
<p>In discussing court cases, I find it prudent to offer a bit of a disclaimer. ; Judging a case from the living room is fraught with problems. ; The court-of-public-opinion is merely a form of vigilante law without the literal lynch mob. ; Much of public opinion is based on biases and prejudices – and ignorance of the law and facts. ; ;</p>



<p>Those of us who comment on cases have a responsibility to do more than take notes from the evening newscasts. ; We also must look at the law and not extraneous factors such as the racial make-up of those involved, political views on gun ownership and general partisanship. ; When I write of such cases, I try to understand what I would do if I were a juror after seeing the hard evidence and hearing the legal arguments as presented in court.</p>



<p>In a past commentary, I wrote about the case of Ahmaud Arbery, the young black man killed by three white men in Georgia. ; After a deep dive into the facts presented in the case, I became convinced that Arbery was a murder victim. ; In fact, the case seems clear to me. ; I would vote for conviction.</p>



<p>The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is different – as are all cases. ; ;</p>



<p>In the media discussions of the case, the prosecutorial side in the court-of-public-opinion spent a lot of time questioning why Rittenhouse was on the scene of the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was not even a resident of the state – having traveled from his home in Illinois. </p>



<p>In the court-of-public-opinion, his presence at the scene was part of the evidence against Rittenhouse. ; That is the problem with the public court. ; His presence there is meaningless to the real case in a real court-of-law. ; He broke no law in being on the scene – and it was recently determined that the charge of illegally possessing that particular gun was a prosecutorial mistake. ; That is why there are no charges relating to his presence and the gun.</p>



<p>The entire case is being judged on what happened in the very few minutes when Rittenhouse and three others came into contact. ; And the only issue is whether Rittenhouse felt in danger of physical harm or death at the hands of anyone or all of the three men.</p>



<p>I have no doubt that he was terrified. ; One man had already committed battery by hitting him with a skateboard. ; Another man was in the process of taking away Rittenhouse’s gun. ; And the third man had a handgun and was pointing it at Rittenhouse. ; At one point, Rittenhouse was knocked to the ground and kicked. ; The only survivor of the shooting – although wounded &#8212; was the fellow with the gun. ; He confirmed that he had pointed his weapon at Rittenhouse.</p>



<p>I cannot believe that any juror – or anyone for that matter – would contest that Rittenhouse had every reason to be extremely fearful – terrorized during that engagement. ; That is a <em>prima facie</em> case for self-defense.</p>



<p>The prosecutors are trying to prove that it was Rittenhouse that provoked the attacks on himself – and thereby no self-defense. ; Videos do not support that argument. ; Even prosecution witnesses did not help prosecutors advance that theory. ; He was attacked before his responded. ; Being on the scene with a scary gun is NOT legal provocation.</p>



<p>The prosecution attempted to rationalize the attack on Rittenhouse as a response to a mass shooter. ; The claim does not fit. ; Mass shooters seek peaceful venues and the shoot randomly and consistently – liking as many as possible. ; There is no threat to the mass shooter when they open fire.</p>



<p>Rittenhouse’s claim that he shot only to stop the attack on him is borne out by the evidence. ; As soon as the threat was neutralized, he ceased firing – even though he had a lot more ammunition – and surrendered to police.</p>



<p>There has been an unusual agreement among the various talking heads on both sides of the partisan divide that the defense has the advantage in terms of the outcome – based on evidence and testimony.</p>



<p>It is also obvious that the prosecutors believe that they have lost the case because they have pleaded for – and got – the right for the jury to consider lesser charges. They are charges that could still get Rittenhouse 60 years in the slammer – pretty close to a life sentence. ;</p>



<p>That seems very unfair to allow entirely new charges at the conclusion of the trial. After all, the defense has spent thousands of man-hours focusing on the charges that were originally brought. This is nothing more than changing the rules because the prosecutors realize that they lost the case.</p>



<p>Kenosha is bracing for violence in the wake of the Rittenhouse verdict. ; That is what the vigilante justice crowd does in the court-of-public-opinion. ; That is how they try to enforce verdicts in defiance of the rule-of-law. ; The resort to mob action because the did not get the verdict they wanted.</p>



<p>America’s courts tend to do a pretty good job of meting out justice – not perfect, but pretty good. ; They generally do not respond to the vigilante voices in the court-of-public-opinion &#8212; but rather stick to the evidence and the law. ; We saw it in the George Floyd case. We see it in the types of cases being brought against the January 6<sup>th</sup> rioters – not of that insurrection and sedition crap being advanced by journalist/prosecutors in the court-of-public-opinion.</p>



<p>For that reason, I think there will be a conviction in the Arbery case and an acquittal in the Rittenhouse case. That would prove that justice can be served even in highly charge cases. ; Stay tuned.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Self-defense on trial in Rittenhouse case
