Brictoria wrote:
Hopefully the prosecution will face sanctions for some of their actions here (constitutional violations, withholding evidence, etc.).
Regardless of what people think about their effect on this case, if allowed to go unchecked, those same actions could result in innocent people being jailed as a result of prosecutors being allowed to repeat such actions and them going unchallenged, or people who commit serious crimes being freed as a result of mistrials resulting from such activities being challenged.
Like I mentioned in the other thread, it's almost impossible to hold prosecutors to account and I certainly wouldn't bet on it happening here, though this was unusually high profile, so I might be pleasantly surprised. You're absolutely right about prosecutor misconduct putting innocent people in jail, it's a serious problem in this country, and hopefully the publicity surrounding this trial will help people who might not otherwise be aware of the issue to realize that this is something they should be paying attention to. That being said, it was disheartening to see the traditional defender of due process behaving in such an egregiously tribal manner when it came to this case, I almost couldn't believe it when the ACLU came out saying that Rittenhouse's rights got too much deference:
https://reason.com/2021/11/19/kyle-ritt ... -liberals/Quote:
Perhaps it's not surprising that activists and Democratic politicians would reflexively cite white supremacy in a trial outcome that disappoints Team Blue. More troubling is the response to the verdict from an organization that should know better: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In a statement reacting to the verdict, ACLU-Wisconsin Interim Executive Director Shaadie Ali lamented the "deep roots of white supremacy" in Kenosha that prevented Rittenhouse from being "held responsible for his actions."
"Kyle Rittenhouse was a juvenile who traveled across state lines on a vigilante mission, was allowed by police to roam the streets of Kenosha with an assault rifle and ended up shooting three people and killing two," said Brandon Buskey, director of the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "These are the simple, tragic facts. His acquittal comes after an ACLU investigation exposing how Kenosha law enforcement used violence against protesters and drove them toward white militia groups, in ways that escalated tensions and almost certainly led to these shootings."
In a Twitter thread, the ACLU complained that Rittenhouse was not held accountable for his "conscious decision to travel across state lines and injure one person and take the lives of two people protesting the shooting of Jacob Blake by police."
Of course, it is not illegal to travel across state lines; the fact that Rittenhouse wandered outside the boundaries of his home and entered a neighboring municipality was irrelevant to the case. The jury did not agree with—and the facts of the case did not support—the claim that his decision to shoot three people was "conscious" in the sense that it was premeditated. He argued that he rationally believed his life was in imminent danger, and the surviving shooting victim provided testimony that supported this argument.
One might have expected that an organization dedicated to the preservation of civil liberties would not so cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense. In the past, the ACLU has done terrific work shining a light on prosecutorial misconduct—the tremendous power the state has to stack the deck against defendants. The ACLU purports to believe that all people, even the guilty, deserve due process protections. The organization is evidently outraged by the verdict: Is the ACLU outraged that the prosecutor tried to argue that Rittenhouse exercising his Miranda rights was evidence of his guilt?
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez