Answer

Go hand in your dick and balls.

ShaTTeredMasterpeace · Answer

Nope.

Can your mind be changed about the Rittenhouse decision?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Can your mind be changed about the Rittenhouse decision?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.