↓
 
Home » Rittenhouse was (and is) the designated prey of psychopathic wolves

Rittenhouse was (and is) the designated prey of psychopathic wolves

The New Neo Posted on by

I was in transit yesterday out west, so I’m still catching up with yesterday’s news in the Rittenhouse case. Fortunately, others have done excellent work summing things up.

If you haven’t seen these yet, I highly recommend them: Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection discusses the legal wrangling over the different video versions submitted by the prosecution as well as other legal issues, anti-Rittenhouse demonstrators are arrested for attacking pro-Rittenhouse demonstrators outside the courtroom (a courtroom which should have been cordoned off but was not) as the jury deliberates inside; MSNBC has been barred from the courtroom for having a producer follow the jury bus (see also this), and we learn more about the previously elusive “jump kick man.”

But if you read or watch only one thing about the trial, it should be this from Frei and especially Barnes. I haven’t watched the whole thing yet (it’s long) but it’s well worth your time. You can change the setting to 125% speed if you want to make it quicker.

Please watch for however long you care to. Barnes comes on around 7:27, so I suggest you begin there if you’ve got the time. Barnes describes quite well, I think, how the initial mindset of the judge and the defense played into what we’re seeing now and how out of control this trial has become.

But in particular, and especially if you’re pressed for time, I recomment this part that I’ve cued up. In it, Barnes lays out the events of the evening the shooting occurred, giving us the big picture of the way in which a pack of criminal psychopaths selected the naive Rittenhouse to set him up and if possible kill him, and how the prosecution (and the MSM) is putting forward the version of reality the violent psychopaths created (and if you’re in a very very special hurry, just watch from about 45:30 to 51:49):

What Barnes is saying there is something I’ve thought about in recent days, although he says it with a great deal more knowledge of the facts and details of the killings and especially the prelude to the killings.

The point is that violent psychopaths are very savvy about choosing their prey, and if society winks at their violence they will escalate and escalate until they are stopped.

Politics sets the stage, pscyhopaths take advantage of the situation, and then politicians use the psychopaths to further their own ends, in a macabre dance. This is the mark of many totalitarian regimes, by the way (perhaps another post for another day): the use of psychopaths and/or sociopaths to meet certain nefarious ends.

Comments

Rittenhouse was (and is) the designated prey of psychopathic wolves — 33 Comments

  2. It is not too late for the judge to do the right thing, which is to declare a mistrial with prejudice after the jury foreman declares the jury has reached a verdict, but before those verdicts are announced.

    I have read everything Branca has posted on Legal Insurrection, and I admire his truth-telling. Yes, he is a criminal defense attorney, so knows whereof he speaks/writes.
    The prosecutors in this case have been bizarre, 4 standard deviations removed from any proximity to reality. Their chief witness, Grosskreutz, admitted he was illegally carrying a concealed pistol (which he aimed at Ritternhouse, provoking the accused to shoot first; one does not have to wait until the assailant shoots before shooting to defend one’s self), but has he been charged with any law violation? Nah. And withholding the FBI drone video from defense!

    This whole thing tells us where we are headed, right into an era of Stalinism.
    Yup, this is in Wisconsin, the birthplace of Progressivism, the rule of the many by a few elites.

  3. “Why would they do that?” Asked in a tone of outrage.

    When pointing out a nefarious plot coming up, the question is asked. If you can’t prove a nefarious motivation–and you can’t “prove” it against, “That’s not possible!”–then imputing the motivation condemns you and even proves the obviously predictable result isn’t possibly going to happen.

    As far as I know, the people who do this reflexively believe it leads to truth, or against falsehoods.

    But, when some things are so obvious, as Neo puts it, I’m not sure anybody could honestly quibble. So the ones who do…..are in on it.
    “I can’t believe you said that!”

  5. Kate,
    Babylon Bee has a piece up on advice for the prosecutors. The first recommendation was 1) Go to law school.

  6. I’m a retired physicist who has a basic question about trial procedure: Why isn’t Rittenhouse’s defense, **on its own**, allowed to bring up the character — via their histories — of the two deceased and/or of the injured witness? My question is prompted by Ann Coulter’s current article: https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2021/11/17/ann-coulter-get-rittenhouse/

    Such on-the-record histories seem manifestly germane to the situation Rittenhouse encountered, even though he obviously had no knowledge of them at the time. Is the explanation simply that the law is an ass? Or is there some actual defensible principle involved? (I don’t think an idea such as ‘every day is a new world, and everybody starts every day fresh’ is such a principle.)

  7. Paul Nachman:

    I believe the argument might go something like this: their criminal histories were unknown to Kyle, and it’s his perceptions that are relevant to his actions that night rather than their histories. Plus, he’s on trial and they are not.

  8. Thanks for your reply, Neo. I understand the point.

    But haven’t the prosecutors [pfui!] been painting the scenario that the two late [unlamented] targets and the wounded witness were just out there being responsible citizens, trying to calm the situation and protect others from a crazed gunman? Seems to me that their histories would be relevant to the plausibility, for the jurors, of the prosecutors’ fancy.

  10. The State of Wisconsin only allows the past actions by an attacker to be entered into evidence if the defendant can prove that he knew of them before the shooting took place.

    Some other States do allow such evidence in to show that the defendant’s fears were credible even if he didn’t know of the attacker’s past, but not Wisconsin.

    Andrew Branca’s book “The Law of Self Defense” page 271.

  11. @expat: Haha! I once considered law school, and then realized I don’t like to argue. But at least I would have tried to stay within the law.

  12. About the prosecutor that improperly held the rifle – I think he was trying to get obvious negative reactions from the jury and the courtroom so that he could “prove” that simply having that scary looking rifle is a provocation. Therefore, Rittenhouse loses his self-defense position.

    As some have noted, if he is successful in the theory that carrying a gun is a provocation, then it impacts the Second Amendment and the right to have guns for protection. Scary thought.

  14. Looked at one way, the criminal histories of the dead and wounded men are no more relevant to this case than Rittenhouse’s supposed coffee klatsch or whatever it was with the supposed Proud Boy: they could have been saints or sinners, KR a white supremacist or a scared kid or a hero or anything in between, and the legal question is only, “Did he shoot in self defense?”

    Looked at another way, their criminal histories and KR’s activities before the shooting (cleaning graffiti, providing first aid) are incredibly relevant with regard to the states of mind of the participants.

    I guess the legal view is the former, and I guess I support that view in the interests of due process for ALL. But it does stick in my craw that it’s the OTHER guys, manifestly not KR, who actually came looking for trouble.

  16. Many important Truths being put out on stage now.

    “…the [political] use of psychopaths and/or sociopaths to meet certain nefarious ends.”

    In previous years, we’ve become familiar with Islamists taking political power advantage through terrorist rabble, using deranged Believers to sacrifice themselves — didn’t Mohammad specialize in this sort of Macabre dance? Or was it his followers trying to extirpate the alien Mongol rulers in the Twelfth Century who first practiced this?

  19. Those who seek to control a society through oppression, as well as those who assist in that goal, deserve the very harshest of consequences.

  20. Relevant comment at the LI post
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/pro-conviction-protesters-arrested-for-attacking-kyle-rittenhouse-supporters/#comment-1230231

    DaveGinOly in reply to Cleetus. | November 18, 2021 at 3:57 pm
    Robert Barnes mentioned just last night that Antifa and BLM actively recruit the same types as did the KKK. They don’t want ideologues, they want psychopaths. Then they give meaning to their psychoses by telling them their violence is appreciated, meaningful, and for the good of society, encouraging their psychotic behavior (when everyone else in their lives has tried to suppress it, they think they’ve found a group to which they can “belong”). It’s easier to employ psychopaths for violence than it is to recruit normal people and convince them to act like psychotics. They’re not interested in having brain-power in the street, just people capable of extreme violence.

    And this reminder:
    murkyv in reply to DaveGinOly. | November 18, 2021 at 5:42 pm
    Hell…Hillary was hiring mentally defectives to disrupt Bernie and Trump events

  21. @ sdferr > “Revolver’s Case For Disbarring Binger:”

    Excellent post. After describing other cases of egregious misconduct (including Nifong):

    Prosecutors could casually destroy Jacob Gardner’s life because, for them, there was no skin in the game. In politics, the left understands the importance of making their enemies pay a political price. In the case of the Evil Left, they make regular Americans pay a price for standing for truth, justice, and law and order. That is why they succeed so often, in so many areas. They make homeowners and small businessmen afraid to defend their communities by prosecuting those who do. They make police afraid to enforce the law the same way. The mob even got some of those who donated to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund fired from their jobs.

    Americans will not defeat this mob by making better arguments on Twitter, or complaining about the left, or pooh-poohing the left as triggered babies. This mob is far more dangerous and far more lethal than a bunch of diaper-wearing genderqueer college babies quivering in a safe space.

    The Silent Majority will not defeat this crazed mob by being morally better, or by flaccidly citing polls that show they have the support of a majority of their fellow Americans on the issues. The only way to stop prosecutors from bringing unjust, politically-motivated charges is straightforward: Accountability.

    The left and its state agents must pay a price for their iniquity, just as the liberal mob exacts a price on any conservative who stands for truth, justice, freedom, and the American way.

    It seems like a daunting task, but a journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step. Start small. Crooked Thomas Binger used lies and underhanded tactics to try and wrongfully convict an innocent man. He should be punished for this.

    Buttressed by these stories of people fighting back.

    https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2021/11/18/when-it-comes-to-cancel-culture-a-good-offense-is-the-best-defense-n478059

    Trying to go on the offensive against the mob is a waste of time. The mob isn’t a single entity that can be convinced, pressured, or reasoned with. A mob is usually a group of people riding a trendy wave. Many of them aren’t truly angry about the person they’re trying to mob, they just see others doing it and they want to be seen doing it too. It’s more a virtue signal to those around them than it is righteous anger. In truth, the mob can easily be dismissed as idiots because most of them are.

    As Mark Twain once wisely said: “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

    He’s right. Arguing with stupid people is like trying to teach math to a dog. They’re incapable of reason, at least in this format, and you’ll only frustrate yourself. Besides, giving attention to any of these idiots counts as an automatic win for them.

    Instead, find the source of the cancelation. Who started the mob? What was their motivation?

    And most importantly, how can you ride this wave to further success?

    To give you an example of what I mean, let’s look at the latest attempt at cancel culture, Dave Portnoy. As I’ve been covering, Portnoy has been the target of a #MeToo style hit piece by Business Insider. While the Barstool Sports president has the necessary evidence to defend himself from these accusations, he’s also making it clear that Business Insider will pay for their attempt to ruin him.
    …
    Portnoy isn’t addressing the mob. He’s released the evidence that clears his name and has moved on to the source of the cancelation attempt. He’s made it clear that he’s not letting this go and that before it’s all said and done, Business Insider is going to bleed…and they should.

    Cancelation should be painful for the canceler. Attempting to cancel someone should come at a cost, at least if that person is innocent.

    Another instance of fighting back:
    https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2021/11/18/jpmorgan-chase-and-wepay-just-stepped-on-the-cancel-culture-rake-n477099

    Paul Curtman has been hosting “Defense of Liberty” dinner events for ten years. Curtman is a Marine Corps veteran who served as an infantry squad leader in Operation Enduring Freedom. Following his military service, Paul served in the Missouri House of Representatives from 2011 to 2019. Currently, he is a financial services advisor and radio host (at NewsTalkSTL).

    The Defense of Liberty PAC was formed in 2017 and, with Curtman and Missouri State Senator Bill Eigel as co-hosts, has continued to hold these events featuring various conservative/right-of-center local and state politicians, as well as high-profile guest speakers — most recently, in August of 2021, Candace Owens. That event was such a success — with over 1,200 attendees — the group decided to put on another event in December — this time featuring Donald Trump, Jr as the main attraction.

    Tickets for that event went on sale in late October. In order to process ticket payments, the PAC had partnered with WePay, a subsidiary of Chase Bank with whom they’d worked on previous events. All was well and good until two weeks ago, when WePay contacted Curtman and first indicated they needed some additional documentation. Then, after Curtman supplied the documentation requested, abruptly severed the relationship.

    …with the usual “you broke our rules but we aren’t going to tell you which ones or how” boilerplate.

    You read that right: WePay asserted that an organization whose most recent guest speaker was an African-American woman (Owens), whose upcoming event was set to feature Cecilia S. Johnson, National Director of Black Engagement for the RNC, and whose hosts were directly involved in fighting terror was engaged in “hate, violence, racial intolerance, terrorism.” (Having attended several of these events, I can assure you this assertion is utter bunk.)

    Here’s where it helps to have friends in high places.

    Yesterday, Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick sent a letter to Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, challenging the decision. In it, Fitzpatrick stated:
    ….

    Despite the accusation of wrongdoing and suspension of services, WePay has thus far failed to provide any additional information or specifics about how the group or this event fall into any of these troubling categories.

    Consequently, the only reasonable conclusion is the largest bank in the United States, JP Morgan Chase, has made it its policy to discriminate against its customers based on their political ideology. By doing so your institution is discriminating against ideology that was supported by half of the country and 60% of voting Missourians in the last election.

    To drive his point home, Fitzpatrick continued:

    While as a private business you are free to choose who you want to do business with, it will be the policy of the Missouri State Treasurer’s Office that the State of Missouri will not do business with JP Morgan Chase, or any other financial institution that discriminates against customers based on mainstream political ideology so long as that discrimination continues.

    Fitzpatrick was a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show last night and elaborated:
    ….
    Then, WePay seemingly did an about-face.

    With the same “looks like we made a careless mistake — oopsies!” garbage.

    As Curtman pointed out in his interview with Mike Ferguson this morning, it’s too late now — the damage is done. The organization and event lost two-and-a-half weeks’ worth of sales, not to mention the smearing of the organization and event with heinous accusations. Because of this, the event has had to be postponed (hopefully to be rescheduled in a couple of months). Curtman also noted this isn’t just an inconvenience — this has a direct impact on the venue and vendors who were set to host and cater the event.

    Missouri’s Treasurer isn’t the only official who’s taken notice of the issue and called for answers. Attorney General Eric Schmitt issued his own letter to [JPMorgan CEO] Dimon today:
    …

    If JPMorgan Chase’s statement last night is true that it has ‘never and would never close an account due to a client’s political affiliation,’ then what was the reason for the cancellation? In addition, what steps has JPMorgan Chase taken to remedy this mistake and ensure that it will not discriminate against conservative events in the future.

    Indeed, as Curtman has noted, even if it is not Chase’s policy to open/maintain customer accounts based on their political affiliation, someone with some degree of authority in the organization felt sufficiently empowered to make this call. Seems as though they bought themselves some terrible PR in the process.

    That “someone with … authority” is the one who needs to be directly held responsible and brought to account. Preferably with a lawsuit that has some bite because “it’s too late now — the damage is done.”
    That’s the point of all the Left’s cancel mobs: once the process is in motion, they don’t care what happens afterwards.
    “The process IS the punishment.”

    Only individuals with “skin in the game” can be made to care.

    Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals can be used by conservatives too.

    #13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

    https://gla.americansforprosperityfoundation.org/adapting-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-hold-them-accountable/

    When it comes to standing up for freedom and your fellow citizens, sometimes you need to draw a line in the sand. Too many elected officials and bureaucrats can be tempted to abandon their principles when the pressure is on or when they think no one is watching.

    On the most important issues, make it clear that there are only two sides—standing up for constituents or betraying them. There’s no middle ground.

    Like all the rules for radicals, it’s important to use this in a principled way. Too often in politics, people become so focused on beating the other side that they fall into using the same unscrupulous methods their opponents are using. But if you keep integrity as the foundation of your movement’s guiding principles, Alinsky’s tactics can be unstoppable.

    #LetsGoBrandon

  22. In reference to a recent discussion on the relative merits of Search Engines, DuckDuckGo on Brave brought up the gla post as the first hit for “alinsky target.”

    Looks like an excellent series; links to the other rules at that post.

  23. Zaphod on November 18, 2021 at 8:58 pm said:

    @DNW:

    Bingo.

    In other news … Those poor Newsome supporters. Our hearts bleed.

    https://tv.gab.com/media/618ea75d21318b27258d8963?viewKey=af0bb10a-1b31-4cc9-83f0-dcf078724a0e&r=1080p

    So if the deserving woke folk can rob a Walgreen’s with impunity, why not also privileged “problematic” types whose cars, homes, wealth, and even their very conceptions and continuing lives are the illegitimate fruit of the exploited labor of “POC”?

    You didn’t build that! You don’t deserve that! You are living in my house! You are driving my car!

    ‘Stand and deliver me progressive darlin’s… your money AND your life …‘
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B2a6l6wM2k&t=8s

  24. Neo: “This is the mark of many totalitarian regimes, by the way (perhaps another post for another day): the use of psychopaths and/or sociopaths to meet certain nefarious ends.”

    Aesopfan beat me to it with her description of Antifa’s recruiting practices. It’s become clear to me from reading about the Antifa perps in Seattle ad Portland that these are not ordinary citizens who support progressive causes. They’re by and large sociopaths/psychopaths who are attracted to violence. Antifa gives them permission to destroy things and think they are doing something worthy. No normal person would be on the streets of Portland for 100 straight nights committing arson and smashing things up unless they enjoyed it. That’s what they did.

    It began some years ago in Eugene, Oregon. It has become a nationwide group. There’s seemingly money available to fly these people to where the action is. For the most part they are well trained at destruction. They purposely don’t carry fire arms as they don’t want to give the police the motivation and justification for using their fire arms. But they carry “non-lethal” weapons like hammers, crowbars, Molotov cocktails, bricks, bats, and saws for cutting locks/fences. They have a uniform of sorts. They dress mostly in all black. They are kitted out with gloves, knee pads, elbow pads, small back packs, helmets, face shields, some body armor, and plastic shields. They can be very formidable, but their modus operandi is mostly to strike at weak points, move quickly, and get out of the way when confronted with superior force.

    Not all are as disciplined as the Portland Antifa, but one thing is sure. They all love violence.

  25. J.J. —

    The specifically violent ones throwing the bricks and Molotovs and beating up passersby are not “ordinary citizens who support progressive causes”, true. But many of the ones who fill out the crowd numbers, who the thugs hide behind when they throw, are such. Many friends and acquaintances of mine in Seattle went to the CHOP, went to the “protests”, and were the ones spouting “outrage! how could they!” when the police declared a riot (because it was) and deployed tear gas. They thought they were just being part of a movement, doing their part for justice, for some kind of inchoate “revolution”. The kind of misguided but generally well-meaning people who would be first against the wall if their precious “revolution” ever actually happened.

  26. Good post by McCarthy (his personal animosity toward President Trump being in abeyance). He hammers the essential point about the Hocus Pocus video.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/rittenhouse-mistrial-motion-looms-as-jurors-appear-deadlocked/

    Prosecutors did not comply with their obligation to give the defense a copy of what they’d received. Instead, they provided what they represented as a copy but was actually a file of significantly poorer quality — only one-sixteenth the resolution. This apparently went unnoticed until the very end of presentation of evidence. At the end of the prosecution’s rebuttal case, after Rittenhouse had testified and the defense had rested, prosecutors introduced the drone footage and, in particular, two enhanced images said to be drawn from it — although the relevant witness (James Armstrong, a crime-lab expert) could not testify that he had compared the enhanced version to the original to ensure that it was fair and accurate.

    From these photos, the prosecutors have, in essence, testified that Rittenhouse was the aggressor in the first shooting. Understand: There is no fact witness to the state’s version of events. Prosecutors could have called Joshua or Kelly Ziminsky to attest to these claims. Indeed, Joshua would seem to be a central witness, having fired an apparently stolen gun in the air while he and Rosenbaum were chasing Rittenhouse, which clearly increased the latter’s perception that he was under potentially lethal attack. The prosecutors, however, conveniently charged Joshua Ziminsky with crimes, including arson and obstructing police, so they could insist that his Fifth Amendment privilege rendered him unavailable as a witness.

    That is nonsense, of course: They could have given Joshua immunity, which would have made him an available witness. They could also have called Kelly Ziminsky to testify, since they dropped the misdemeanor rioting charges against her. They did neither. The only fact witness is Rittenhouse, who plausibly says he was attacked.

    Instead of calling a fact witness who could rebut Rittenhouse, prosecutors produced blurry enhanced photographs from which they themselves, the prosecutors who are not witnesses, claim that they detect Rittenhouse pointing his rifle at Joshua Ziminsky.

    This “provocation” theory is flawed: the claim that Rittenhouse’s supposed gun-pointing at Ziminsky provoked not Ziminsky but Rosenbaum, such that Rittenhouse no longer had a legally valid basis to act in self-defense when Rosenbaum rushed him. There is simply no testimonial evidence of this assertion. But put that legal defect aside. The prosecutors are giving their own testimonial spin on disputed photographic evidence. Even more significant, it is video evidence that they failed to disclose to the defense.

    There is no doubt about that. The only question is whether they sandbagged defense counsel on purpose or through good-faith error. That may matter for disciplinary purposes down the road; but in the here and now, the only pressing question is whether the defendant was denied due process.

    He clearly was. The Rittenhouse defense did not receive a copy of the evidence on which the prosecutors relied. They were given a drastically inferior version. At the last moment, then, prosecutors introduced enhancements from that superior evidence they’d hoarded. Over defense objections, and with explicit misgivings, Judge Schroeder allowed the evidence to be used. Moreover, he granted the state’s request for a “provocation” instruction to the jury largely based on the prosecutors’ interpretation of the disputed evidence.

    And now, it has become increasingly obvious that the jury is heavily weighing these disputed images as it struggles to resolve the case. The great weight of the evidence favors Rittenhouse’s claim that he fired in self-defense; pushing against that is the prosecutors’ insistence — unsupported by any testimony, derived from their dubious interpretation of evidence that should have been excluded — that Rittenhouse provoked Ziminsky . . . which somehow provoked Rosenbaum . . . which caused a chain of events in which Rittenhouse somehow forfeited his right to defend himself.

    There should not be a conviction in this case. If there is, I expect it to be thrown out. If there is a hung jury, Judge Schroeder would be on firm footing if he did not permit Kyle Rittenhouse to be retried.

  29. Long discussion in comments on Branca’s posts at LI, about the jury being permitted to take home the Jury Instructions, with the potential for either arm-chair-online-detective mischief, bringing notes back to the jury room, or taking notes OUT of the jury room on the instructions.
    Consensus was this could be another rationale to rule for a mistrial or reverse on appeal.

    Here’s a case involving a “rogue juror” who brought “information pamphlets” in to the others. The judge didn’t declare a mistrial, for practical reasons, but that didn’t change the fact that what she did was expressly forbidden.

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/11/18/latest_opioid_trial_augurs_reversals_most_frequent_804088.html

  30. Paper of record has the scoop.
    https://babylonbee.com/news/msnbc-reporter-seen-hanging-the-jurors-are-here-sign-on-their-hotel

    https://babylonbee.com/news/doh-here-are-8-critical-errors-made-by-the-rittenhouse-prosecutors

    https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-we-dont-need-due-process-for-people-we-know-are-guilty

    https://babylonbee.com/news/every-man-in-america-except-kyle-rittenhouse-found-guilty-of-not-showing-up-to-kenosha-to-defend-their-fellow-americans
    Oddly, a few of the commenters on Branca’s posts have made similar observations: he was out doing what every citizen of Kenosha should have done, in light of the dereliction of the mayor and police in not providing security to the town.

  31. Bryan Lovely: “But many of the ones who fill out the crowd numbers, who the thugs hide behind when they throw, are such.”

    Very true. The Antifa are the shock troops that smash widows, set fires, cut locks, tea down fences , etc. They create the openings for the looters and foment a sense of anarchy among the crowd. In many cases the Antifa fade away after the looting begins. Many average citizen protestors get caught in the crossfire. When they experience crowd dispersing tactics, it’s no fun. But, since the DAs in these blue run cities don’t prosecute the protestors, it’s all an invitation to do it again and again.

    It seems that there are three basic types at these protests. A small group o Antifa, a much larger group of outraged average citizens, and the even larger group of looters. Each group has their motivations. The Antifa are motivated by the chance for unchecked violence, The average citizens ae motivated by political ideology. The looters by greed. Disparate groups that serve one another’s needs.

  32. Pingback:Strange Daze: Rittenhouse vs The Swamp, Do-It-Yourself Anal Swabs, and other Undead Democrats

  33. Liz said: “About the prosecutor that improperly held the rifle – I think he was trying to get obvious negative reactions from the jury and the courtroom so that he could “prove” that simply having that scary looking rifle is a provocation. ”

    Very possible. I’m a career prosecutor and there is a line of case law out the door that says that you can’t do things like this to the jury. You just can’t stand in front of them and say, for instance, “Imagine how the victim felt when a man came up to her (prosecutor steps right up to the bar, screaming in the juror’s faces) and screamed ‘Give me your money.'”
    I can’t believe these prosecutors did what they did. I know lots of judges here who would have thrown their asses straight out the door for some of the stuff they pulled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑