The DA’s office shows their political stripes. The USA is going to have to stop electing leftist saboteurs if it is going to survive. Soros money will have to be recognized as the gift from the hand of Satan that it is.
Trump first needs to designate George Soros and his affiliated organizations as terrorists for funding these DA races, as well as funding Antifa and BLM. Then confiscate every last dime and piece of his property in the US. After that start prosecuting them.
On a secondary note, it appears that Lin Wood, the lawyer who represented Nick Sandmann, is having an online fundraiser set up for Rittenhouse within the next few days. I plan to contribute.
There will be plenty of manslaughter* & assault & firearm & curfew & illegal assembly city ordinances and WI state laws that he’s already violated to put him away for a number of years should the state of WI decide to pursue them. Plus then he is also liable for any possible violations of IL state laws, like not having an IL state FOID, perhaps illegal purchase to begin with, etc etc. IL firearm laws are notoriously byzantine. So once he’s out of the WI correctional facility he gets to face extradition & prosecution in IL. Sentences would then be consecutive. Both are currently vindictive Blue states and will try him as an adult**. If Lin Wood is representing him he has his work cut out for him. Much more so than for Nick Sandmann. It will be hard to keep this kid out of jail.
*Manslaughter charges would be reduced to very low level since there is a compelling case of self-defense in each instance AFAICT.
**The irony that WI intends to try him as an adult, while at the same time prosecuting him for violating the automatic weapons ban against persons under 18 years of age will of course be totally lost to the blue state prosecutors.
…violating the automatic weapons…
Of course I meant the semi-automatic weapons. Sorry late typo not caught before posted.
Even if he did break a law, it doesn’t justify Democrats trying to kill him or that no one who tried to kill him has been charged.
My take on their legal angle (Caveat, I do not know IL and WI firearms laws well) is that, due to being in violation of curfew and under 18, he was committing a crime by having that gun on him and being in violation of curfew, and they’ll use that to get around self-defense arguments. (basically, use of a firearm while engaged in a criminal activity).
I agree with you that they’ll charge him as an adult for what was only illegal because he’s a minor.
The long list of charges tells me that their hope is they’ll get a few charges to stick, via giving the jury a slate of options. I also expect a few leaks of juror identity, so the jurors will have a legitimate fear for their own and their families’ safety.
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve seen the thugs try to burn the kid alive with a molotov, and I’ve seen and heard that the first gunfire was not from the kid. The kid was running away. This is as clear-cut a case of self-defense as I have ever seen.
I think the kid was dumb and naive to be out there on the street (He was carrying a medical bag, and had been giving rioters medical aid.) That does not make him guilty.
Oh, and the kid is being called a white supremacist by the trash in the media, based on exactly nothing. They are saying he murdered “peaceful” BLM protestors because of the color of their skin. Those thugs that attacked him, both the molatov thrower (who he got with the head shot once cornered) and later in the middle of the street, were attacking him, nothing peaceful about it (Except two of them are peaceful now, permanently, which is a good th8ing IMHO). All three were white. The kid’s hispanic. So, just more lies from the media.
Oh, and one more thing that kid did; it looks like he pretty much ended the riots in that town.
It looked like a Molotov because of the lighting and flapping but it was something in a plastic bag. But still, the red shirt guy was chasing him and someone in the crowd of Democrats raised a handgun and fired it just before the kid turned and shot red shirt guy.
What isn’t known, is what happened prior to red shirt guy chasing the kid and where/how the initial conflict started. I’ve seen clips from some undetermined time earlier that make claims but it is inconclusive.
If the kid is guilty of some misdemeanor, charge him with that and also charge all the other people involved in attacking the kid. The mere presence of someone Democrats don’t like doesn’t legally justify them trying to murder someone.
It isn’t a good development that people are showing up armed to defend businesses and homes nor is it a good development that Democrats have escalated their protest tactics to include shooting guns.
All that needs to happen in order for there to be peace in the streets is for Democrats to be peaceful. If they don’t start fights with civilians and cops, there wont be any fights and no police response. If they don’t beat people, there wont be any beatings. If they don’t burn down and loot stores and houses, these things wont happen either. If they don’t surround cars and beat on them and pull drivers out and beat them, people wont feel the need to leave the scene in a hurry while driving.
The answer is the same to all of the political violence we have seen since the 2016 primaries. Democrats just need to stop being violent d-bags and everything will be peaceful.
This isn’t the first time the rioters have used guns. They murdered an 8 year old girl in Atlanta, and tried to kill several motorists (such as in Utah) for daring to try to avoid them.
I agree with you on calling these rioting thugs Democrats, because they are supported and enabled by Democrats. The Democrat DAs refusing to prosecute them are but one of many examples. The Democrats calling these riots “peaceful” are another.
Remember all the riots and looting during the Tea Party protests, and the anti-lockdown protests? Me neither.
My take on the Kenosha riots is that the biggest thing has gone largely unmentioned – that the police appear to have been either working in conjunction with, or at least using, some of the militia protecting properties. The old saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has never been more apt. Given the left and the Democrats’ (but I repeat myself) embracing of “Defund the Police” and all the other anti-police rhetoric, this is hardly a surprise.
I’m not a Trump fan (though I did vote for him in 2016, because Hillary), nor am I a party line Republican voter. I have always voted split ticket, due to preferring divided government. I am also quite angry at my Republican governor for some shady goings-on regarding the pandemic.
This year, for the first time in my life, I’ll be voting a party-line ballot (and donating accordingly). Including for my current governor. I did not think I’d ever do this, but the Democrats have convinced me. It wasn’t easy by any means, but they’ve done it. The riots are a huge part of why.
A charge of first degree murder will never stick, but maybe they are using the enormous expense of defending against such a charge as a lever to get a plea deal.
If so, it seems to have backfired, as he know has one hell of a lawyer offering pro bono services. And considering some of the defamatory comments made by the twitterati; I think Lin Wood may end up getting some news organizations to cover her expense.
My housemate, who is a retired criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor with vast court room experience, watched the video and said Rittenhouse easily walks free in a pretty trivial self-defense case.
It doesn’t really matter how the conflict may have started, because Rittenhouse was fleeing. That in effect resets the clock, and anything that occurs after he tried to disengage is a new conflict. In that conflict, he was still fleeing a mob of armed pursuers and had every reason to fear for his life. I’ve read over the relevant Wisconsin statutes covering the self-defense, which includes acts taken while defending property and persons, which apply here.
Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot, and would not have been able to see if the shot was fired directly at him because he was fleeing. The first pursuer (who has numerous priors that aren’t directly relevant) was subsequently engaged by Rittenhouse, who then continued to flee even though he could’ve kept engaging more pursers.
During that further attempt to disengage, in which he was trying to get to the safety of police, he fell. He was immediately attacked by skateboard man, impeding his attempt to flee and buying time for the armed mob to get to him. He removed the impediment of skateboard man and then immediately engaged the Revolutionary Communist who was about to execute him with a pistol, blowing the communists bicep to pieces. In the hospital, the communist said his only regret was not killing the kid (which no doubt made Rittenhouse’s lawyers do the Snoopy dance).
It’s not illegal for Rittenhouse to posses a long gun in either Illinois or Wisconsin as long as he had adult supervision, which he did until the chaos started. It’s also not illegal for him to carry it across state lines because he didn’t meet any of the criteria to fall under federal prohibitions of it. It is extremely likely that he did not flee the state to avoid prosecution, he road home with his mom, who I would guess was the one who called Illinois police to explain what happened.
But the main point is that no jury is ever going to convict him. The prosecutors are unlikely to try to make lesser charges stick when going for lesser charges would show they have no faith in the case. They also haven’t charged anyone else there that night who committed wildly criminal acts like arson and attempted murder.
Thanks for this, George. I very much hope you are right.
Regarding the “fleeing to avoid prosecution” angle, he tried to turn himself in to the police, which I hope negates that one.
Your angle on “adult supervision” is one I’d not heard before, and did not occur to me. If he was working with any adults there, I find that argument convincing.
At this juncture, were I on his jury and with what I have seen so far, about the only charge I can see even considering would be curfew violation, and under the circumstances, I can’t see even that.
If a prosecutors did try to use curfew violation as the basis for a “criminal act” that makes the other acts criminal, the defense attorney would likely address that directly. Why did Kenohsa declare a curfew? To keep people from committing violent attacks like arson and looting. Why were the Kenosha police out that night? To enforce the curfew and protect property and people. Why was Rittenhouse out that night? To enforce the curfew and protect property and people. How is it not wrong in one case but wrong in the other?
The chief of police said that he didn’t really object to citizens coming out to help the police. The police had interacted with Rittenhouse and others like him throughout the day, in mutual support. They observed Rittenhouse, out after curfew bearing arms, and reportedly wished him well and gave him some water. They did not seem to feel that Rittenhouse was in violation of anything. The curfew does not mean that business owners and home owners can’t defend their property against the looters and arsonists, on their own or by soliciting outside help.
And finally, curfew violations in Wisconsin are generally only punishable by a fine, which is comparable to a parking ticket or not wearing a mask. It’s an infraction or violation, not a misdemeanor. It’s not a criminal offense unless they pass additional legislation. So even if they hit him with that, Rittenhouse, or his mother, would probably only have to pay $25.00 to $75.00.
And as my housemate said, “No prosecutor would ever bring that up in a murder case.”
George also largely agree with your housemate’s analysis. I’ve been silent not because I disagreed but have been busy. The one item I might take small exception to is this: The prosecutors are unlikely to try to make lesser charges stick when going for lesser charges would show they have no faith in the case.
I don’t think this will be the case. I think what the prosecutors will do is provide a smorgasbord (to use a term borrowed from that part of the country, the rest of us call a ‘buffet’) of charges in the hope that the jury will use the dim sum approach and pick and choose the charges that fit, rather than suggest the overall case is weak. But they made a major misstep by overcharging up front. That somewhat smacks of incompetence so maybe the prosecution won’t be as sophisticated as it could be. They could still walk back the original charges and replace with the buffet. We will have to see. The buffet charges won’t be as serious as first-degree murder so the defense can walk through the more serious charges first to disprove guilt which then cast reasonable doubt on the subsequent less serious charges. He could walk. Right now I’d say there is a 80/20 chance he does 5-10 with early release on good behavior. Then gets charged in Illinois. Maybe not. The self-defense is strong with this one.
Harvard Law students question the Kenosha County District Attorney’s ethics. This comes after a case involving a Milwaukee teenager accused of murdering her alleged sex trafficker gets national attention as the case awaits trial.
In 2018, Chrystul Kizer was charged [by Gravely] with shooting and killing Randall Volar in his Kenosha home before setting it on fire. She was 17.
122,000 people signed a petition to get him to drop the charges.
Now he’s throwing the book at someone who defended their lives against a sex offender, etc. There might be a pattern there.
If I recall correctly (always doubtful) a first offense curfew violation is a max $75 fine in Wisconsin, and indeed, as you say, an infraction, not a misdemeanor.
Having that as a stand-alone charge in a murder case… I agree, preposterous. However, IMHO so is charging first-degree murder in a case like this (Which would, I think, require proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt – assuming Wisconsin law is similar on this to most states). So, I’m not quite willing to rule out the preposterous. 🙂
I’m far from sure that the the obvious selective enforcement of the curfew, and the police being okay with Rittenhouse being out there, is defacto legal grounds for acquittal, though it certainly would IMHO make a jury less likely to convict on that charge. As we’ve seen in many cases, such as national security violations, unequal application of the law isn’t a dejure get-out-of-jail-free card.
My take is that Rittenhouse was within the curfew law while on private property. What I’d like to know is why he left private property. My guess is he did so to render further medical aid to injured rioters. If Wisconsin has a “good Samaritan” law, this would negate any curfew violation. If it does not, he may well be guilty and thus, perhaps, maybe, possibly technically legally subject to the full weight and fury of the curfew law’s $75 fine – and only that. Assuming, however, the DA hadn’t done what the DA has done.
So, I’d vote to acquit on the curfew violation, even if he was technically guilty in my mind beyond reasonable doubt, due to the massive wrongful damage already done to him by the DA. I would, however, at least give the charge some consideration and thought first, which is a lot more than I can say for the current charges as the available evidence now stands.
The current DA, Gravely, ran for office unopposed after the old DA had to retire over this scandal. He ran as a Democrat, BTW. Also, as near as I can find, Rittenhouse is the only person charged with anything – I can find no one charged with anything related to the riots, at all. Not even the felon in possession of a handgun.
One sad thing about Kenosha is that even though Trump carried the county, all the local offices in 2016 were won by Democrats who ran unopposed. DA Gravely got 97% of the vote. He’s been a prosecutor there since 1989.
IMHO, the Rs have long been failing to contest elections in many areas. What you cite is a classic example; if Trump carried the county, surely some of those races were competitive.
The opposed races were. However, I suspect that Wisconsin and many other places will go through what the South did when the Democrats left them. They started voting Republican on national issues but all the local officers were still Democrat, and still virtually unopposed, because although people had changed their thinking on the big issues, they hadn’t rethought their local officials because those were still in sync with the natives.
But over time, as the local officials had to make a choice between switching parties and being a DINO (and then facing primary challengers with any locals who believed Berekely’San Francisco values were the path forward).
But over time, the national split became a local split and the once-loyal conservative Democrats in places like Kentucky became staunch Republicans, holding most of the same values as their Democrat grand-parents who’d been abandoned somewhere between the need for strong national defense and robust economy and the need to cut off their male daughter’s boobs.
The DA’s office shows their political stripes. The USA is going to have to stop electing leftist saboteurs if it is going to survive. Soros money will have to be recognized as the gift from the hand of Satan that it is.
Trump first needs to designate George Soros and his affiliated organizations as terrorists for funding these DA races, as well as funding Antifa and BLM. Then confiscate every last dime and piece of his property in the US. After that start prosecuting them.
On a secondary note, it appears that Lin Wood, the lawyer who represented Nick Sandmann, is having an online fundraiser set up for Rittenhouse within the next few days. I plan to contribute.
There will be plenty of manslaughter* & assault & firearm & curfew & illegal assembly city ordinances and WI state laws that he’s already violated to put him away for a number of years should the state of WI decide to pursue them. Plus then he is also liable for any possible violations of IL state laws, like not having an IL state FOID, perhaps illegal purchase to begin with, etc etc. IL firearm laws are notoriously byzantine. So once he’s out of the WI correctional facility he gets to face extradition & prosecution in IL. Sentences would then be consecutive. Both are currently vindictive Blue states and will try him as an adult**. If Lin Wood is representing him he has his work cut out for him. Much more so than for Nick Sandmann. It will be hard to keep this kid out of jail.
*Manslaughter charges would be reduced to very low level since there is a compelling case of self-defense in each instance AFAICT.
**The irony that WI intends to try him as an adult, while at the same time prosecuting him for violating the automatic weapons ban against persons under 18 years of age will of course be totally lost to the blue state prosecutors.
…violating the automatic weapons…
Of course I meant the semi-automatic weapons. Sorry late typo not caught before posted.
Even if he did break a law, it doesn’t justify Democrats trying to kill him or that no one who tried to kill him has been charged.
My take on their legal angle (Caveat, I do not know IL and WI firearms laws well) is that, due to being in violation of curfew and under 18, he was committing a crime by having that gun on him and being in violation of curfew, and they’ll use that to get around self-defense arguments. (basically, use of a firearm while engaged in a criminal activity).
I agree with you that they’ll charge him as an adult for what was only illegal because he’s a minor.
The long list of charges tells me that their hope is they’ll get a few charges to stick, via giving the jury a slate of options. I also expect a few leaks of juror identity, so the jurors will have a legitimate fear for their own and their families’ safety.
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve seen the thugs try to burn the kid alive with a molotov, and I’ve seen and heard that the first gunfire was not from the kid. The kid was running away. This is as clear-cut a case of self-defense as I have ever seen.
I think the kid was dumb and naive to be out there on the street (He was carrying a medical bag, and had been giving rioters medical aid.) That does not make him guilty.
Oh, and the kid is being called a white supremacist by the trash in the media, based on exactly nothing. They are saying he murdered “peaceful” BLM protestors because of the color of their skin. Those thugs that attacked him, both the molatov thrower (who he got with the head shot once cornered) and later in the middle of the street, were attacking him, nothing peaceful about it (Except two of them are peaceful now, permanently, which is a good th8ing IMHO). All three were white. The kid’s hispanic. So, just more lies from the media.
Oh, and one more thing that kid did; it looks like he pretty much ended the riots in that town.
It looked like a Molotov because of the lighting and flapping but it was something in a plastic bag. But still, the red shirt guy was chasing him and someone in the crowd of Democrats raised a handgun and fired it just before the kid turned and shot red shirt guy.
What isn’t known, is what happened prior to red shirt guy chasing the kid and where/how the initial conflict started. I’ve seen clips from some undetermined time earlier that make claims but it is inconclusive.
If the kid is guilty of some misdemeanor, charge him with that and also charge all the other people involved in attacking the kid. The mere presence of someone Democrats don’t like doesn’t legally justify them trying to murder someone.
There are a lot of things unknown and I haven’t been digging into this in a day or so. Here is a great analysis from the NYT of all places. https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809
It isn’t a good development that people are showing up armed to defend businesses and homes nor is it a good development that Democrats have escalated their protest tactics to include shooting guns.
All that needs to happen in order for there to be peace in the streets is for Democrats to be peaceful. If they don’t start fights with civilians and cops, there wont be any fights and no police response. If they don’t beat people, there wont be any beatings. If they don’t burn down and loot stores and houses, these things wont happen either. If they don’t surround cars and beat on them and pull drivers out and beat them, people wont feel the need to leave the scene in a hurry while driving.
The answer is the same to all of the political violence we have seen since the 2016 primaries. Democrats just need to stop being violent d-bags and everything will be peaceful.
This isn’t the first time the rioters have used guns. They murdered an 8 year old girl in Atlanta, and tried to kill several motorists (such as in Utah) for daring to try to avoid them.
I agree with you on calling these rioting thugs Democrats, because they are supported and enabled by Democrats. The Democrat DAs refusing to prosecute them are but one of many examples. The Democrats calling these riots “peaceful” are another.
Remember all the riots and looting during the Tea Party protests, and the anti-lockdown protests? Me neither.
My take on the Kenosha riots is that the biggest thing has gone largely unmentioned – that the police appear to have been either working in conjunction with, or at least using, some of the militia protecting properties. The old saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” has never been more apt. Given the left and the Democrats’ (but I repeat myself) embracing of “Defund the Police” and all the other anti-police rhetoric, this is hardly a surprise.
I’m not a Trump fan (though I did vote for him in 2016, because Hillary), nor am I a party line Republican voter. I have always voted split ticket, due to preferring divided government. I am also quite angry at my Republican governor for some shady goings-on regarding the pandemic.
This year, for the first time in my life, I’ll be voting a party-line ballot (and donating accordingly). Including for my current governor. I did not think I’d ever do this, but the Democrats have convinced me. It wasn’t easy by any means, but they’ve done it. The riots are a huge part of why.
A charge of first degree murder will never stick, but maybe they are using the enormous expense of defending against such a charge as a lever to get a plea deal.
If so, it seems to have backfired, as he know has one hell of a lawyer offering pro bono services. And considering some of the defamatory comments made by the twitterati; I think Lin Wood may end up getting some news organizations to cover her expense.
My housemate, who is a retired criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor with vast court room experience, watched the video and said Rittenhouse easily walks free in a pretty trivial self-defense case.
It doesn’t really matter how the conflict may have started, because Rittenhouse was fleeing. That in effect resets the clock, and anything that occurs after he tried to disengage is a new conflict. In that conflict, he was still fleeing a mob of armed pursuers and had every reason to fear for his life. I’ve read over the relevant Wisconsin statutes covering the self-defense, which includes acts taken while defending property and persons, which apply here.
Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot, and would not have been able to see if the shot was fired directly at him because he was fleeing. The first pursuer (who has numerous priors that aren’t directly relevant) was subsequently engaged by Rittenhouse, who then continued to flee even though he could’ve kept engaging more pursers.
During that further attempt to disengage, in which he was trying to get to the safety of police, he fell. He was immediately attacked by skateboard man, impeding his attempt to flee and buying time for the armed mob to get to him. He removed the impediment of skateboard man and then immediately engaged the Revolutionary Communist who was about to execute him with a pistol, blowing the communists bicep to pieces. In the hospital, the communist said his only regret was not killing the kid (which no doubt made Rittenhouse’s lawyers do the Snoopy dance).
It’s not illegal for Rittenhouse to posses a long gun in either Illinois or Wisconsin as long as he had adult supervision, which he did until the chaos started. It’s also not illegal for him to carry it across state lines because he didn’t meet any of the criteria to fall under federal prohibitions of it. It is extremely likely that he did not flee the state to avoid prosecution, he road home with his mom, who I would guess was the one who called Illinois police to explain what happened.
But the main point is that no jury is ever going to convict him. The prosecutors are unlikely to try to make lesser charges stick when going for lesser charges would show they have no faith in the case. They also haven’t charged anyone else there that night who committed wildly criminal acts like arson and attempted murder.
Thanks for this, George. I very much hope you are right.
Regarding the “fleeing to avoid prosecution” angle, he tried to turn himself in to the police, which I hope negates that one.
Your angle on “adult supervision” is one I’d not heard before, and did not occur to me. If he was working with any adults there, I find that argument convincing.
At this juncture, were I on his jury and with what I have seen so far, about the only charge I can see even considering would be curfew violation, and under the circumstances, I can’t see even that.
If a prosecutors did try to use curfew violation as the basis for a “criminal act” that makes the other acts criminal, the defense attorney would likely address that directly. Why did Kenohsa declare a curfew? To keep people from committing violent attacks like arson and looting. Why were the Kenosha police out that night? To enforce the curfew and protect property and people. Why was Rittenhouse out that night? To enforce the curfew and protect property and people. How is it not wrong in one case but wrong in the other?
The chief of police said that he didn’t really object to citizens coming out to help the police. The police had interacted with Rittenhouse and others like him throughout the day, in mutual support. They observed Rittenhouse, out after curfew bearing arms, and reportedly wished him well and gave him some water. They did not seem to feel that Rittenhouse was in violation of anything. The curfew does not mean that business owners and home owners can’t defend their property against the looters and arsonists, on their own or by soliciting outside help.
And finally, curfew violations in Wisconsin are generally only punishable by a fine, which is comparable to a parking ticket or not wearing a mask. It’s an infraction or violation, not a misdemeanor. It’s not a criminal offense unless they pass additional legislation. So even if they hit him with that, Rittenhouse, or his mother, would probably only have to pay $25.00 to $75.00.
And as my housemate said, “No prosecutor would ever bring that up in a murder case.”
George also largely agree with your housemate’s analysis. I’ve been silent not because I disagreed but have been busy. The one item I might take small exception to is this:
The prosecutors are unlikely to try to make lesser charges stick when going for lesser charges would show they have no faith in the case.
I don’t think this will be the case. I think what the prosecutors will do is provide a smorgasbord (to use a term borrowed from that part of the country, the rest of us call a ‘buffet’) of charges in the hope that the jury will use the dim sum approach and pick and choose the charges that fit, rather than suggest the overall case is weak. But they made a major misstep by overcharging up front. That somewhat smacks of incompetence so maybe the prosecution won’t be as sophisticated as it could be. They could still walk back the original charges and replace with the buffet. We will have to see. The buffet charges won’t be as serious as first-degree murder so the defense can walk through the more serious charges first to disprove guilt which then cast reasonable doubt on the subsequent less serious charges. He could walk. Right now I’d say there is a 80/20 chance he does 5-10 with early release on good behavior. Then gets charged in Illinois. Maybe not. The self-defense is strong with this one.
The Kenosha DA, Mike Gravely, is throwing the book at Rittenhouse.
But I haven’t seen anyone bring this up yet:
Harvard Law students criticize Kenosha County District Attorney in Chrystul Kizer case
122,000 people signed a petition to get him to drop the charges.
Now he’s throwing the book at someone who defended their lives against a sex offender, etc. There might be a pattern there.
If I recall correctly (always doubtful) a first offense curfew violation is a max $75 fine in Wisconsin, and indeed, as you say, an infraction, not a misdemeanor.
Having that as a stand-alone charge in a murder case… I agree, preposterous. However, IMHO so is charging first-degree murder in a case like this (Which would, I think, require proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt – assuming Wisconsin law is similar on this to most states). So, I’m not quite willing to rule out the preposterous. 🙂
I’m far from sure that the the obvious selective enforcement of the curfew, and the police being okay with Rittenhouse being out there, is defacto legal grounds for acquittal, though it certainly would IMHO make a jury less likely to convict on that charge. As we’ve seen in many cases, such as national security violations, unequal application of the law isn’t a dejure get-out-of-jail-free card.
My take is that Rittenhouse was within the curfew law while on private property. What I’d like to know is why he left private property. My guess is he did so to render further medical aid to injured rioters. If Wisconsin has a “good Samaritan” law, this would negate any curfew violation. If it does not, he may well be guilty and thus, perhaps, maybe, possibly technically legally subject to the full weight and fury of the curfew law’s $75 fine – and only that. Assuming, however, the DA hadn’t done what the DA has done.
So, I’d vote to acquit on the curfew violation, even if he was technically guilty in my mind beyond reasonable doubt, due to the massive wrongful damage already done to him by the DA. I would, however, at least give the charge some consideration and thought first, which is a lot more than I can say for the current charges as the available evidence now stands.
Ah, the Kenosha DA’s office. Seems they have a bit of a history, such as using planted evidence against defendants.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/proof-and-hearsay/2017/01/04/recently-retired-kenosha-county-district-attorney-robert-zapf-has-been-charged-with-ethics-violations-for-his-handling-of-a-homicide-prosecution-in-which-a-former-police-officer-admitted-to-planting-evidence/96149816/
The current DA, Gravely, ran for office unopposed after the old DA had to retire over this scandal. He ran as a Democrat, BTW. Also, as near as I can find, Rittenhouse is the only person charged with anything – I can find no one charged with anything related to the riots, at all. Not even the felon in possession of a handgun.
One sad thing about Kenosha is that even though Trump carried the county, all the local offices in 2016 were won by Democrats who ran unopposed. DA Gravely got 97% of the vote. He’s been a prosecutor there since 1989.
IMHO, the Rs have long been failing to contest elections in many areas. What you cite is a classic example; if Trump carried the county, surely some of those races were competitive.
The opposed races were. However, I suspect that Wisconsin and many other places will go through what the South did when the Democrats left them. They started voting Republican on national issues but all the local officers were still Democrat, and still virtually unopposed, because although people had changed their thinking on the big issues, they hadn’t rethought their local officials because those were still in sync with the natives.
But over time, as the local officials had to make a choice between switching parties and being a DINO (and then facing primary challengers with any locals who believed Berekely’San Francisco values were the path forward).
But over time, the national split became a local split and the once-loyal conservative Democrats in places like Kentucky became staunch Republicans, holding most of the same values as their Democrat grand-parents who’d been abandoned somewhere between the need for strong national defense and robust economy and the need to cut off their male daughter’s boobs.
There was a lot of gunfire that night.