Mob Rule Denied: Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted! ⋆ 🔔 The Liberty Daily

submitted by cottoneyejoe from thelibertydaily.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You cannot accuse someone of breaking a law if there is no evidence that the person broke the law. And you cannot hold a trial without sufficient evidence that a law was broken. Let's pick "reckless endangerment" and the multiple shots that killed Rosenbaum (one of which in the back). One can shoot in if one's life is in danger, but - after - Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the hand, did he have to keep shooting Rosenbaum? There are of course laws against reckless endangerment that result in homicide. Rittenhouse broke at least one of them. If the prosecution could not effectively clarify the way in which that law was broken, and if the jury was not convinced of the arguments (as they weren't), then Rittenhouse had to walk, even if he technically broke that law.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Your reasoning is flawed.

What does a "Not Guilty" verdict mean? According to your logic, it means he is guilty but the jury says they won't convict him.

But "Not Guilty" means exactly what it says. The question put before a jury is: With the evidence the state has that the state says shows the person to have done what he/she is charged with, do you the jury believe the person did what the state says they did? When the jury states "Not Guilty", they are saying that the defendant did not do what the state accuses them of doing. The defendant did not break the law that the state is accusing them of having broken. That is the meaning of "Not Guilty". The person didn't do what they are accused of.

Trying to split hairs the way you are doing flies in the face of what it means to be found not guilty of a charge. A person who is not guilty committed no crime and broke no law. Otherwise the words have no meaning.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A "not guilty" verdict does not change the law. The jury interpreted the law, they did not say that the law is itself not a law. That same law will still apply to other cases of reckless endangerment that lead to homicide. It's an important law, obviously.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why so deep in the weeds? The OP for this exchange is Carnate saying "[Rittenhouse] Broke no laws". Saying Rittenhouse is Not Guilty means the jury declares Rittenhouse did not break any of the laws for which he was tried. Our system gives the jury that responsibility. What the jury declares becomes 'fact' insomuch as fact exists. No discussion of the meaning of the law comes into this at all. The interpretation the jury engages in is of Rittenhouse's actions, not the law itself. The jury declared that Rittenhouse broke none of the laws he was accused of breaking.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To be more specific:

US law states that the defendant is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. The jury's job is to consider the evidence and the facts, and determine if the defendant has been appropriately proven guilty by the prosecutor.

The defendant cannot be charged if the defendant did not appear to break any laws. The laws in this case do not change.

The jury determines if prosecutor has provided sufficient proof that the defendant broke a law.

The jury argees or disagrees with the prosecutor's arguments, based on which the defendant is acquitted or found guilty.

When this happens, the jury is NOT saying that the defendant did not break the law. The law is a matter for the State and the Judge to apply. The jury does not apply the law. The jury ONLY determines if the facts are sufficient for a guilty verdict. There are many cases where the law was indeed broken by the defendant, but there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt. There are also cases where the defendant did not break the law but the jury determined that he/she was guilty of the charge, given the evidence presented as proof at the trial.