Kyle Rittenhouse was released for killing two people on the sidelines of a Black Live Matters demo. How did this happen?
Kenosha – Kyle Rittenhouse is a free man. The 18-year-old, who shot two people the previous year, has been acquitted of all charges by a 12-member tribunal. More than 30 witnesses were questioned in this case, which was followed with great interest around the world, after which it took the judges 25 hours to reach their verdict. Judgment that raises questions.
How can a man who took a gun to the Black Lives Matter demo at the age of 17 and killed the people there be released? Although his weapon only led to the worst events of August 25, 2020, how was he given the defense?
CNN, an American media outlet, has relied on legal experts who have studied the Rittenhouse case in detail to answer this question. Prosecutors cite the testimony of the accused as the most important point. He was recorded in court as acting in self-defense. He shot and killed Joseph Rosenbaum because he had previously threatened him and tried to chase after him and take a gun from him. During his testimony, the 18-year-old cried tears.
Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense was trained with “shadow referees”
“If Mr. Rosenbaum had taken my gun from me, he would have used it, killed me, and shot many more,” Rittenhouse said. The other men he shot at in Kenosha were part of a “gang”. Including Anthony Hooper, the second man killed by Kyle Rittenhouse.
Returnhouse’s testimony in court followed a prepared strategy for his defense. Following his release, his lawyer, Mark Richards, told reporters that he had joined two “shadow jurors” and played through the process before the trial. He made Returnhouse testify to one of these jurors, but did not testify to the other. The outcome in the first case was considerably better, so it was decided that the accused would testify at the actual trial and that he had no right to remain silent.
CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson sees this as an important building block for the final release: “It made him human. Most importantly, he was able to explain himself using his power. ”Eli Honey’s lawyer sees this. The former federal attorney urged CNN that Returnhouse had given the jury an opportunity to better understand his intentions through his testimony. Although the prosecutor’s office could not produce enough evidence to impose a firm indictment on Returnhouse, his words convinced the arbitral tribunal that he was shot only when he was assaulted.
Kyle Returnhouse Inquiry: Victim or Provocateur?
Charles F., a civil rights lawyer. According to Coleman Jr., the case had two rival stories: one involving the Returnhouse attacker and the other an observer who incited the violence:
Wisconsin law does not allow the use of deadly force “unless absolutely necessary to prevent impending death or serious injury.” It is the attorney’s responsibility to deny beyond a doubt that Rittenhouse is acting in defense, as Rittenhouse’s attorneys cite the need for defense.
Criminal defense lawyer Sarah Azari told CNN that prosecutors could not prove that the shooting at each of these men was “unjustified.” According to the video content available, the jury had no choice but to follow the defense’s arguments.
Testimony behind the release of Kyle Rettenhouse
For defense attorney Bob Pianchi, the testimony also led to the conclusion of the trial. These would have challenged many of the lawyer’s allegations, and even the witnesses called by the lawyers would have supported the defense story to some extent.
Gaiz Crosscroots, the third man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse, also testified that his gun was first aimed at Rittenhouse. This was not his intention, but above all what struck the arbitral tribunal was that this statement also supported the arguments of the plaintiff. To attorney Pianchi, the point is clear: “No real trial attorney can consider that this is not a surprisingly clear defensive case.”
For their part, prosecutors sought to portray Kyle Rittenhouse as an “active shooter.” In his final statement, Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Finger said Returnhouse “behaved in a way that no sensible person would do.” He provoked events and mercilessly fired his weapon.
Kyle Returnhouse: The jury was instructed to see the case through the eyes of the accused
Jurist Honic contradicts this version: “Attempts to portray Rittenhouse as an active sniper were unsuccessful. The security forces were able to use video recordings to prove that Rittenhouse walked the streets without firing his weapons.
The argument that Returnhouse had already been provoked by the use of the AR 15 rifle was also not caught. This was due to gun culture in the state of Wisconsin, attorney Pianchi told CNN: “This is a jurisdiction in which you must not forget that it is not uncommon to carry weapons.”
CNN legal expert Laura Coates thinks another point is important. The jury must look at the case from the point of view of the accused, not from the sensible public. It’s about the definition of “appropriate”: “Returnhouse is about what was justified at the time of the act and whether he could really be trusted to be in a state of emergency.” (Mirko Schmidt)
In the previous edition, the “illegal” weapon was written at this point. In fact, Judge Bruce Schrder dropped the charge. The paragraph has been amended accordingly.
“Social media maven. Amateur food buff. Pop culture trailblazer. Tv ninja.”