A Legal Scholar's Analysis of the Rittenhouse Verdict

24 November 2021, 06:08 PM

Piano*Dad

One problem with Sullivan's counterfactual.

Yes, if Rittenhouse had been black the outcome would likely have been different. A white jury probably wouldn't have bought his self-defense claim and likely would have found that he provoked the incident.

The problem here is that Sullivan has switched the race of the defendant without switching the race of the victims, so it becomes political black gun violence against whites.

What if we switch races completely and turn this into black on black violence instead of white on white violence? Now I'm not so sure a jury would convict the black Rittenhouse for killing two black men who assaulted him.

The problem is indeed a political climate in which a 17 year old can strap a military grade rifle across his shoulders and openly wander into a tense and fraught situation.

24 November 2021, 08:28 PM

Piano*Dad

quote:
So we have two black men executed, a few months apart, George Floyd and Arbury. Justice was served in both case.

Yep.

25 November 2021, 01:52 AM

jon-nyc

I thought Justice had a good week. Both the Rittenhouse and GA verdicts were sound in my view. That seems to put me in a lonely Venn diagram.

25 November 2021, 01:54 AM

jon-nyc

I was really worried about GA. The defense attorney was pretty open about his strategy- find just one Bubba hold out and hang the case. I was afraid he might be successful. I was so relieved when the verdicts came down.

25 November 2021, 07:37 AM

CHAS

"That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense"

I have no idea whether any of the above it true. It is from a "former military legal worker". Wondering what two crimes had Rittenhouse committed.

25 November 2021, 08:34 AM

Mikhailoh

quote:
Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
A mini hijack.

The Amaud Arbury jury got it right. Guilty, on all counts, quickly.

Actually, the verdict was more nuanced than that and they were found not guilty on some counts. I think the jury did a fine job on a very complex case. I'm also with Jon that both juries did well.

quote:
COUNT l – MALICE MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Not Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 2 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 3 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 4 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – False Imprisonment

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 5 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Criminal Attempt to Commit False Imprisonment

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 6 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with firearm, deadly weapon, to wit: a 12 gauge
shotgun

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 7 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 8 – FALSE IMPRISONMENT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 – Unlawfully confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority, to wit: said accused did chase Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood and did confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery on Holmes Drive using said pickup trucks.

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 9 – CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY, O.C.G.A. 16-4-1 – In violation of the personal liberty of Ahmaud Arbery, unlawfully chase Ahmaud Arbery through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in pickup trucks and did attempt to confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority on Burford Drive using a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck.

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

25 November 2021, 09:10 AM

Piano*Dad

quote:
Originally posted by CHAS:
"That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense"

I have no idea whether any of the above it true. It is from a "former military legal worker". Wondering what two crimes had Rittenhouse committed.

The article by the legal expert posted by Quirt states that Rittenhouse broke no firearms law in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue. The self-defense claim succeeds because states increasingly have nutty laws surrounding open carry of weapons.

And we know who is responsible for that. Hint, it ain't the Democratic party.

25 November 2021, 09:35 AM

wtg

quote:
Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
quote:
Originally posted by CHAS:
"That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense"

I have no idea whether any of the above it true. It is from a "former military legal worker". Wondering what two crimes had Rittenhouse committed.

The article by the legal expert posted by Quirt states that Rittenhouse broke no firearms law in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue.

The Wisconsin law and why the charge was dropped.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...-gun-charge-81186071

25 November 2021, 12:25 PM

jon-nyc

quote:
Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
The article by the legal expert posted by Quirt states that Rittenhouse broke no firearms law in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue. The self-defense claim succeeds because states increasingly have nutty laws surrounding open carry of weapons.

I’m not sure how unreasonable it is to allow 17 year olds to carry a rifle while hunting in WI. Seems weird that a law designed to allow older teens to hunt was written broadly enough to allow a 17 year old to walk around a city with an AR15 but that was at least the judge’s interpretation.

At any rate the jury was not asked to consider the gun charge, just the self defense claim. They surely got that part right, at least to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

I still think the chances are better than even that he’ll face civil liability. Especially from the family of the second guy he shot.

25 November 2021, 12:32 PM

jon-nyc

Some of you may be familiar with Ken White, aka @Popehat, who for many years has had a legal blog/podcast/substack. He is a former federal prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney. He usually has very good insights about criminal cases, and unlike some popular legal commentators, does a good job of not letting his personal feelings color how he thinks cases will unfold. From early on he was saying that prosecutors wouldn’t have even taken this case had there not been so much political weight behind it, and that it would be a very heavy lift for them to get a conviction.

At least on the murder charges. I’d have to re-listen to his podcast to see if he ever touched on the possession charge.

25 November 2021, 12:37 PM

Steve Miller

I suspect young Kyle will get himself in trouble again in the near future. He may not be so fortunate at his next trial.

25 November 2021, 01:15 PM

Piano*Dad

quote:
At any rate the jury was not asked to consider the gun charge, just the self defense claim. They surely got that part right, at least to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

I think that is why the self defense claim worked. If the judge had allowed the firearms charge, and the jury had concluded that Rittenhouse had broken gun laws by taking his army firepower onto the streets, then that would have upended his self defense claim.

Killing the "little" charge gave the prosecution an impossible hill to climb.