On 1/21/2022 6:20 AM, S K wrote:
Judge Schroeder in the Kyle Rittenhouse case was extremely rude and abusive to the prosecutor ("don't get BRAZEN with me", "I don't believe you",overruling an objection when the defense said Binger lied etc.).
The way he was directing the course of the trial to produce an acquittal was JARRING.
Particulary the way he gave the defense a double-dip. After 4 days of jury deliberation, the defense panicked and asked for a mistrial without prejudice (they had a pending request for a mistrial with prejudice).
He took that under advisement and did nothing. the jury came back with an acquittal and those requests became moot - but he backstopped the defense in case there was a conviction.
The case was a colossal miscarriage of justice.
If there was any abusive conduct, it was by the prosecution, which told
the jury that Kyle had exercised his 5th Amendment right not to answer
police questions. The US Supreme Court has long held that this is not
allowed. If anything, Judge Schroeder was lenient with the prosecutor:
Judge Schroeder could have fined him for Contempt of Court and granted
the defense motion for an immediate dismissal with prejudice.
There also was no miscarriage of justice. S K might want to look up the
rules on self-defense.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears
necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of
unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1] In cases involving
non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe
that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful
physical harm.[2] When the use of deadly force is involved in a
self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their
use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's
infliction of great bodily harm or death.[3] Most states no longer
require a person to retreat before using deadly force"
Anthony Huber hit Rittenhouse on the head with a skateboard. That is potentially deadly force, and Rittenhouse was legally entitled to defend himself. Similarly with Joseph Rosenbaum, who tried to take
Rittenhouse's rifle away. Again, that's a threat of deadly force: he
would have left Rittenhouse with no way of defending himself, and
Rosenbaum would then have the use of Rittenhouse's rifle.
Was Rittenhouse in a volatile situation by his own choice? Yes. Did he
have appropriate training for handling the situation? No. Was he acting
alone without coordinating with local authorities? Yes. Was he an idiot
for placing himself in a dangerous situation like that without training?
Yes. Was he a minor in possession of a firearm? Yes.
But none of these takes away his right of self-defense under US law.
(And it turns out the law about "minor in possession" was ambiguous
about whether it was illegal for Rittenhouse to carry the rifle. When
there is an ambiguity in the law, it is always interpreted in the manner
most favorable to the defendant. So Judge Schroeder was also correct in dismissing that charge.)
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)