By Alfa158 (at Steve Sailer’s blog)
November 16, 2021 at 4:12 a.m. GMT
@Jonathan Mason
Ultimately it comes down to two things:
1. Whether the jury believes the objective evidence which shows – Rittenhouse not shooting anybody for just rioting – trying to retreat – trying to go to the police who per their orders didn’t want to get involved and – not pointing his rifle at anyone or shooting anybody until he was physically attacked.
2. To what extent the jurors realize that if they acquit Rittenhouse a large number of people who have virtual legal immunity are going to be hunting them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
To state the (rather obvious, i.e. such pressure on/fears among jurors was/were already reported after the Chauvin trial -- link, link) thesis in another way: are the jurors such degenerate moral cowards that they would disregard all the clear evidence, including unambiguous video, and send a kid who defended himself to prison for years and years rather than incur some imagined personal risk? -- I guess in America today this is an open question -- BTW, concealed/open carry is legal in WI.
>per their orders didn’t want to get involved
I don't know if this was true in Kenosha or not; but it seems it was true in other locales.
This must change -- right now, cops are just city employees and below a mayor and/or city manager in the chain of command -- they have to become more like sheriffs, i.e. a kind of sworn constitutional officer -- failure to uphold the law, e.g. 'standing down', would be dereliction of duty and grounds for some form of impeachment and removal from office.
"and – not pointing his rifle at anyone or shooting anybody until he was physically attacked."
Normally in a self-defense situation in would be appropriate to display the weapon, announce you have one, and then attempt to back away from the potential assailants while telling them to maintain their distance. If the assailants pursue then they are the aggressor.
Post a Comment