Thread by @kurteichenwald

Rittenhouse is a thug. Right wing hero-worship of him is disgusting. GOP members of Congress rush to offer him jobs is obscene. But this case is not about politics, on either side. What matters is the evidence, WI law, and trial standards. Under that, the verdict was correct../1

...before explaining, the biggest villains here are the Kenosha police, who refused to protect protesters by treating right-wing, gun-toting civilians as adjuncts to law enforcement. THAT is where politics& white-wing supremacy should be most condemned - it's institutional &.../2

...allowed for the streets to be filled with thugs like Rittenhouse, whose mere presence created the potential for this. But the presence of these dangerous people was not a crime.

As for Rittenhouse: The most important moment was the first shooting, of Joseph Rosenbaum.../3

...I expected from the beginning based on Wisconsin law that he would be acquitted on shooting Huber and Grosskeutz, perhaps the worst prosecution witness ever called in any trial ever. It would be quite difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not.../4

...believe he was acting in self-defense Grosskeutz, since he admitted on the stand that he was approaching Rittenhouse with his gun pointed at him. Perhaps there could be a "dominoes falling" verdict, where the jury found that Rittenhouse acted without belief that he was.../5

...under threat, therefore the other two were acting to take out an active shooter. But that verdict would be thrown out, because what matters is not the state of mind of the victims, but of the shooter. The prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse.../6

...did not believe he was acting in self-defense. So what did the evidence in the case show?

For everyone who condemned the judge, the most important ruling in the case went to the prosecution, which then screwed it up. Rosenbaum was a manic depressive who had just come out.../7

...of the hospital that day. The defense wanted to use that as proof he would be out of control, using discrimination against the mentally ill to inflame the jury. Judge Schroeder refused to let them do it, saying it was irrelevant to the case, there was no evidence that his.../8

...illness led to the confrontation, and Rittenhouse didnt know about it when he shot him. Big win for prosecution. Then, in the biggest of their many fumbles, Rosenbaum's fiancé testified he had just gotten out of the hospital, and prosecutors asked if he had taken his meds.../9

...an absolutely jaw-dropping question. Defense later argued - correctly - that by asking if Rosebaum had taken his meds, prosecutors had opened the door for the defense to ask what the meds were for. Now the jury would know that Rosenbaum's mental illness, which, combined.../10

...with testimony about his erratic behavior the night of the shooting, & his screaming that he was going to kill someone, would lead to an uninformed jury to believe he was an out of control, mentally ill person.

Then came the most important evidence: the drone video and.../11

...again, the prosecution's own witness. The video, introduced by the prosecution, showed Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse running away. Rittenhouse testified Rosenbaum was yelling. When he is a few feet away, Rittenhouse turns. While still moving backwards, he.../12

...shoots. The *very fact* that he is running and then moving backwards can be interpreted as evidence that he felt threatened. That Rosenbaum is a few feet away after chasing him quite a distance does also allow for the interpretation that he is the aggressor. The.../13

...prosecution witness, pathologist Doug Kelly, testified that Rittenhouse's four shots were squeezed off in 0.76 of a second. And while the fatal shots were at a downward angle, the jury is seeing that they were fired when running backwards. Rittenhouse is not some marksman../14

...who can aim perfectly while running backwards. This prosecution witness then testified, under defense questioning, that Richards could also have had his head down, charging like a bull. "Could" often means "reasonable doubt" when it comes from an expert witness. Next.../15

..Huber. (Last tweet I accidentally wrote "Richards" which was the name of the witness. I meant "Rosenbaum") The prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that when Huber hit Rittenhouse in the head with the skateboard, he did not shoot him in self-defense.../16

...whatever you *think* - "of course he didn't" is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." It isntreasonable to believe that someone cannot feelthey are under threat of bodily harm - the standard under Wisconsin law - when they have in fact have been hit in the head with a solid.../17

...object. If convicted on the Huber count - establishing that someone actually attacked, for whatever reason, has not been proven to fear bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt - there is no doubt the conviction would be thrown out.

Finally, Grosskreutz. There was no doubt.../18

...Rittenhouse would be found not guilty in shooting him. In fact, once I heard testimony, I was stunned that charge went to trial. Grosskreutz took a gun to the. He said he was pointing it at Rittenhouse when he was shot. Grosskreutz's state of mind is irrelevant.../19

...(he testified he though Rittenhouse was an active shooter). All that matters in the criminal case is Rittenhouse's state of mind. Prosecutors had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Rittenhouse didnt believe he was in imminent risk of harm when a gun was pointed at him.../20

...now, again, is Rittenhouse a thug? Yes. Given his hanging out with white supremacists, is he one? Probably. Is the celebration of him by the alt-right obscene? Yes. Should he have been there? No. Does this say horrible things about our laws, our police, our protections.../21

...for protesters? Yes. Is *any* of that relevant as to whether this particular individual committed murder, and did not believe he was acting in self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

Did the judge put his thumb on the scales? Actually, I don't believe so..../22

...there were a lot of not-important things that happened (letting Rittenhouse draw the names for the jurors, since he couldn't see the names), citing the Bible, blah blah. The clapping for veterans when only the witness was one was inappropriate. BUT, when it came to the.../23

...the important stuff, the stuff you didn't hear much about because it wasn't sexy (like barring the defense from talking about Rosenbaum's mental illness until the prosecution opened the door like idiots), he made the right calls. (By the way, the "can't call them victims.../24

...ruling was also correct, given the entire case rested on whether they were innocent victims or aggressors. Had Judge Schroeder allowed for them to be called victims, thus essentially declaring the prosecutors were right, the case would have been reversed on appeal).../25

...what truly mattered is the jury. They spent a good bit of time - 3 days - one this. They reviewed what was the most important evidence in this case. If the judge put his thumb on the scale, it didn't matter. The jury did their job. All in all, please remember: criminal.../26

...cases are not social commentary or political declarations. They are simply, in this case, did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse *did not* believe he was imminent threat of bodily harm - the standard under Wisconsin law - and thus his acts..../27

...constituted murder. And in this case, the prosecution did not prove it.

But the celebration of the right wing on this is obscene.
end