Lessons from the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

Lessons from the Kyle Rittenhouse Trial. By Jack Dunphy.

The only thing surprising about the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was how long it took the jury to reach it. As should be obvious to anyone who understands the law and had the merest familiarity with the facts of the case, Rittenhouse should never have been charged in the first place.

The American Bar Association establishes criminal justice standards for lawyers, among which are those pertaining to prosecutors. Standard 3-4.3(a) of the Prosecution Function reads as follows: “A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.”

Given this standard, and given the evidence they produced at trial, the Rittenhouse prosecutors either ignored the standard or proceeded to trial unfamiliar with the state of their evidence. In other words, they were either corrupt or incompetent, and a case can be made that they were both. …

The narrative met reality and buckled:

Then there was the testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, whom Rittenhouse had shot in the arm. Under cross-examination, Grosskreutz admitted it was only after he had approached and pointed a loaded handgun at Rittenhouse did the defendant fire his rifle at him, a moment in the trial that perfectly encapsulated the pathetic state of the prosecution’s case. And on and on it went, with scarcely a day going by in the trial that didn’t produce further evidence of the prosecution’s malfeasance, ineptitude, or both. …

Would that the corruption and incompetence had been confined to the courthouse. … The narrative applied to Kyle Rittenhouse was that he was a “white supremacist” and a “vigilante” with no connection to Kenosha and no conceivable motive to be there other than a malevolent desire to shoot “peaceful protesters.” None of this was true, yet these claims were repeated endlessly on CNN, MSNBC, and in countless print pieces.

Just as well for reality there was copious video evidence, or the usual leftist fabrications would have prevailed.

The first two BLM incidents (Trayvon Martin, then hands-up-don’t shoot) would never have gotten anywhere had there been video of those events. The third one (George Floyd) prospered because of a video, the one showing the cop kneeling on his neck. But the second video, the police bodycam showing Floyd died of a drug overdoes and said “I can’t breathe” eleven times before the copy restrained him with his knee, was suppressed. Only a few saw it after it was leaked three months after the event. The George Floyd incident would have been a non-event if the second video had been released three months before the first.

Btw, notice that in all three BLM cases a black man committed a crime and was apprehended as he left the crime scene. As it happens, the people Rittenhouse shot were also criminals, though white:

Bear in mind that most convicted criminals vote left. The media never mention that, or explore the appeal of the left to criminals.