RE: Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse
September 8, 2020 at 12:46 pm
(This post was last modified: September 8, 2020 at 12:47 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(September 8, 2020 at 11:39 am)popeyespappy Wrote:(September 7, 2020 at 1:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The prosecution almost always have a harder job that the defense (which is as it should be). A prosecutor has to convince twelve people, a defense attorney only had to cause one person to have a reasonable doubt.
Boru
True but you are missing part of the point. A 17 year old is only allowed to be in possession of a firearm in Wisconsin while accompanied by an adult. There are specific exceptions to this, but they don't apply here. Since Rittenhouse was committing another crime when he shot Rosenbaum he can't claim self defense under Wisconsin law. An 18 year old could though, and the defense is undoubtedly going to bring that up. Assuming this actually was a case of self defense that would put the jury in the precarious position of having to decide if the law is fair or not. i.e. Is it fair to send a 17 year old to prison for the rest of his life for something that would be OK for an 18 year old to do?
I didn’t miss the point, because the nuances of this specific incident wasn’t the point I was addressing. It was an observation of the general, relative burdens faced by the prosecution and the defense in any jury trial.
And any jury verdict based on whether a particular law is ‘fair’ is likely to be set aside by the presiding judge or cause a mistrial. Jury verdicts are meant to be based on the facts in evidence and whether those facts merit action under established law.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax