“Grave Constitutional Violation”: Rittenhouse Defense Asks For Mistrial After Insane Day At Court

Source: ZeroHedge.

This tidbit from the Rittenhouse trial is astonishing.

Some people want Rittenhouse to burn for no better reason than the moral judgement they make of his conduct. But that line of thinking is the exact opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of men.

This story reports that the prosecution in the case itself violated the rule of law — specifically (as I see it), Rittenhouse’s Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself.

I fear that those who want Rittenhouse to burn can’t or won’t grasp this fundamental concept.

27 thoughts on ““Grave Constitutional Violation”: Rittenhouse Defense Asks For Mistrial After Insane Day At Court

  1. This has become bizarre to a degree I could not have imagined.

    The defense doesn’t want a mistrial, the prosecution does.

    The prosecutor knows he has lost this case. He should not have charged Rittenhouse in the first place, but now he is invested in getting Rittenhouse no matter what.

    So, knowing if it goes to the jury he loses, he is trying to behave so badly the judge will be forced to call a mistrial and he can try again to grind Rittenhouse down to a plea bargain.

    At this point, the only right way out is for the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice and sanction the prosecutor.

    Like

    1. It is bizarre for sure. A Martian observer would see a child borrowing a rifle and going into a volatile crowd the killing and maiming 3 folks and demanding innocence.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. “Some people want Rittenhouse to burn for no better reason than the moral judgement they make of his conduct. But that line of thinking is the exact opposite of the rule of law. It is the rule of men.”

        Like

          1. Funny, when the courts ruled on standing regarding some election lawsuits, the right protested on technicalities getting in the way.

            Yet standing is very much a part of the rule of law.

            It seems you want both ways.

            Back to this trial:

            There is a second trial ongoing. This is the murder trial of the men who gunned down the Black jogger in GA earlier this year.

            Part of the defense is that Arbrey tried to disarm the shotgun wielder.

            An unarmed man who probably thought those men were going to kill him. What would anyone do who thought he was going to die if he didn’t try to disarm a stranger accosting him?

            Back to Kenosha. Shots were fired, unknown origin, but Rittenhouse was the only one with a gun in the area. Disarm or let him shoot some more?

            I think there is a good argument to be made that the men he killed and maimed were brave folks who took it upon themselves to disarm an active shooter in a civil disturbance.

            It is not like mass shootings in crowded venues are a rarity in our country.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: Rittenhouse was the only one with a gun in the area.”

            False. According to yesterday’s post here in the Forum, the man Rittenhouse wounded pointed a loaded gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. The men Rittenhouse killed allegedly threatened him with other weapons.

            But accusing me of hypocrisy is missing the point. You said our laws are based on moral judgements. The Fifth Amendment is a good example of that. Allowing the Fifth Amendment to be abused in court is a matter of procedure.

            Like

          3. I meant to correct my statement to Rittenhouse was the only one with a VISIBLE gun. And it was not visible until after Rittenhouse killed two people.

            Yes, the Fifth was butchered by the prosecutors.

            So call a mistrial, and start over again. Maybe with a judge who says the victims were victims not convicted criminals.

            The Fifth is a moral judgement also. The fairness of whether testimony can be coerced to self-convict is based on the abhorrence to torture or state sanctioned cruelty and threats.

            Laws are based on moral judgements, but courtroom procedures are determined and enforced by the judge. Another judge might have ruled differently on many issues.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “Another judge might have ruled differently on many issues.”

            Let us hope that judges in our system are not as variable as common opinion.

            Like

          5. “Back to Kenosha”

            If you see a policeman carrying a gun, do you attempt to disarm him? How about a soldier?

            How about a private citizen who is not threatening anyone?

            No one, not a single prosecution witness, has testified that Rittenhouse acted aggressively toward anyone. He remained non-threatening even when threatened with death. (Don’t you just love it when the prosecution witnesses destroy the prosecutions case?)

            On the contrary, Rittenhouse retreated from confrontations and only fired on people who had run him down and cornered him or had him on the ground.

            So, are you claiming the simply carrying a firearm is provocation to use deadly force?

            Like

          6. Disarm a cop? Rittenhouse was not a cop.

            If shots were fired in a crowd and only one person is visibly carrying a gun, it is not a stretch that the threat is him.

            After he shot the first victim, he left and people started to call him out. And he was chased.

            I guess people should have just done the Kitty Genovese tragedy of just watching and ignoring.

            Where were the other militia members while this was going on? Or the cops?

            Sad story. Wrong place and the wrong time scenario. A child with gun among adults in conflict. What could go wrong?

            Carrying guns openly is legal is most states some with few constraints. It is still very disconcerting to see heavily armed civilians in streets and stores. To ignore that is to ignore reality.

            But we will see more and more of this kind of tragedy. We already attack people about masks for gosh sakes. Why not just shoot them and solve that issue?

            An armed society is not a polite one. At least not here in America.

            There is little doubt that had Rittenhouse been Black, he would be dead. That is the modern reality.

            Do you think the Arbery case in GA was a legitimate defense case because he tried to disarm the man assaulting him with a shotgun?

            Arbery was trying to defend himself from getting killed and lost. The victims in Kenosha thought the same I would bet.

            Liked by 3 people

          7. “So, are you claiming the simply carrying a firearm is provocation to use deadly force?”

            By “deadly force” do you refer to swinging a plastic bag of toiletries at the man brandishing a gun?

            Of course, a person with an assault weapon IN HIS HANDS is a fear-inducing provocation ANYWHERE but especially in the context of a boisterous street confrontation charged with politics and hatred. None of this would have happened except for the vigilantism of militia pinheads.

            Liked by 3 people

      1. Cute but even the prosecution’s witnesses testified that Rittenhouse was not threatening anyone or pointing a gun at anyone before he was attacked, and retreated as far as possible before firing.

        Like

        1. Cute, but I will bet that if you were dealing with an ACTIVE SHOOTER you too would try to keep him on the run and off balance. And attack him with whatever you had at hand – even a shopping bag with toiletries in it.

          If the pinhead, White Supremacist Proud Boys had not decided to break up a BLM protest with guns NONE of this would have happened. Your condoning of such vigilantism is misguided in the extreme.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Leaving aside the fact that the Proud Boys has Black members, do you have any evidence that they took aggressive action to break up a protest?

            As to the narrative that those who attacked Rittenhouse were responding to an active shooter, that excuse did not emerge until long after the incident.

            Like

          2. Proud Boys AND White Supremacists (better?)

            There is no “narrative.” The facts speak for themselves. One person was seen carrying an assault weapon in the midst of a confrontation between protesters and militias. As far as the people around him were concerned, their lives were endangered. And doubly so when he started shooting.

            No matter the outcome of this particular trial, anybody and everybody who urged or afterwards endorsed the actions of such militia shitheads taking the law into their own hands is culpable and ought to be ashamed. IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

  2. Rittenhouse CHOSE to take the stand to speak about events and HIS state of mind. If he did not want to answer the question about HIS state of mind, he could assert his right to not answer it. A Constitutional admonishment from a clown of a judge who will not allow the victims to be referred to as “victims” is not in the least persuasive. IMHO.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You might have a point if you can explain why or how the prosecutor’s behavior was acceptable.

      Do you want a legal system where someone can be convicted of murder for executing his Constitutional rights?

      Like

      1. Why was it unacceptable? Is Rittenhouse supposed to be exempt from cross-examination when he is defending himself by talking about HIS state of mind? He CHOSE to take the stand and bring up that subject. He wasn’t forced.

        The judge always instructs juries that they should draw no conclusions from an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights. Easy for him to say!

        Liked by 2 people

      2. RE: “Why was it unacceptable?”

        Because Rittenhouse has a right to be silent when he wishes and to speak when he wishes. The prosecutor’s line of questing attempted to impugn him for exercising those rights by suggesting that Rittenhouse remained silent until he was able to concoct his own testimony based on the trial evidence.

        To use your own example, if it is normal for a judge to instruct a jury to draw no conclusions from an invocation of Fifth Amendment rights, then it is abnormal for a prosecutor to do exactly that.

        Like

        1. When Rittenhouse agreed to waive his Fifth Amendment rights by testifying as to his state of mind at the time of the killings, then he opens himself up to this line of legitimate cross examination. If that leads to a question that he chooses not to answer then he can invoke those rights and not answer it.

          Unlike many of our conversations, I cannot say that you are absurdly wrong. This is arguable either way. If it needs to be argued on appeal, then so be it.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. RE: “I cannot say that you are absurdly wrong”

            No, you can’t, but I can say your characterization of the issue is absurdly wrong. The judge became angry because Rittenhouse’s rights were violated.

            Like

    1. Not one actual wet-tear did I see during Mr. Rittenhouse’s multiple ‘breakdowns’. Personally, I’d say all the sob-faces were really just him doing his best TO shed a tear. He was prepped to the wazoo in my opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Not one actual wet-tear did I see during Mr. Rittenhouse’s multiple ‘breakdowns’. Personally, I’d say all the sob-faces were really just him doing his best TO shed a tear. He was prepped to the wazoo in my opinion.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s