That about sums it up

Ace's succinct summary is exactly what I this afternoon.  My mouth hung open throughout:

This series of questions:
Rosenbaum only chased you and tried to take your gun.
The guy who kicked you only stomped you in your face.
Huber only hit you in the head with a skateboard used as a club.
And now: Grosskreutz only pointed a handgun at you.
You had an AR-15 and should have just absorbed all these attacks because it is the only Real Weapon at the scene.
He actually said, Jump-Kick guy only used one foot, not a weapon.

Part of the argument was, and I am not making this up though I'm paraphrasing, "You had a sling on your rifle, so what did you care if some guy who earlier threatened to kill you if he got you alone came up and tried to wrestle it away from you?  What's the worst that could happen?" Followed up by, "After you shot him, why didn't you stay and render first aid?" Well, because a mob chanting "get him" was starting to close in on me.  "So you're saying you didn't care?"

Earlier: "Before Rosenbaum ambushed you, why were you running down the street in the first place?" Um, I got a call asking me to go help put out a fire there that the rioters had just started. "Yes, but what was your hurry?" It was like the old joke, "Where's the fire?" At one point, if I understood correctly, the prosecutor was blaming Rittenhouse for antagonizing the rioters by putting out their fires. Who did he think he was, "taking it upon himself" to put out fires instead of calling 911?  Rittenhouse never blew up; he was simply dumbfounded, seemingly unable to understand how anyone could even ask these things.  What is an 18-year-old thinking about the madhouse he has been plunged into, where rioters aren't initiating altercations, it's the citizens who spoil their fun by putting out their virtuous fires?

If you've ever watched a courtroom drama on TV and thought, "Oh, come on. People don't really get to say things like that," you were wrong.

Just before the lunch break, the defense threatened to file a motion for a mistrial with prejudice to retrial, on the ground of the prosecutor's bad faith in trying to sneak in two different kinds of excluded evidence and argument. The prosecutor tried to argue that somehow under the circumstances he had acted in good faith. The judge snapped, "I don't believe you." Nevertheless, the judge hasn't ruled on the motion. Apparently the trial will resume next Monday.

13 comments:

Grim said...

I'm guessing that a threat to file a motion does not constitute a motion.

The prosecutor's behavior was a festival of nonsense. My favorite part was when he asked why Kyle didn't just lay down his rifle, in the middle of the riot, and just walk away from it. Well, gee, why wouldn't a responsible person leave an unsecured and loaded semi-automatic rifle in the middle of a riot?

Grim said...

Tucker with the stinging obituary.

Texan99 said...

The defense did make the motion for a mistrial with prejudice when they returned from the lunch break, but the judge didn't rule on it.

Grim said...

I suppose he has the privilege of ruling at his pleasure.

Aggie said...

"Grosskreutz only pointed a handgun at you....."

I've got two words for you: Alec. Baldwin.

Grim said...

Baldwin was only playing a gunslinger. Try "Wyatt Earp."

Christopher B said...

I've been thinking all along that the judge believes it is important to complete the trial process, and especially for the jury to have the opportunity to do the right thing and acquit Rittenhouse. That's more psychological than legal reasoning. My understanding is that he could entertain a motion for mistrial at almost anytime, or enter a judgement notwithstanding if the jury finds him guilty. I also think he wants as much evidence in the record as possible to limit basis for appeal.

Texan99 said...

As someone commented on Ace, "Let's see if I can make it for clear for you. Your Honor, would you ask the bailiff if I can borrow his weapon?"

And I agree with Christopher B. If it's at all possible it's best to let this go to the jury. There will be riots anyway if Rittenhouse isn't strung up on the courthouse steps, but they'll be worse the more irregular the proceeding is. That means the prosecutor is going to get away with behavior that should get him disbarred. But if you read some of the leftist press on this, it's simply puzzling why that mean old judge got so inapppropriately angry at that nice prosecutor. On the other hand, the coverage from CBS and ABC was closer to rational, so maybe there's still hope for the country.

Aggie said...

If there are riots, then 99% of the rioters engaging in mayhem will be from out of town, mostly Chicago - just like last time. How is it possible the governor does not energize the National Guard and have them mobilized before a verdict. How is it possible the city authorities are not on their hind legs, on television, demanding exactly this?

Texan99 said...

That's easy. They identify with the rioters, whether or not homegrown. This prosecutor clearly does, and he ain't been fired yet.

E Hines said...

If there are riots, then 99% of the rioters engaging in mayhem will be from out of town

Um, what riots? Those are just tourists getting rowdy.

Eric Hines

Texan99 said...

I beg your pardon. Those are virtuous people advocating for a more equitable country by setting things on fire and trying to kill citizens who put out the fires.

ymarsakar said...

Humans have a justice system? Hell no they dont. Tbis is barbie and ken game, roleplaying larpers.

True justice only comes from the divine.