So she is suggesting that this was a straw purchase. I think that does elevate that above simply “you didn’t lock your gun up well enough.” Cc @PolitiBunny
Of course the problem is it isn’t a crime in Michigan for a minor to possess a gun—only to posses it in public and with other exceptions. Which I suppose that’s why they’re not charging them with some kind of straw purchase statute cc @PolitiBunny
Yeah, listening to the entire thing this seems really thin and it just smells like a prosecutor just trying to look like they’re doing *something.*!For instance there’s no evidence that some of the warning signs even was communicated to the parents. 1/
2/ The teacher found a note the day of with various drawings and she indicates that the shooter change the drawings before the parents saw them. She does not clearly indicate that the parents saw the unaltered version.
3/ she complains that the parents resisted efforts to search the shooter’s bag, but if the evidence that this young man was dangerous was so clear, why didn’t they get a cop to help? To be blunt, it makes you wonder why school officials aren’t being charged.
4/ maybe they know more than they are letting on, but this presentation does not convince me that these parents were reckless, especially because we just have to recognize that sometimes parents don’t see their kids as they are.
5/ and frankly after the Rittenhouse debacle, where it was clear the prosecutors had no evidence that came close to overwhelming reasonable doubt, I don’t trust that the prosecutors are holding back something that justifies these charges
6/ is there a probable cause? Barely, but probable cause is one of the lowest standards in the law. The ABA holds that a prosecution should not occur unless the prosecutors are confident of winning. I’m not sure we’re there.
7/ at least that’s how I’m looking at it, I’d be happy to hear another perspective. I could be wrong, especially because I might not be privy to all the evidence. But this presentation didn’t impress me. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ Let’s go over the evidence. First there is pretty strong evidence that the parents bought the gun in essence for #EthanCrumbley, the shooter. But before you think they are guilty of some kind of gun charge let me remind you of what the Rittenhouse case should’ve taught you:
3/ it’s more complicated than that. Michigan law does not completely prohibit minors from having guns. They prohibit them from having guns *in public*— and there are numerous exceptions to that ban in public. So even if they were explicitly letting him posses the gun…
so I took some time to listen to the big oral arguments today, and you can too, below ⬇️
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organi...
A short thread 1/
2/ I am not quite as certain that Roe is finally gonna go away, but certainly I didn’t hear anything from any of the conservatives suggesting they wanted to uphold it. I heard a few try to ask if there was any way, if they were hearing this question for the first time today…
3/ … That viability or any other standard would make sense. And that’s where I think it got kind of comedic. Literally no one in the entire room understood why the Casey court focused on viability, and I suspect that lack of understanding might doom the right to abortion.
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.”
One serious problem is how much the media has been increasingly become part of the story—including part of the trial. Thread
As much as possible a reporter should not allow him or her self to become part of the story. Obviously that’s not always possible. If a reporter is doing an expose on human rights conditions in China and he gets captured by Chinese authorities, he’s now part of the story.
So I get that sometimes it can’t be avoided. But as much as possible it should be avoided. But now we see the media going all “Leroy Jenkins” on this.
first, the level of misinformation and disinformation coming out of the media has always been off the charts.
Let me take a moment to explain something that a lot of people don’t understand about the #RittenhouseTrail
normally there can only be one trial growing out of the events we saw on the video. I am simplifying a little, but that’s what the double jeopardy clause means
Thread
But there is an exception. Typically if the defense asks for a mistrial they are basically waiving the double Jeopardy issue. So if the prosecutor asks for a mistrial, the judge can grant it, but they can’t try the guy again.
But if the defense asks for one then the defendant can be tried again.
now sometimes, prosecutors want to have a second trial because the first isn’t going particularly well and a second trial would allow them to be more prepared for what the defense might do