Thread by @AaronWorthing

To the people upset today about the #RittenhouseVerdict let me suggest that you consider a possibility: are you sure you are right?

You base your perception of the case on certain facts. But are you certain those “facts” are actually true?

Thread

Lawyers learn to ask themselves constantly “how do I know this? And is my source of information correct?” Try that exercise for every fact you believe to be true.

For instance, you often hear that #KyleRittenhouse brought a gun across state lines.

Except there isn’t a scintilla of evidence that he did so. A Wisconsin resident stated that he gave him the gun after he arrived in Kenosha.

Sometimes a fact can also be true and distorted. You hear a constant drumbeat of “he crossed state lines.”

Well, yes he is a resident of Antioch, Illinois and Kenosha is in Wisconsin. Now google that trip. Here, I did it for you: google.com/search?q=antio…

You will see two things. First, he already practically lives on the border to Wisconsin. Second, we are only talking about...

...a thirty minute ride. So its technically true, but pretty misleading. “Crossed state lines” gives an impression of a longer trip than just 30 minutes.

Next you might have heard that the gun #Rittenhouse was carrying was illegal. Initially he was charged with illegal...

...possession but that charge was dismissed when the prosecutors admitted that the gun was not a short-barrel rifle. And I believe that was the correct decision, and explain why here:

https://twitter.com/aaronworthing/status/1460329525611532288

And here’s the thing. You have repeatedly been told that he was illegally carrying that rifle. @PolitiFact actually ran a “fact check” claiming it was false to say he had a legal right to carry that gun. But I knew the first time I read the statute that the charge shouldn’t...

...have been brought.

(Btw, if you disagree with the judge’s ruling, urge the Wisconsin legislature to change the law. Don’t expect the judges to ignore what it says or the fact it was written badly.)

So the lesson there is sometimes you are being told things that are 180 degrees wrong. @Politifact told you that it was false to say he had a legal right to carry the gun, and then the judge ruled that he did. Assign it to stupidity, hubris or bias but the media gets things wrong

Now, I am not going to hold your hand to show you everything, but I will say a few things to point you in the right direction. First, virtually every moment that he shot, and quite a bit of time before and after is on video. So for a lot of it you don’t have to believe...

...anyone’s word: you just have to believe your eyes. Further, I would suggest reading the detailed, blow-by-blow coverage of Andrew Branca @lawofselfdefense over at the blog @LegInsurrection. For instance, if you review the video of the first shooting...

...you will see #KyleRittenhouse being chased by Rosenbaum. You will hear Rittenhouse explain that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill anyone of his group if he caught them alone—and #Rittenhouse made the mistake of being alone.

You will also find out that Rosenbaum was deeply unstable. He’s bipolar and he was seen by multiple people shouting “shoot me, n-gg-r.” You can even find video of him shouting that. You can also see #Rittenhouse testify that Rosenbaum tried to take his gun from him.

And that claim is backed up by the medical examiner—a witness called by the government—who said that he found gunpowder on Rosenbaum’s hands consistent with the theory that he was reaching for the gun when he was shot.

The video will show you the second person had been...

...beating Rittenhouse with a skateboard. If you think that can’t be dangerous, just the other day a poor soul was beaten to death with a skateboard.

Finally, there was one man #Rittenhouse shot who admitted that Rittenhouse didn’t shoot him until he pointed a handgun at him.

Furthermore Wisconsin law doesn’t say you have to fear death before you can use lethal force. The statute specifically says you can use that kind of force if you reasonably fear imminent death or great bodily harm.

That word “reasonably” is also doing a lot of work. If you are merely scared of a black person because you are racist, for instance, that is not reasonable and won’t justify a shooting. the same can be said for a person who is hallucinating, though that might support...

...an insanity defense (another can of worms I won’t open and is irrelevant to this case, anyway).

As for “great bodily injury” I talked about what that term meant on my blog, here: allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2013/07/great-…

But here’s the most important thing to get.

#KyleRittenhouse didn’t have to prove he feared death or great bodily injury.

The state had to prove that he didn’t, beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, they had to prove it was unreasonable to believe he reasonably had this fear.

Finally, you might have heard of the concept of provocation. I call it the “Dirty Harry” exception. At the end of that movie he has his gun pointed at the psychopath and he has him dead to rights. The bad guy has dropped his gun and Harry goads him in trying to reach...

...for it with his famous “do you feel lucky” monologue. So the psycho dives for the gun and is shot dead and Harry can claim it was self-defense.

The provocation exception is designed to prevent that kind shenanigans saying that it is not self defense if you intentionally...

...goad the other person into attacking you. There can be no provocation without intent to provoke and, to be blunt, there wasn’t a scintilla of evidence that he did anything to provoke anyone or that he had that intent—and again, the state has to prove that beyond a...

...reasonable doubt.

Now, maybe you don’t like those legal rules, but those were the rules on the day #Rittenhouse shot those people. That is the yardstick he was measured by, so to speak. And I think if you examine all of the evidence, you will not only realize #Rittenhouse...

...should have been acquitted, but you will wonder if the charges even should have been brought.

And if you don’t want to do that work to understand what the jury saw, that’s fine, but then maybe you should stop pretending you have enough information to form an opinion...

...about the case. The very definition of prejudice is to judge before. Before what? Before you have all the facts. If you don’t have the facts, it is pure prejudice to form a conclusion.

/end