Login Register

Kyle Rittenhouse's Verdict: The Law Has Been Bent

By J.Austine Nov. 23, 2021, 1:05 p.m.
Kyle Rittenhouse's Verdict: The Law Has Been Bent

Kyle Rittenhouse's verdict is a clear indication that at times, the law can be bent. But all in all, America has yet again been divided over a case involving an 18 year old. The trial came down to two duelling narratives. To the prosecutors, Rittenhouse went out with his AR-15-style rifle in hand looking for trouble. To the defense, Rittenhouse was attacked and acted in self defense.

Kyle Rittenhouse's Verdict: The Law Has Been Bent

The latter seems to have convinced the hurry and they finally carried the day. And given the facts, the law and other circumstances of the trial, it never came as a surprise. The main point here was whether the then 17 year old boy acted in self defense. Additionally, this means he had feared for his life and was left with no options but to pull the trigger. Consequently, he shot dead Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber and injured Gaige Grosskreutz that night.

The jury didn't find it easy trying to weigh Rittenhouse's self defense claim amid the two contradicting narratives. One could argue that Rittenhouse provoked the attacks on him by openly carrying his weapon in a threatening manner. Further, he had the option to retreat or otherwise avoid using deadly force, even if defending himself. If the jury would have gone by this, we would have now been talking about a totally different story.

But there was also evidence -- including the critical videos of the events in question and the testimony of Rittenhouse himself -- that in the key moments right before he pulled the trigger, Rittenhouse acted in response to imminent threats to his personal safety because he believed he was in danger.

Tough Battle For Prosecutors

In the case however, the laws and applicable legal standards presented a very tough battle ground for the prosecutors. Trying to win a conviction here wasn't going to be a very easy task. The criminal justice system generally favors the defendant if you don't know.
This is because of the belief that it is better to see a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one.

So in criminal cases, prosecutors usually carry the biggest burden of proof known to the legal system. This is to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Historically, Wisconsin law is known for it's sympathetic nature to homicide defendants claiming self defense.

However, Judge Bruce Schroeder, who presided over the case with frequent tongue-lashings didn't make things easy for the prosecutors. But in every hearing, one side must emerge 'victorious'. This decision hasn't gone well with most people, who are now questioning the law.

Well, as a democracy, administration of the law should be done by a group of ordinary individuals who rely on common sense to reach a decision. This was however not the thing in the Kelly Rittenhouse case.

Obviously, the teen didn't have to walk around in Kenosha with his weapon strapped across his body. Without question, the atmosphere was already tense and it was clearly an unpredictable and ultimately dangerous situation. If he had exercised better judgment and decided not to go that night, Rosenbaum and Huber would almost certainly still be alive.
But in Wisconsin, that initial decision, as poor a decision as it was, does not constitute a crime, and the jury found his later actions justified. The case has left people talking left right and centre. The decision has however been made and there's very little we can do.

Do you find this content interesting?
This is just a MIRROR ! Find us via our Main TOR domain
And Let us know by leaving a comment and a rating.

Also, don't forget to follow our Official Telegram Channel to stay informed and safe by ReadingĀ  NOIRdotNEWS


Please visit our onion version to comment.